1937-02-18

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 23, respecting foreign enlistment.
Mr. BENNETT:: Explain.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: The
Foreign Enlistment Act is an imperial statute which under its terms extends to Canada and all the dominions. Under the Statute of Westminster Canada may repeal, change or

Questions
amend that statute. The purpose of this bill is to repeal the imperial act and replace it by Canadian legislation. It has generally the same provisions as the imperial statute, but they are made to harmonize with Canadian conditions in matters of administration and procedure.


Mr. CAHAN:: Will the Minister of Justice be so kind as to give a day's notice of the second reading? There are certain matters in this connection which, I think, are relevant, and which I should like to discuss on the second reading of the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: I will arrange it privately with my hon. friend.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Is a fishery commission investigating the alleged illegal fishing of lobsters in the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island?
2.	If so, what is the name or names of the members of the commission, counsel and stenographer, and what remuneration does each receive: (a) salary; (b) living allowance?
3.	How many days has the commission sat to date?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Commissioner-Hon. Justice A. T. LeBlanc, (a) Nil; Ob) $25 a day; Counsel-Hon. H. F. G. Bridges, (a) $30 a day; Ob) $10 a day; Stenographer-Miss Jeanne Saindon, (a) $5 a day; (b) Actual expenses.
3.	29 days.


ARUNDEL, QUE., MAIL SERVICE
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Who is the present contractor for R.R. No. 2, Arundel?
2.	Is he a returned man?
3.	Who are his sureties?
4.	When was the contract given to him, and at what rate annually?
5.	From whom were other tenders received for this service, and what was the annual rate asked by each?
6.	Are any of the unsuccessful tenderers returned men?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	John Moncrieff.
2.	No information.
3.	E. T. Rousseau, A. B. Morrison.
4.	29th August, 1936-$800 per annum.
5.	John Moncrieff, Arundel, $800; Stirling Simon, Arundel, $800; Geo. Marshall, Arundel, $840; Melvin C. Cooke, Arundel, $854.88; Dave Dubeau, Arundel, $900; John Moncrieff, Arundel, $900; Ross W. Swail, Arundel, $924; R. A. Moss, Jr., Arundel, $960; S. K. Mac Arthur, $960; Ernest Swail, Arundel, $990; Harry Skinner, Arundel, $1,200; Harry Skinner, Arundel, $1,252.
6.	Yes,

Harry Skinner, Arundel. No information regarding others.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MUTCH:: 1.	Did the government remove the dumping duty on cabbages entering western Canada thirty days before they usually do? If so, why?
2.	Was the government aware that there were
several hundred tons of cabbage available in the Winnipeg area on the 16th of January, 1937?	.	.	.
3.	What growers' organization in the Winnipeg area did the government consult as to the supply of cabbages available on the 16th of January, 1937?
4.	What person or persons did the government depend upon for the information resulting in the removal of duty on cabbages thirty days before the usual time?
5.	Did the government take any steps to notify the growers in the "Winnipeg area of the impending removal of duty on cabbages thirty days before the usual time?
6.	What steps did the government take to notify the fruit jobbers of western Canada of the impending removal?
7.	Was the government informed that new cabbage from Texas could be delivered in Winnipeg in bulk for a trifle over 2 cents per pound if the dumping duty was removed on the 16th January?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Return tabled herewith.


WELLAND CANAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	What are the names of all employees engaged during 1936 on the northern division of the Welland ship canal, and (a) the classification of their employment; (b) total earnings of each employee during the year 1936; (c) date engaged on an hourly basis, the rate per hour.
2.	Are the employees engaged on an hourly basis laid off during showery weather, and if so, is it possible to arrange inside work on showery days for men employed on an hourly basis.



OLD AGE PENSIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Old Age Pensions Act
[Stage Direction]
That it is expedient to extend the operation of the Old Age Pensions Act to include certain classes of blind persons presently not included in the act.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I am within the rules in suggesting that the notice is hardly ample, in its description of the class of people to whom the resolution refers. I recall very vividly complaint being made formerly that notices of resolutions should indicate clearly the character of the legislation to be founded upon them. I think this notice is rather scanty. I merely raise the issue so that it may not be thought that I am acceding to a view which I believe is not in accord with sound parliamentary practice.


Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. Speaker, whether or not this is evidence that great minds think alike, that was my own criticism when the resolution was submitted to me, but the answer given was that short of including the whole bill it was difficult further to amplify the resolution. I shall be glad to give full information when the resolution is being discussed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, in view of standing order 119, regarding parliamentary agents, may I direct your attention to the fact that Mr. N. Romeo Beaudet, formerly a member of the unemployment insurance commission, and who is now out of a job, is canvassing members from door to door asking for a job, and I should like you to ascertain whether or not he has secured his licence as a parliamentary agent.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Chambly-Rou-ville):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I would refer to the first page of the second section of the Montreal Gazette of to-day, where, under a large headline, I read that five Chambly Canton men were found guilty of perjury at a federal inquiry, and that their statement that the canal superintendent attended political meetings caused his dismissal from the service. Without going into the merits of the case I submit that this is not according to the facts, because the report of

the commissioner who presided over the investigation contains four accusations-


Richard Bedford Bennett: This cannot be a matter touching the privileges of this house.


Vincent Dupuis: It is the privilege of a member of this house to correct statements which are not according to the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Touching this house.


Vincent Dupuis: I understand that there is a plan under way to show that federal employees have been dismissed unjustly in order that some provincial governments may feel justified in carrying out wholesale dismissals of provincial employees. I just want to cite-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not think the hon. member is within the rules of the house. A question of privilege must be in connection with a matter affecting this house.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: I should like to direct an inquiry to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). On January 21 of this year I asked a question with regard to certain costs to this dominion in connection with the Regina riot inquiry. On January 25 an order of the house was issued for that information. As yet the reply has not been forthcoming, and I have been approached about it. May I ask why it takes a month to get this information, which I should think would be readily available?


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I received the message from my hon. friend too late to make the necessary inquiries, but it is hardly fair to say that a month has elapsed between January 25 and to-day. We had to communicate with Regina in order to ascertain some facts. I assure my hon. friend that we will file this return as soon as possible.



SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning that the house go into committee of supply, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. MacNeil.
['Mr. Speaker, over and over in my life have I found the thing that I ought to do not at all the thing that I liked to do. On this occasion I once more find it so. With the minds of people throughout Canada so filled with doubt, disagreement and fear, who is there that, if his conscience would let him, would not in connection with anything pertaining to war, gladly hold his peace? And yet in these so critical times, with all of yesterday\'s glowing achievement and all of to-morrow\'s glorious promise trembling in hazard, one must speak, prayerful that his remarks be wise.\nMay I say at the outset that no socialist in this building or out of it hates war more heartily than I do. I will grant with anyone, that war never settles anything, that no peace ever satisfies any of the people who make it. Let any treaty \'be made as wisely as possible, the next generation will likely rise up and curse it. Every modern treaty contains the seeds of a greater war than it closes. I will grant all that. These things are freely and heartily conceded, but I cannot and will not entirely blame the delegates who made or must make that peace. The deficiencies in any given treaty are there not necessarily because\n\nNational Defence-Mr. Blackmore\nof the treachery, the wickedness, the ignorance, the weakness or the indiscretion of the delegates, but because of the clash of interests, the fierceness of passion, the pressure of public opinion and the general set-up of circumstance in the clutch of which the delegates usually find themselves hopelessly gripped.\nI will grant furthermore with ready alacrity that war is a fearful waste, that war is monstrously destructive of lives, of health, of comfort and virtue, of happiness and of both real and financial wealth. War fastens upon all participating nations a bondage of debt which enslaves their peoples to the third and fourth generations, and even beyond that. I concede that in any war any participant or combination of participants risks its national freedom, if not its very existence.\nBeyond that I will go and concede that the causes of war appear never to be righteous and are almost never what they seem. I will agree that financiers, through hidden international intrigue, manipulate the factors which produce war, and that with them in their baleful endeavours are -bound up the munition makers. It must further be conceded that war as always motivated by selfishness and greed, frequently the selfishness and greed of great private corporations and industries, and that secret treaties also help to cause war, as do likewise political machination and trickery. I frankly concede that propaganda, rousing fear, suspicion and hatred, often by shameful lies, both provokes war and tends to prolong it.\nAgain I will further allow and even contend that war is morally wicked; that it is nothing short of mass murder and mass robbery and -that it both engenders and is engendered by -mass hatred. As everyone knows, these three things are grossly unChristian. Yet -again I will with enthusiasm maintain that the burdens of war are unjustly distributed. Both suffering and sacrifice are -borne by the poor, while little, if any, of -these are borne by the rich. The values wasted in war are human values more than material values. The real fighters, the really deserving ones, rarely if ever get such rewards as come from war. The greatest sufferers are the mothers, -the sisters, -the wives and the sweethearts, the innocent and helpless among us. Could it avail us anything, I would at this -time cry out as loudly and as -bitterly as anyone against the monstrous wrong and the shameful pity of it all. But alas an outcry would be -but an outcry.\nHaving expressed in some measure my hatred of war, let me now challenge any man in this dominion to sho-w that he is more earnest and more determined than I in his desire and in his efforts to remove -the real causes of war. I know what those causes are and I know they must be removed. I have some notion as to bow -they might be removed, and in so far as in me lies, I shall gladly dev-ote my life\'s energies in any intelligent effort to remove those causes.\nLe-t me here briefly review -a few of the factors which result in war. I am aware that it was largely poverty, especially poverty in the mid-st of plenty, tha-t rendered possible a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Lenin and a Franco. I am aware also that trade rivalry and the struggle for markets spur nations to outbursts of envy, jealousy and hatred and were in a large measure responsible for -the terrible ~ crisis of 1914. I am painfully aware that there are flagrant inequalities among nations; that certain nations such as Italy and Japan are manifestly cramped in point of territory; that many are hampered by lack of resources such as coal -and oil and nickel and o-ther commodities needed in the modern industrial world, while -at the same time -they see neighbour nations, such as our own, keeping almost unused a superabundance of the very -things they require. I perceive that in the relentless struggle for markets which must characterize an industrialized world under the present economic system, many weaker or less fortunate nations have seen -their markets appropriated by stronger and more fortunate nations. No one senses more keenly than I that somehow, in a general spirit of international compromise and cooperative goodwill, we must remove these irksome inequalities.\nOf the fact that there are other galling handicaps, I am not ignorant. No one needs to point out to me how there are nations lacking access to ocean- highways -because of geographical and artificial boundaries, lacking, as for example Poland did, access to ports and seas. Such a state of affairs makes people fret. It is not as it should be. Years ago it was brought home to me that there are certain races whose nationalities were suppressed by other races. Examples that come readily to mind are the Germans of Austria, the Magyars of former Austria-Hungary and the Poles before the treaty of Versailles. Such a condition creates a breeding ground for the generation of bitterness. It should somehow be removed. Let me, here and now, declare that I will set my foot as far as he who goes farthest in any sane attempt to remove these conditions. But who can tell me how? Where is\n1034\tCOMMONS\nNational Defence-Mr. Blackmore\nhe who knows? Eagerly and hungrily searching, I will listen to anyone\'s idea and give it my utmost respect. I am ready to go far in sacrifice or compromise once I have confidence that the sacrifice will permanently solve the problem. Meanwhile, living in a world of stark realities, I know that men must carry on and I conceive it to be my duty to give my support to those who are trying to carry on to the best of their ability and with apparently the best wisdom that man has attained.\nMr. Speaker, I dread war as much as any pacifist in the land-I dread and abhor it. There are four sons in my household, any one of whom means many times more to me than my own life and health. Three of them would be in immediate danger in the next war. As dear to me as my sons are several brothers whose names would almost surely be numbered for service. I have daughters and sisters who might be bereaved. In my life as a teacher I have learned to love with a peculiar tenderness the great numbers of boys and girls whose lives have been entrusted to my care. No one can value more the youth of this land. When I see a young man on the street and there flashes into my mind, as there does so often, a vision of his splendid body shattered by the hand of war, sickness comes over me so nauseating as to make me almost faint. When I see the beautiful face of any of our girls and the vision flashes into my mind of that face distorted with woe, I am moved almost beyond control. At the same time I realize that in the next war civilization is likely to be wiped out entirely. But what can be done about it? If we leave our country utterly undefended while the nations all around are arming, how can we hope that our weakness will prevent our destruction? When has the helplessness of the lamb rendered it immune from the wolf, or the defencelessness of the innocent child saved it from the kidnapping marauder.\nAs vividly as any man I sense the many excuses which we might offer for not now preparing. Many a youth, for example, is brooding in his heart and saying such bitter words as: "You fellows making the laws do not have to do the fighting; if you did, you would not be quite so ready to talk about armaments." To them I can only reply: " Perhaps so, but our elders decided the last war for us." Had we known all that they knew, I think we would have agreed with them. We members now bear the responsibility. We are trying to do for those whom we represent, perhaps not altogether what they now would ask us to do, but what we\n\nbelieve they would want us to do if they knew what we know and sensed what we sense. We are trying to do what they might wish we had done when they know, ten years from now, more than they now know. Again there are heard throughout the land voices muttering, not loud but deep: " Make Canada fit to live in; make it worth defending and we will gladly defend it. Give a square deal to the men who did your dirty work in the last war." With such voices I feelingly sympathize. I know men have mismanaged this house of ours, this Canada, and we cannot yet agree how to manage it; but shall we because of that, and while we are arguing how to manage it, let our enemies snatch it away from us or bomib our children within it?\nOthers are saying that the United States will defend us. Probably so, but could we lift up our heads and call ourselves an independent nation if another nation had to defend us? If upon the United States\' depended the responsibility for defending us, how long would it be before the United States would demand a potent voice in the management of our external affairs? Many ardent souls have struggled through many decades to make Canada independent and to assert Canada\'s nationhood. What for? That Canada might become a dependant of the United States?\nStill other people are saying: "Britain will defend us." But suppose the strain should be too great and Britain should fall. Would Canadians then feel as safe as they feel now when Britain stands? Suppose that she should fall and we knew that that fall had come because she had risked her safety to defend us. Could Canadians ever again be reconciled? If we failed to do our share in preparing to defend our own coasts, and if, because of that, the democracies of the world should fail, could we ever hold up our heads? At other times I hear voices say: What can Canada possibly do to defend herself in modern warfare-there is no safety in war? Such truth as lies in their contention I gladly grant. At the same time I must remember the story of the little drops of water that can make a mighty ocean. Besides, did anyone say during the great war that Canada could do so little? Did anyone think such a thing just after the great war? ( I cannot help feeling that if we in Canada do anything less than all we can in reason do, then in case of a disaster we must stand blameworthy both to ourselves and to all generations. We shall have betrayed our trust. ^\n\nNational Defence-Mr. Blackmore\nSome voices say: Well, Canada\'s place is in union with the United States; let us leave our defence to the United States, and let what will be, be. These people I beg to remind that even if they become a part of the United States they could not possibly escape the responsibilities of war. Witness what is going on in the United States at the present time!\nStill other voices argue:\tLet us keep ourselves helpless so that we cannot fight, and then we will be sure not to fight. My knowledge of history does not permit me to agree with them. It has generally been found that when men want to fight, they fight, regardless of preparation. Look at ourselves in the last war. Britain, they tell me, was not fully prepared until 1918; yet she fought, and for having been unprepared, terrible was the price she paid. Let hon. members in this connection recall what they heard men in . this country saying one year ago while Ethiopia was being lacerated. Did they not hear many regretting Canada\'s inaction as a member of the league? How would Canadians have felt if it had been Australia instead of Ethiopia? How would they feel should New Zealand now be attacked? Would they say: Leave her to it? I have not yet found a single Canadian who would state that he would consent to such a thing. Suppose that Newfoundland were attacked: then what?\nLet us come right down to the present moment: How do our people feel about Spain now? Let me read to the members of this house a resolution which I received from a Canadian city only this morning, and that from the very kind of men who are most bitterly opposing Canadian preparedness:\nWhereas it has been learned that the great fighter for Spanish and world democracy, General Emil Kleber, has been captured by the insurgent armies in the storming of Malaga and,\nWhereas we believe that the efforts of General Kleber, a Canadian citizen, in the leading of the international brigade, is a heroic work in support of Spanish and world democracy, and that his great work is in line -with the mission that our own Doctor Bethune is carrying on in Madrid.\ntherefore be it resolved that we do urgently petition the federal M.P.\'s at Ottawa to take this matter up at once with the federal government to demand the immediate release of General Kleber out of the hands of the fascist executioners at Malaga, who are being openly aided by the fascist countries of Germany and Italy, in violation of the non-intervention agreement that they have themselves signed,\nAnd be it further resolved that we do urge upon the federal government that they do\neverything in their power to call upon the non-intervention committee in London that they demand of the fascist junta in Burgos, Spain, that General Kleber be granted freedom at once.\nWhat would happen to the world if members did what these men urge? What would occur if we could get done what they want us to do? The world would likely be plunged into war, and we along with the rest. How many people have you talked with in Canada who wished to volunteer to go and help the Spanish loyalists? In her present state of unpreparedness Canada could do little or nothing on either side, no matter what she might want to do. Even if bombs were dropped by raiders on this parliament building, on our food factories, on our other industrial centres or on our railway stations, what could we do right now? We are living in a world in which wolves abound. Shall we, to make sure that we will not shoot any of these wolves in case they attack us, leave ourselves without a gun? It would surely seem to be the part of wisdom in us to buy ourselves a good gun and a supply of cartridges, and to learn how to shoot. What we will shoot, or whether we will shoot, we can leave ourselves free to decide, if and when the emergency arises.\nI long found myself persistently mystified whenever I tried to make clear to myself why it was that Canada which, from shore to shore, twenty years ago was throbbing with patriotic fervour was becoming not only largely apathetic to considerations of unity, but actually hostile. A British commonwealth which paid so great a price for racial safety now gives palpable evidence of approaching disintegration. The people are the same; their ideals are the same; their danger is as great as ever; but something appears to be progressively embittering them. The blame for this whole development I am going to lay relentlessly upon the financial system under which we live. Our present system, outgrown, obsolete, utterly inadequate, is deteriorating to the point of irreparable ruin-not only the whole British Empire but the whole British people. It might with much reason be argued that every government which is stubbornly clinging to the present system is doing more to compass the destruction of the British race than is any man or movement in the outside world to-day.\nMajor Douglas as far back as 1923 warned democracy over and over again of the coming of this depression and of the coming of this awful danger of war. Even earlier than that he gave all British people instructions how', "National Defence-Mr. Blackmore\nthey might avoid the approaching disaster, and all he got for his pains was supercilious sneers. How can it possibly be that men, rather than accept a new idea, will so risk irretrievable disaster? Even without accepting any new ideas, the men who have been in charge of British nations since the beginning of the great war could have avoided a great deal of this bitterness. Had they only so controlled profitmaking during the great war that Canadians would not have had to reflect upon millionaires whose ill-gotten gains were amassed under the guise of patriotism while their fellow-Cana-dians suffered and bled, we should all be feeling better now.\nLet me now turn to one of the most urgent reasons against preparation-one which is suggested in the amendment, namely, consideration for the bad economic conditions and the crying need everywhere obtaining in Canada, the thought how shameful it is to use for defence, money so gravely needed for relief. I do not believe that we should or need use for our defence any of the money which we should or would otherwise use for relief or for other social services. I have urged before in this house, and will perhaps urge many times again, that this dominion government under existing circumstances can safely create a considerable amount of money and safely use it for any necessary purpose.\nI have been answered with the retort that such procedure would cause inflation. There has thus far been advanced no argument that can justify that answer. How would Canada proceed to finance herself if war were to break out and she were to become involved? With people in such poverty as they now are throughout this country, how could we possibly hope to raise great victory loans as we did in the last war? During those years Britain spent far more money, I am told, than there was in the whole of Britain, and she still had plenty to carry on. Where did the money come from? Apparently the banks created a great deal of it. Who would create the money in Canada in case of another crisis? Would the banks or would the government? If not the government, why not? The government backs the money anyway, by backing the banks. Why should new money whether created by the banks or by government cause inflation? The government of Great Britain financed the war with a sort of government money. It worked and was sound.\nThe argument has been laboured that we must have goods; that goods and services are the only purchasing power. If we grant that, how then can we possibly have overproduction?\nfMr. RlackmorB.)\nAnd if goods are purchasing power why then are not banks now lending freely to produce more goods, and why is the government not campaigning for more production of milk, meats, vegetables, sugar, clothing, electricity, building material, coal and the like? We are told the Liberals want more purchasing power; why are they not then taking the most direct method of getting it? We now want purchasing power to finance defence. Why not produce the goods and services, and with them as purchasing power finance our defence? In this manner can be swept away a great deal of the present opposition to the government's defence policy.\nAnd now, Mr. Speaker, having dealt with certain considerations pertaining to defence, and having given to some extent the reasons which prevent these considerations from persuading me to oppose the government's policy, let me now give some of the thoughts which have led me this year to support that policy.\nI choose to use homely and simple illustrations, for I find myself able to think to better advantage in terms of concrete experience. We all recognize that any man has the right to kill in self defence. We, therefore, must regard the individual human life as sacred above all things. If I entered my neighbour's home with intent to kill him, or to do him serious bodily harm, everyone would justify him in killing me. Most people would censure him if he did not kill me. If I entered his home with intent to harm any of -his family, and he knew my purpose, most people would justify him in stopping me by force, even to the extent of killing me. If he, knowing or strongly surmising my intent, did not prevent me 'by force if need be, most people would blame him; many would despise him, his wife and his children among them.\nNow, if that neighbour, knowing that I was coming armed, failed to prepare himself against me, he would be almost universally blamed, if not censured. What applies to an individual must surely apply to a community of individuals. Even if my neighbour knew that I was bringing a machine gun or a bomb, or any other deadly device, most people would expect him to do all that he could, even to the extent of giving his life, to save his family. The same reasoning ought to apply to any community of individuals. If, knowing that I was armed and that I might by chance violate his home, he failed to arm himself against my coming, he would be blamed for failure to arm himself against my coming. After I had armed, if he so armed himself, could anyone possibly\n\nNational Defence-Mr. Blackmore\nreason that his arming had caused me to attack him? Again, if that neighbour of mine found himself dwelling in a vicinity where most of the men were armed, would you not hold him blameworthy if he did not arm himself? And if, under such circumstances he did arm himself, can anyone consistently contend that his arming himself would cause me or any of his other armed neighbours to attack him? This reasoning, again, applying as it manifestly does to an individual, appears to me to apply with equal force to communities of individuals.\nNow, Canada is that neighbour; she lives in an armed world community; she is filled with resources, fabulously rich-rich in the very materials which ambitious nations covet. If her rulers neglect to arm her, how they can possibly escape the censure of all carefully thinking people it is beyond my power to comprehend.\nIt seems fitting to me that I should dwell with some care upon certain other causes of war which hitherto, as far as I recollect, have not, in this debate, been greatly stressed. Let me return again to individuals and their neighbours. Let us suppose that my neighbour has a sixteen year old boy. Everybody recognizes that this boy will naturally express himself. He may shout and sing a great deal, not because he wishes to annoy his parents or their neighbours, but just because he wishes to express himself. His parents naturally will endeavour to restrain him. Suppose, now, that he refuses to listen to persuasion or to reason, no matter how much we all remonstrate with him, what can we do about it? Most ordinary people would say that in some manner or another, sooner or later, force would have to be applied to that boy. If his parents did not do it, some of his neighbours, perhaps his neighbour's sixteen year old boy, would likely do it. There are boys among nations. It is because of this fact that we have come to think of collective security through alliances, ententes, leagues of nations and the like. So long as there are no alliances or leagues of nations sufficient to give this collective security, it would seem to be beyond question that each of the neighbours must be prepared, either individually or in cooperation with several neighbours, either to administer correction or to fill the rowdy ones with a measure of awe. There appears no way of avoiding the implications of this reasoning.\nHere is another thought. Each race becomes passionately attached to its own way of doing things, to its own civilization, as we\ncall it. A people's language, habits of thought, modes of life, et cetera, constitute something which the Germans called kultur. Now, it is a well-known fact that it is the natural impulse of each human being to try to get other human beings to do as he or she does. As we say, it is the natural impulse, almost an instinct, of nearly everyone .to try to impose his will upon his neighbour. It is an equally potent and prevalent impulse for everyone to resent any attempt of his neighbour to impose his will upon him; that is, as we say, each one naturally wants his own way about it. This impulse to impose one's will upon another, and this equally urgent impulse to resent such imposition, and to develop oneself in one's own way, cause ceaseless struggle among individual human beings. Generally the struggle takes the form of a clash of personality resulting in quarrels. But if satisfactory results cannot be obtained by a quarrel, there will be a fight; that is, there will be a resort to force.\nNow, each nation or race is incessantly attempting to impose its will upon each other race; that is, each nation is trying to bring about universal acceptance of its kultur, its language, its religion in some cases, its education, et cetera. Just as sternly as one individual resents and resists and must resist the imposition of another's will upon him, so sternly does each nation or race resist the imposition of any other race's will or kultur upon it. Away down deep in the heart of even' race this instinct resides, ever present. One of the most cogent causes of war is this very impulse. It is the impulse which has in our day resulted in a Mussolini promising his people all the land that the Roman empire ever ruled; this, too, has resulted in the passionate ebullition of racial feeling which has thrust and is still thrusting Hitler into prominence. Thus far, no one that I have ever heard of has been able to give any sufficient remedy for this cause. Canada has her own kultur, though we call it our own civilization. Is it worth preparing to defend? Every people, so far as I can judge, must be constantly on its guard, ready to defend its own culture. There are, at the present time in the world, at least five great peoples, each definitely dreaming of world dominion, each instinctively if not consciously planning to impose upon us and upon others its own kultur,^ I do not believe that the Anglo-Saxon race-the British peoples-should strive to impose their will upon others, at least by any aggressive means. At the same time who can see any reason that would justify us in allowing others to impose their will upon us?\n1038\tCOMMONS\nNational Defence-Mr. Blackmore\nWe must be ready to give and take with all peoples. We must be ready to compromise. We must cultivate in our own hearts understanding of the legitimate aspirations of other peoples and an honest disposition to help them to obtain the good things of this world. We must constantly strive to allow every other race the full right and opportunity to realize the complete development and expression of its own culture, and to contribute that culture to the enrichment of the world's\nlife, always granted that it does not, by realizing itself, hinder unwarrantably the selfrealization of its fellow races. That no race might be able to hinder our own self-realization, we must, I conceive, prepare to defend ourselves in case of need. )\nMr. Speaker, it is eleven o'clock."]
Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to continue the debate on the motion before the house and

National Defence-Mr. Leader
the amendment thereto, it is not my intention to make any extended remarks. I want to be as brief as possible in presenting my position not only to this house but to the people who are responsible for my being here.
Needless to say, I abhor war just as much as any other gentleman who has spoken during this debate. I think war is madness, but I am afraid most of the world is afflicted with this malady at the present time. War is the most diabolical instrument ever devised by man for the destruction of all that is best in civilization. War violates every principle of the Prince of Peace and stimulates the forces of evil. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the war god is no respecter of nations; the most remote and the most peaceful may be drawn into the vortex. Canada is a peaceful nation. I am sure we Canadians have no desire to annex any of the lands that belong to other nations, but we are proud of our heritage, and we would like to keep it. Canada is remote from the possibilities of war, as we see them to-day, and we have no desire to create more armaments for the destruction of our fellow men. But, Mr. Speaker, we must face the facts. I am sure the government does not contemplate any war of aggression. If I did not believe that, I would not vote a five cent piece for the prosecution of a war, but would use my influence to defeat any such purpose. But a war of defence is a different proposition, and that is the position in which we find ourselves today.
What is the situation? Briefly it appears to me to be as follows:	We have a Hitler
and a Mussolini armed to the teeth, casting covetous eyes on the possessions of other people and uttering dire threats at the point of bristling bayonets. Under these circumstances we can visualize what would happen to Canada if we were not in a position to defend our shores. It is true that we could rely on the help of others. I know we could rely on the help of the motherland, and I am sure we could rely on the help of our friendly neighbour to the south. But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if we have any respect for ourselves or for this grand country in which we live we should be prepared to defend ourselves without asking for aid from anyone. Therefore I must vote against the amendment as presented by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), and I intend to support the government.
May I say that I have confidence in the Prime Minister of this country. He has a long record of service. At Geneva last year, during the meetings of the assembly of the League of Nations, he explained Canada's 31111-63
position. He spoke for Canada, and he spoke for me. He declared that Canada would enter into no commitments in any foreign war without the consent of parliament and the consent of the Canadian people. I agree most heartily with that stand, and I believe the people throughout Canada will agree, also with that policy. The Prime Minister cannot be called a jingoist, and for that reason I believe that under his leadership we are safe. I have concluded my observations on that phase of the question.
May I take just a few moments to describe to the house some of the feelings which I believe exist out in the country. It seems to me that we as members are prone to forget the position and condition of the people who, reposing their confidence in us, have sent us here to represent them. For that reason I try to keep in as close touch as possible with my electors. There has been a feeling throughout my constituency that under existing conditions there would be an increase this year in war expenditure. We have in the prairie provinces a farmers' organization which in my province is known as the United Farmers of Manitoba. At their annual meeting this year, held at Neepawa, which I was privileged to attend, there was presented a resolution, part of which I shall read, to which I gave my support. It seems to me that the very first words show that they anticipated just what is happening. As the resolution is long I shall not weary the house by reading it all; I shall read only that part of it which bears upon the matter under discussion. It begins:
Whereas under the changed conditions as regards world peace, many people expect the Canadian government to enter upon a new and extended defence program-
And it ends:
Resolved, further, that in the undertaking of any preparations for the possible contingency of war, (1) the government take steps to commit the nation to the principle that immediately upon the declaration of war financial control of all industry shall be assumed by the government so that profiteering of every kind out of war conditions and services shall be rendered impossible and that all wealth shall be conserved and applied to the national purpose of maintenance of the population and the realization of the nation's war objective and (2) that the working out of plans for such mobilization of economic resources be made a part of any defence policy upon which the nation may enter.
During the last war there can be no doubt that huge sums of money were made by war profiteering-made from the misery and sufferings of the sons of Canada who died on the fields of France and Flanders. That this should have happened is resented to the present

National Defence-Mr. Lalonde
Jay, with the result that in my section of the country a different feeling exists in regard to war profiteers. The Canadian people expect that if we must go to war all the resources of the country will be employed in the prosecution of that war. I believe that in the nation's interest we should conscript, if that is the proper word-perhaps it is not; some people object to it-the resources of the fields, of the forests and of the mines, and all the accumulated wealth.
May I repeat that I am supporting the government in these expenditures, which I believe, involve an increase this year of $11,615,000. The very amount is alarming, but under existing conditions I feel that as a good Canadian I can take no other course than that of supporting the action of the government.


Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle):: (Translation) Mr. Speaker, certain erroneous statements published in a press with interested motives claiming, without any proof in support of such allegations, that the dominion parliament would vote this year $70,000,000 towards national defence, have caused great commotion among the public. It is obvious that if the tories had been in power, probably these statements would have been true, but, thank God, we have in this country a Liberal government headed by the right hon. Mackenzie King, the prime minister "par excellence" and the one who stands in the history of Canada as the less imperialistic of all our prime ministers.
I leave to these comedians of journalism the responsibility of their statements. I admit, Mr. Speaker, that a contingency of that nature would have compelled me to vote against such an excess in imperialistic extravagance. But the hon. the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) asks this house for a total sum of $34,091,873.42, of which $22,339,223.42 is for our defence scheme, and $11,752,650 for the air force. Is this excessive? Is it acceptable? Does my duty as a member of this house authorize me to vote in favour of such an expenditure? I will endeavour in a few words to answer these questions to the best of my knowledge.
And I owe all men and women who voted for me a clear and definite explanation so as to dispel any ambiguity and establish on a rational basis my position as representative of the electors of Labelle and as a member of the dominion Liberal party. Moreover, having given to the press an interview which certain newspapers of my province and of Canada were kind enough to reproduce, I feel that I am under the obligation of proving that my vote will be consistent with my public state-

ments. The text of my interview as published in Le Droit of January 20, 1937 follows:
The agitation caused by this important question of the defence estimates which the honourable the Minister of National Defence will bring down during this session of the federal parliament, has stirred public opinion. I do not believe that this is the proper time to reach a definite conclusion before having had an opportunity of considering these estimates and hearing what the honourable minister will have to say by way of explanation.
We do not know as yet what amount parliament will be asked to vote, nor the purpose for which these sums will be spent.
A definite conclusion would therefore be premature.
I am in favour of ensuring security within our territory and having our customs service watch closely our coasts and the American border, either with ships or aircraft. But these expenditures should be within our means and I am not prepared to vote in favour of excessive disbursements for that item.
As to the important question of Canada's participation in imperial foreign wars, I am altogether against it, either in men or money.


Mr. LACOMBE:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Lalonde: It seems to me that the explicit statements of the right honourable Mackenzie King and of the honourable senator Dandurand on this subject are sufficient to appease public opinion. This does not imply that we should not be very cautious should legislation to that effect be introduced. This is a question of principle on which we must stand firmly. The future of Canada is at stake! All true patriots must have but one slogan: Canada first! And the interest of Canada is not to be found in Flanders, in the Spanish peninsula or in Ethiopia, but on the shores of the St. Lawrence as well as on the territory of the other provinces in the dominion.


Liguori Lacombe: Hear, hear.


Maurice Lalonde: I must therefore follow this program and abide by this principle. Indeed, I do not claim to- meet the demands of the nationalists who, tired of seeking blindly some formulae for our economic recovery in the policies of the Liberal party, turn towards a political and utopian idealism of exaggerated secession, and selfish nationalism whose mean ideals are incapable of looking beyond the horizon of the province of Quebec.
Are these estimates excessive? Are they acceptable? Before expressing my opinion on this question, I think it would be important to set the scope of the discussion.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Lalonde: We have before us a motion of non-confidence; we must first discuss this motion on its merits before considering the estimates intrinsically. The motion reads as follows:

National Defence-Mr. Lalonde
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
This house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for purposes of national armament in contrast with the inadequate provision for the social security of all sections of the Canadian people.
Tthe hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) therefore suggests a comparison, but his resolution is so worded that it inevitably leads to a contradiction. How could we vote against this motion of want of confidence, and later vote against the appropriations that are being asked for? The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is that we should have first considered the present motion upon its merits, suggesting as it does a comparison between the amount of the defence estimates and the activities of the government as regards social welfare. There you have two major points calling for a conclusion which may exclude either an affirmative or a negative vote on the estimates.
In order to know whether these estimates are too large or not, let us see, in the terms of the motion, what, the government has done in connection with social welfare. I always understood that the social welfare of a nation proceeded from a system of legislation giving the individual a feeling of mental and physical security wherefrom he derived full happiness. It means that if the social welfare policy of the present government answered 'the needs of our people, these estimates, always according to the terms of the resolution, would not be unreasonable.
You will admit that in discussing this question we must revolve within a limited circle, which I might even call a vicious circle. But I do venture to state that the social policy of this government should meet with the approval of all those who place the interest of their country above party contingencies.
The Liberal government, through its policies, its treaties, its agreements, the ever increasing volume of our trade and commerce, and conventions based on moderate free trade principles, gave rise to an evident feeling of sympathy towards Canada among other nations of the world:	Agreements with the United
States, Germany and France; the renewal of the Ottawa agreements on a more equitable basis; the statements of Right Hon. Mackenzie King at Geneva; the positive statements of our leaders concerning our absolute independence in case of a European war, all this ought to set our minds at rest.
As regards our domestic policy, both in the economic and the social spheres, we have had 31111-634
relief works, the Dominion Textile trust was brought to reason, prices improved, money is circulating more freely, loans were granted to the western provinces, a bonus was paid on wheat, there was a decrease in our federal deficits, and a satisfactory improvement in business as a whole. All these things, Mr. Speaker, make for a greater sense of security among our Canadian people than under the tory administration of 1930. And we should condemn it all through a vote of want of confidence in the government just because, this year, there is some fear that the increase in the defence estimates may reflect excessive imperialism? That is a conclusion which I cannot share.
The comparison is evidently defective, but we must take it such as it was presented to us by the hon. member for Vancouver North. Therefore, I shall vote against this motion. My mandate as a member of this house does not leave me any other alternative, for I was elected on the express understanding that I would support the government in its fair measures. But is this request for an increase of $14,000,000 in the defence estimates a fair measure? That is altogether a different question. Any man is loath to spend money to buy anything for purposes of destruction. It is with some hesitation that I find it unfortunately necessary to vote for these estimates. I have carefully listened to the speech of the hon. the Minister of National Defence, and I shall support certain appropriations which I consider reasonable, but I am reserving the right to appreciate later some other items the necessity of which I do not quite grasp at present. I shall discharge my duties and my responsibilities as a Canadian to the full, without the least egoist thought as to my personal political aggrandizement. While objecting most strenuously to Canada's participation in foreign wars, I am in favour of taking any steps that might be necessary for the preservation of our internal peace. I want the constituted authorities to be strengthened in such a way that they may be able to hold in check the revolutionary mob whose existence is not recognized in certain quarters but which is planning, under cover, to destroy our secular institutions, in order to raise upon their smoking remains, the haughty structure of their pagan universities and Godless schools.
I am also sceptical as regards the possibility of attacks from the outside, but I may ask those who refuse to believe in such a contingency to prove its impossibility. International events are such that no man can foretell what complications they may lead

National Defence-Mr. Lalonde
to. We even see our southern neighbours, protected as they are by their geographical position between two oceans, building up a great air fleet at an annual cost of several million dollars. On this subject, I believe we will simply have to adhere to the principle of the most elementary local protection, because it is materially impossible to think of militarizing Canada. I would indeed be relentlessly opposed to such a policy.
I am equally sceptical as to the true meaning of this armament policy. Are we moving towards a contributory imperialism? If we permit these estimates to be voted without any protest to-day, shall we, to-morrow be [DOT]bound by a dangerous precedent? Should we also believe the statement made by the Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain and reported in the morning papers in connection with the military estimates of 7 billion 500 million dollars voted in England, "that it is not the intention to invite the dominions to share in a common scheme of defence."
Here again, we must admit that accurate foresight is difficult. God only knows what the future has in store and we are powerless before His divine intents.
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, upon what basis are we going to build up our knowledge and our conclusions? Whom are we going to believe? Whom are we going to trust? Shall we give credence to the demagogical outbursts of the Conservatives and their newspapers? Or to the sententious warnings of the nationalist press? Or again to the vain threats of certain associations financed by the tories and which, under the chaste cloak of patriotism, are carrying on an active propaganda against the federal Liberal party? Or lastly, to the whispers of a mob treacherously deceived by the false prophets of extreme nationalism, whose 'adherents will perhaps be the first to call upon our militia to save them from the anger of that mob, roused by them to a frenzy of demagogy?
Of course, Mr. Speaker, as one lone protest has reached me from my constituency, the . only alternative left me is to give my full confidence to those who are responsible for the government of our country. To my mind, it would be an insult to question the true Canadianism of the Right Honourable Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). His past behaviour bespeaks his future actions. And when he said these words which I find in Hansard, February 15, 1937, page 890:
I must deny categorically and immediately what my hon. friend has said.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar {Mr. Coldwell) had just made a statement.
(Mr. Lalonde.]
There are no commitments and no understandings in the nature of commitments between this government and the government of Great Britain or any other government.
I fail to understand how anyone can doubt his word and conclude that our country is moving towards military imperialism. I cannot understand how certain newspapers, especially Le Droit in its issue of February 17, 1937, can make such statements as this one:
Can the Minister of National Defence give us the unconditional assurance that, notwithstanding his own intentions the new armaments he asks for will not be used in a war waged by England in Europe or elsewhere? Is he in a position to give us a concrete guarantee-
Let me emphasize that word concrete so as to show its sheer stupidity.
-that if, to-morrow, England were to be involved in a war, these new armaments will not serve any other purpose than the protection of Canada's neutrality in case of any attack against her own territory? In a word, can he tell us how these new armaments would be used in the event of war? Whatever the Minister of National Defence intends to do for the moment, he cannot give us any real assurance that these armaments will not be used in such a conflict.
The man who made that statement speaks ex-cathedra and he imputes to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) motives that he never had. I may say that the writer of this article, if he is not blind or deaf and if he is not determined to oppose to the end everything that is reddish and to extol everything that is bluish, should read, read over again, consider and reconsider the speech in which the Minister of National Defence states more than once that our armaments will only be used for the protection of our territory.
Let me quote what he says at page 904 of Hansard:
-to give us a small force to cooperate with our air force and our naval force for the protection of Canada, within Canada only.
And at page 906:
These are the actual details of the estimates. They are all for the purpose of coastal defence, and for increased equipment and for cooperation of militia services of Canada with the air force and naval forces for the protection of Canada, within our borders. I cannot make that sufficiently clear to hon. members of the house.
Then at page 907, he says again:

this defence policy is a Canadian defence policy for the direct defence of our Canadian shores and our Canadian homes.
At page 903:
In the first place, our enlarged defence estimates are submitted only for the defence of Canada. In the second place, they are not arranged between Canada and any other nation.

National Defence-Mr. Maclnnis
In the third place, there has not been in connection with a single item of the estimates so submitted any request from any government in any other place whatsoever. In the fourth place, parliament itself must be the final judge as to Canada's participation in any future war-
Moreover let me say to the scribbler who signed the foregoing article that there are many more newspapermen of his calibre who take for gospel anything that smacks of criticism against the Liberal regime and who print on the 67th page news of the good deeds performed by a Liberal government. Would anything convince those gentlemen? Would they require the Prime Minister and his colleagues to execute a notarial document in the presence of 150 witnesses to the effect that they will reject all future commitments? As far as I am concerned, I have no reason to question the statements of the Hon. Mr. King and Mr. Lapointe, and I do not believe that our money will be used for a definite militaristic scheme. That question of the defence estimates amounts to a question of quantum. I have heard the speech delivered by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). Before taking a stand on the advisability of certain items, I reserve the right to ask questions about them, and I hope his answers will sufficiently enlighten me, when the estimates are considered by the committee. And I will give the government, as our English speaking friends would say, a fair trial.
If unfortunately they were to deceive me, an occurrence that I fail to conceive, I would be the first to-morrow to denounce them as forcibly as I am defending them to-day. For, the only reward I can expect from politics is the conviction of having done my duty. I will always continue to work without flinching and without any animosity to preserve the freedom of my race and country; so that our people may live in order and peace; so that the dominion Liberal party may maintain his great traditions, based on a truly Canadian policy.
I am a Liberal, it is true, sir; but above all I am a Roman Catholic and a French Canadian. When I say that I am a Canadian, I mean that I want a truly self-governing Canada freely associated to the British commonwealth of nations. I am a Canadian to the core, I will never give up my sons, when they are old enough to be soldiers, for the sake of defending England or any foreign nation.
My Canadianism might be summed up in these words: nothing on earth will ever induce me to send out of the country these two little French Canadians whom I love more than
anything else in the world so that they may fight for England or France; but I would consider them as cowards if they were not first in the front line of trenches to fight for Canada, for the land they are taught to love as true French Canadians.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the preceding speaker (Mr. Lalonde) will excuse me if I do not follow him in his remarks. Whatever their content may have been, I am quite sure that his speech was delivered in very good style.
Judging from the speeches that have been made in this chamber since the amendment was moved, Mr. Speaker, I think this group can take credit to itself for having given the members of this house an opportunity of expressing their views on the question now before us. Most of the discussion has not been altogether against our point of view. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), in opening his speech on Monday evening, took strong exception to the form of the amendment. He called it a doublebarrelled amendment. Let me read the amendment and see to what extent it is double-barrelled:
This house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for purposes of national armament in contrast with the inadequate provision for the social security of all sections of the Canadian people.
The Minister of National Defence, having read the amendment, immediately referred to a resolution that was proposed in this house in 1933, and then, turning to the members behind him, he made this most peculiar statement, which you will find at page 896 of Hansard:
The hon. member for Vancouver North by his amendment is seeking to obtain power, because the carrying of his amendment would mean the defeat of this government; a socialist government would then be in control in this dominion, and we would have the establishment of a socialist state. That is what the amendment means, and nothing else.
Now, that may be good strategy on the part of the Minister of National Defence, but it is certainly not statesmanship. He may think a thing like that will go over with the province of Quebec, where the people may have been prejudiced against socialism, but let me tell him that it is not going to do for the people of this country generally. All that we do in this amendment is to draw attention to and say that we are opposed to the great increase in the military estimates in comparison with what has been done in regard to social services to meet the needs of
998	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Maclnnis
the people of this country. If our amendment is double-barrelled the reason is that we are dealing with a two-faced government, a government that was elected not to increase the military appropriations for defence but to deal with the serious economic and social conditions within this country.


Mr. FINN:: It is doing that.


Angus MacInnis: I should like to see it.


Robert Emmett Finn: Well, look about you.


Angus MacInnis: It is because I have looked about me that I say I cannot see it.


Robert Emmett Finn: Your vision is not very broad.


Angus MacInnis: It is as broad as the
dominion.


Robert Emmett Finn: I hope so. I cannot see that
far myself.


Angus MacInnis: There is no reason why
you should not; it is easy to travel.
Mr. O'NEILL:	Will the hon. member
permit a question?


Angus MacInnis: No; the hon. member
will have forty minutes after I have finished.
The Minister of National Defence then went on to refer to the speech that was made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in reply to the cooperative commonwealth resolution of 1933. He drew our attention to the now famous fourteen points. I have refreshed my memory in regard to the fourteen points which were laid down by the leader [DOT]of the opposition of that day, now the Prime Minister, and I find that the first of them did not deal with the lack of national security in this country. As a matter of fact, after reading all fourteen points and the whole of Lis speech, I could find nothing in it regarding national defence. I can find nothing in it referring to the unprotected condition of this country. The following was the right hon. gentleman's first point, which will be found at page 2510 of Hansard of 1933:
As unemployment is a matter of very great concern I shall give it first consideration.
Further on he says that the Liberal party is pledged to introduce a national system of unemployment insurance. But the very first thing this government did when they came into office, this government pledged to introduce a system of unemployment insurance, was to harpoon the efforts that had been made to put such a measure on the statute books of this country.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that statement ought to go unchallenged. The statement that this government started in to harpoon the unemployment insurance scheme is surely wholly

incorrect. The| government merely sought to get an authoritative expression of opinion which would guide everyone in the country with respect to the legislation, and we have received it. We advised this course at the time the legislation was introduced.


Angus MacInnis: The government may have done that, but it did more than that. There are other ways in which we can get an expression of opinion as to whether or not a statute is within the powers of this dominion.
Evidently when this statement giving the fourteen points was made the right hon. gentleman thought that he could put unemployment insurance into effect. If not, why was the statement made? The act having been passed by this parliament, in my opinion it would have been much better to leave it in effect and have some body other than the government refer it to the courts.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, and spend millions of dollars before finding out whether the expenditures were legal.


Angus MacInnis: We might, and we might not. We have taken that course in other matters. That was the way it was done in connection with the Lemieux act. Had that been done, we might have found ways and means of giving effect to the legislation. We cannot do that now, until some more definite ways are found of changing it.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes-illegal ways and unlawful means.


Angus MacInnis: 
Robert Emmett Finn: You are a mind reader.


Angus MacInnis: I would say further that he is not meeting the same class of returned men as is the Minister of National Defence.
He does not meet those men in the lobbies of the Hotel Vancouver and the Chateau Laurier; he meets them in other places.


Robert Emmett Finn: Where?


Angus MacInnis: On the bread line.


Robert Emmett Finn: Where is that?


Angus MacInnis: My hon. friend's understanding of conditions in the dominion is worse than I thought it was if he does not know the whereabouts of a bread line in any city in Canada. In the Vancouver Province of January 23, 1937, I noticed this item:
Returned soldiers and their families are urgently in need of underclothes and shoes. If donors will phone the Returned Soldiers' Club, Seymour 7570, contributions will be called for.
Those are the men whom the hon. member for Vancouver North meets and who bring their problems to him. Those men are not concerned with the matter of military dress, which was the subject of a military order that was put on Hansard by the present deputy speaker (Mr. Sanderson). These men do not care whether ties are thirty-one inches long or not. They are concerned about the question whether they are going to have a shirt or a pair of shoes to wear. There is undoubtedly a difference between the returned soldiers with whom the minister, on the one hand, and the hon. member for Vancouver North, on the other, come in contact. In the military orders issued and put on the records of this house in 1935 by the present deputy speaker I find this item:
Paragraph 49, Dress Regulations for the Canadian militia, 1932, prescribes a black bow tie, and this paragraph is being amended by adding thereto the words "with square ends." Ties with pointed ends should not be worn, and the edges of the bow should be straight and parallel.


Robert Emmett Finn: Hear, hear.


Angus MacInnis: Then section (C) reads:
Particular attention should be paid to the dimensions of the tie, which should be about two inches wide at the ends, and the length of the tie, in inches, should be twice the size of the collar, namely, an officer wearing a ISi collar should wear a tie approximately 31 inches long.
The returned men the hon. member for Vancouver North had in his mind are not concerned whether the tie is thirty-one inches long or forty-one inches long. They are more concerned with having a shirt, with having a coat, with having shoes in which they can walk about in the Vancouver rain. These are the men he is interested in. It is no wonder he brings their troubles and miseries before
1000	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Maclnnis
this house. I can see the hon. member for Vancouver North when a returned man comes up to him, shabbily dressed, with no soles to his shoes, having to keep his coat collar up because he has no shirt on, and I can see the pained expression on the face of the hon. member-I have watched him-and he says, "Well my friend, I am sorry, but we are going to have 102 aeroplanes, just think of that. Your shoes may be bad, but look, we are going to have 102 aeroplanes to protect you." Protect him from what? They cannot protect him from poverty and misery, and if they cannot protect him from that they cannot protect him from anything. This returned man says to the hon. member, " Do you know where I can get a pair of cast-off shoes?" He replies, " Well, your shoes may be poor, but we are going to have mine sweepers in Vancouver harbour; just think of that! Never mind your shoes, just think of the mine sweepers." Should he not, and should we not bring those conditions to the attention of this house?
The Minister of National Defence, made reference to the resolution passed at the annual conference of the Labour party of Great Britain at Edinburgh this year. He gathered from that resolution that the Labour party in Great Britain was favouring the military program of the British government. But such is not the case. On page 906 of Hansard he quoted the resolution.
That in view of the threatening attitude of dictatorships which are increasing their armaments at an unprecedented rate, flouting international law, and refusing to cooperate in the work of organizing peace, this conference declares that the armed strength of the countries loyal to the League of Nations must be conditioned by the armed strength of the potential aggressors.
The conference therefore reaffirms the policy of the labour party,-
Notice this:
-to maintain such defence forces as are consistent with our country's responsibility as a member of the League of Nations.
Note: "As a member of the League of Nations."
I was present at that conference, and the statement was made quite definitely that that amendment did not obligate the parliamentary Labour party to vote for increased armaments in the House of Commons. They were free to oppose them if they saw fit, and we see by to-day's Montreal Gazette that they have done that. In a report of the discussion that took place on the armaments increase in the British House of Commons yesterday, I find this:
Frederick Pethick-Lawrence, a former financial secretary of the treasury, led for labour. He announced labour would vote against the resolution, due to two main reasons.

It is not necessary for me to state those reasons, but the fact is that labour is opposing the rearmament program of the British government, but would support a rearmament program if the British government would give wholehearted allegiance to the League of Nations. And not only is the Labour party opposing the British government in their rearmament program, but the Liberal party is opposing it.
Sir Archibald Sinclair for the opposition Liberals pressed the point of foreign policy. He charged the country now' was paying the price for the government's "feebleness and vacillation" in the Ethiopian dispute.
So there is no point in saying that the British Labour party is at present in favour of the government's rearmament program.


Mr. MARTIN:: Will the hon. member permit a question? I was present at Edinburgh at the conference to which he refers. Is it not true that at that conference it was resolved by the Labour party to support the then rearmament program of His Majesty's government of the United Kingdom as distinguished from the decisions of the past week?


Angus MacInnis: No; it is not true.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say it is true.
Mr. MaoINNIS: Well, we must differ on that point. The leader of the opposition, Major Attlee, made the statement quite clearly that the resolution then passed at the conference put the Labour party under no obligation to support the armament program of the British government.
Then the Minister of National Defence referred to Sweden. There is no comparison in this matter between Sweden and Canada. Sweden is an old nation which is very close to the centre of trouble in Europe. In Sweden most of their present armaments are of long standing. When the question of increase in military expenditures for the defence of Sweden came up in the Rigsdag last spring this is the position the social democratic party took. They said they would not consider external defence separate from internal defence; in other words they would not consider external defence separate from social security within. They had proposed a measure to increase old age pensions, and because they would not accept the rearmament program suggested by the opposition they were defeated. They went to the country and were returned, as was certain would be the case, with an increased majority. There is no comparison here to be made between Sweden and Canada.

National Defence-Mr. Maclnnis
Among the fourteen points of the Liberal platform I notice that regarding the last one, referring to our foreign relations, he said, "We would seek to further the League of Nations in its work." Unfortunately that part of the program has not been fulfilled, any more than that dealing with unemployment insurance. Almost the first thing they did after coming into office was to sabotage the league, and to a great extent the Canadian government is responsible for the position the League of Nations is in to-day
The Minister of National Defence told us there was no new policy and there were no increases; then he went on to tell us what the increases were. I have often wondered what are the uses of those increases in arms, planes and military equipment and supplies at the present time. I wonder how much protection the men who line up at Hamilton Hall, in my hon. friend's constituency, every day in order to get their handout of clothes are going to get under this scheme. In British Columbia we are going to be protected from the Japanese. In the prairie provinces we need aeroplanes to protect us against sporadic raids on our sources of food supply. In Quebec we are going to be protected from subversive elements. In a speech delivered in this city on February 10 of last year the Minister of National Defence said:
There are two cardinal and guiding principles to be borne in mind when establishing a system of national defence; first, we must have the defence forces sufficient to control subversive elements from within and sufficient to repel attacks from without.
It is rather strange that in his address in the house on Monday evening of this week the minister made no reference at all	to subversive	elements.	We	were toldthat these increases in the military forces of	the country	were necessary	in orderto	maintain our	neutrality.	Yet	when thequestion of Canada remaining neutral in any future war was brought up in the house some weeks ago the government took the position that it would be impossible for Canada to say in	advance that	she would	remain neutral
under any circumstances, that no one could say whether or not we could remain neutral.
Now I should like to know what are "tlTe subversive elements for which we require such enormous increases. Evidently in 1936 this was the important point in the program of the Minister of National Defence, because he put it first. Is there any indication that the present forces in the country are inadequate to cope with any situation that may develop? In my opinion there is no more to fear from disorder within this country today than there has been at any time within
the last twenty years; in fact I think there is less to fear. But who are the subversive elements against which we are going to guard ourselves, and can it be shown that an increased military force is a satisfactory way of dealing with them? Does the Minister of National Defence take the position that what he is pleased to call subversive elements "just growed" like Topsy in Uncle Tom's Cabin? Should he not take the modern view that cause and effect follow each other as a natural sequence? The modern way of dealing with unrest within a country is to try to find the causes of the unrest. If the minister would take a little time to associate himself with the people who do the work of this country he would soon find that there is reason enough for social unrest. If he would take time to read the briefs that have been presented before the textile inquiry he would acquire a better understanding of why sometimes people are driven to action which may be considered illegal, in an effort to remove their economic difficulties.
The textile commission was investigating conditions largely in the province of Quebec. Is it merely an accident that on the part of members from that province we find emphasis placed on the necessity of increasing armaments in order to preserve the country from subversive elements?-as one of those hon. members said the other evening, communist and labour troubles? For myself, after I read certain sections of the brief presented to the commissioner investigating the textile companies I came to the conclusion that if there are subversive elements at work within the province of Quebec those elements are not the communists or the labour organizations. They are the textile companies themselves. But I doubt very much if a bomber would be sent by this government to protect the workers from exploitation by those companies. I would point out also that, in our fast moving world, those who to-day are crying loudly for the putting down of subversive elements, to-morrow may find themselves to be the subversive elements. In consequence it behooves us to get busy and make an attempt to remove the conditions which generate subversive activities rather than to prepare to suppress such activities, which are more or less protests against intolerable conditions.
We are arming for defence. As the minister mentioned each increase in armaments, he told the house that they were for defence. The speakers on the government side of the house, when they attempted to defend the policy of the government at all, took the same line. Of course there is nothing new in that;
1002	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Maclnnis
all countries are arming for defence. Great Britain is arming for defence. The United States is arming for defence; Russia is arming for defence. Do not let us forget that following the discussion in the House of Commons in England yesterday with reference to their armament program, a man prominent in navy circles in the United States made the statement that in view of the increasing expenditure on arms in Great Britain the United States might also have to increase her armaments.


Robert Emmett Finn: But the president did not say that.


Angus MacInnis: The president will be
guided by his advisers, and this gentleman was one of his advisers.


Robert Emmett Finn: What was his name?


Angus MacInnis: He was a rear admiral of the navy. I can give my hon. friend all the information he wants. I am referring to Admiral William D. Leahy, chief of naval operations, who made this statement, as quoted in the press:
It is a fair presumption that if any other power expands its fleet the United States may find it necessary to do likewise.
This is the traditional policy of the United States, to maintain a navy second to none, which means that the United States navy must not be second to the British navy, regardless of our friendly relations. As I was saying, all the countries are arming for defence. Germany is arming for defence; Hitler says Germany is arming for the defence of the German people and their right to live. In a book I read recently the statement was made that Great Britain never engaged in a war of aggression, that all her wars were wars of defence. The author pointed out, however, that strange as it may appear Great Britain has come out of every war with increased territory and usually with a great deal of other booty as well.


Robert Emmett Finn: Do you believe that?


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has done nothing but interrupt the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr Maclnnis) since he began to speak, and the hon. member for Halifax has not once risen to his feet in order to express his interruptions properly. If the debates of this house are to continue along this line we will never get. any business done at all. For the past half hour the hon. member has been in his seat and has done nothing but mumble and interrupt the hon. member who has the floor, and I say he ought to be reproved.


Robert Emmett Finn: What are you doing?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will ask you to see, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member who has the floor gets an opportunity to speak, as is the right of every hon. member.


Walter Edward Foster: When the hon. member for Halifax said a few words, he did not speak very loudly. I thought the hon. member who is now speaking did not mind it very much, because he did not ask that the member who was interrupting be called to order.


Angus MacInnis: We are told, then, that we are not committed to taking part in any trouble overseas. That may be true at this time, but let us bear in mind that Great Britain is not actively engaged in war at the moment. As the law now stands the governor in council may send the militia anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for our defence. In this connection may I briefly refer to the militia act.
In the event of an emergency which section 2 (b) of the act defines as war, invasion, riot or insurrection, real or apprehended, section 64 empowers the governor in council to place the militia or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of an emergency.
The emergency, if there is one, lies with the governor in council to determine. Before we know it, if we have armies and war equipment, they will be sent wherever they are needed. Speaking in the British House of Commons yesterday Mr. Neville Chamberlain said:
So far as the dominions are concerned, it is not the intention to call upon the dominions to make any contribution to a common fund. The dominions, as a matter of fact, have spent a great deal of money-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Angus MacInnis: May I finish reading this?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, let the hon. member finish.


Angus MacInnis: I shall continue:
The dominions, as a matter of fact, have spent a great deal of money upon perfecting or improving their own defences, and that is their contribution to the common fund, but there is no other form of contribution, of which I am aware, under discussion at the present time.
So, you see there is a common fund to which the dominions contribute.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the hon. member a question? I did not like to interrupt him when he was speaking. He

National Defence-Mr. Gauthier
made a positive statement that one of the first acts of the present administration, after taking office, was to sabotage the League of Nations. Would he please tell the house in what way that is true?


Angus MacInnis: First of all, may I thank the Prime Minister for not interrupting me while I was speaking; I had plenty of interruption. I do not think the right hon. gentleman is at a loss to know to what I referred. Very shortly after he took office-possibly before he took office-the League of Nations decided to apply sanctions against Italy, and named her the aggressor in Abyssinia. Then the question of oil sanctions was raised in the council of the league. If there were anything necessary to stop Italy in Abyssinia, it would be the application of oil sanctions. This government repudiated the suggestion supposed to have been made by Canada's representative at Geneva. Could there be anything more calculated to give assurance to Italy that Canada was not with the league than this attitude with respect to the application of sanctions? It was a matter of giving comfort to the enemy, and I say in doing that Canada sabotaged the league.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As a matter of accuracy may I state that so far as the application of sanctions is concerned, the present government applied sanctions against Italy. So far as oil sanctions are concerned the present administration made it perfectly clear that the suggestion was not a Canadian suggestion, that it was a suggestion of a committee of the league, and that it was altogether wrong to say that the application of oil sanctions was Canada's project. There was nothing more than that, so far as the present administration is concerned.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not until December, though, that it was done.


Angus MacInnis: Was there any danger to Canada, even if it were Canada's suggestion?


Ernest Lapointe: If war had been declared or had spread as a result of the application of oil sanctions, would the hon. member have been in favour of Canada participating in that war?


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. MERCIER:: Answer.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, give me time.


Paul Mercier: Don't make a detour.


Angus MacInnis: This government applied sanctions. If war had resulted from the application of sanctions, what position would this government be in? The purpose of
sanctions was to stop aggression in Abyssinia. The more absolute the sanctions applied, the greater the possibility of stopping aggression. Any action taken under the league might lead to war.


Ernest Lapointe: But
suppose the hon. member is wrong, and there had been a war, would he have been in favour of participating in that war?


Angus MacInnis: Most certainly, in any action which Canada as a member of the league would take to protect another member of the league.


Ernest Lapointe: You must have some armament for that, though.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, but we are not using it for that purpose.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, every time a public man has to express an opinion or to advance a policy on a question of vital importance to his country, he must do it as fairly as possible. The satisfaction he may derive from seeing his name in all the papers, his concern about reelection, the more or less attractive reward that may be held out to him according to his attitude toward the party which he supports, in fact every personal consideration must give way to his duty as a representative of the people, and as a patriot.


Mr. BOULANGER:: Mr. Speaker, I deem
it my duty to raise a point of order. The hon. member has just made a statement that I cannot let silently go by. From the outset, the hon. member sought to leave the impression that those who do not share his views are actuated by personal interest and a desire to reap some benefit from the party to which they belong. I cannot let such a statement pass without protest, and I ask, according to rule 41 of the Standing Orders, that the hon. member be called to order, and that he be reminded that he has no right to impute motives to others.
The hon. member is a newcomer in the House of Commons. He may have many things to learn yet; in the first place, politeness and decency. I do not impute motives to anyone, and I do not want to have any imputed to me. I let everybody free to express their views and I claim the same privilege. I am endeavouring to be polite, courteous and considerate, and I am expecting others to treat me likewise.
Therefore, I shall ask you, Mr. Speaker, under rule 41, and according to the Standing Orders of the house which preclude the imputation of motives to a fellow member,

National Defence-Mr. Gauthier
to call the hon. member to order, further that he be asked to withdraw the offensive words which he has just uttered, and that he be reminded that the debates of this house must not be disparaged by personal remarks.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of order, I wish to state that the hon. member did not mention any member of the house in particular, and that he has a perfect right to comment upon previous speeches. The hon. member who opened this debate made no personal reference to the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger)-


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Gauthier: One speech on a point of order ought to be enough.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: If you
will permit me, I shall quote the rule to which I have just referred in English, because I have not the French version before me. Here is what rule 41 says:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof. No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
And a little further, at page 97 of Beau-ohesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, number 207:
The imputation of bad motives different from those acknowledged, misrepresenting the language of another or accusing him, in his turn, of misrepresentation, charging him with falsehood or deceit; or contemptuous or insulting language of any kind; all these are unparliamentary and call for prompt interference.
While addressing the house, the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) stated clearly that those who did not share his views-


Pierre Gauthier: It is
untrue.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: -that those who expressed opinions contrary to his own were probably actuated by personal motives and were likely seeking some reward for the services which they rendered the Liberal party. That is what I am objecting to, Mr. Speaker, and I ask that the member be called to order, and furthermore that he be asked to withdraw his statements.


Liguori Lacombe: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of order, I consider that it would be most unfair to call the hon. member to order. The house will divide,
[Mr. BoulangerJ
either to-night or to-morrow or later, on this motion which has been presented by the hon. member for Vancouver North.


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of order-


Walter Edward Foster: I do not
think that the hon. member for Portneuf, in the course of his remarks, has mentioned the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse. I listened to him attentively, and while there was some noise in the house, I do not think that his remarks can be construed as being meant for any particular member of the house who has previously spoken on this question.


Pierre Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver North, I had no other purpose than that of expressing openly my views, and I am sure that they will be respected as much as I respect those of others. May I hope, sir, that the stand I am taking will be well understood by my political leaders, whom I still trust, even though I may not share their views on the advisability of increasing these estimates, also by those who are from another race than my own, and by others whose political faith is different from that to which I boast to belong since I entered public life.
I was born, and I live in a French-Canadian province which is part of the Canadian confederation. Although proud of being a French-Canadian, I am proud also of being a citizen of Canada. And I dare believe that following the observations I wish to offer bo this house, I shall 'have no apology to make, no regret, and that I shall still have the satisfaction of being able to face my compatriots, whether in the province of Quebec or in any other province of this dominion.
The motion of the hon. member may be divided into two parts, for the object of this discussion. Thus the first one:
This house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for purposes of national armament-
And the second one:
-in contrast with the inadequate provision for the social security of all sections of the Canadian people.
Judging by the several speeches which have been delivered in this house, it is clear that the majority do not consider this increase as being unreasonable; on the contrary, that it is necessary and that it is our urgent duty to support it with all the strength of which a real patriot is capable. A smaller number of hon. members believe that we are not

National Defence-Mr. Gauthier
financially in a position to ask the Canadian people to vote, through their representatives in parliament, another 14 millions for national defence, that there is not such an immediate threat of invasion, and that our geographical position protects us somehow against any ambitions on the part of other nations. Mr. Speaker, I share these last views and I shall vote against the increase in the defence estimates.
We hear some people say: Of course, if an increase of a few millions to make our army more up to date and more efficient amounted to a declaration of war, or if it were likely to lead us to war, we Would be the first to vote against it; but let us hope that we would be consistent enough not to give a vote of confidence in the government immediately after- voting against an increase in the defence estimates. Mr. Speaker, since when does the liberal platform consist exclusively in a plan of national defence? Why would it be inconsistent to vote confidence in the government, and at the same time to vote against the increase of military estimates only?
The Liberals have never known of any bondage within the ranks of their party, and Canadian Liberalism owes its strength to the fact that it has no limitations of any kind. All the honourable members are, as I am myself, opposed to participation in foreign wars, but should war break out to-morrow and the empire be involved in it, they cannot tell in advance that Canada would not follow the same course as in 1914. Unforeseen circumstances will again cause the boundaries of Canada to be shifted perhaps beyond Flanders.
Let me quote a statement made on the 5th instant by Sir Samuel Hoare, first lord of the .admiralty, as reported by the Canadian Press:
Speaking at a dinner of the Bradford chamber of commerce, Sir Samuel stated the sister -states of the empire would find any system of isolated local defence extravagant and inefficient.
I shall quote at once a few comments by Sir Wilfrid Laurier upon the Guthrie amendment to Bill No. 21, introduced during the 1912-1913 session, by Sir Robert Borden, prime minister. On page 7232 of Hansard, Sir Wilfrid is reported as having said:
I now come to a consideration of the fact, made manifest by one of the last speeches of Mr. Churchill, that the admiralty favours contribution and not autonomous organization. This is not a new thing: the British admiralty has always preferred a system of imperial contribution to the idea of autonomous organisation. At the imperial conference in 1902, Lord Selborne, the predecessor of Mr. Churchill, made a proposal that we should have imperial contributions.
In 1902, in 1912, in 1937, the outstanding men who have successively discharged the duties of first lord of the British Admiralty took an entirely similar view. Sir Robert Borden shared this opinion and requested the House of Commons to vote 35 million dollars as a contribution to the naval forces of the empire. Laurier had gone down to defeat on the navy issue and he, a Liberal who believed in expenditures for this country's own defence, put up a stout fight for the triumph of his views. And we saw men who had fiercely opposed him in Quebec, we saw erstwhile nationalists turn Conservatives overnight and vote for the policy of a contribution to the empire. That was not Laurier's policy, and that is not, it seems to me, the present government's policy.
On August 4, 1914, war broke out. What did Canada do? Even those who had helped to defeat Laurier forgot their speeches on behalf of the Canadian homeland, even prominent supporters of Laurier forsook him in order to join the Union government and vote for war.
In spite of the oft-repeated assurance that national service registration would not lead to conscription, compulsory military service was established here, (I don't say that in the house) What happened, sir?
To-day, trustworthy men are governing Canada. Their policy is Canadian, as was Laurier's policy, but nevertheless Canadian blood was shed in Flanders. A country with a population of 10 million inhabitants, overcome by war fever and imperialistic enthusiasm, raised within a few months a large army. Public men who had unflinchingly opposed our participation in foreign wars voted for the dispatch of troops to help the empire. Circumstances were beyond human control, events were compelling men to act against their own will and Canada became involved in a foreign war. Such sacrifices were made by an unprepared country.
The vote we are called upon to give on the increase in our military estimates is one that expands not only our defensive power, but also our contributing capacity whenever the alarm is raised. And should the same thing happen, should events compel our leaders to act against their own will, it would be too late then to oppose armaments and to make known our refusal to participate in a foreign war in which the empire would be involved. It would be too late then to prevent war preparations and in the excitement that seizes a people in time of war, we would hear again the words: "Aye, Aye, ready.''
1006	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Gauthier
How much more will the lords of the admiralty, encouraged by circumstances and events, be tempted to play upon Canadian feelings when our country is so prepared as to be able to give a contribution more in keeping with their requirements. Now is the time to give them a warning.
Some might think that the importance of this debate is being overexaggerated. I would vote as willingly as anyone the millions which are requested if we had not such a heavy national debt, if we had a larger population to take care of taxes, and if work were more plentiful.
Why should Canada, at a time when she envisions a brighter future, when she is recovering her faith in her destinies thanks to an essentially Canadian policy, why should our country be halted on her triumphal march against economic and financial difficulties? Why should a war threat, originating not here but outside, introduce feelings of uneasiness and uncertainty about the future, into her now confident mind. She needs all her strength, all her energy if she is to win an ultimate victory, and emerge from the chaos of the post-war depression. Let those who are in favour of armaments and war carry on, if they wish, their unending quarrels. As for us, we want peace and we wish they would let us work peacefully towards securing unity and prosperity for the Canadian people. Many years ago, Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald said in an address delivered before the American congress: "We are all overarmed."
Personally, I believe that this debate and this vote are of the utmost importance and if I am taking such a stand on this question, the reason is that I have somewhat studied the history of European and many other countries. I have witnessed, as everyone has, the mournful events that have occurred since 1914 and if the same thing is to happen again, I want my vote to result neither directly nor indirectly in the participation of Canadian men in a war that would be none of our concern.


Liguori Lacombe: Hear, hear!


Pierre Gauthier: I do not presume, Mr. Speaker, to think that my vote may prevent war or my country's participation in a foreign war. Others in this house voted against conscription, which was nevertheless passed by parliament.
But they availed themselves, as I am doing now, of the right to state frankly their views, and their names have not been banished from the minds of their compatriots as if they had betrayed their country.

But war has not broken out, and I might be told to wait before passing judgment. I am waiting, Mr. Speaker, trying meanwhile to secure information about the opinions that are being entertained within the empire, in view of the so urgent need of armaments. On the 7th instant, the following statement- reported by the Canadian Press in cooperation with the Havas agency-appeared in the London Sunday Times:
Possibility of the dominions sharing expenses of the new rearmament program.
The dominions, the paper says, "could not. for example, continue to enjoy the priceless advantage of her fleet protection if they allowed Great Britain to be crushed through the air, British rearmament is at present a heavy charge on the taxpayer, the contribution now being four times that of 1914, when Great Britain already had the highest tax rate in the world.
"The burden of armaments will be far heavier than in any period of peace in our history. The line of security is to survey and utilize as far as possible the resources of the whole empire for the empire's defence."
Such is the opinion pu't forward by a London paper, and at this time when all nations of the British Commonwealth are arming, the writer believes, so it seems, that when England launches a program of armaments, Canada and the other parts of the empire should follow suit.
In a recent article published in the Montreal Star, we could read the following:
(Text) The French Canadians are not alone in asking to be shown that they should fight in any particular war. That is the attitude of all the people in this hemisphere. When the Great war broke suddenly on the world in August, 1914, Canada prepared with splendid promptness to send an expeditionary force. Her leader knew that they simply must do it-that it wat literally a matter of life or death, but her people did not. Eighty-five per cent of the first regiments that sailed for Salisbury Plain were old countrymen. What did this very significant circumstance show? Clearly that the old countrymen resident in Canada responded automatically to the call when the flag went under fire. That is the European psychology. But the Canadians took time to look into the situation and think it over. When they were convinced that it was their fight they responded nobly-but not until they were convinced. French Canada as a whole was never convinced. Many French Canadians were, however, and many of them went and died gallantly on the field of battle.
But the Canadians took time to look into the situation and think it over. When they were convinced that it was their fight they responded nobly, but not until they were convinced.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that they should never be convinced to go abroad, and in doing my utmost to convince them, should an external war break out in the future, to stay

National Defence-Mr. Gauthier
here in Canada and keep t'heir strength and their blood for their own country, I am convinced that I would be doing my duty. French Canada as a whole was never convinced -(translation) but conscription convinced them, English-speaking Canadians and Frenchspeaking Canadians, that they had to go, and many of them went to be killed in defence of democracy and of the empire. They could not resist circumstances and events, and I wonder if those who died on a foreign soil would find exaggerated the importance of this debate during which Canadians like them, who do not wish to see their fellow citizens, perhaps their sons, go through the same sad experience, are trying in every way to explain their point of view. I wonder-I fear not their judgment-if they would brand us as traitors or unpatriotic.
Needless for me to mention over again the arguments brought forward by the honourable members who spoke before me on the possibility of having to cope with trouble from wdthin our own territory. I believe the increased strength of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the finest police organization in the world, would keep us sheltered from danger. But. Mr. Speaker, and here I am dealing with the second part of the motion under discussion, certain agitations can be prevented, not by force but by a well organized, constant, fearless and intelligent struggle. You will gather from this that I wish to refer to the menace of communism.
The second part of the motion of the honourable member for Vancouver North reads as follows:
In contrast with the inadequate provision for the social security of all sections of the Canadian people.
In this, Mr. Speaker, I see an oratorical precaution and a socialistic anxiety.
The Almighty has decreed the existence of classes differing intellectually, financially and socially. To think that everybody is equal, that all the minds are equally brilliant, that man is endowed with qualities that exist and find their expression to the same degree, is only a dream.
Those who tried to make humanity believe the opposite was possible were the real founders of the socialistic idea, the first open door to the large communistic structure.
Class antagonism marked the beginning of their activities. The First Internationale was organized in the early fifties of the nineteenth century, when an industrial exhibition was in progress in London.
When Karl Marx issued his famous call: "Proletarians of all nations, unite," the socialists and communists began their activities.
To achieve its purpose, the Neo-Messianian School, to which belonged Heine and Marx, was striving to materialize the religious aspirations of an entire race.
And this was being accomplished inasmuch as possible in the silence of cells, where the communistic poison was flowing abundantly.
Disturbances fomented here and there for the purpose of making an important catch or humbling those who were called the tyrants of proletariat, and the same insidious propaganda was recurring. In the meantime, the Second Internationale was established. Jaures was one of its chief propagandists. He was even making use of the Bible and going down mine pits with it to preach his gospel where the proletarians were at work.
Years went by, then came the Third Internationale, the one responsible for the downfall of the Czars, the one that is trying to upset the political economy of the whole world.
The real important work is not done by force; it is the cells hidden behind various appellations which, in displaying a feverish diligence and a wonderful perfection of organization, spread the materialistic idea, the idea without morality, the idea without authority, the idea without God. The family has always been the object of their attention. Destruction begins there; this is where they prepare the masses by breaking the sacred bonds of family. We have to meet them there and defeat them by persuasion, sound morality and real Christian charity as our sole weapons.
In my province, young men's associations have begun the fight, a fair, gallant and patriotic fight for the preservation of race and nationality. Let us arm and assist them, and should any socialistically-inspired legislation whatsoever jeopardize their task of renovating and reconstructing, let the representatives of the people vote with courage, even if in their midst, hypocritical followers, while not deserting them, support them faintly in their endeavours, or even go so far as placing obstructions in the way often, like Jaures with the Bible, ably interpreted, and in the name of every thing that is most sacred.
Socialism and communism have nowhere created a Garden of Eden, and despite their brilliant and sometimes delusive appearance, they only bring trouble, misery and the loss of one's illusions.
A great Spanish prelate said: "Give an illusion to the distressed and a pretext to the hot-headed, and you will have a revoluton."
Let our administrators assist the distressed through fair and careful legislation and let not the hot-headed find any pretext in this legislation. Such is our duty. A great Canadian patriot once said: "Future is not a fact;

National Defence-Mr. Gauthier
we have bo create it ourselves." Being the humble representative of a rural constituency, I do not claim to be a creator but, as representative of the people, my first and only thought is their peace and happiness.
Mr. Speaker, I regret the incident that occurred at the beginning of my speech. I wonder how the words spoken by me could have been construed as an attack upon one of the honourable members. I am not a lawyer, but a humble country doctor and notwithstanding my knowledge of medicine and neurology, I am unable to do any kind of mind-reading, and I ask those who know me-there are several here-why should I be blamed for entertaining a thought that I never had?


Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) (Translation):: Mr Speaker, I hope that in
the course of the brief remarks I intend to make on the matter under discussion, I will not be interrupted on a point of order especially if it is raised by a member of the party to which I belong. I have great respect for the opinions of all those who spoke before me and all I ask of my colleagues is to respect mine. Before I proceed any further, I am bound to say however that the speeches I heard induced me to select my leaders; that selection I made a long time ago, but I am convinced that my country would be well advised to ignore the advice or the policy suggested by the honourable members for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), for Quebec West and South (Mr. Parent), for Laval-Two Mountains, (Mr. Lacombe), for Vancouver North (Mr. Mac-Neil), for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and other members of the C.C.F. party. In the best interests of my country, I think I should follow the advice given us by the members of the present government who, in the past, have given sufficient proofs of their devotion to their country and of their knowledge of Canadian international politics.
For the past two days, the object of this debate seems to have shifted. I have always been under the impression that the motion that the house go into committee of supply and the amendment to that motion called for consideration of the increase in defence estimates. I find, however, that many members who spoke on that question have not limited *their observations to that increase but have considered the matter from the point of view [DOT]of Canada's participation in foreign wars, of the sending of expeditionary forces and even of effecting direct contributions to the mother country. To one who knows that for forty

years a nationalist movement has been organized in the province of Quebec for the purpose of throwing Canadian politics into confusion, especially when the Liberal party was in power, that shift in the discussion is no surprise.
Twice we have contributed to imperial wars since confederation. First in 1899, when a Canadian contingent was sent to the Transvaal to take part in a war which many people thought unjust. I have often wondered, in pondering over history, if the leader of my party was not yet at that time imbued with that colonial spirit which made it compulsory to take part in the imperial wars. As soon as that contingent had departed, the nationalist movement came into life under the leadership of very brilliant men. in the province of Quebec, with the result that, in 1911, the Liberal government which had decided to build for our national defence a few ships, some cruisers and torpedo boats for the protection of our coasts, had to face a furious attack on the part of the nationalists.
In that election, the Liberal party lost 25 seats in the province of Quebec. The Canadian navy in that province and the reciprocity treaty in the western provinces were the main issues during the electoral campaign. The slogan in the western provinces was: No truck, no trade with the Yankees.
When these 25 members took their seats in the House of Commons they were determined to vote against any participation in imperial wars. The following year, the new government voted a direct contribution of $35,000,000 to help the British navy. I do not think that more than three or four of the 25 members which had been elected to prevent Canada of helping or taking part in foreign or imperial wars voted against this contribution of $35,000,000. And then the same men who advocated in the province of Quebec that exaggerated nationalism announced that they were admirers of the empire and that they had become imperialists.
I was in Ottawa when war broke out in 1914. Parliament was summoned immediately, two or three days later 50 millions were hastily voted and Canada was engaged in an imperial war. Our contributions to the great war increased ever since and they finally led to conscription. Our contribution to the great war and conscription have been used as an argument by those who criticize now the increase in the defence estimates. I do not blame them because they seem to confuse the expressions " increase in defence estimates " and " participation in imperial wars."

National Defence-Mr. Fournier
I will endeavour, in the course of my remarks, to give my own opinion on this subject. I am not a country doctor; I am just a lawyer who tried to learn the history of his country and to give to his fellow-citizens the benefit of whatever experience he had acquired in this house. After the great war, the whole world hoped- for eternal peace but to-day, after nearly twenty years of peace I find the same spirit of militarism still rampant.
Coming back to what I said about the part taken by Canada in two foreign wars, I want to mention the fact that it happened at a time when our expenditures were at their lowest and when we were least prepared for war. In 1899, at the time of the Transvaal war, our militia estimates were practically nil. Did the lack of militia estimates prevent us from taking part in that war? Not at all. In 1914, following the 1911 period and after the bill respecting our contribution of $35,000,000 had been defeated in the Senate, we were still finding ourselves in a period where no provision had been made towards national defence. Did that prevent parliament from voting in favour of our participation in that imperial war? Not at all.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that we should make a distinction between these two matters: "Increase in the estimates for the protection of our country," and "participation in imperial wars, sending expeditionary forces or making direct contributions to Great Britain."
We should consider now what will be the future status of our country. We are part of the British Empire. Are we satisfied to belong to the commonwealth of British nations? Personally, I am.
Our world status could be settled in two different ways. We should endeavour to obtain an effective commercial and economic protection. We might become an integral part of the republic to the south. I cannot accept that plan. We might gain our independence right now. If the Canadian parliament were to proclaim its independence, I have no doubt that Great Britain would be at a loss to find means to prevent a nation of eleven million people from proclaiming its independence while at the same time maintaining bonds of friendship with her. We have to choose between those three policies. Are we to become independent? What would our independence mean in the world, from a military standpoint? Do you think that we would enjoy the sympathy of our great neighbour to the south if we were not sheltered by the might of the British commonwealth of nations? I wonder if the United States would still have the same consideration for 31111-64
Canada. Because we are a growing nation, because we have not yet reached the phase of maturity and because we still have to rely on somebody else for the development of our territory, we must not as yet become independent. Surely our population is too small to defend the country against an aggressor.
Could we be an integral part of the United States without increasing our defence estimates? Do you believe for one moment. Sir, that the United States would let us sit quietly without contributing our share of taxation for the defence of our common territory? Considering that the United States are spending 400 million dollars to increase their navy, do you think that we would be exempt from contributing our share of taxes for such armaments? Being a part of that great republic we would be submerged by their 120 million inhabitants and we would pay our share of all future wars, which may not happen but which nevertheless cost money. We would have to make those expenses but our say in the matter would be that of ten or eleven million people as against 120 millions; our influence would only be a twelfth or a thirteenth of what we have to-day as part of the British Empire. To-day, we have an autonomous parliament. If we are allowed to express such different views as have been heard in the last few days, it is due to the fact that we have a free parliament. We can approve or denounce any measure brought down by the government. Such is our present status.
Now let us look at other countries of the world. What do we find? At the present time nations are divided into two groups. We have, first, the empires possessing vast territories: Great Britain, France, Russia, United States. How have Great Britain, France and Russia acquired their territories? By resorting to violence, to war. If Great Britain is in possession of our country to-day, it is through conquest; if she holds India, it is through force; if she took possession of Australia, it is through occupancy; if she is in possession of Transvaal and South Africa, it is the result of war.
Look at the great French empire in Africa. You will find that it is the result of conquest. Russia has conquered Siberia and other parts of Asia. United States have not so many possessions. But how have they acquired them? West Indies, Cuba, which is under their protectorate, the Philippines are all in their power as a result of the Spanish war. If those nations have been able to extend their territories in the world and if their



National Defence-Mr. Fournier
citizens have secured the trade of the conquered countries and are consequently in a position to do business in all parts of the world, if those nations have acquired all those possessions, it is through war.
Do you think that in the other group of nations, including Germany, Italy and Japan, no men could1 be found who have not been thinking and studying history and reaching the same conclusions as we have? Those three nations, stifled in their boundaries, will some day enlarge their possessions by resorting to violence, armaments, war and conquest. Take the last two instances of invasions: Manchuria, conquered in order to provide an outlet for Japanese citizens; and the conquest of Ethiopia, the natural resources of which England and France coveted. But those two great powers, rather than start a world war, let Italy take possession of tha/t immense area in which she could' pour her surplus population.
Germany is overcrowded. She demands eolonies. She casts greedy eyes on Poland. She is preparing for war and is armed up to the teeth.
Do you think the nations in the latter group, dissatisfied with their lot and jealous of other great powers, have been arming in order merely to have the satisfaction of looking at fine soldiers parading the streets? Those nations follow the example set by the nation to which we all belong. War will break out some day. Let us still hope that it will not be too soon and that we will not be called upon to participate in it.
I would now like to make a statement, sir. As a matter of principle, I am opposed to foreign wars, to our participation in wars fought in Europe, Africa or Asia. But I will not admit that,, being an integral part of the British Empire, in the event of our territory being invaded, we should stand aloof. I am in favour of defending the Canadian .territory. If the day ever comes when we must defend it, I want to be in the position of the man who buys insurance, as the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) said, I want to take the insurance before any accident happens. I want a little protection at home.
On that question of defence estimates, I have been and I am consulting every day electors in my constituency, and I will tell you an incident which confirms my own views. In our town, we have one of the finest regiments in Canada. That regiment has been in existence for more than twenty years, but without quarters suitable to its normal development. On more than one occasion, we have asked for a drill hall in Hull in order to accommodate our regiment.

Before approving the scheme, I asked its promoter to ascertain what the general opinion was and to inform me if a majority of the population, of organizations and of persons of standing in my constituency were in favour of the proposal. The movement was started in the spring of 1935. I asked the leading organizations in my district for their opinion before taking a stand myself. The archbishop of the diocese has been approached on that question by Mr. Thomas Monoion, chairman of the Senior Chamber of Commerce. I have a copy of a letter addressed by Mgr. Forbes to Mr. Moncion, on May 13, 1935, and I will read it:
May 13, 1935.
Mr. Thomas Moncion,
Chairman of the Senior Chamber
of Commerce,
Hull, Que.
Dear Sir:
Having been acquainted with the request that the Hull Senior Chamber of Commerce has the intention of presenting to the dominion government for the building of a drill hall in the city of Hull, it gives me great pleasure to encourage such a movement and to wish it success. I will go so far as encouraging it by means of the present letter. It seems to me that a drill hall is essential in Hull, because of the existence of a regular regiment. Its construction would provide work for the numerous unemployed in the city; and the existence of such a building would be useful to the city of Hull in various occasions, in addition to giving accommodation to soldiers.
Believe me yours religiously,
(Signed) Guillaume Forbes,
Archbishop of Ottawa.
A few days ago, after tihe defence estimates had been brought down in the house, my parish priest wrote to me as follows, under date of January 30, 1937:
Les Missionnaires Oblats de Marie-Immaculee, Presbytere Notre-Dame-de-Grhee,
Hull, Que., January 30, 1937.
Mr. Alphonse Fournier, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Fournier:
Those interested in the plan have asked me to write a letter for the purpose of recommending the building of a drill hall in Hull. I willingly grant that request.
The Hull Regiment, in existence for many years, has so far been accommodated in rented quarters, while, in other cities, military units have suitable buildings.	In consequence it
seems only reasonable that the Hull regiment have their own drill hall, considering moreover that the project would have the effect of relieving unemployment in these times of distress.

National Defence-Mr. Fournier
For those two reasons, it is with pleasure that I approve the request that has been sent to you.
Believe me yours truly,
(Signed) Alcide Beland, o.m.i., Parish Priest.
But I was not content with obtaining an expression of opinion from my archbishop and my parish priest, I also sought the views of the Conservative member for Hull at Quebec.
An lion. MEMBER: National?


Alphonse Fournier: Not the National, but the Conservative party. Here is his letter:
Hull, P.Q., February 1, 1937. Mr. Alphonse Fournier, C.R., M.P.,



[Stage Direction]
Dear Sir:
I take the liberty of writing you to state that I heartily endorse the plan for a drill hall in the city of Hull. I understand that the larger cities in the province of Quebec have a drill hall and I trust the federal government will think of Hull this year.
I invite attention from the ministers on this point.
This drill hall meets a real need and I trust your efforts will be crowned with success.
I will find it a pleasure and make it my duty to join at any time any delegation calling on the Minister of National Defence.
Cordially yours,
Alexandre Tache, M.P.P.
I will go a step further: L'Association Catholique des Voyageurs de Commerce in my home town goes the length of adopting a resolution and writes me the following letter:
Hull, January 30, 1937. Mr. Alphonse Fournier, M.P.,

[Stage Direction]
Dear Sir:
The O.V.C. of Notre-Dame de Hull was pleased to learn of your efforts in an endeavour to obtain a drill hall for our city.
Commendable efforts on the part of all our associations failed a few years ago to obtain such a favour from the government. We venture to believe that we will be fortunate in our present endeavour.
Although opposed to any militaristic idea or imperialistic tendency, the A.Y.C. is glad to give its support that the city of Hull may obtain a drill hall such as other cities have enjoyed for long years past.
You will recall the date on which the National Defence estimates were brought down.
A resolution to that effect was adopted last evening, January 29, at our regular meeting.
Assuring you, sir, of our deep consideration, we beg to remain
Faithfully yours,
L'A.C.V. de Notre-Dame-de-Hull, Georges-H. Grondin,
President.
Ernest Lapointe: January of this year?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes, January 30, 1937.


Vincent Dupuis: They have changed their
minds.


Alphonse Fournier: Now, so as to obtain
adequate support for my argument before the house, I also approached l'A.C.J.C., my home town branch being the Groupe Reboul, and they also wrote supporting the plan. Only, as young men, I admire their perspicacity: foreseeing the discussion which was to take place in this house, they wrote:
Hull, P.Q., January 28, 1937. Mr. Alphonse Fournier, M.P.,
Main St.,



[Stage Direction]
Dear Sir:
We have recently learned from the press that the question of constructing a drill hall in our city was being seriously considered. Some influential people in this city as well as a particular association have looked favourably upon the projected execution of this work.
May we be allowed in turn to request your support for this purpose? It is true that in these markedly unsettled times, when everyone talks only of conflicts, this might seem, in the eyes of some people, to be of bad omen, but as it does not appear to us to be the opportune moment for passing judgment on the various opinions which may be entertained-which we have been satisfied to do amongst ourselves- we will limit ourselves simply to request your support for this plan because it will be a source of employment for several unemployed and it will endow our city with a beautiful building.
We trust you will give consideration to this request and thanking you in anticipation of your usual kind attention, we beg to remain Faithfully yours,
Le Groupe Reboul de Hull,
Aurfele Cousineau,
President.
Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Alphonse Fournier: But I went a bit further, I approached the still younger group, I called on the Jocistes:
Hull, January 30, 1937.
To Mr. Alphonse Fournier, M.P.,



[Stage Direction]
La Jeunesse Ouvriere, Section Notre-Dame, endorses the proposed drill hall for the city of Hull.
Louis Raymond Cousineau.
Having previously had to deal with the young people, I endeavoured to see the older ones, and a resolution was passed by the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society in my own city, requesting that a drill hall be built in our locality. I shall not read the whole letter, but in it is contained a restriction to the effect that they are not imperialists, that they do
31111-64i
[Stage Direction]
National Defence-Mr. Fournier
not wish to take any part in wars, claiming
however that the construction of a drill hall in Hull would in no way affect a declaration of war on the part of Canada or Great Britain at a future time.
I have also a letter from The National Catholic Union. Then come the more sedate citizens in my city-the municipal council- who passed the following resolution, on the 1st February, 1937:
That this council supports the resolution passed by the Hull chamber of commerce under date of January 22, 1937, in connection with the building of a drill hall in Hull, and that copy of the present resolution be sent to Mr. Fournier, member of parliament.
Certified to be a true copy from the minutes of the Hull city council.
H.-Leon Leblanc,
Clerk.
The small property owners' association have no apprenhension as to the building of a drill hall in our community. I am in receipt from them of a resolution requesting my support for the proposal. The Sons of Canada, a well-known organization in our country, passed a lengthy resolution giving their hearty support to the building of the drill hall, and adding: Even though a drill hall were built in Hull, do you think that the government shall at once declare a war or participate in a war? Not at all; I do not think so; no more than I am of the opinion that in passing the present estimates the government's intention is to declare a war on any one whatsoever or to take part in a foreign war. It requires far-fetched arguments to lead one to believe that such a slight increase of 15 million dollars may Touse the world to the extent of leading to a world war at the end of this session. I do not think so.
So as to forget none, I shall proceed. The most widely read paper in my own city is Le Droit, published in Ottawa. I have here an article under the signature of Mr. Henri Lessard who is in charge of the editorial page devoted to Hull. Mr. Lessard is not an imperialist; he is opposed to foreign wars, as well as to any expeditionary forces being sent for participation in a war in Great Britain, in Europe, or elsewhere. This is what he has to say:
The building of a drill hall in Hull would not necessarily mean a greater drive towards militarism or imperialism. In fact, for years past we have had in Hull a local regiment, a regiment which forms part of the non-permanent militia and of which our city is justly proud as a result of the fame this corps has won as well as for the part it takes in connection with our various public ceremonies, both civil and religious. The regiment is a French Canadian one.
[Mr. Fournier.1
The article from which I have just quoted is dated the 29th of January, when the national defence estimates were laid on the table of the house. Mr. Lessard concludes as follows:
We are surely not spoiled by the dominion government, whose seat is close to us; they know or should know what our requirements are. Let us hope that this time we shall be given more favourable consideration. It surely would not be once too many.
In all fairness to the author of that article, I may say that a few days ago he called me up over the phone and inquired as to what was my stand in connection with the debate now taking place. I replied that I was listening with an attention, at which I was wondering myself, to every speech delivered in the house and that I was endeavouring to find, in the arguments offered on both sides, a happy medium, in other words, such a solution as should be arrived at by a government fully aware of their responsibilities at the present time, in connection with military matters. Naturally, his telephone call is being answered to-day. I am in favour of the 14 million dollars increase. I do not want the government to continue along these lines next year, but having closely followed the debates in this house and knowing as I do the leaders of my party, I am safe in saying that they would be ashamed of the statements made by them since the opening of the session, had they not spoken the truth. In support of my contention, may I quote from a speech delivered by the leader of the Liberal party. I would rather believe in his words than in anything said by the members of C.C.F. group, or even by my colleagues in the Liberal party. This is what he tells us-believe it or not: I always believe a man until such time as I am satisfied that I am deceived by him. Then, we have what the right honourable the Prime Minister stated when speaking to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth):
As far as the estimates presented to parliament at this session are concerned, any increase placed there has been only and solely because of what the government believe to be necessary for the defence of Canada, and for Canada alone.
And then:
No request of any kind has come from the British government to our government with respect to a single item that appears in the estimates as they have been brought down.
Would the Prime Minister mislead, not only the public, but the members of his own party? I do not think so. Would the honourable the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) involve us in a foreign war? I do not think he would.

National Defence-Mr. Brunette
Are the four ministers from the province of Quebec inspired by militaristic or imperialistic ideas? It would be a repudiation of all their past, a surrender of the political ideal they have extolled and preached for the last 35 or 40 years. Would it be possible to believe that these men, who have attained the zenith of their political career and-some of whom are in their declining years, would come before the parliament of t'heir country and deceive their faithful supporters? If it were true, I would lose all confidence in human organizations. Do you think that they would come before the parliament of their country to say openly: " Let us vote 14 million dollars " while they would be whispering to us: "Do not say it, but it is for the purpose of sending an expeditionary force to fight in England "? There are people who go on repeating that our public men have debased themselves on the point of making utterances before the parliament of their country contrary to 'their own views. I am one of those who would abandon their own party if I thought that the present government could be so insincere. There are some people and representatives of certain organizations who are now going through the length and breadth of our province and are advising the people as they have done before, but they will have to admit, as they have done in the past, before crowded meetings, that they have become reconciled with the former leader of the Liberal party. Why did they make their peace with him if they were right before? I sincerely believe that it is not the members of the present government who are insincere but rather those who, in the hope of getting the upper hand in our province, neglect none of the means which might make them succeed, and stoop to all kinds of stratagems for the purpose of misleading the people. I am convinced that I express truthfully the sentiments of the population of our province.
Now, as I want to cover the whole question, I must say that I have received a resolution passed by the junior chamber of commerce of the city of Hull, in which they express their opposition to the construction of a drill hall in our city on the ground that they have asked for the construction of an auditorium, and that the building of a drill hall would interfere with their plans for a recreation centre. I am told that the same organization held another meeting a few days ago at which some young men denounced in the most violent terms any kind of participation in the wars of the empire. I sympathize with the young people of my city and of my constituency. I am just as opposed to any participation in the wars of the empire, but when
they say that the increase of the military appropriations is equivalent to participation in war. I cannot agree with them.
I have not yet heard of a supporter of the present government who is going to vote for the amendment of the honourable member for Vancouver North. I do not think there will be any. Either to-night, to-morrow or Monday we shall have to vote for the amendment or for the motion of the Minister of Finance. The Liberal party is going to give its unanimous support to the main motion and will vote against the amendment. Then, when we go into committee of supply, those who are opposed to the increase in the military appropriations will be free to make their objections; it is their right. I repeat that I respect their opinions, as I want my own opinion to be respected. If the supporters of the government are displeased with its policy, they are at liberty to vote against it.
After listening to the speech of the Minister of Defence, I wondered if he could add anything to what he said. Will he be asked to give the names of the ships we are going to purchase? What other details could be asked for? Has he got to tell us the number of buttons on each uniform? Shall he have to tell us the colour of the brick to be used in the construction of the drill hall? We must not stoop to such trifles, and since we have in the past given our confidence to men who are better informed than we are, since we have praised these same men, and told the people of our province that they are the great public men of our country, they must to-day retain our confidence. Is it because you do not see the question from the same angle that you are going to withdraw your support from them? Are the people of the province of Quebec going to say that their four ministers do no longer enjoy their confidence? They would not be justified in doing so.
In so far as I am concerned, in my capacity as member for the constituency of Hull, I shall vote in favour of the increased appropriations, but I shall oppose any kind of participation in foreign wars.
Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain):: Some hon. members were perhaps able to come to a quick decision as to our necessities in regard to armaments. I confess that I took considerable time to study the proposition from every angle, and that I found it very embarrassing. But after all there are only two views; there is the imperialist point of view, which means that Canada's welfare is of necessity connected with the welfare of the empire or of the British commonwealth of nations, and there is the Canadian point of view-shall I call it the "home-made"

National Defence-Mr. Brunelle
point of view?-which means that once for all we must cease to look at or think of the empire or the motherland in framing our policies. The latter is my viewpoint. We must regulate our business as an independent nation, free to help or not to help a country which may be at war, and free to arm or to disarm as we see fit. I understand that it is difficult for some Canadians to break the last link which unites Canada to England and to view our situation regardless of what tiheir feelings may be as to the old country. I, however, venture the assertion that of the 245 members or thereabouts of this house there is not one who has not given the most serious thought to the question of national defence. I am sure every hon. member will be sincere when he votes on the question of armament. One may discuss different points of view; one may disagree with another, but one must give others the same credit for sincerity and honesty and patriotism as he expects for himself. The duty of a representative of the people is, after all, to try to find the right path, and to express such views and act in such a way as may be in conformity with his conscience.
If there were only two courses to follow; if I had to vote either for the government or for the Conservative party, I admit I would not hesitate for one moment, for I am certain that the Conservative party, according to past declarations and the past policy of that party, would consider $15,000,000 for rearming our nation to be only small change. In regard to this most important question of armaments I must place what I sincerely believe is the interest of my constituents before any party interest. To make my position clear and to be consistent with myself I shall read what I said in this house on February 4 last:
I consider that considerations of prudence and foresight demand that Canada, as one of the nations of the world, should have some kind of an army, in the same way that every city needs a police force. We therefore need an army whose size and cost should be measured by the danger that threatens us and our ability to pay. My opinion is that we are not exposed to great danger, and it is a fact that the state of our finances does not permit us to undertake any expenditure that is not absolutely necessary. I therefore object to the provision of armaments to an extent not justified by any immediate danger and by the financial resources of the country. Above all, Mr. Speaker, I object to any participation by Canada in the armament race.
Believing that the war danger in Canada is not pronounced, believing that our means are not abundant enough, and believing that an adequate Canadian defensive or offensive army would be almost an impossibility, I

regret I must come to the conclusion that the increase in our military estimates is too large. I am of opinion that we must have some protection, but the difference between the previous year's military estimates and those of this year is too great. The answer to the question whether or not we should spend more for armaments this year is not selfevident. It is not, as the expression goes, lying under one's very nose. There are some people who believe we ought to arm to the extent that we are preparing to arm, and there are other people who do not so believe. After all, we are preparing for future events, and we do not know with any certainty what those future events will be. So there is no certainty upon which one can base his attitude with regard to armaments. The only certain thing is that this year we contemplate spending a great deal more than we spent last year.
It is sometimes hard to do one's duty as one sees it, Mr. Speaker. I find it painful to disagree with the leaders of my party and so many of my Liberal friends. I respect the opinions of those who have different views, and I hope that my opinions will be respected also. I have considered this question just as seriously as a person could consider any question; I have listened to the speeches that have been made in this house; I have listened to the statistics that have been presented and the arguments that have been advanced both for and against the increase in the estimates. As I have already said, I have been forced to make up my mind to vote against the increase in the estimates for our Department of National Defence.
I like people who speak their minds freely. I like people who look a situation in the face and say what they think. It seems to me queer that our hon. friends who form His Majesty's most loyal opposition should be so quiet on this subject. It appears to me that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who thought it expedient to speak for about two hours with regard to the appointment of Mr. John Vallance in connection with rehabilitation work in western Canadb, should not have five minutes in which to address us and to demonstrate that an expenditure of $15,000,000 is not very much, that perhaps he would be prepared to go to the extent of $75,000,000 or $100,000,000. Probably if that were done, it might help us to form a better judgment on this issue. I would have expected our very eloquent friend the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) to give us an illuminating address on this important question. I should like to have heard the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe

National Defence-Mr. Brunelle
(Mr. Rowe), who has the honour of leading the Conservative party in the province of Ontario, give this house the views of the farmers of Ontario. Probably, however, there is some justification for his absence, he is busy, and I have no doubt he is concentrating on a measure which will equitably apportion certain school taxes in the said province. I am a new member of this house; I have not had much experience in politics, but I wonder whether it is possible that political expediency may have something to do with the attitude of the Conservative party on this matter. I am tempted to apply to the Conservative group a word that was applied by the poet La Fontaine to a cat which was hunting in very poor disguise. He said:
Ce bloc enfarine ne me dit rien qui vaille.
The "wait andi see" policy which is being followed by the opposition is not very courageous, nor does it seem very frank. I might compare the attitude of the right hon. leader of the opposition with the attitude of a certain accused person who, when asked by the magistrate whether or not he was guilty, replied, "How can I tell whether or not I am guilty until I have heard what the witnesses have to say?"
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Hervé-Edgar Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, the amendment now before the house reads as follows:
This house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for purposes of national armament in contrast with the inadequate provision for the social security of all sections of the Canadian people.
The mover of the amendment (Mr. Mac-Neil) did not see fit to stop when his idea had been well expressed, and when he had expressed his views against an increase in armaments, in the following terms:
This house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for purposes of national armament.
With that part of the amendment I am in accord, and would have been content to support it. But he complicated matters by connecting with the first part of the amendment another part dealing with social security and social legislation, that sort of socialism which is and has been advocated in and out of this house by members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. It will be noticed that both the mover and the seconder of the
amendment are members of that party. I am sure they are sincere, and I am sure they are not communists, but I feel that a great deal of what they say is of a nature to develop communistic ideas in the minds of some, and to encourage others who have graduated in the most advanced form of communism, to go ahead and operate among our people.
My views on social legislation are quite different from those of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I should not want the moneys now allocated to armaments to be employed for the development or realization of the reforms preached by the party I have just named. Besides, this is a vote of want of confidence. It is evident that if the government were overthrown the Conservative party would have to assume office and the direction of the country. The expenses incurred would be very great, when we remember that during that party's last term of office, between 1930 and 1935, they increased the national debt by $920,000,000.
I shall vote against the amendment now before the house, because I find fault with the last part of it. But I shall also vote against the estimates, when they come before the committee of supply, because I do not deem it expedient that the government should spend so much or increase the estimates to such an extent in one year.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a quality to be frank and outspoken. I say the impression should not go out to the public that I hold the view that the present government, and particularly the ministers from Quebec, are imperialists. I am sure they are not imperialists, any more than I am-and I am not an imperialist. I do not want the impression to go out to the public that the present cabinet, and particularly those members of it who are from Quebec, are in favour of Canada's participation in any imperial or European war, because they are no more in favour of our participating in such wars than I am-and I am not in favour of such participation. They simply wish to protect Canada against attack, and to increase the national defence estimates by $15,000,000 for that purpose. That is their sincere point of view. My humble belief is that the $15,000,000 increase is too much, and that is the reason for my dissent.
While I am on my feet may I fulfil another duty, in the name of justice. I wish to denounce a certain section of the press of the province of Quebec for the falsehoods, misrepresentations and sins of commission and omission which appear regularly in their pages with respect to the attitude of the present

National Defence-Mr. Brunette
cabinet, particularly the ministers from Quebec, and the Liberal party in general, concerning armaments. A great deal of the press of the province of Quebec is at this time making a determined effort to mislead the people of that province, and to make political capital out of the question of armaments. I am sure our ministers can well defend themselves, but to represent the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) or other ministers from the province of Quebec as imperialists or as ministers in favour of Canada's participation in European wars is to show malice aforethought and to express a base lie.
May I mention particularly L'lllustration as the best example of how vile, how low and how reptile-like a newspaper may be, in the paid service of unscrupulous and furious political opponents. As a new member I have observed what has been going on in the chamber and, astonishing as the fact may be, day after day I have seen that yellow paper, L'lllustration, on the desk and in the hands of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) and have seen him and the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) bend their heads together over that abominable sort of paper, which I call L'lllustration, apparently enjoy the perusal of its articles and make feast of the outrageous and deliberate falsehoods appearing in its pages about the attitude of the ministers from Quebec. Those are falsehoods which are intended to make the people of Quebec lose confidence in the Minister of Justice, in the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), in the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power), and in the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret).
May I praise most heartily the independent press for the good work it is doing for its readers, and the impartial newspapers for the service they render their subscribers, but let me loathe and deprecate a paper such as L'lllustration for the bad sendee it renders to the citizens of the province of Quebec.
I regret that in connection with the issue of armaments and the increase in the estimate for the Department of National Defence I have to disagree with the government, but in doing so I am getting not nearer but much farther away from the Conservative party, which in Canada is known as the imperialist party. It is quite possible that the government is right in its present defence policy and it is also possible the future will prove that the estimates for this year were not excessive. Time will tell. I foresee that the estimates for national defence will be passed by this house and I am sure they will be found to be much too small by the Conservative party, whether or not they admit it. I

am proud to declare that the policy of the Liberal party has been proved to be good and profitable to the country in every respect. I believe in that policy, but I disagree as to the amount intended to be spent this year on armaments.


Mr. L. D. TREMBLAY (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, in rising this evening to oppose the amendment now before the house, I am conscious of fulfilling a serious and imperative duty. Since the beginning of this debate I have listened to the views which have been expressed. I have given much attention to this question of armaments. The amendment reads:
This house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for purpose of national armament-
I ask the mover of this amendment (Mr. MacNeil) if the house should not also view with concern the conditions facing the whole world at the present time. Every nation is increasing its armaments at a terrific pace. Against whom are they arming? Is my hon. friend in a position to tell me? Does he think what is going on now in Europe is encouraging? Does he view conditions in Spain as a proof of peace? Let us not be satisfied with words. In June, 1914, who ever thought that a European war was impending? The hon. member is a fellow war veteran and I want to assure him that I am not discussing such a momentous problem from a partisan point of view. Will my hon. friend state that in the spring of 1914 there were even a dozen men in Canada who foresaw the war that came in that year? I hate war just as much as do he and my other war comrades. Like all hon. members of this house I do not want my children-I am proud to say that I have eleven-to have to go to war, and I shall not betray them and my fellow citizens and force them to undergo the terrible experiences which the men of my generation had to go through.
Surely the mover of this amendment realizes that the world hardly perceives where it is going and does not realize what may be in store for it. I am astounded at some of the statements made by hon. members. They say that Canada either will be threatened with war, or will not. If she is threatened with war, some hon. members say that either England or the United States will defend us and we need not worry. If she is not threatened with war, some hon. members say, "Why should we arm?" I wish to take up the first alternative, namely, that in case of war England or the United States would defend us. May I be permitted to quote a

National Defence-Mr. Tremblay
paragraph, from an article written by Doctor Jules Dorion, editor of L'Action Catholique, on January 14 .last. This is what he said:
Of course some people are of the opinion that as we can do but so little it would be unwise to spend money in armament and we should be satisfied with leaning on others. Well let us not forget the proverb that says: Help yourself and God will help you. The weakest among men is in duty bound to do his share before relying on his neighbours, and the same thing may be said, of states. Their limited area and their small population do not prevent Belgium, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark and other Scandinavian states from having their own army, kept on the best possible footing, and their own navy, when necessary. Belgium has just reorganized her army and made it more efficient, although that country is well aware of the fact that France and England are greatly interested in having her territorial integrity duly respected. Belgium is a living example of a small country being ransacked, notwithstanding the sanctity of treaties and the sympathetic concern of powerful neighbours.
On the other side, accepting protection from one who is not bound to afford it cannot go on very long without servitude. We do not feel inclined to barter our provincial status in almost a sovereign dominion for that of an ordinary state in the neighbouring country.
Not only do I make those words my own, but I think I am sufficiently acquainted with the population of the constituency of Dorchester, which it is my privilege to represent, to say that the people of Dorchester, whether of French, English, Irish or Scotch origin, do not feel inclined1 to barter their provincial status in an almost sovereign dominion for that of an ordinary state in a neighbouring country. I wish I could say with the same righteous candour which other hon. members have shown, that we need only fold our arms, urge peace and do nothing to provoke another country, in order to ensure the perpetuity of peace in Canada. Let me ask these pacifists if little Belgium provoked anybody in 1914. Did she do anything to justify invasion of her territory? Certainly not. History will show future generations, just as the actual facts have proved to us, that a country can be not only invaded but ransacked in spite of its peaceful feelings and strict neutrality. Against whom do we arm? This is what the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) said last Tuesday evening:
We are arming not against somebody in particular, but rather against anybody. It is impossible to foresee what we shall do with this army that we wish to make more efficient and more mobile. What we can say to our fellow-citizens is that we want an army which is really useful and which we can use in case of emergency. Against whom do we arm? Many of us have an accident insurance policy for which we have been paying premiums since 15, 20, 25 or 30 years. We have not yet been hit by a motor car, and still we keep on paying
the premiums. It is impossible to say on which date, at which time and by which car we may be hit some day.
Sir, we are not arming against anybody, but we want everybody to know that we are ready to defend our own country. With regard to danger from the outside, nobody in this house can give us the assurance that we are immune.
Again, the pacifists say that everything is fine within our borders and that we do not need any protection on that account. But is that statement in conformity with the facts? The hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond), who spoke with such common sense and judgment last Monday evening, provided us with ample material for reflection on the menace from within. He said:
Quite recently, speaking about the strike in the General Motors plants, Father Coughlin pointed out the influence of communism in that strike, and he brought to the attention of the authorities, before it might be too late, the threat of a revolution. During that strike the civil and judicial authorities were flouted.
He also pointed out the fact that Canadians have left their country to enlist in the Spanish army. Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that the press daily brings to light the fact that we are living in disquieting times? Do the events in Spain not cause grave concern to the hon. member for Vancouver North? Does he consider as a purely local incident the shocking trials which her people are going through? Like myself, I am sure he reads the Canadian Veteran, and has he not read in its January issue the following editorial?
With German and Italian "volunteers" forming the major strength of the forces under command of rebel General Franco, plus the prospective addition of several thousand Japanese, on one side; and a large so-called international force aiding the Spanish government on the other side, the war in Spain long since has lost its purely domestic significance. If there had been no outside interference prior to and at the outset, the uprising would have found its own solution in short order for neither faction had the materials with which to wage war for long. But II Duce saw in Franco's bid for dictatorship an opportunity of making the Mediterranean a truly Italian sea; the Fuehrer envisioned a cordon of nations hemming in France, plus an opportunity of regaining a foothold in Africa. Stalin was aroused by the dual threat to this first real prospect of extending the World International movement beyond Russia..
So Spain has become the cockpit of a little "Great War," her towns and cities ravaged, her people starved and murdered, her treasures destroyed, her social and economic life wholly disrupted. Whatever eventuates, Spain can only be a pliant tool in the hands of foreign schemers for years to come, an unwilling threat to the peace of the world.
1018	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Tremblay
Right here in Canada, Mr. Speaker, we find disciples of these two political schools who at present have Spain as their battleground, but whose object it is to have the whole world as their sphere of action.
I shall not pass judgment on the systems of government which other nations have thought fit to adopt, but I am emphatically opposed to these nations taking it upon themselves to make us benefit by their experiments. I submit that the forms of government which may have brought order out of chaos in Russia, in Italy or in Germany will never be accepted by the free people of my country, and the propagandists who are paid by the expounders of these doctrines must know that the government of Canada is ready to thwart them by force, should the occasion arise.
Now what about communism? Canada is not exempt in this regard. Only a short time ago I was reading a pamphlet published recently by Les Editions de l'Universite 1'Ottawa, in which Father Sauve, O.M.I., said: Communism, in Canada, possesses now an organization whose ramifications extend to all sections of the dominion. Every year, the communists hold anti-capitalistic meetings in several places: at Montreal, in Toronto, in Winnipeg, in Vancouver. . . .
Lenin's revolutionary tree has rooted in Russia, but its branches are already extending to all parts of the world. . . .
Soon, if we do not take care, they will bring about a furious storm. Indeed the hour is momentous and this problem must be faced from its real aspect. . . .
Is it not His Eminence Cardinal Villeneuve who said: "Communism in Canada is not merely hypothetical, it has become a reality. It is ablaze in our midst. To encompass it is a matter of urgency."
In his recent pamphlet Mr. Rene Bergeron, of Montreal, also tells us that "communism is a force and that this force is a menace to Canada."
With such unequivocal opinions before us, I cannot act like the ostrich, and I shall certainly not deal in any haphazard way with so vital a question as that of national defence. It is true that I am not an imperialist or a jingo, and I will say bluntly that I am entirely and emphatically opposed to Canada's participation in extra-territorial wars. But I want my country to be protected from any invasion, no matter where it comes from, and I shall vote against the motion now before the house. I believe, in so declaring,
I am perfectly in accord with my leaders.
Like the hon. member for Bellechasse, whom I like very much, I am only a countryman, and if I reflect the opinion of the "habitant" from down home, I want to impress upon the house that I have no

apology to make. On the contrary I am proud to speak for the "habitant." On such important matters as those which are now being considered by this house, I do not claim to be an expert, but I believe in my leaders, and I am happy to tell them that I accepted the invitation to be the candidate of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) who is now at the head of the government because I placed all my confidence in him and because I admired above all his true Canadian spirit. During the election campaign, on every platform in my constituency and elsewhere I delivered addresses I expressed approval of the policy that he was expounding, and my fellow-citizens elected me to this house. I wish to state here that I believe in my leaders and that I am satisfied with the statements of policy which have been made in the house.
My province, Mr. Speaker, stands second to none in the matter of patriotism. History is there to prove this. We are essentially Canadians and it is our desire to remain such. We do not want Canada to embark upon costly overseas ventures, but, following the example of our forefathers, we are ready to defend our land. The Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), whom we respect in Quebec because, sir, he does credit to our people in the government of our country and because he represents the best of our race, and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie)-all have declared what I could sum up by quoting what the Minister of National Defence said on Monday evening in this house:
There is no idea whatever of sending a single Canadian soldier overseas in any expeditionary force, and there is not a single cent providing for that in the estimates this house will be asked to vote.
Such emphatic statements, made by men whom we trust, give us much satisfaction.
In conclusion, may I say that Canada, in the critical hours through which we are passing, should be proud to have at the head of her government our present Prime Minister. An imperial conference will be held in London in a few weeks. Those who will represent the government of their country at the conference will bear a heavy responsibility. It is obvious that the defence issue will constitute one of the gravest problems the conference will have to deal with, and our delegates will have 'the strict duty of representing Canadian sentiment. I firmly believe they will do so.
May I be permitted to read what the Evening Citizen of February 15 had to say with regard to our principal delegates to the next conference:

National Defence-Mr. Jaques
Canada could be represented by no abler minister at the conference table than Premier Mackenzie King. With a lifetime of experience in round table conferences, affecting industrial and social conditions, as well as in the international field of politics, he is a natural leader along paths of conciliation. The spirit of Canada, the spirit of friendly cooperation, readiness to meet the other man half-way as the most hopeful way to make an enduring agreement, is reflected in every substantial achievement of the prime minister's long political career. . . .
It should be helpful also to bear in mind that there is little danger of this government being led away along any path of imperial adventure. With Messrs. Mackenzie King and Ernest Lapointe sitting together, as they doubtless will, at the imperial conference, no zealous nationalist need have any fear about the safeguarding of the national interest of Canada. .	.	.
I am fully in accord with the sentiments expressed in this editorial.
Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the amendment.
((Translation):	I would not like to resume
my seat without saying a few words, not in my maternal tongue, because my mother was English, but in my father's language, which is also that of the majority of my constituents. I have followed very attentively the debate on the amendment, which I consider as most important and I wanted to express, in the language of the majority of the members of this house, the attitude I intended taking.
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not without due consideration that I have taken the stand I am taking now. I have given this question much thought and study and I have tried to understand this matter of increase in the armaments estimates.
I think that I am absolutely justified, so far as I can judge personally, to rely on the leaders of my party. But a few months ago, I was the candidate of the party which, today, is responsible for the administration of the country. I then had faith in them and I was sincere, and now that I have to face a problem the details of which I cannot understand-I admit it very candidly and very honestly-it seems to me that, in conscience, I have but just one thing to do: to leave the matter to those in whom I have put my trust.
Since I have been elected, from the day I have had the honour of representing in this house 27,000 constituents of the county of Dorchester, I have found no reason to withdraw the trust which I placed in my leaders in October, 1935.
Mr. Speaker, is there in the Canadian confederation any province that should trust more the Liberal party's leader than the province of Quebec?
We have experienced some sad days through Canada's political history, and I believe that we should not forget them.
We have been attacked, but I well remember that it is the leader of our party who defended us, and fought against those who were attacking us. It was he who stood up in our defence at the very door of Toronto. And we would lose faith in our government? Personally, I think that we would be wrong, and we will surely not do it.
The province of Quebec expects its representatives to declare in this house that we, from Quebec, refuse to participate in military operations outside our own territory. Nobody has said otherwise since the beginning of this debate, and never, I believe, through all the Canadian history, have we seen ministers sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, and speaking as members of the government, being as positive and as sincere as the members of the present government.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly will continue- and I am sure that the province of Quebec will be satisfied, a least I know that the constituents of the county of Dorchester will be- to vote confidence in the King government. I am sure that the province of Quebec as well as its members in this house, realize that nowadays we are happy-and we should thank Providence for it-to have such an eminent man at the head of the government of this country.


Mr. NORMAN JAQUES (Wetaskiwin):: I desire to say but a few words. It seems to me that the point of the amendment has been largely missed. The amendment reads:
This house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for purposes of national armament in contrast with the inadequate provision for the social security of all sections of the Canadian people.
I am one who believes that the best guarantee for external security is internal security. At present very few Canadians enjoy security. I believe that the best, and I might say the only real contribution which Canada can make to the peace of the world, is to bring about a condition of things such that the Canadian people may enjoy real security in Canada. If we can do that-and we are among the very few nations, perhaps we are the only nation, that can do it without fear of outside interference, by reason of our geographical position-if we can do that, I feel that we shall make by far the best contribution to

National Defence-Mr. Jaques
the peace of the world. In connection with this I should like to read an extract from a pamphlet written by Mr. Vincent C. Vickers, late director of the Bank of England. This pamphlet contains a petition to His Majesty the King concerning the abolition of poverty, and the removal of the main causes of economic warfare between nations. I am going to read not the petition, but an extract from Mr. Vickers' reasons for signing it:
I personally need no immediate change; I am one of those who can afford to wait; for me things seem to be on the upgrade. But I have signed it because there are many hundreds of thousands of men, women and children in this country-loyal subjects of the king-to whom waiting is an inhuman tragedy, and a national disgrace with which this country should be branded no longer.
He was speaking of England, of course, but I submit that the condition of hundreds of thousands of Canadians at this moment is a national disgrace. Then he goes on to say:
I have signed this petition, also, because over the last ten years I have known the man in the street and the under dog, and from them I have learnt something the existence of which the city of London does not even suspect and cannot therefore appreciate. I hold views which the London press vould not publish.
I had occasion the other day to mention the fact that it was impossible to get certain views published in the British press, and this is a confirmation of that statement. The press gave me a great deal of notice in connection with that statement; I wonder whether they will give me the same notice on this. But possibly they may come to the conclusion that silence is sometimes golden. Mr. Vickers goes on to say:
Can it be denied that a system which is based on and exists solely by the creation and enforcement of debt, much of which can never be extinguished, is the source of poverty, discontent and discord at home and abroad, and constitutes a permanent incentive to war.
And finally he says:
Rightly or wrongly the world no longer has confidence in the monetary system. The repeated failures of finance and the collapse of the gold standard system in each and every emergency has undermined the faith of the public in the honesty of its money. The known solidity of our banks and the proved integrity of our bankers have failed to stem the growing mistrust of the currency and credit system which banks and bankers uphold and operate. The money industry should consider their own position. Were they to do so they would-in my very humble opinion they must-arrive at the conclusion that the future welfare of the money industry as it is at present constituted depends entirely upon its own power to crush out the human impulse to go forward and upon its ability to override the will of the people, and so to govern the world.

That is the opinion of a former director of the Bank of England, who bears the name of Vickers, a name not unknown in the business of making munitions.
As I said before, we have no security. Even if we have these one hundred fast aeroplanes, we have no guarantee that we shall be permitted to use them or to practise with them. It is not within the province of this house even to say that. We have no guarantee that even if we get these armaments we can practise with them in time of peace. And certainly we have no economic security. It is because I see no reason to believe, and I have heard nothing in this house which gives me any reason to believe, that the government have any idea of trying to do anything to overcome this evergrowing power of finance, that I intend to vote for the amendment.


Mr. J. A. VERVTLLE (Lotbiniere) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely for the purpose of explaining the vote I shall be called upon to give in a few hours. The amendment before the house denounces the increases in the estimates of the Department of National Defence; but it implies as well direct condemnation of the general, social and economic policies of the government.
A vote for the amendment is a vote of non confidence in the present administration-to whose advantage? To the advantage of our Conservative friends whose political program the people of this country repudiated in 1935. Surely such a gesture would be ill-advised on our part. We have the other alternative of throwing ourselves info the arms of our friends of the C.CJF., the authors of the amendment. For my part, I may tell you right now, Mr. Speaker, that I am not ready for any such adventure. The government in power at the present time enjoys the full confidence of the citizens of this country and I personally have no hesitation in declaring my complete faith in the present Liberal policy and in our leaders. This trust is built on the glorious past of the Liberal party, the sincerity of the chieftains of that party, and the excellent results of Liberal policy. The people are contented. Confidence returned once more when the present government came into power and this confidence is felt throughout all the branches of our economic activity. The people have begun to get their breath; and I am wondering why we do not let them breathe in peace for a few more years.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the application of the present Liberal government policies is deserving of our utmost trust; and I unhesi-

National Defence-Mr. Verville
tatingly state my approval of these policies. As a proof of my feeling towards my leaders I shall vote against the motion which condemns them.
This does not mean, however, that I favour an increase in the estimates of the Department of National Defence, I am entirely and unqualifiedly opposed to the suggested increase. I have always been an opponent of armaments, and I believe, at this hour, I would be remiss in my duty towards myself and towards my trusting constituents, were I to change my attitude. I feel that what I always fought against when it was proposed by our opponents, from 1911 to 1925, is not more acceptable now that the party, to which I am proud to belong, has been elected to office. It is all one to me that this increased military expenditure will be for defensive purposes in Canada alone, as we were assured by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapoinite) and other leaders. I do not doubt their word; nor do I doubt their sincerity.
It is simply that, as a matter of principle, I do not see this thing in the same light as they do. I am opposed to armaments in any shape or form, because I am convinced-I may be wrong, I admit-that this expenditure is useless and cannot give us the protection that is expected, apparently. Moreover, the financial state of the country is such that we cannot afford to spend these sums to fight enemies who may never materialize. Finally, we do not know how far this movement will carry us in the years to come.
Economy is the watchword of the day: the government itself preaches economy. When we ask for certain grants for our constituencies we are told that the estimates have had to be pared down for reasons of economy; for instance, this year we are voting still less money for agriculture. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have no right to increase our military expenditure at a time when, for alleged reasons of economy, we are reducing the estimates of the Department of Agriculture, which should receive a larger share of public funds, seeing that the farming industry is sorely in need of money.
One thing puzzles me, perhaps without reason, but at any rate allow me to say frankly what is in my mind. After going through the estimates and listening to the explanations given us so far I find it quite obvious that the money we are asked to vote will for the most part, be spent on warships and on aeroplanes. These ships and 'planes will be bought in England. To me this appears to be an indirect contribution to the
British armament program. Why not keep this money in Canada, to give employment to our own shipyards, employ Canadian labour and lighten the burden of direct relief? I would even be willing, if I were convinced of the necessity for so doing, to vote for a larger increase in our military estimates, on conditions that the money were to be spent in Canada, for the benefit of ouir fellow citizens who ask for bread and who want to work for it.
I cannot for one instant doubt the word of the leaders of the Liberal party when they assure us that the money voted will be spent solely for the defence of Canada; but I cannot help the feeling and, so to say, the unshakable conviction, that in voting for these estimates we are being drawn into the military armaments movement, with the mother country and for her benefit.
And I add this: Can those who are defending us to-day, who are at the head of the national government, and are ever ready to stand guard over Canadian interests, give us the assurance that they will be here very long? I certainly hope they will be; but certainty in such matters is rather out of the question. And after they are gone, will those who take their place be in a position to give us such guarantees? There is a big question mark there, Mr. Speaker. Once the precedent has been established it can be appealed to, and then willy nilly we will have to bow to whatever fate is meted out to us, as a consequence of the responsibilities we are taking upon ourselves to-day.
Mr. Speaker, I may be wrong; and I hope with all my heart that the government has chosen the right road, that the future will justify the government's decision. I express this hope in all sincerity. But, once again, I cannot follow my party in this matter. I am opposed to any increase of military estimates, even for purely Canadian defence purposes, simply because I believe that such expenditure is useless, because nothing appears to justify any such increase, because the organization of our national defence has been sufficient up till now; and also because I see in this increase the first step in the realization of an armaments plan that some day, whether we wish it or not, will be used for other purposes than those proclaimed to-day.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that in acting as I do I am faithful to the trust of those who elected me to represent them here. I know that if they were here their attitude on this question would be the same as my own. Since they cannot all be here themselves they have sent me here as their spokesman. Hence my
1022	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Sylvestre
duty to express their opinions and to respect their convictions. By good fortune it so happens that their convictions and mine are identical both against the increase in miltary estimates and for the continuation in office of the present government.


Mr. ARMAND SYLVESTRE (Lake St. John-Roberval) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let pass this debate on the armaments question which, to my mind, is of capital interest to Canada not only for the present but for the future, without explaining clearly my own position and the course I intend to follow.
I must say first of all that I am, have always been, and will always be, a Liberal. As I see it, we may at times have different opinions on matters of public concern; but for all that we are not rebels, we are not insurgents, we have not lost faith in those whom the voters have put at the head of the nation's affairs.
So, with regard to the motion of non-confidence, as it is worded, I am entirely opposed to it and I shall vote against it because it condemns the general policy of the Liberal party.
I hold that Liberal policy alone has reestablished our equilibrium, that Liberal policy alone has brought renewed confidence to the country, and set up an orderly administration in the place of the disorder that was rife under our Conservative predecessors.
Mr. Speaker, since 1919 there have been eleven elections held in my province: six provincial and five federal. I have always taken an active part in each one of them. I have even had the honour of being a candidate on four occasions; and up to the present time I am here solely as the representative of my constituents. Since I have always been in the thick of the fight, I know that my electors have put their trust in me because I have always fought with all my might against militarism and imperialism, in any and every shape or form. Hence I do not believe I would be justified in changing my attitude this evening.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Armand Sylvestre: That is why, with the deep conviction acquired through my experience in public life, I find myself under the necessity of stating that I am opposed to this sudden and unforeseen increase in the military forces of this country. In the light of my own experience, and what knowledge I have gleaned from books on the history of all wars, I am convinced that such a policy is chiefly to the advantage of those who

produce and supply armaments and munitions, people who are guided by self-interest alone, heartless, pitiless men who strive merely to increase their fortunes; and who, on occasion, wear the mask of patriotism and unhesitatingly lead their country to ruin so that they may garner further riches. We saw frequent examples of this, Mr. Speaker, during the last war which laid waste the entire earth.
That is the reason for my objection to armaments; and I believe that, on this point, my constituents will back me up.
I notice, however, that a large amount is being voted for the development of aviation, both civil and military, in our country. Aviation is a new science which exerts a powerful attraction on youth; unfortunately I must state, without hesitation, that so far our people have not received the fair treatment they were entitled to. I have tried myself to find a place in aviation for young men of talent who seemed to me fully qualified for that calling. The door was closed in their faces simply because of their insufficient knowledge of English. I hope that this time Quebec will get its fair share; that the necessary steps will be taken to found flying schools in our province, with competent instructors who speak and understand the French tongue. Then our young men who are desirous of entering this new career will be able to obtain the necessary knowledge and training to qualify. It seems to me that if a mechanic is competent, if a man is a good pilot, the language he speaks, whether French, English or any other, is of secondary importance; in Quebec our young men should be in a position to learn a trade which should be taught them in their mother tongue.
While I am on that point let me say that after an absence of five years I notice, on coming back to Ottawa, that during the five years of Tory rule there has been built up in Ottawa a powerful hierarchy, which includes the heads of a great many departmental branches, men who are not in sympathy with us and who connive with a majority on the civil service commission to deprive our people of their due rights. It is my duty to raise my voice in protest, so that the dissatisfaction that is evident all around us will not spread further still and the day come when it will be too late to correct the evils that exist to-day.
So, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons I have given I intend to vote against the motion of non-confidence. Like the hon. member who spoke before me, and like all the voters in my riding I have the fullest and most

National Defence-Mr. Lacroix
complete confidence in our leaders; and if I cannot see eye to eye with them on a question which is purely a matter of administration and armaments, I remain deeply attached to their leadership. If I vote to-day against an increase in the estimates, and the future should prove me wrong, I shall be the first to admit it. Like the gentleman who preceded me, I hope the government will prove to be right, and I shall then make due apology.


Mr. WILFRID LACROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I
wrote the following letter to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on December 31, 1936:
As a member of parliament, I take the liberty of making certain suggestions to you respecting military expenditures which, according to rumours, will show a substantial increase in the coming estimates.
I believe the province of Quebec would frown on this increase which would be interpreted as a direction from London.
Do you not think that our policy should aim at avoiding all participation in European wars, even if England were compelled to intervene in a conflict by reason of treaties or agreements that bind or may bind her to France and Belgium?
In order to avoid all misunderstanding, has the hour not arrived when we should hold a permanent seat in the Pan-American Conference? This gesture would indicate the part we mean to play in European conflicts in which England might be interested.
Should Canada not consider that the time has arrived when it should sever its connection with the League of Nations and study at the same time its status in the British Commonwealth. The fact that our King is the King of England should not imply that we must join in a war on the European or Asiatic continent or in any other quarter of the globe.
It is evident that if Canada clearly defines by legislative enactment its intention not to inter-fere in any war of the empire, such a course would free us, in the event of European or Asiatic difficulties, from the possibility of attack and would prevent all military expenditures both useless and disastrous for a young country such as ours.
1 make these observations to you in a spirit of humility, as a Canadian who loves his country and as a Liberal trustful in the political wisdom of his party.
Please accept, Mr. Prime Minister, the expression of my deepest regards.
And the right hon. the Prime Minister wrote me the following reply on January 19, 1937:
I read with much interest your letter of December 31 respecting military expenditures and Canada's foreign policy.
With respect to expenditures having to do with defence, any expenditure contemplated and decided upon will as in the past relate to the defence of Canada. We consider that whatever action Canada will take in this regard is a matter to be determined by the Canadian
government and parliament, and our defence estimates were not discussed with London on this occasion any more than in any other circumstance.
The policy of our government is to strive by all possible means to avoid war. There exists a wide difference of opinion in Canada and in other countries as to the best way of achieving that end. As regards the League of Nations,
I do not think it would be advisable to withdraw from that body which if properly developed can constitute a powerful agency for conciliation and peace throughout the world.
I would prefer seeking the safeguards against the danger which you see in our relations with the League of Nations by calling it into play as an instrument of conciliation and study rather than as an instrument for the application of economic or military sanctions. I am pleased to forward you herewith a copy of the speech I delivered at Geneva during the last assembly;
I believe it will clearly indicate to you the line of conduct suggested on subjects pertaining to the league and on other matters.
The matter of relationships to be established with the Pan-American Conference is an important question. We have given the matter attention but it involves more than one factor which must be taken into account.
I am pleased to know that you interest yourself in these important questions and I greatly value the clarity with which you have outlined to me the views you hold on the difficult situation that confronts us.
I do not want to question the words of the right hon. Prime Minister when he tells us:
We consider that whatever action Canada will take in this regard is a matter to be determined by the Canadian government and parliament.
I have faith in him and in his ministers, but I ask myself if the events that may occur following a declaration of war against the United Kingdom by any nation, will not be so swiftly moving in character that they will control government action in such a manner that parliament will find itself face to face with an accomplished fact and will be merely called upon to ratify an existing policy.
Moreover, were we not given a concrete example recently bearing out what I have just said, when, on the day following the abdication of King Edward the Eighth, the government by a mere order in council recognized his successor and set in motion the mechanism of the Statute of Westminster in such a manner that when parliament convened we had but one thing to do: approve what had been done.
As a matter of fact, I readily bow to the decision taken and approve whole-heartedly the order in council that gave us as successor to Edward the Eighth His Majesty George the Sixth; yet, when I analyse the events that followed one another at the time, I recall the words of Georges Sorel in a conversation captioned " Democracy is compelled to act

National Defence-Mr. Lacroix
like other forms of government," and of whom Mussolini said at the end of 1934: "I owe what I am to Georges Sorel."
That which concerns the internal affairs of a country is much less visible than that which relates to external affairs. In the latter case, the part ministers play greatly resembles, even in a democracy, that of an absolute sovereign. Once a conversation is started with the representatives of a foreign power, no obstacle can paralyse a responsible minister. A diplomatic conversation is a sort of battle in which the most unforeseen factors suddenly crop up, and a minister who would telephone every ten minutes to the Speaker of a house before answering his colleagues would be quickly put out of action.
With respect to the management of affairs, one must resign oneself to accept that those who are charged with same enjoy freedom of movement, lacking which they cannot do anything. The error of democracies consists in wanting to control government in all its acts, but control implies acknowledgment of an act after that act has taken place. If harm has been done one consoles oneself by the dismissal of a minister, but it is a poor consolation and the country derives no effective reparation from it.
What was known of yore as "the prince's secret" exists nowadays with all the added complications and niceties of modern international politics; and, admitting, for a moment, that there is a state without "prince's secrets," the ministers of that state will have to deal with other nations which do have "prince's secrets." As a consequence, secret diplomacy will hold sway and the ministers of that state will have to bear it without being able to do anything whatever about it. Hence, they will be compelled, if they' wish to serve their country profitably, to subscribe to views of which the parliamentarian, their judge, and the voter who elected their judge, cannot form the least idea.
The political conditions of a nation, its industrial and commercial interests, its fiscal revenues, the obligations of its neighbourhoods, the maintenance of its influence, are so many skeins that unwind into extremely complicated ramifications which the gentleman reading his newspaper in the tram-car could not possibly suspect by the widest stretch of the imagination.
Hence, Mr. Speaker, there is not the slightest shadow of doubt that events which will arise will control the decision of the ministry, a decision compelling rapid action with respect to the interests of what is called to-day the Commonwealth of British Nations; but that is probably where the Canadian people will not find themselves in agreement with the men then in power, and one must not, as I see it, overlook any security factor as regards our eventual non-participation in wars wherein the interest of the United Kingdom, alone, may be involved.
We are told that the League of Nations is an agency for peace; I have grave doubts as to that, for, in the event of a war in which the League of Nations would declare Japan the aggressor country, the economic sanction

machinery of the League of Nations would function immediately in favour of Russia; and as for us, members of the league, we would be compelled, as in the case of Ethiopia, to give effect to the covenants we signed as a member of the league: I say the League of Nations would compel us to apply economic sanctions to Japan. There is not a shadow of doubt that the adoption by our country of such economic sanctions with respect to Japan would be considered by that nation an act that would justify it in invading our country; and we would be face to face with the distressing situation of a country such as ours which holds communism in horror, aligning itself with a nation whose ideal is absolutely contrary to that of our Canadian people; for, in this country, our history, our traditions, our very existence rest on a belief that is the corner-stone of any society that aims to live and respect itself, that is to say, belief in God. Now, Russian communism involves the complete negation of God, the basis of our social structure. No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the League of Nations as constituted, is an instrument for peace. I look upon Geneva, its magnificient lake, the luxuriant verdure surrounding the palace of the League of Nations simply as a place well-suited for politicians who are holiday-bent.
We are told that should we vote the increased military estimates which are presently submitted to our approval, such sums will never be utilized beyond our country. Now, if I turn to the Canada Militia Act, I find that Section 64 reads in part as follows:
The Governor in Council may place the militia or any part thereof in active service anywhere in Canada and also beyond Canada for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
Who tells us that the government then holding office will not apply that clause of the Militia Act which empowers the cabinet, by a simple order in council, to use our military organization beyond Canada?
No, Mr. Speaker, I think there is only one logical course for us to follow: that is to occupy as soon as possible a seat at the PanAmerican Conference to which, as a matter of fact, we were invited by that good friend of ours and lover of peace, Mr. Franklin Roosevelt. We would thus be proclaiming to all nations our desire to remain what we are actually, an essentially American nation. As a result, with the immense resources that are at our disposal, we would find ourselves free to devote, in a spirit of peace, all our efforts to the development of our country, instead of burdening our budget with a fairly

National Defence-Mr. Kuhl
heavy outlay for military purposes. We have not yet emerged from the crisis borne of the war and our commitments resulting from our participation in the conflict of 1914-1918 now exceed 84,600,000,000.
I do not approve the amendment proposed by my hon. colleague from Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), because part of it censures the government concerning its social legislation; and I do not hesitate to state that in that field the country never had a man with a better understanding of the interests of the labour class than my hon. colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) whose direct action in connection with the labour legislation adopted by this house has proven extremely helpful in the realm of relations between employers and employees. On the other hand, I wish to state that I shall vote against the increased military appropriations because I am convinced our country owes it to itself to direct its efforts into other channels of greater benefit to the Canadian community to which we have the honour to belong.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Speaker, since a great deal has already been said on the subject of war and peace, I desire to say only sufficient to indicate my stand on the amendment. War is a disease, though not an incurable one. It is not a cause; it is an effect. Disease cannot be cured without removing the cause; neither can war be eliminated without removing the cause.
Minor causes of war have been digcussed a great deal in the house, but in my opinion the major cause has not. At page 103 of the evidence taken before the agriculture committee of the legislature of Alberta, Major Douglas states what he believes to be the major cause of crime. I agree with him when he says:
There is no question that at the present time practically ninety per cent of the crime in the world is directly due to the financial system.
In my opinion war is the greatest crime. It is nothing less than legalized murder.
What the world has yet to realize is that war arises not because of the natural antipathy of races but because of a defective money system in each country. Nothing but a change in the financial system can save this or any other country from destruction. In my opinion Canada has done nothing by way of eliminating the major cause of war. This defective money system makes it necessary each year that more and more of each nation's products shall be shipped abroad and sold in foreign markets. The only reason most of these products cannot be bought at home 31111-65
is that people have not enough money with which to buy them. Since all nations have become highly industrialized, the world has become full of sellers and empty of buyers.
The world of to-day is just like a great stock-market. Brokers representing Canada, the United States, England, France, Russia, Germany and other countries are clamouring for buyers, and failing to find them. But unlike brokers in ordinary industrial life, nations can do things to shut out undesirable sellers. They can enact tariffs, and impose embargoes, quotas and trade restrictions of various kinds. When this is done, national antipathy, mutual distrust, jealousy of favoured nations and, finally, suspicions arise. Presently the war munitions racketeer, who knows no country and who plies his abominable trade in every country, appears upon the scene. He thrives upon distrust and suspicion, and fosters international hatred. In recent years his fiendish trade has been carried on with all the cunning efficiency of the devil himself.
I should like to quote part of an article written by Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota, chairman of the senate munitions lobby investigating committee, to indicate how the munitions makers ply their nefarious schemes. The senator says this:
An investigation of the arms question without treading upon official and semi-official toes would be no investigation at all. Of necessity we have had to deal with the secret courses pursued by the manufacturers and sellers of instruments of war. For years these makers and their salesmen have been weaving their way into governments, deceiving, frightening, corrupting, as their welfare and profit dictated.
Because of the manner in which they have woven themselves into the very fabric of governments, the industry has won a status of sacredness and secrecy which has enlarged its opportunity to thrive in a way to return great profit to its owners. Rackets thrive best when nourished by dark secrecy, and when governments lend hands to the racketeers the sky is the limit as far as the flow of profits and blood money is concerned.
I repeat that there is no racket to compare with that of the sale of munitions of war. Our government has fought, at great cost, the beer, liquor, white slave, dope and kidnap rackets.
The munitions racket, one whose victims is all civilization, has governments as its partners, unconsciously on the part of some of the governments perhaps. Doubly difficult, then, becomes the task of destroying or controlling the racket, a racket wearing the cloak of respectability by reason of its association with and in governments.
That such a partnership exists is one of the clear conclusions growing out of this present investigation. It must therefore be apparent that nothing short of wide and sweeping disclosures of the truth will ever waken the world to a degree that will win reform to check the mad race now on toward more war.

National Defence-Mr. Kuhl

National Defence-Mr. Brasset
if that money had been used for the enrichment of life rather than for its destruction. This man stated that the financial cost of the war was $400,000,000,000; that such a sum could have provided for every family in the United States, Canada, Australia, the British isles, France, Belgium, Germany and Russia, a house worth $2,500 with furniture worth $1,000, on a piece of land worth S500; for all cities of 20,000 and over a library worth $5,000,000, and a university worth $10,000.000, and that with the remainder there could have been established a fund which at five per cent would have provided $1,000 a year for 125,000 teachers and 125,000 nurses.
I venture to assert that if this money had been used for that purpose there would never have been a world war, and instead of a hell on earth there could now have been a virtual paradise of beautiful homes.
Another great contribution which Canada could make towards world peace would be to demonstrate that a nation becomes prosperous, not because she exports more than she imports, but because she distributes among her own people as much of her own goods as her own people desire to consume and exports only the real surplus, and that not until she has imported goods equivalent in value to that of her surplus. If Canada gave the lie to the so-called favourable balance of trade policy and the necessity for struggling and competing for foreign markets, she would have taught a lesson which the nations of the world could not very well ignore. Since the necessity for forcing our way into foreign markets would be obviated, great armies and navies to defend the hard-won foreign markets and to keep open against all comers these precious foreign trade routes would no longer be necessary. The job of the armament makers would vanish for lack of material to work on. When what I have suggested is done, instead of international distrust and suspicion, the nations of the world will find a basis for harmonious cooperation. Then, and not until then, will peace visit the earth.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say this: Let the prerogative of the crown be restored to parliament, and as a result of the exercising of that power let the peoples of the world discover that in comparison with population Canada has the largest number of beautiful homes. Let it be known that the occupants of Canadian homes are the most enlightened, the healthiest and the happiest people on earth, and it will ndt be long before the peoples of other countries will demand that their governments institute policies similar to those of Canada and thus avert a
[Mr. Khul.l
universal catastrophe. If the Liberal government had done last year what it led the people of Canada to believe it was going to do, we no doubt would at this time be enjoying the fruits of a policy such as I have suggested. But because they have not restored to government its sacred and sovereign right, and propose to finance appropriations for armaments with debt money, I intend to vote in favour of the amendment.


Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gasps) ((Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, following the many speeches we have listened to in this chamber,
I do not intend to speak at any great length on this question. I merely wish to state why I shall vote to-morrow against the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) and why I shall also vote for the armament expenditures which the present government is submitting for our approval.
Mr. Speaker, I hesitated a long time before reaching this decision. I received from all sides, but particularly from large cities, resolutions adopted by people who presumed to dictate the stand to be taken by members of this house and I wondered whether the increased expenditure we were asked to approve was really necessary to ensure the security of our country.
However, the arguments advanced by those who spoke in this chamber against the increased outlay for armaments and the resolutions I received have not convinced me that the sum requested by the government is unnecessary.
I have greater faith, Mr. Speaker, in men such as the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the leader of the province of Quebec, the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) than I have in all those organizations that ask us to vote on a question they do not even understand. Moreover, among the organizations that wrote to us and asked us to register our vote, the most serious minded did not ask us to vote against the proposed military outlays. I hold in my hand a resolution passed by the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste, of Montreal, which merely asks us to vote so that the necessary expenditures shall be applied to the defence of Canada properly speaking, within its territorial limits. As I see it, we were asked to vote a sum of money merely for the territorial defence of Canada and we were not asked to approve the expenditure of a single cent for empire defence. Moreover, we were told our armaments had to be more up to date. We were told of the necessity of increasing our

National Defence-Mr. O'Neill
armament for the defence of our territory, and with this view I fully agree, and I intend supporting the government. I think the time has come for us to consider our defence requirements, and that we should not merely rely upon England and the United States for our protection but that we can and must defend ourselves.
Let us not repeat the mistake of 1911. At that time a movement was started in the province of Quebec which brought about the downfall of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I may say that this movement which broke out in 1911 in the province of Quebec wTas the immediate cause of Sir AVilfrid Laurier's defeat. What happened? Once Sir Wilfrid Laurier was no longer in power there came that fateful hour for Canada in 1914, and we had not then at the head of the government a man like Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who could have actually assumed the leadership of the Canadian people. Our leaders in this country were rabid imperialists, men who at once, without consulting parliament, without consulting the country, plunged Canada into the war of 1914-1918; and these are the same men who later on, in 1917, applied conscription.
The statements by our Prime Minister at Geneva and elsewhere, as well as those he made in this chamber, convince me that there is a determination to avoid repeating the mistake of 1914, and that, in fact, when the country is called upon to make a decision, it will not be the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the government who will make it. The Prime Minister has pledged himself upon his honour to consult the House of Commons, and it will rest with the whole country to determine whether we shall participate or not in a conflict. That is what all the provinces of Canada asked for, that is what my own province urged, and that is the reason why 1 am ready to give a vote of confidence in the government.
Mr. Speaker. I have no other remarks to add. I do know that an overwhelming majority of Liberals in this chamber will follow the counsel given us by our political leaders and I believe that such a course will be conducive to Canada's welfare. Hence, I will, for these reasons, give my support to the government.
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops): In rising to speak to this motion I wish to call attention to the fact that most of our time in this debate has been taken up with talk about war, rumours of war, preparations for war and matters of that kind. I do not consider that a discussion such as we have had for the past four days serves any good purpose.
We are only delaying the work of the house, and accomplishing nothing. Some of the subjects that have been brought up relate to former resolutions. One of these was the first clause of a resolution introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), as follows:
That under existing international relations, in the event of war, Canada should remain strictly neutral regardless of who the belligerents may be.
In the absence of any armaments how could we enforce that neutrality? It is all very well to say that we should remain neutral, but if we have no armaments to enforce that neutrality we would not be neutral very long.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is in connection with the motion of the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), that:
-in the event of another war involving Canada's active participation, every agency, financial, industrial, transportation or natural resources, shall automatically be conscripted for the duration of such a war, and that a penalty be imposed for the violation thereof.
I say here and now that I am opposed to any form of conscription, whether it be man power or anything else. If we have the proper conditions existing in Canada there will be no occasion to conscript people; if the country is attacked they will protect the country themselves because they have something to protect. It is not necessary to conscript wealth or to conscript industry; that cannot be done very well, but what can be done is to impose such taxation on the wealth and industry in the country that there will not be any profit made out of war. That is quite possible, but I do not believe conscription can be enforced, and I am not in favour of conscription, because there would occur something like what happened when there was an attempt in this country to reduce interest rates. Interest rates were reduced. certainly, but they were reduced on deposits, and you still paid as much to draw money as you did before. That is what would happen if you started to conscript. Men who had one hundred head of stock would have them all taken, but a fellow who had one hundred thousand head would probably have plenty left after you got through conscripting. I am not in favour of conscripting anything at any time, but if you do conscript the man power, then you should provide by some means that there would not be any profit made out of the slaughter. It is a deplorable thing to make a profit out of slaughter.
Let us look a little further into this resolution :
-that a penalty be imposed for the violation thereof.

National Defence-Mr. O'Neill
How are you going to impose a penalty, and what is the penalty going to be? It seems to me you must have police and courts in order to impose a penalty. I have never had any desire at any time to join the police force, but I think it necessary to have a police force, and a well-equipped one, and I do not think that having a well-equipped police force is an incentive to crime. If you have armaments I do not believe they are an incentive to war. I hate war just as much as does any hon. member. I have a great deal to lose if war came. As far as I am concerned I would probably not be considered fit for a soldier at my time of life, but I have three sons. I would not want to see those boys conscripted and taken to war, or taken in any other way. It seems to me that we have confused the issue a great deal. We have been talking about whether we should go to war and all that, but that is not the issue. In my opinion the issue is whether we should have national defence, and if we should, whether these estimates are in order. That is what we should be considering.
Many hon. members have made the suggestion that we should rely upon the United States for protection. A good many hon. members on this side of the house have referred to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation as the representative of labour. I cannot agree with that, although I have no quarrel with any of the hon. gentlemen who sit in the ranks of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. But I do not wish hon. members who are not well acquainted with labour affairs to refer to the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation as the representatives of labour. 1 grant that they represent some classes of labour, but they do not represent all the labour people in this dominion. Organized labour men despise people who will take the privileges thrt are gained by organized labour but will not help to maintain the organization which gets them those privileges. The action of such people is on a par with the suggestion that we should depend upon the United States to protect us and pay nothing for that protection. There are many labour men in this country- and my friends of the cooperative commonwealth federation know it-who will take all the privileges that the labour organizations secure for them, but will not pay any dues. The argument they put up is: Why should I pay dues? The other fellow has to protect me when he is protecting himself. And they ride on the coat-tails of the others. As a Canadian I do not want to be riding on the

coat-tails of Uncle Sam. They are good and long but I do not want to ride on them.
This afternoon the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), replying to a remark by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), in reference to the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), that it was double-barrelled, said that if it were double-barrelled it was for the purpose of dealing with a two-faced government. That is what the hon. member said if I heard him correctly. I wished to interject a question at that time, but the hon. member sat on me and sat on me pretty hard. That was his privilege, and I am not holding anything against him for it, but in saying he would not permit a question I take it he included all hon. members on the government side of the house. Being one of those members I naturally resent that. I have been working in the interests of organized labour for thirty-five years, and I have never at any time done anything that was not in the interest of organized labour as I saw it. I may be wrong, but that is the way I see it. The hon. member is altogether too vulnerable to make a statement of that kind. I should like to refer to a couple of instances in the last session. I was not here very much during that session on account of sickness, but I read from the record in Hansard which I assume is correct. This is a motion moved last year by the hon. member for Vancouver East:
Whereas it is detrimental to the best interests of Canada that there should be in the country groups to whom, because of race or religious beliefs, we do not extend all the right of citizenship;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government should take the necessary measures to exclude from the country all persons belonging to those groups to whom we do not grant the full rights and privileges of citizenship.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, I was a young member of this house, in experience if not in years, and I was very new to parliamentary procedure. I did not fully realize what my position would be if I did not speak on a question of that kind. In British Columbia we naturally have a greater percentage of orientals than in any other province, and I should have been among those who spoke to that motion. I did not say anything because I was not in a position to vote for the resolution. It was not that I wanted to see more orientals in British Columbia, but there are many more important things to be considered than the few orientals who may be allowed into this country. At the time I was objecting most strenuously to the importation of

National Defence-Mr. Duffus
orientals, they were being brought here in boatloads to work on the railways and for similar work, to displace white labour. The few orientals who come into Canada now are mainly of the better class, educated men, scientists, doctors, lawyers and so on. I was not very much interested in those few men, and moreover we had an agreement with Japan, so I did not think it would be very good business to stir up too much trouble. I had no objection to the hon. member for Vancouver East bringing in his resolution, but I did object very strenuously to a statement he made in closing the debate, and of course when he spoke the second time he concluded the debate on that resolution. This is what he said:
Anyone voting against it votes for the principle that we should let people come into this country to stay permanently to whom we cannot grant the rights and privileges of citizenship. He will also vote for the continued coming of these people into the country.
As everyone knows, that was not the idea at all. We were not voting to allow these people to come in; we were simply voting not to disturb an agreement that existed between this country and Japan. There is no doubt at all in my mind, however, that during the next election in British Columbia this will be used against me, and there is just enough truth in it that one cannot say it is a lie. This will be broadcast from the platforms of British Columbia against me during the next election, if I run.


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; I have not the slightest objection to the hon. member discussing this resolution, because I do not think it is anything to my discredit, but what has it to do with the motion now before the house? It has absolutely nothing to do with it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: As to the point of order, there has been very wide latitude allowed during this debate, and I do not think I should rule the hon. gentleman out of order at this time.
Mr. O'NEILL: There is another matter to which I should like to direct attention at this time; I refer to another remark made by the hon. member for Vancouver East for which he did not apologize, and I am very much surprised that he was permitted to get away with it. I do not think he should be allowed to get away with it even now. This was the remark he made:
However, that did not prevent the Liberal party from helping the communists in Vancouver East. I am told that the communist candidate in Vancouver East did not put in an account of his election expenses, and I
understand his reason for refraining was that the Liberal party had provided the funds and that it was up to them to put in the expense account.
Two days later, Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman made this statement:
Since that time I have received information from Mr. Bruce, who was the communist candidate, that my statement was not correct. As he has no one here to make the statement for him, I wish to put that on record.
That is something else which, I suppose, will be used during the next election in British Columbia. The first statement was published on the front pages of newspapers in British Columbia, but the second statement appeared on the back pages of the newspapers, in among the advertisements, in a very small space.
As to the question of whether or not we should increase our armaments, let me say this: I started to work in British Columbia when I was a kid. I have never had to fight since I left school, but I did not make that enviable record by advertising to the world that I could not or would not fight.


Mr. J. J. DUFFUS (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to address the house at this time I give my assurance that I shall do my best to be very brief. Until a few hours ago I bad no thought of taking part in this debate, for the reason that to me Canada's need for additional security is so obvious that I took it for granted that the proper time for discussion would be when the estimates were before the committee. But, when I read in the press of Tuesday evening that Great Britain was planning to again increase armaments on both land and sea, it brought very forcefully to my mind the question of Canada's defence, and awakened in me a greater responsibility, as a member of this parliament, towards the people whom I have the honour to represent.
If the report which I observed in the press were correct, as undoubtedly it was, that Great Britain is planning to spend well over $250,000,000 for capital ships, cruisers, infantry and tank battalions, and so on, with a large increase for her navy, then it must be patent to all either that Great Britain is putting forth an even more strenuous effort to avert war or that she suspects that a crisis is imminent. I think I am substantially correct when I say that at one time it was considered heroic to provoke or to promote war but that to-day, so far as Great Britain and Canada are concerned, the opposite is true. In my opinion one of the outstanding characteristics of the mother country in recent years has been her desperate, determined and ever
National Defence-Mr. Duffus

increasing efforts 'to avert war. I think it can be truly said that she was the last great nation to follow this rearmament policy.
Let it be distinctly understood that I am definitely opposed to war, and that I consider it my duty to do everything in my power to this end. Moreover, I am unalterably against everything in the nature of increased taxation, where it can be judiciously and economically avoided. If I thought the amount in the estimates was to be voted for the purpose of sending our men and boys and resources overseas, or out of Canada, I would vote against it. But the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) have reiterated time and again most, emphatically that not one dollar of the estimates is for defence other than in our own country and for the security of our homes, our families, our cities, our industries, our trade routes, our canals, our harbours and coastlines, our self-respect, and the preservation of her vast area, rich on the surface and underneath, which is the envy of all the warring nations of the world.
Moreover, everyone in Canada knows it is the policy, written and implied, of this government, that not one soldier will be called upon to serve out of Canada without the sanction of parliament being first obtained. Furthermore, the people have implicit confidence that these commitments will be carried out-that is, if there is sufficient time for that to be done. My reason for the last observation is that we must not overlook the fact that fleets of bombing aeroplanes could leave Europe at this time to-night and have these parliament buildings blown to pieces by this time to-morrow. Does anyone in the house or elsewhere believe that we shall be immune from danger of attack simply because we provide nothing for our protection? If that principle be true, why not apply it to our police protection in the municipalities throughout the country. Why do we retain officers all through these buildings and on government property in Ottawa and elsewhere? We do so because there is possibility of some insidious act on the part of ill-disposed persons. Self-preservation is the first law of nature.
For these and many other reasons I could mention, had I not the keen desire to conserve the time of the house, I intend to vote against the amendment which, after all, is little more than a motion of want of confidence in the government. It also involves condemnation of the government for the inadequacy of its social security program. Just why the hon. members for Vancouver (Mr. MacNeil) and Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) presented

the amendment in its present form and saw fit to precipitate a long debate costing the taxpayers of Canada tens of thousands of dollars, is beyond my comprehension.
On Tuesday, February 16, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), referring to the amendment, is reported at page 961 of Hansard as follows:
It is well worded; I have no objection to the wording of it.
My well-considered opinion is that the amendment is drafted in its present scientific form so as to make it impossible to obtain the support of the members of both the Liberal and the Conservative party in the house, so that when hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party have an opportunity of later discussing the matter on the public platform they will reiterate their oft-repeated accusation that neither of the older parties mentioned has the interests of our people at heart.
Whatever may be the opinion of the people of Canada as to whether the amount in the estimates is too great or too little, I am sure they are all opposed' to this expensive and futile debate, more particularly since it is quite obvious to all that the amendment will obtain the support of only a handful of the members of the house.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, over and over in my life have I found the thing that I ought to do not at all the thing that I liked to do. On this occasion I once more find it so. With the minds of people throughout Canada so filled with doubt, disagreement and fear, who is there that, if his conscience would let him, would not in connection with anything pertaining to war, gladly hold his peace? And yet in these so critical times, with all of yesterday's glowing achievement and all of to-morrow's glorious promise trembling in hazard, one must speak, prayerful that his remarks be wise.
May I say at the outset that no socialist in this building or out of it hates war more heartily than I do. I will grant with anyone, that war never settles anything, that no peace ever satisfies any of the people who make it. Let any treaty 'be made as wisely as possible, the next generation will likely rise up and curse it. Every modern treaty contains the seeds of a greater war than it closes. I will grant all that. These things are freely and heartily conceded, but I cannot and will not entirely blame the delegates who made or must make that peace. The deficiencies in any given treaty are there not necessarily because

National Defence-Mr. Blackmore
of the treachery, the wickedness, the ignorance, the weakness or the indiscretion of the delegates, but because of the clash of interests, the fierceness of passion, the pressure of public opinion and the general set-up of circumstance in the clutch of which the delegates usually find themselves hopelessly gripped.
I will grant furthermore with ready alacrity that war is a fearful waste, that war is monstrously destructive of lives, of health, of comfort and virtue, of happiness and of both real and financial wealth. War fastens upon all participating nations a bondage of debt which enslaves their peoples to the third and fourth generations, and even beyond that. I concede that in any war any participant or combination of participants risks its national freedom, if not its very existence.
Beyond that I will go and concede that the causes of war appear never to be righteous and are almost never what they seem. I will agree that financiers, through hidden international intrigue, manipulate the factors which produce war, and that with them in their baleful endeavours are -bound up the munition makers. It must further be conceded that war as always motivated by selfishness and greed, frequently the selfishness and greed of great private corporations and industries, and that secret treaties also help to cause war, as do likewise political machination and trickery. I frankly concede that propaganda, rousing fear, suspicion and hatred, often by shameful lies, both provokes war and tends to prolong it.
Again I will further allow and even contend that war is morally wicked; that it is nothing short of mass murder and mass robbery and -that it both engenders and is engendered by -mass hatred. As everyone knows, these three things are grossly unChristian. Yet -again I will with enthusiasm maintain that the burdens of war are unjustly distributed. Both suffering and sacrifice are -borne by the poor, while little, if any, of -these are borne by the rich. The values wasted in war are human values more than material values. The real fighters, the really deserving ones, rarely if ever get such rewards as come from war. The greatest sufferers are the mothers, -the sisters, -the wives and the sweethearts, the innocent and helpless among us. Could it avail us anything, I would at this -time cry out as loudly and as -bitterly as anyone against the monstrous wrong and the shameful pity of it all. But alas an outcry would be -but an outcry.
Having expressed in some measure my hatred of war, let me now challenge any man in this dominion to sho-w that he is more earnest and more determined than I in his desire and in his efforts to remove -the real causes of war. I know what those causes are and I know they must be removed. I have some notion as to bow -they might be removed, and in so far as in me lies, I shall gladly dev-ote my life's energies in any intelligent effort to remove those causes.
Le-t me here briefly review -a few of the factors which result in war. I am aware that it was largely poverty, especially poverty in the mid-st of plenty, tha-t rendered possible a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Lenin and a Franco. I am aware also that trade rivalry and the struggle for markets spur nations to outbursts of envy, jealousy and hatred and were in a large measure responsible for -the terrible ~ crisis of 1914. I am painfully aware that there are flagrant inequalities among nations; that certain nations such as Italy and Japan are manifestly cramped in point of territory; that many are hampered by lack of resources such as coal -and oil and nickel and o-ther commodities needed in the modern industrial world, while -at the same time -they see neighbour nations, such as our own, keeping almost unused a superabundance of the very -things they require. I perceive that in the relentless struggle for markets which must characterize an industrialized world under the present economic system, many weaker or less fortunate nations have seen -their markets appropriated by stronger and more fortunate nations. No one senses more keenly than I that somehow, in a general spirit of international compromise and cooperative goodwill, we must remove these irksome inequalities.
Of the fact that there are other galling handicaps, I am not ignorant. No one needs to point out to me how there are nations lacking access to ocean- highways -because of geographical and artificial boundaries, lacking, as for example Poland did, access to ports and seas. Such a state of affairs makes people fret. It is not as it should be. Years ago it was brought home to me that there are certain races whose nationalities were suppressed by other races. Examples that come readily to mind are the Germans of Austria, the Magyars of former Austria-Hungary and the Poles before the treaty of Versailles. Such a condition creates a breeding ground for the generation of bitterness. It should somehow be removed. Let me, here and now, declare that I will set my foot as far as he who goes farthest in any sane attempt to remove these conditions. But who can tell me how? Where is
1034	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Blackmore
he who knows? Eagerly and hungrily searching, I will listen to anyone's idea and give it my utmost respect. I am ready to go far in sacrifice or compromise once I have confidence that the sacrifice will permanently solve the problem. Meanwhile, living in a world of stark realities, I know that men must carry on and I conceive it to be my duty to give my support to those who are trying to carry on to the best of their ability and with apparently the best wisdom that man has attained.
Mr. Speaker, I dread war as much as any pacifist in the land-I dread and abhor it. There are four sons in my household, any one of whom means many times more to me than my own life and health. Three of them would be in immediate danger in the next war. As dear to me as my sons are several brothers whose names would almost surely be numbered for service. I have daughters and sisters who might be bereaved. In my life as a teacher I have learned to love with a peculiar tenderness the great numbers of boys and girls whose lives have been entrusted to my care. No one can value more the youth of this land. When I see a young man on the street and there flashes into my mind, as there does so often, a vision of his splendid body shattered by the hand of war, sickness comes over me so nauseating as to make me almost faint. When I see the beautiful face of any of our girls and the vision flashes into my mind of that face distorted with woe, I am moved almost beyond control. At the same time I realize that in the next war civilization is likely to be wiped out entirely. But what can be done about it? If we leave our country utterly undefended while the nations all around are arming, how can we hope that our weakness will prevent our destruction? When has the helplessness of the lamb rendered it immune from the wolf, or the defencelessness of the innocent child saved it from the kidnapping marauder.
As vividly as any man I sense the many excuses which we might offer for not now preparing. Many a youth, for example, is brooding in his heart and saying such bitter words as: "You fellows making the laws do not have to do the fighting; if you did, you would not be quite so ready to talk about armaments." To them I can only reply: " Perhaps so, but our elders decided the last war for us." Had we known all that they knew, I think we would have agreed with them. We members now bear the responsibility. We are trying to do for those whom we represent, perhaps not altogether what they now would ask us to do, but what we

believe they would want us to do if they knew what we know and sensed what we sense. We are trying to do what they might wish we had done when they know, ten years from now, more than they now know. Again there are heard throughout the land voices muttering, not loud but deep: " Make Canada fit to live in; make it worth defending and we will gladly defend it. Give a square deal to the men who did your dirty work in the last war." With such voices I feelingly sympathize. I know men have mismanaged this house of ours, this Canada, and we cannot yet agree how to manage it; but shall we because of that, and while we are arguing how to manage it, let our enemies snatch it away from us or bomib our children within it?
Others are saying that the United States will defend us. Probably so, but could we lift up our heads and call ourselves an independent nation if another nation had to defend us? If upon the United States' depended the responsibility for defending us, how long would it be before the United States would demand a potent voice in the management of our external affairs? Many ardent souls have struggled through many decades to make Canada independent and to assert Canada's nationhood. What for? That Canada might become a dependant of the United States?
Still other people are saying: "Britain will defend us." But suppose the strain should be too great and Britain should fall. Would Canadians then feel as safe as they feel now when Britain stands? Suppose that she should fall and we knew that that fall had come because she had risked her safety to defend us. Could Canadians ever again be reconciled? If we failed to do our share in preparing to defend our own coasts, and if, because of that, the democracies of the world should fail, could we ever hold up our heads? At other times I hear voices say: What can Canada possibly do to defend herself in modern warfare-there is no safety in war? Such truth as lies in their contention I gladly grant. At the same time I must remember the story of the little drops of water that can make a mighty ocean. Besides, did anyone say during the great war that Canada could do so little? Did anyone think such a thing just after the great war? ( I cannot help feeling that if we in Canada do anything less than all we can in reason do, then in case of a disaster we must stand blameworthy both to ourselves and to all generations. We shall have betrayed our trust. ^

National Defence-Mr. Blackmore
Some voices say: Well, Canada's place is in union with the United States; let us leave our defence to the United States, and let what will be, be. These people I beg to remind that even if they become a part of the United States they could not possibly escape the responsibilities of war. Witness what is going on in the United States at the present time!
Still other voices argue:	Let us keep ourselves helpless so that we cannot fight, and then we will be sure not to fight. My knowledge of history does not permit me to agree with them. It has generally been found that when men want to fight, they fight, regardless of preparation. Look at ourselves in the last war. Britain, they tell me, was not fully prepared until 1918; yet she fought, and for having been unprepared, terrible was the price she paid. Let hon. members in this connection recall what they heard men in . this country saying one year ago while Ethiopia was being lacerated. Did they not hear many regretting Canada's inaction as a member of the league? How would Canadians have felt if it had been Australia instead of Ethiopia? How would they feel should New Zealand now be attacked? Would they say: Leave her to it? I have not yet found a single Canadian who would state that he would consent to such a thing. Suppose that Newfoundland were attacked: then what?
Let us come right down to the present moment: How do our people feel about Spain now? Let me read to the members of this house a resolution which I received from a Canadian city only this morning, and that from the very kind of men who are most bitterly opposing Canadian preparedness:
Whereas it has been learned that the great fighter for Spanish and world democracy, General Emil Kleber, has been captured by the insurgent armies in the storming of Malaga and,
Whereas we believe that the efforts of General Kleber, a Canadian citizen, in the leading of the international brigade, is a heroic work in support of Spanish and world democracy, and that his great work is in line -with the mission that our own Doctor Bethune is carrying on in Madrid.
therefore be it resolved that we do urgently petition the federal M.P.'s at Ottawa to take this matter up at once with the federal government to demand the immediate release of General Kleber out of the hands of the fascist executioners at Malaga, who are being openly aided by the fascist countries of Germany and Italy, in violation of the non-intervention agreement that they have themselves signed,
And be it further resolved that we do urge upon the federal government that they do
everything in their power to call upon the non-intervention committee in London that they demand of the fascist junta in Burgos, Spain, that General Kleber be granted freedom at once.
What would happen to the world if members did what these men urge? What would occur if we could get done what they want us to do? The world would likely be plunged into war, and we along with the rest. How many people have you talked with in Canada who wished to volunteer to go and help the Spanish loyalists? In her present state of unpreparedness Canada could do little or nothing on either side, no matter what she might want to do. Even if bombs were dropped by raiders on this parliament building, on our food factories, on our other industrial centres or on our railway stations, what could we do right now? We are living in a world in which wolves abound. Shall we, to make sure that we will not shoot any of these wolves in case they attack us, leave ourselves without a gun? It would surely seem to be the part of wisdom in us to buy ourselves a good gun and a supply of cartridges, and to learn how to shoot. What we will shoot, or whether we will shoot, we can leave ourselves free to decide, if and when the emergency arises.
I long found myself persistently mystified whenever I tried to make clear to myself why it was that Canada which, from shore to shore, twenty years ago was throbbing with patriotic fervour was becoming not only largely apathetic to considerations of unity, but actually hostile. A British commonwealth which paid so great a price for racial safety now gives palpable evidence of approaching disintegration. The people are the same; their ideals are the same; their danger is as great as ever; but something appears to be progressively embittering them. The blame for this whole development I am going to lay relentlessly upon the financial system under which we live. Our present system, outgrown, obsolete, utterly inadequate, is deteriorating to the point of irreparable ruin-not only the whole British Empire but the whole British people. It might with much reason be argued that every government which is stubbornly clinging to the present system is doing more to compass the destruction of the British race than is any man or movement in the outside world to-day.
Major Douglas as far back as 1923 warned democracy over and over again of the coming of this depression and of the coming of this awful danger of war. Even earlier than that he gave all British people instructions how

National Defence-Mr. Blackmore
they might avoid the approaching disaster, and all he got for his pains was supercilious sneers. How can it possibly be that men, rather than accept a new idea, will so risk irretrievable disaster? Even without accepting any new ideas, the men who have been in charge of British nations since the beginning of the great war could have avoided a great deal of this bitterness. Had they only so controlled profitmaking during the great war that Canadians would not have had to reflect upon millionaires whose ill-gotten gains were amassed under the guise of patriotism while their fellow-Cana-dians suffered and bled, we should all be feeling better now.
Let me now turn to one of the most urgent reasons against preparation-one which is suggested in the amendment, namely, consideration for the bad economic conditions and the crying need everywhere obtaining in Canada, the thought how shameful it is to use for defence, money so gravely needed for relief. I do not believe that we should or need use for our defence any of the money which we should or would otherwise use for relief or for other social services. I have urged before in this house, and will perhaps urge many times again, that this dominion government under existing circumstances can safely create a considerable amount of money and safely use it for any necessary purpose.
I have been answered with the retort that such procedure would cause inflation. There has thus far been advanced no argument that can justify that answer. How would Canada proceed to finance herself if war were to break out and she were to become involved? With people in such poverty as they now are throughout this country, how could we possibly hope to raise great victory loans as we did in the last war? During those years Britain spent far more money, I am told, than there was in the whole of Britain, and she still had plenty to carry on. Where did the money come from? Apparently the banks created a great deal of it. Who would create the money in Canada in case of another crisis? Would the banks or would the government? If not the government, why not? The government backs the money anyway, by backing the banks. Why should new money whether created by the banks or by government cause inflation? The government of Great Britain financed the war with a sort of government money. It worked and was sound.
The argument has been laboured that we must have goods; that goods and services are the only purchasing power. If we grant that, how then can we possibly have overproduction?
fMr. RlackmorB.)
And if goods are purchasing power why then are not banks now lending freely to produce more goods, and why is the government not campaigning for more production of milk, meats, vegetables, sugar, clothing, electricity, building material, coal and the like? We are told the Liberals want more purchasing power; why are they not then taking the most direct method of getting it? We now want purchasing power to finance defence. Why not produce the goods and services, and with them as purchasing power finance our defence? In this manner can be swept away a great deal of the present opposition to the government's defence policy.
And now, Mr. Speaker, having dealt with certain considerations pertaining to defence, and having given to some extent the reasons which prevent these considerations from persuading me to oppose the government's policy, let me now give some of the thoughts which have led me this year to support that policy.
I choose to use homely and simple illustrations, for I find myself able to think to better advantage in terms of concrete experience. We all recognize that any man has the right to kill in self defence. We, therefore, must regard the individual human life as sacred above all things. If I entered my neighbour's home with intent to kill him, or to do him serious bodily harm, everyone would justify him in killing me. Most people would censure him if he did not kill me. If I entered his home with intent to harm any of -his family, and he knew my purpose, most people would justify him in stopping me by force, even to the extent of killing me. If he, knowing or strongly surmising my intent, did not prevent me 'by force if need be, most people would blame him; many would despise him, his wife and his children among them.
Now, if that neighbour, knowing that I was coming armed, failed to prepare himself against me, he would be almost universally blamed, if not censured. What applies to an individual must surely apply to a community of individuals. Even if my neighbour knew that I was bringing a machine gun or a bomb, or any other deadly device, most people would expect him to do all that he could, even to the extent of giving his life, to save his family. The same reasoning ought to apply to any community of individuals. If, knowing that I was armed and that I might by chance violate his home, he failed to arm himself against my coming, he would be blamed for failure to arm himself against my coming. After I had armed, if he so armed himself, could anyone possibly

National Defence-Mr. Blackmore
reason that his arming had caused me to attack him? Again, if that neighbour of mine found himself dwelling in a vicinity where most of the men were armed, would you not hold him blameworthy if he did not arm himself? And if, under such circumstances he did arm himself, can anyone consistently contend that his arming himself would cause me or any of his other armed neighbours to attack him? This reasoning, again, applying as it manifestly does to an individual, appears to me to apply with equal force to communities of individuals.
Now, Canada is that neighbour; she lives in an armed world community; she is filled with resources, fabulously rich-rich in the very materials which ambitious nations covet. If her rulers neglect to arm her, how they can possibly escape the censure of all carefully thinking people it is beyond my power to comprehend.
It seems fitting to me that I should dwell with some care upon certain other causes of war which hitherto, as far as I recollect, have not, in this debate, been greatly stressed. Let me return again to individuals and their neighbours. Let us suppose that my neighbour has a sixteen year old boy. Everybody recognizes that this boy will naturally express himself. He may shout and sing a great deal, not because he wishes to annoy his parents or their neighbours, but just because he wishes to express himself. His parents naturally will endeavour to restrain him. Suppose, now, that he refuses to listen to persuasion or to reason, no matter how much we all remonstrate with him, what can we do about it? Most ordinary people would say that in some manner or another, sooner or later, force would have to be applied to that boy. If his parents did not do it, some of his neighbours, perhaps his neighbour's sixteen year old boy, would likely do it. There are boys among nations. It is because of this fact that we have come to think of collective security through alliances, ententes, leagues of nations and the like. So long as there are no alliances or leagues of nations sufficient to give this collective security, it would seem to be beyond question that each of the neighbours must be prepared, either individually or in cooperation with several neighbours, either to administer correction or to fill the rowdy ones with a measure of awe. There appears no way of avoiding the implications of this reasoning.
Here is another thought. Each race becomes passionately attached to its own way of doing things, to its own civilization, as we
call it. A people's language, habits of thought, modes of life, et cetera, constitute something which the Germans called kultur. Now, it is a well-known fact that it is the natural impulse of each human being to try to get other human beings to do as he or she does. As we say, it is the natural impulse, almost an instinct, of nearly everyone .to try to impose his will upon his neighbour. It is an equally potent and prevalent impulse for everyone to resent any attempt of his neighbour to impose his will upon him; that is, as we say, each one naturally wants his own way about it. This impulse to impose one's will upon another, and this equally urgent impulse to resent such imposition, and to develop oneself in one's own way, cause ceaseless struggle among individual human beings. Generally the struggle takes the form of a clash of personality resulting in quarrels. But if satisfactory results cannot be obtained by a quarrel, there will be a fight; that is, there will be a resort to force.
Now, each nation or race is incessantly attempting to impose its will upon each other race; that is, each nation is trying to bring about universal acceptance of its kultur, its language, its religion in some cases, its education, et cetera. Just as sternly as one individual resents and resists and must resist the imposition of another's will upon him, so sternly does each nation or race resist the imposition of any other race's will or kultur upon it. Away down deep in the heart of even' race this instinct resides, ever present. One of the most cogent causes of war is this very impulse. It is the impulse which has in our day resulted in a Mussolini promising his people all the land that the Roman empire ever ruled; this, too, has resulted in the passionate ebullition of racial feeling which has thrust and is still thrusting Hitler into prominence. Thus far, no one that I have ever heard of has been able to give any sufficient remedy for this cause. Canada has her own kultur, though we call it our own civilization. Is it worth preparing to defend? Every people, so far as I can judge, must be constantly on its guard, ready to defend its own culture. There are, at the present time in the world, at least five great peoples, each definitely dreaming of world dominion, each instinctively if not consciously planning to impose upon us and upon others its own kultur,^ I do not believe that the Anglo-Saxon race-the British peoples-should strive to impose their will upon others, at least by any aggressive means. At the same time who can see any reason that would justify us in allowing others to impose their will upon us?
1038	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Blackmore
We must be ready to give and take with all peoples. We must be ready to compromise. We must cultivate in our own hearts understanding of the legitimate aspirations of other peoples and an honest disposition to help them to obtain the good things of this world. We must constantly strive to allow every other race the full right and opportunity to realize the complete development and expression of its own culture, and to contribute that culture to the enrichment of the world's
life, always granted that it does not, by realizing itself, hinder unwarrantably the selfrealization of its fellow races. That no race might be able to hinder our own self-realization, we must, I conceive, prepare to defend ourselves in case of need. )
Mr. Speaker, it is eleven o'clock.


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