1937-01-27

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

Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Who were the members of the Hamilton harbour commission during the year 1936?
2.	What individual salary did they receive?
3.	Are they allowed certain expenses in addition?
4.	If so, what expenses did they incur individually?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	D'Arcy Martin, K.C. (chairman), R. H. Yeates and A. G. Gaul until March 4th; after that date, C. V. Langs, K.C. (chairman), E. H. Corman and A. G. Gaul-the latter being the appointee of the city.
2.	The salary attaching to the chairmanship is $1,500 per year, and to the other two members $1,200.
3 and 4. During 1935 the former commission paid the expenses of its members in attendance at Ottawa amounting to $578.21, which includes car allowance to Mr. Yeates of $75. In 1936 the board paid the expenses of the present board in connection with various attendances at Ottawa, $235.05. No expenses were incurred individually other than the car allowance item of $75 allowed Commissioner Yeates.

Questions


NARCOTIC DRUGS
Mr. FLEMING:: 1. What is	the total	amount of	opium,morphine and	codein imported into	Canadain 1932, 1933,	1934, 1935,	and 1936?	1.	Opium(lbs.)1932	. 6151933	1934	. 4581935	. 730*1936	
*Figures are based on import licences issued, as cust be somewhat lower, dependent on goods covered by li
2.	Has the Department of National Health taken any action to stop the sale of narcotic drugs?
3.	Has the Department of National Health taken any action to look after drug addicts?


Mr. POWER:: Morphine (including Diacetyl-morphine
and
Ethyl-morphine)	Codeine
(ozs.)	(ozs.)
4,442	17,019
5,316	26,361
5,476	28,915
4,883	35,669
5,256	22,909
statistics are not yet available. Final figures may is issued late in 1936 not arriving until 1937.
2.	It controls the legal sale in wholesale and retail drug stores by means of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. The illicit traffic is, with the cooperation of federal, provincial and municipal police forces, sought out and combated under both the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act and the criminal code. There were one hundred and sixty-three convictions under the former in 1935.
3.	The department is constantly in communication with the medical profession in relation to individual cases of drug addicts, the responsibility for the care and treatment of which, however, comes within the provincial orbit, as do the tuberculous or the insane. Three provinces have passed legislation in the matter.
(1)	Name
A. B. Purvis	
A. N. McLean	
Alfred Marois	
Tom Moore	
Mrs. M. M. Sutherland.. ..
W. A. Mackintosh	
E. J. Young


WELLAND CANAL WEED CUTTING
Mr. SENN:: What was the total cost of cutting weeds on the Welland canal feeders for each of the years 1934, 1935 and 1936?


Mr. HOWE:: Total cost of cutting weeds on Welland canal feeders during the years in question was as follows: 1934, $905.74; 1935, $1,146.08; 1936, $1,614.40.


NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	What is the personnel of the National Employment Commission?
2.	What salaries were paid during 1936?
3.	What is the rate for each member per annum ?
4.	What has been the total amount spent on, for or by this body?


Mr. ROGERS:: (2)	Total salary paid in 1936 Nil
Nil

Paid from employment and social insurance.

(3) Salary rate
$20 per day, less five per cent.
$20 per day, less five per cent.
$20 per day, less five per cent.
$9,000 per annum less five per cent.
$20 per day, less five per cent.
$20 per day, less five per cent.
S20 per day, less five per cent.
Questions

(4)
A. From Vote 332	 $58,313.19
From Vote 336 (registration) 36,249.36
Total	 $94,562.55


CANADA-WEST INDIES TRADE
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What was the total amount of exports in loilars of all goods from Canada to West Indies for the years 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936?
2.	What was the total amount of imports in dollars of all goods from the West Indies to Canada for the same periods?
3.	What was the total amount of exports in dry fish to the West Indies for the same periods (quantities and value in dollars) ?
4.	What was the total amount of exports of potatoes from Canada to the West Indies for the same periods (quantities and values in
dollars) ?


Norman McLeod Rogers: 1. Domestic exports from Canada to the British West Indies for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1928 to 1936, were as follows:		
Fiscal years 1928		.. $19,145,055
1Q2Q		.. 20,524,366
1Q20		19,870,292
1Q21		.. .. 17.802,611
1932 ..		.. .. 12.008,912
1933 ..		.. 10,027,189
1934..		.. 9.243,461
1935 ..		.. 9,893.227
193_.		.. .. 10,553,357
2. Imports into Canada from the British West Indies for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1928 to 1936 were as follows:		
Fiscal years 1928.. .. 1929 ..		.. $23,633,051 	 20,638,916
1930 ..			 18,078,443
1931..			 18,742,366
1932 ..			 16,508,308
1933..	.. 1934..			 12,248,000 .. .. 10,808.017
1935 ..			 14,550,431
1936.. .			 17,189,253
3.	Domestic exports of "Fish, dried, salted, smoked or pickled," to British West Indies for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1928 to 1936 were as follows:

Fiscal years	Quantity cwt.	Value1928.. .	.. 27,237.900	$1,471,7591929.. .	. .. 23,506,400	1,391,0571930.. .	,. .. 28,718,100	1,879,2291931.. .	.. .. 25.658.600	1,381,8191932.. .	. .. 21,502,700	944,4751933.. .	,. .. 23,398,100	836,6241934.. .	. .. 24,272.500	799,2651935.. .	. .. 23,427,500	947,7491936.. .	. .. 22,988,700	899,2454. Domestic exports of potatoes	to BritishWest Indies for the fiscal years ended March	31, 1928 to	1936, were as follows:	Fiscal years	Quantity bush.	Value1928.. .	
191.146	$187,7261929.. .	
291,998	229,8001930.. .	
216.181	186.5441931.. .	
203,608	170.2931932.. .	
368,777	184.3861933.. .	
299.544	139.5701934.. .	
249.549	137.0441935.. .	
368,321	184,8321936.. .	
381.950	210,796


J. J. MCCRUDEN
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	What was the total amount paid to Mr. J. J. McCruden, McTaggart, Saskatchewan, for the taking of a census, and other services?
2.	Was Mr. McCruden employed on his own vocation while drawing this money from the government ?
3.	Did Mr. McCruden give full time service in return for the money received?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1. $750. [DOT]
2	and 3. Do not know Mr. McCruden's voca-ation or hours of work, but he gave the necessary time to carrying out his duties as census commissioner.


CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS-DAIRY SUPPLIES
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Where does the Canadian National Steamships Company purchase the following dairy products used on route Halifax to West Indies: (a) butter; (b) cream; (c) ice cream?
2.	What amount was paid for each of the above products in the year 1936?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	(a) Halifax; (b) Halifax, Prince Port, N.S., and Boston, Mass.; (c) Halifax and Boston, Mass.
2.	The question whether such information should be divulged is one for the consideration of the select standing committee on rail-

Motions for Papers
ways and shipping. The Canadian National Steamships management feel that it is not in the interest of the company to make such information public.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: 1.	How many European war pensions are being paid to Canadians?
2.	How many pensions are paid to other than Canadians?
3.	How many recipients of pensions are regularly employed in remunerative occupations?
i.	How many receive income from other sources?
5.	How many members of parliament receive war pensions ?
6.	What are the rates of pensions for the various ranking officers?
7.	What are the rates of pension received by the various classes of pensioners, with income, wages, salaries, dividends received from other sources (classified in groups, if necessary) ?
8.	Are pensions assessable for income tax?


MONTREAL POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Did the Civil Service Commission, in 1930, establish an eligible list of candidates in Montreal for positions as postal helpers, letter carriers, clerks or mail porters?
2.	Is said list still in force? If not, when *was it abrogated?
3.	Has the Civil Service Commission, since 1930, established another list of eligible candidates for similar positions in Montreal?
i. Has the Post Office Department, since 1930, engaged any employees, such as clerks, letter carriers, or mail porters, in Montreal, other than those appearing on the 1930 list? If so, how many?


Mr. RINFRET:: Return tabled herewith.


Mr. JEAN:: 1.	What are the names of all the officers and employees, whether permanent or temporary, in the postal service at Montreal, during 1936?
2.	What was the nature of their respective duties, and the salary of each during the course of the year?
3.	What are the dates of their appointments respectively, indicating whether they were nominated by the Civil Service Commission, or the Postmaster General, or otherwise?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. HANSELL:: For a copy of all letters, resolutions and communications approving or disapproving the government's action instructing the wheat board to handle wheat only when the price dropped to 90 cents per bushel.



LIVELONG, SASK., POST OFFICE

Mr. NEEDHAM:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence and other documents respecting the trial in Livelong, in connection with the removal of the post office from Mr. Hicks store in Livelong, Saskatchewan. Also a statement showing the cost to the government of the said trial.



HUME, SASK., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. DOUGLAS:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents dated during the past six months, in connection with the requested resignation of R. E. Juby, postmaster at Hume, Saskatchewan.



FRENCH VILLAGE, N.S., GOVERNMENT WHARF

Mr. MASSEY (for Mr. Brooks):: For a copy of all payrolls showing money expended and to whom it was paid, on certain repairs made by the Department of Public Works to the government wharf at French Village, county of Halifax, Nova Scotia, during the year 1936.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. MacNEIL:: For a copy of all memoranda, telegrams, correspondence, charges, evidence and other documents, from January 1, 1936, to date, in the possession of the Department of Agriculture or the office of the Prime Minister, relating to the dismissal of the following: Edward E, Jay, district seed potato inspector, botany division, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Edward Cairns, seed potato inspector, Prince Edward Island; Edward P. Donnelly, fruit and vegetable inspector, Prince Edward Island; Charles McLeod, fruit and vegetable inspector, Prince Edward Island. Also a statement showing the dates of appointment and dismissal and reasons assigned for dismissal in each case, along with all information received by the department which resulted in such dismissals and the name or names of the person or persons who assumed responsibility for such information.
Also a copy of any orders in council or regulations authorizing dismissal of members of the public service without investigation upon allegations of any person that such member of the said service has been guilty of active partisanship.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. GARIEPY


Mr. WILFRID GARIEPY (Three Rivers):: There is an important matter which I would like to call to the attention of the government. In the city of Three Rivers, represented in the local house by the premier and attorney general of Quebec, there took place the night before last a large gathering in the form of a banquet at which the attorney general made certain charges which I find
World Peace-Mr. Heaps

reported in the daily papers, particularly verbatim in Le Devoir of January 26, that is, yesterday. It states that in the province of Quebec-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not think the hon. member has any right to bring this question before the house at this stage. The orders of the day have not been called.


Wilfrid Gariépy: According to the clerk,
Mr. Speaker, we shall not reach the orders of the day to-day. I understand that this is the proper time-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Wilfrid Gariépy: In the speech in question an important charge is made against the government, a charge which I think calls for immediate attention.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member is out of order at this stage.



WORLD PEACE


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North) moved:: Whereas the nations of the world are faced with a most alarming situation which may result in a disastrous war;
And whereas, the League of Nations up to the present has not succeeded in establishing conditions conducive to a permanent and lasting peace;
And whereas, Canada on the American continent is an integral part of the British Empire and a neighbour to the American republic,
Therefore be it resolved,-That, in the opinion of this house, the government of Canada respectfully suggest to the President of the United States the desirability of convening a world conference for the securing and maintenance of peace.
He said: I think it will be within the recollection of most hon. members that in years gone by, when I have moved resolutions on private members' days, I have usually introduced resolutions dealing with what might be called purely Canadian problems. On this occasion, however, I am of opinion that the 'question of peace is of greater importance than the questions I have raised in previous years with respect to unemployment insurance and even old age pensions, and it is for that reason I am to-day introducing the resolution which has just been read.
In some respects this resolution is correlated with the one moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. 
Woodsworth) on Monday last. Some ground which he covered on that occasion I may also traverse to-day, but I shall do so briefly. It will be observed from the terms of the resolution that it may be divided into three parts. The first refers to the imminence or danger of war; the second refers to the League of Nations, and the third deals with a proposed request by our government to the president of the United States to consider the convening of a world peace conference.
To-day the danger of war is recognized on all sides, and this has resulted in nations arming themselves as they have never done before. The tremendous burden of armaments has become a strain financially upon all nations, and not even the most sanguine among us would claim that an armed nation or a group of armed nations is any security for peace. In fact, the very reverse is more likely to be true; for if huge armies equipped with the most modern death-dealing implements of war were any guarantee of peace, then the world to-day should be in a more peaceful state than has ever been known in history. Of course, that is not so. It is time, I believe, that in the interests of peace a halt was called to the huge armament race, which must ultimately result in a clash of arms on an unparalleled scale. The amassing of armaments creates a war psychology which makes it more difficult to maintain a peace atmosphere among the nations.
War settles no problems. History has taught us that practically all wars create new problems; and in addition to that we have to consider the cost of war in both the human and the material sense, with all the sacrifices that war entails. We seem to be willing to make all sorts of sacrifices to the gods of war, but hardly any in the cause of peace. In this country we seem also to have caught the fever for greater military preparations. It would have been a very highly commendable policy on the part of the government if, instead of greater preparations and greater appropriations being made for military purposes, even a small percentage of the sums appropriated for armaments had been set apart for the purpose of finding a peaceful solution of our international problems.
We take it for granted to-day that all nations must have ministers whose sole purpose it is to see to war preparations. In my opinion it would be a very fine gesture on our part if in addition to the ministry of defence we had a ministry of peace. If only five per cent of the amount spent on

World Peace-Mr. Heaps
war or warlike preparations were to be appropriated for such a purpose we should ultimately receive far greater benefits than can be derived from these expenditures on implements of war. War does not and never could appeal to the higher instincts of humanity. It appeals only to our baser .instincts and engenders jealousies and hatreds that are difficult to eradicate for many generations. There is nothing that can be called ennobling or humanitarian in a mass slaughter of human beings. War is barbarian, and barbaric are its methods. If the world were again to engage in a mass slaughter of human beings, this would inevitably lead to chaos and what we commonly call a state of anarchy. War is a sign not of progress but of reaction, a brake on the wheels of progress. It has been claimed in some quarters that war and preparation for war are signs of regeneration of a people. In my opinion that is far from being the case. The resort to war is a sign not of regeneration but of degeneration; it is chosen only by those who have little regard for human life and no conception of what is just and right. In this day and generation we are in many respects living in the most advanced civilization the world has ever known. Must we say that in spite of the progress we have made in the arts and sciences and in culture we are helpless in regard to the preservation of peace? The whole world is crying for peace; yet we seem to be inevitably drifting toward war.
Although Canada is one of the smaller nations of the world, she has taken an important part in world affairs. Should we not, therefore, make our contribution toward creating an atmosphere of peace among the nations of the world? Should we not try to do something to banish the fear of war from our midst, and strive toward creating that much to be desired peace sentiment?
I have said that I would like to see Canada the first nation in the world to establish a ministry of peace, with sufficient funds allotted for that purpose. If such a ministry were established, I should like to see engraved over the entrance the words "Peace on earth, good will toward men." It is indeed ennobling to have these religious, historic and Christian words before us on one day in the year, but how much better would it be if we practised the principles underlying them 365 days in the year. To attain peace will entail a struggle, but is it not worth the effort? The nations of the world are looking for a lead from somewhere. Unfortunately the League of Nations has not been the success
we would like it to have been. I know hindsight is usually better than foresight, but, without unduly criticizing what has been done by the league since its inception, one must come to the regrettable conclusion that it has not been the instrument for the settlement of international problems that we wished it to be and expected it would be. It did not deal firmly with the problems that confronted it; it did not grapple with those problems with real earnestness; sometimes it tried to evade them, hoping, Micawber-like, that something would turn up. Its gestures were often meaningless, and certainly lacked effectiveness. In spite of this, one must not condemn the principles underlying the league, but realize that there was lacking among its members that true spirit of cooperation which was necessary to make the league the powerful instrument so greatly needed to-day in world affairs.
A league of nations or some international body created for the purpose of considering and dealing with world problems must have behind it some effective means of making its judgment prevail. Those who are members of such a body must loyally abide by its decisions. The members cannot be a law unto themselves; they cannot be in the league when it suits them and out of the league when it suits them. Unfortunately Canada has also erred in this respect; there seems to be among some of our people a desire to be half in the league and half out. In an international body of this kind there can be no such thing as being half in and half out. We must be either in the league or out of it. As far as I am concerned I am wholeheartedly in favour of being in the league and giving full accord to its activities and recommendati ons.
Unfortunately during recent years this policy of halfhearted support of the league has been one of the main causes which have brought it to its present position. The covenant of the League of Nations has been flouted. There must be respect for international covenants, otherwise the respect for law disappears. During the last few years, with the disregard which has been shown by some nations for their international obligations, the law of the jungle has prevailed, driving the weak to the wall and resulting in the survival of the strong and ruthless. Might has become right. This spirit in international and human relations must change, and the law of the jungle give way to the rule of law. Smaller or weaker
World Peace-Mr. Heaps

nations must in the league feel a sense of security, and fear of coercion by stronger nations must be banished.
It was hoped that the League of Nations would achieve this object, but unfortunately such has not been the case. One has but to go back a few years to the wanton invasion of Manchuria by Japan. While Japan was censured by the league, she is to-day to all intents and purposes in full control of that portion of Chinese territory. Then there was the Ethiopian affair, and although Italy was censured by the league, and a halfhearted form of sanctions applied, Italy to-day is in control of Ethiopia. I could also refer to the ineffectiveness of the league in connection with the Spanish situation. A non-intervention body was also created, but the terms of the covenant were not lived up to by many of the signatories. I would point out further that Spain was a member of the League of Nations and as such had a right to expect some support from the league in the unfortunate situation in which she finds herself at the present time. Had the stronger nations of the world given a more powerful lead when it was required it is quite probable that to-day Japan would not be in Manchuria or Italy in Ethiopia, and I am quite satisfied that the nations which are responsible for prolonging the civil war in Spain would have kept out of Spain, and the Spanish situation might have adjusted itself much more easily than is possible now.
In respect to Ethiopia I might refer in passing to the book mentioned in this chamber on Monday last by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), and written by Marshal de Bono who commanded the Italian troops at the beginning of the campaign, wherein he stated that had Great Britain shown a firm hand at the outbreak of hostilities it is quite likely that Italy would have been compelled to call off her campaign. I do not believe it would have been necessary for any country to go so far as the use of force to compel either Japan or Italy to desist from aggression. Economic sanctions effectively applied would, in these days of world interdependence, have been sufficient to bring both these countries to a realization of their responsibilities to the other peoples of the world, and of their obligation to adhere to the principles of the league, of which they were both members. It is because of such ineffectiveness that the league is to-day in a more or less moribund condition. The world has drifted into a state of chaos in international affairs, and the time 
has come when the parliaments of the world, no matter how they are constituted, should take cognizance of the situation and see if an effort cannot be made to prevent the catastrophe which possibly lies ahead of us.
I am suggesting in this motion that our government request the president of the United States to consider the advisability of convening a world peace conference. I know how simple it is for anyone to find fault with any suggestion that might be made along this line. The easiest thing in the world is destructive criticism, but if there is anyone who anxiously desires to secure world peace and knows some better method of attaining it than by convening a proper world conference in which all nations would or could participate, then I believe we should have those opinions expressed.
The United States is both respected and feared to-day by the other nations of the world. It is feared because of its great economic strength, consisting of huge financial and natural resources. On the other hand the United States has to a certain extent kept aloof from most European problems, and it is therefore in a peculiarly favourable position to convene a conference of the nations of the world, with the strong probability that no other country could afford to ignore a call of this kind. There is in the world no other country than the Dominion of Canada that could make such a suggestion to the president of the United States with more confidence of a favourable reply. There is no need for me to refer to the good relations which have existed between the United States and Canada over the years, because that is selfevident. We are part of the American continent, and at the same time an integral part of the British Empire. There are few, if any, members of this house who wish to secede from the British Empire, and we could not withdraw from the American continent even if we would. That is the unusual position we stand in to-day-part of the new world and yet at the same time part of the old.
Our message to the old world is: Cannot some way be found whereby these rivalries, jealousies, hatreds and bitternesses may be eliminated and a new start made in the relationships as between man and man and nation and nation? In many respects we in this country are following, in our national and international policies, along identical lines with the United States. In our trade relations we have tried to make trade agreements with other nations in all parts of the world, just as the United States has done.

World Peace-Mr. Heaps
The foreign and domestic policies of these two countries are in many respects identical. In the United States they are doing away to a certain extent with their tariff walls, and we are reducing our tariff walls in the hope of trading with all nations. The old idea which was so prevalent in this country and in the United States in years gone by that trade was in itself a form of warfare is now perhaps being discarded. I believe that trade, instead of being looked upon as a form of warfare between nation and nation, should really be the cement which binds nation and nation together. I am one of those who believe that there should be the freest possible flow in commerce, of surplus commodities, between the various nations of the world, and that reason in itself is one of a number that I shall give in support of my contention that we are in a favourable position to make to the president of the United States the request suggested in my motion.
I would also recall to the house the rather significant statement that was made here by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on Monday last. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce, (Miss Macphail) had referred to our absence from the pan-American conference which was held last December, and the Minister of Justice gave, as a very good reason for our absence, the information that we were not invited to be present. I cannot say positively that if we had received an invitation the government would have accepted it, but perhaps I may read that meaning into the minister's statement, and if I am wrong I hope he will excuse me. At all events, he said the reason we were not there was that we had not been invited, and possibly one of the reasons why we have not had an allembracing international conference with respect to world peace is that the president of the United States has not yet been invited to call such a conference. If I may carry the suggestion of the Minister of Justice a step further, possibly if an invitation were extended by the Dominion of Canada through its government to the president of the United States to convene a world peace conference, he might consider a suggestion of that kind in a favourable light.
I know some of my hon. friends may object to action of that kind because it might appear to some that we were drifting away from our allegiance to Great Britain and the empire and showing a strong allegiance to the United States. Personally I do not attach very much weight to such an objection. The question of peace is of such vast importance
to ourselves and to all nations of the world that I do not think we ought to stand on any technicalities as to who is going to convene a world peace conference, so long as we have such a conference called under such auspices that we may hope for the most effective results.
Answering those who may object to one country asking another to take certain action along a certain line, I would quote a paragraph or two from a book called International Security, written by Phillip C. Jessup, associate professor of international law at Columbia university. Referring to the instigation of the Ivellogg-Briand peace pact, this writer makes this rather significant statement:
It will be recalled that the negotiation of the pact began with M. Briand's offer of April 6, 1927. This was a suggestion, not devoid of inspiration from a private American source, for a treaty between France and the United States.
While we have been under the impression that that treaty was really one of French inspiration, in the book written by Mr. Jessup, who I believe is a student of international affairs and in close touch with the situation, it is clearly brought out that the original inspiration for the Briand peace pact came from the United States. That was done in a private way. What I am asking in this motion is that we should do in an open way what the United States did privately just about ten years ago.
I realize full well, along with the other members of this house, how strong the feeling is in the United States that they must have nothing whatever to do with European problems. I realize, too, that there is a strong feeling of a similar kind here in Canada. The people on this continent feel that we are so far removed from the source of European conflicts that we should remain neutral, and disregard what is talcing place in Europe.
In the changed world in which we live neutrality has become a difficult problem. In that respect I have a good deal of sympathy with the position outlined in this chamber on Monday last by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I realize the difficulty which may arise at some future time in defining the meaning of neutrality. It would be almost impossible at the present time to define what neutrality might be in the event of a war in Europe. Neutrality, like justice and morality, changes under changing conditions. If Great Britain were to become involved in a European war, I doubt if Can-
World Peace-Mr. Heaps

ada would or even could remain neutral. That is an opinion with which some of my hon. friends may disagree. I am well aware of the strong feelings existing in many parts of Canada against this country's participation in a European war. If war should break out, would we, for instance, refuse to supply Great Britain with the every-day essential needs of life? On the other hand, would not such supplies be regarded by an enemy state as goods delivered in violation of strict neutrality.
In a time of war would not each nation make its own definition of neutrality in the same way as Great Britain has done in the present Spanish crisis. I do not wish to dwell too long on this aspect of the subject; I have emphasized it only to point out that it would be far better to avoid such difficulties. My humble opinion is that the most effective way would be by securing and maintaining a lasting peace. Metaphorically speaking, the world is becoming a smaller unit. Space and distance which at one time kept nations far apart no longer operate. That which a generation ago was termed a long distance is regarded now as only a very short journey. We turn the switch of a radio and the voice of man can be heard instantaneously around the world. Because of these vast changes isolation becomes increasingly difficult; distance and space no longer isolate us.
It will be remembered that when, during the great war, the late President Wilson ran for election to the office of President of the United States, it was with the idea of keeping the United States out of the war. He received an overwhelming mandate, but within a short time the United States entered the war-the very thing he was pledged not to permit. Further, he had behind him the wholehearted support of the American people. We on the American continents can pride ourselves on the fact that we are free of many of the prejudices and difficulties which confront the people of the old world. We congratulate ourselves upon the fact that we live in peace and in a spirit of friendship with other nations. But as one cannot isolate war, neither can one isolat' peace. It is because of this conviction that I am so anxious for the new world to give a lead to the old, and to try to secure peace among the nations.
When a great crisis overtakes us we are not always moved by logic; more often we are moved by our emotions. Who knows what the position of Canada, yes, and even that of the United States, would be in the event of another war breaking out in Europe? One cannot be unmindful of the great forces 
which have been at work in past years attempting to create peace sentiment throughout the world. Somehow or another they have not been able to overcome other influences which unfortunately have been more powerful than the influences for peace. I fully realize the lack of success which has attended many of the efforts of the peace organizations and conferences which have been called for peace purposes. There are some who may object to the calling of another conference; they may urge that under existing circumstances this would be futile. Yet may I point out that at the conclusion of another war in Europe there would still have to be a conference among the belligerent nations seeking to call a truce and to arrange another peace. Is it not far better and more sensible to attempt to hold another conference before a war takes place than to have a forced conference after such war has ended. That being so, which nation or individual is most likely to be able to call a world conference, with a hope of success. I can think only of the United States, with the president of that country convening such a world conference.
I realize the republic to the south of us has a strong feeling against taking a hand in European affairs. To a large extent we in this country share that feeling, but I believe the earnest desire and sentiment for peace on the American continent, and the realization of the advantages and blessings peace might bring about should outweigh any feelings such as I have described. We cannot confine peace to the American continent any more than we can confine war to Europe. As I have stated previously, peace, like war, cannot be isolated.
At this point I cannot help referring to the laudable efforts which have been made by the president of the United States to secure peace on the American continents. His recent visit to the South American republics was in itself a glowing demonstration of the attitude of the president and people of the United States, and of their desire to live together in a spirit of harmony, good will and common understanding. Irrespective of the attitudes of governments, I believe among the masses of the peoples in other parts of the world there is the same desire to live in a spirit of common understanding and mutual tolerance.
I believe it would not be out of place at this time briefly to quote some of the statements made by the president of the United States on the occasion of his visit to the pan-American Peace conference at Buenos Aires, indicating his attitude toward world peace.

World Peace-Mr. Heaps
On November 28 last, speaking at Rio de Janeiro, among other things the president made the following statement:
The friendly nations of the Americas can render no greater service to civilization itself than by maintaining both domestic and international peace and by freeing themselves forever from conflict.
All of us have learned that no real, no lasting prosperity can exist where it is secured at the expense of our neighbours-that among nations, as in our domestic relations, the principle of interdependence is paramount.
No nation can live entirely to itself. Each one of us has learned the glories of independence. Let each one of us learn the glories of interdependence. Economically, we supply each other's needs; intellectually we maintain a constant, a grooving exchange of culture, of science and of thought; spiritually, the life of each can well enrich the life of all.
Any step which serves to ensure permanence of peace in any part of the world is a contribution to the peace of the world. Cooperative effort towards this end cannot be too widely extended. Peace, like justice, has become the common concern of mankind. Civilization is a common inheritance, and a common possession. It can only be maintained by common endeavour.
I think all hon. members who have listened to those words will realize the strong desire that exists in the mind of the president of the United States for the security of world peace.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Is my hon. friend quoting the president of the United States?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that is what I said.


Mr. JACOBS:: Great minds move in the same direction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend will find he is quoting from a statement I gave out at the time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That may be the case, but
I think it is a pretty good statement to make and I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will live up to it by supporting the resolution I have just submitted to the house. However, I should like to quote from what the president of the United States did say at Buenos Aires. I think the statement of the Prime Minister and that of the President are on a par. I am fully in accord with what the Prime Minister said and I hope I have done him no injustice by crediting his remarks to the president of the United States. This is the statement made by the president of the United States on December 1:
But we cannot now, especially in view of our common purpose, accept any defeatist
attitude. We have learned by hard experience that peace is not to be had for the mere asking, that peace, like other great privileges, can be obtained only by hard painstaking efforts. We are here to dedicate ourselves and our countries to that work.
You who assembled to-day carry with you in your deliberations the hopes of millions of human beings in other less fortunate lands. Beyond the ocean we see continents rent asunder by old hatreds and new fanaticism. We hear the demand that injustice and inequality be corrected by resorting to the sword and not by resorting to reason and peaceful justice. We hear the cry that new markets can be achieved only through conquest. We read that the sanctity of treaties between nations is disregarded.
In either case, even though the Americans become involved in no war, we must suffer too. The madness of a great war in other parts of the world would affect us and threaten our good in a hundred ways. And the economic collapse of any nation or nations must of necessity harm our prosperity.
Can we, the republics of the new world, help the old world to avert the catastrophe which impends? Yes, I am confident that we can.
In the face of this expressed declaration by the president of the United States-also by the Prime Minister of Canada-and the detached position which the United States has maintained during recent years, its aloofness in many respects from the strife of the older world, I feel there is no one more competent to convene a world conference than the president of the United States. I know there are some, even in this chamber, who will claim that we have had many conferences which have proven unsuccessful. In answer to that, I would point out that such conferences have been limited in their scope and have not been as all embracing as the one I am suggesting. My further opinion is that we cannot get the nations of the world together too often to discuss problems face to face. Ultimately such closer contact is bound to have beneficial results, even though in the beginning they may be rather slow and disappointing and devoid of immediate benefits. A frank discussion of differences is better than no discussion at all. In a world so torn by strife and jealousies as is this one to-day, we cannot expect to make progress in this direction too rapidly. But we can keep on persevering in the hope that some day those people who are indifferent to peace problems will adopt a more decided attitude in that direction.
The objection may be raised that we as an integral part of the British Empire and as a member of the League of Nations ought not to forsake these existing allegiances. I would point out that we are not forsaking either the League of Nations or Great Britain when
World Peace-Mr. Heaps

we request a neighbouring state to intervene in the cause of peace. Is that not the real purpose of the league? The object to be reached is of far greater consequence than a technical objection of this kind. It is generally admitted that the League of Nations has failed. It is admitted also that the policy which Great Britain has adopted during the past few years has also been void of success. The policy of Great Britain seems still to follow the antiquated lines of years gone by. Eighty years ago Lord Palmerston, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, aptly described this policy in the following words, "Great Britain has no eternal friends, no eternal enmities, but only eternal interests." In a modern world diplomacy of this sort cannot possibly succeed. We have to stand by that which we consider right and just, irrespective of what interests may be involved.
The United States has made many significant gestures toward establishing and maintaining peaceful relations with other nations. In spite of the fact that there is such a strong sentiment opposed to intervening in old world affairs, we must bear in mind that even during past years the United States has taken an active part in European and international problems. I might point out that the Dawes plan came from the United States. The Young plan for reparations also came from the United States, and more important than either of these was the Iiellogg-Briand peace pact. Although that pact has not proven successful in outlawing war as a means of settling international disputes, it certainly was a worthwhile effort. This is the tenth year of its inception, and it might be an appropriate time for the nations of the world again to gather together under the auspices of the nation responsible for its origin to see if another step cannot be taken to do away with war as a means of settling international problems.


Walter Edward Foster: I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has elapsed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am sorry if I have exceeded my time limit. The courtesy of additional time has often been given to other members and I had hoped you, sir, would do unto me just as you have done unto others.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, after the
quotations which the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) has made from remarks of the president and of myself, and referred to by him with sucfh approval, it will I think be clear at the outset that, so far as the president and I are concerned, our views as to the desirability of maintaining peace, and

doing all that it may be possible to have done toward that end, are -wholly in accord with his own. I have referred to only three personages, but I believe what I have just said would apply with equal truth to all hon. members of all parties in this parliament.
I sometimes think that we waste time when we endeavour to have it appear that any government of Canada, let alone members of parliament, are not desirous of doing everything possible to secure, to maintain and to further peace. That unquestionably is one of the objectives which we all have in common. We cannot all agree as to the methods by which peace can be best maintained, but the fact that we cannot accept every suggestion made as to what is desirable for the maintenance of peace does not and should not imply that we are not equally at one in desiring the great objective of securing, maintaining and furthering peace. In this regard I want to take exception to the view which so frequently has been put forward, and which was put forward by my hon. friend to-day, that any preparation in the nature of defence necessarily implies some love of war and desire to get into war on the part of those taking that necessary precaution. Nothing can be more fallacious than that; and, with the world condition as critical as it is to-day, I must respectfully say I do not think any member renders a useful service to his country when he seeks to create a false impression with respect to the purpose which defence is intended to serve. What is needed to-day on the part of the citizens of this country, as of all countries, is an understanding of the very serious nature of the world situation and of the very critical position in which this country along with all other countries may be placed at any moment. My hon. friend never said anything truer in his life than when he remarked that you can no more isolate war than you can isolate peace, and when this afternoon he stressed that there was a real danger of the situation which is critical in Europe extending to this country. I think we all have to keep that in mind. With what my hon. friend has said about the hideousness of war and about the folly of war as a means of settling anything I think every hon. member will agree. But, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the question of realizing that war is so horrible and yet, as my hon. friend has said, with the world situation what it is, war may be inevitable, we only see the necessity of taking some special precaution so far as our own country is concerned to meet that situation.

World Peace-Mr, Mackenzie King
May I suggest to my hon. friend and to others who feel as he does about this matter a parallel which may help to bring home the true situation? None of us has any love of disease, none of us has any love of plague, yet disease and plagues are part of a condition that is real in the world and against which steps have to be taken by nations as well as individuals. Would my hon. friend suggest that we should do away with our Department of Health and with the measures we are taking, and which are costing a great deal, to prevent the spread of disease, to prevent plague from over-running the country? Money spent for purposes of that kind is spent for purposes of security, and it is exactly the same, if the expense is wisely made, with regard to necessary outlays for defence. May I suggest another parallel which, it seems to me, is very pertinent at the moment? We have all been witnessing with feelings of the deepest sympathy the tragedj' to hundreds of thousands of lives in the United States as a result of floods. Those of us who happened to be listening last night to the radio heard instructions being given by engineers as to precautions which must be immediately taken in view of what may possibly be a still greater disaster, once the Mississippi begins to overflow its banks to a greater extent than it has up to the present. Would any one say that, with a warning of that kind coming from experts, the people along the shores of the Mississippi should do nothing? Rather should they not say, "Now is the time for the state to take immediate action to prevent some terrible harm coming to innocent persons as the result of a force of nature the possible extent of which had not been foreseen but which nevertheless is now known to be real and is approaching daily in a more menacing form"? After what my hon. friend has said this afternoon he cannot deny that there are forces at work in the world to-day which are dangerous in the extreme, and he cannot deny that those forces may operate against the shores of this country, or across this country, once a world conflict comes about, should such an appalling thing happen. In those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I say that instead of trying to persuade this house or persons beyond this house that this country should not take special measures for purposes of defence, my hon. friend should be doing all in his power to show wherein, unless we take precautionary measures, we are likely to suffer in a way from which we may never recover.
I think also there is something extraordinarily contradictory in what my hon. friend said this afternoon when he spoke about the 31111-21
League of Nations. He and those of his group who advocate that we should be members of the League of Nations say that the league must have force behind it if it is going to effect its ends. What does that mean? It is an expression we hear from different sources. I think the hon. member (Mr. Douglas) who sits behind my hon. friend used the expression the other day that he wanted "a league that had teeth in it," a league that would be able to do something. What does that mean? It means force. And yet many in my hon. friend's group, including the member to whom I referred, take the view that Canada should be neutral no matter who the belligerents may be. That is all very well; they would have a league that relies on force, but they are quite eager to see that other nations are the ones to supply the force and that we are to continue to enjoy security and to be kept entirely out of the situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would there not be economic force.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Economic force! We have had enough experience to know that economic force sooner or later means military force. We had an object lesson of that last year. May I say to my hon. friend who has just interrupted me that if he and I could control world forces there might not be trouble for anybody, because we know exactly what we would do; but surely we must all realize that forces which are not only beyond the control of individuals, but beyond the control of nations and of continents, are operating in the world to-day. The condition in Europe is not the result of a desire for war on the part of any English speaking community. It is not the result of any such desire on the part of the French republic or on the part of many other nations that I could mention. We have yet to discover that it is the desire of any nation. But the danger is there and we know that we are facing it. In those circumstances let us not begin to tell other countries what they should do until we tell them what we ourselves are prepared to do in helping to meet the emergency. When it comes to the League of Nations and its reliance upon force as the means of attaining its ends, we get right into the very situation from which my hon. friend who has moved this resolution would like to take us away altogether. Force begets force. If we are to rely for peace upon force, let us squarely face the situation and realize that we as well as other nations must be prepared to make our contribution in terms of force.



Wand Peace-Mr. Mackenzie King
But, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter to-day into a discussion of League of Nations affairs, nor do I wish to go over ground that was traversed in a previous debate. My purpose in rising this afternoon thus early in the debate is simply to point out that the specific suggestion which is made in my hon. friend's resolution constitutes the one thing about it which the government is called upon to consider. - The substantive portion of the resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government of Canada respectfully suggest to the president of the United States the desirability of convening a world conference for the securing and maintenance of peace.
In other words, this country is to suggest to the United States the calling of a world conference to secure and maintain peace. Now, irrespective altogether of what views we may entertain as to the effectiveness of a world conference to achieve the end in view, it must be apparent that there are great considerations of national policy that must be taken into account by any country that would enter at this time upon the calling of a world conference for such a purpose, and those considerations, it seems to me, are a matter for consideration by that country alone. It is not the business of one country to tell another what its policy should be. I think that must be apparent. It is inconceivable that the president of the United States, with the interest he has taken in world affairs, with the concern he has already shown for the maintenance of peace, has not had under his own consideration and that of his colleagues the very question my hon. friend has suggested. But whether he has or has not, that is his own affair. For us to suggest that a conference should be called would be simply to embarrass the president in the reply which it would be necessary for him to make. At most he could say that the subject was one to which he would be glad to give consideration. I am not sure that if he were considering the matter favourably a suggestion to the United States from another country would help him to attain the object he had in view.
Let me say a word with regard to world conferences. I am not sure that a world conference would achieve any good end at the present time and it might make things a great deal worse. It seems to me, our generation has gone a little mad on the question of conferences. A conference is often a very convenient way of appearing to be doing something while in reality very little may be achieved. The more I see of conferences the less patience I am coming to have with

them. Certainly world conferences are not likely to be very successful in achieving the object they may be called together to attain. We have had several world conferences and I do not believe that any of them have been very successful.
But in a consideration of the calling of a world conference there are many important matters of policy which a government would have to take into account, and I mention these because they are involved in the question whether this country should ask the United States to take the step proposed. There is the matter I have already referred to, namely, the question whether in the belief of the government a world conference is likely to achieve the end for which it is called, or whether that end could not better be achieved by conferences with individual nations, taking up questions with individual nations or groups of nations primarily concerned in the matters under discussion, rather than by bringing into a discussion a large number of nations which can have only an indirect interest and whose participation might only serve to embarrass the entire situation.
But there is the further point as to whether the time is ripe for a world conference such as has been suggested. There is for example the question as to whether other nations would be prepared to go into such a world conference. That is an all important matter, and before any country would take a step as momentous as that of calling a world conference, I should think it would find it necessary to ascertain from other countries whether they would be willing to participate. If a world conference were likely to meet the end my hon. friend has in view I should be inclined to think that the League of Nations might be expected to operate more effectively to that end than some new conference which might be called, for the simple reason that the league has at hand much of the machinery necessary for such a purpose. It has already given long attention to matters that are pertinent, and if the league has found it impossible, with all its background and with all that it has in the way of actual knowledge of conditions, with experts to advise in a multitude of directions, then I question very much whether the president of the United States, beginning anew, would be able to accomplish much in the direction desired. If Germany, Japan and other countries do not wish to be in a league of nations which represents all the countries of the world, is it probable that they would immediately participate in a conference called by the president of the United States. And unless they participated in such a conference, does my hon.

World Peace-Miss Macphail
friend believe that the conference would meet the present-day situation? One has only to mention these things to appreciate some of the considerations which a country must take into account in dealing with a suggestion of this sort.
I would like to mention to the house what actually was apparent to the minds of those who were at the meeting of the League of Nations last year. There the view seemed to be that the fewer the nations that got into discussions of the present world situation at that moment the better it would probably be in the end, so far as the solution of existing difficulties was concerned. What the British and the French representatives at the League of Nations were most anxious to bring about was a conference of the big powers in Europe, the powers immediately concerned. They felt that if Germany, Italy, France, Britain and Belgium could get together in a round table conference it might be possible to work out some solution of the existing difficulties. Great Britain has been working to t/hat end for a year or more, but she has not yet succeeded in bringing those nations together in round table conference. When that is the fact, is it likely that these same powers would go into a world conference that might be called by the president of the United States? These are considerations of which a government has to take account before it accepts the responsibility of extending an invitation to another country to take action with respect to world affairs, consideration of which would have to be taken as well by the government to which the invitation was extended.
I am sympathetic with much my hon. friend has said, but his motion asks that an invitation be extended. It would have to be extended by the government of Canada. Were we to take this course suggested, I believe we would be departing from a principle which cannot be too closely observed, the principle, namely, that it is not in the interest of nations that any one country should tell other nations what they should do in matters involving great questions of national policy. An act of that kind on the part of this government would be certain to be construed as an interference in the domestic affairs of the United States, and I am sure that my hon. friend would be the last who would wish to have such an impression created.
An answer that might suggest itself to the minds of some in the United States who might be ^ opposed would probably be that as an imperial conference is to be held in Britain within the next few months it might be well
31111-21J
for Canada to suggest that the scope of the conference be enlarged to embrace a world gathering to deal with the world situation. Does any one suppose that if a suggestion of this kind came to this parliament we should think of passing it on to the British government? The sooner we realize that there is no panacea for world peace, and that perhaps the last of all panaceas is a world conference, the better it will be in the end for the peace of the world.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruee):	I am glad that the hon. member
for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) placed this resolution on the order paper, if for no other reason than that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has admitted that he has lost his confidence in conferences. So far as I can recall, in the last half-dozen or possibly ten years he has had a great deal of confidence in conferences-I am speaking of conferences with respect to national affairs-and has always been able to delay action by painting a gloomy picture of what would happen, if anything were done without a conference-I was wondering who it was to whom he wae directing the first part of his speech. It was? a tirade, but I did not know against whom he directed it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North certainly had not said anything that would call for the first part of the Prime Minister's speech, and therefore it must have been somebody else he had in mind when he made the remarks he did. I do not think that suggesting to the United States that they call a conference would be interfering in their national affairs, any more than I think that if they had extended an invitation to Canada to attend the Buenos Aires conference that would have been interfering in Canada's national affairs.
A world conference as proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North would have one great merit; it would take the heads of the nations of Europe out of Europe and bring them to a continent which is in some degree sane. One fault with all the world conferences is that they were held in the wrong place. We should stop having conferences about world affairs in Europe. Europe has played much too large a part in determining world affairs, and if the heads of the European powers had to travel across the ocean as often as they want other people to travel across it to attend their conferences they might realize how wide that ocean is, which would be one thing gained. If the conference were called it might not accomplish much, but merely bringing the European leaders out of Europe might do some good. Then there
World Peace-Mr. Bennett

.s always the chance of the boat sinking, and that might help more than anything else. It would be a nice quiet way of getting rid of a lot of trouble. Certainly extending an imperial conference to include world powers would not start a world conference off well, because it would be too much an imperial affair from the beginning.
At least the introduction of this resolution sannot have done any harm. The speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North was good, and was beneficial to the house. The debate at any rate will suggest the idea to President Roosevelt, even though he may not care to act on it.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: It is not often that I wholly agree with the observations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), but in this instance he so nearly expressed my own views that I shall make my observations exceedingly brief.
It would not only be futile to suggest to the	United	States the calling	of	a world
conference, but in my judgment it would be 

I shall use the harsher word, although the Prime Minister did not-impertinent to do so.	I cannot think it would	be	anythingshort of that for the Dominion of Canada to suggest to the president of the United States what he should do. He has advisers; he has knowledge of world conditions; he is as deeply concerned in every matter with which this	resolution deals as	we	are, andfor	eleven	million people on	the	northern
half of the American continent to suggest to the head of a state of one hundred and twenty million people that he should do something affecting world problems is in my judgment little short of impertinence.
As far as the next question is concerned I can only say that I would hardly agree with the mover of this resolution (Mr. Heaps) that the United States is at this moment exactly the country to call such a conference. The United States at the present time is spending larger sums on armaments, has to that end made commitments of more hundreds of millions of dollars, than ever before in its long history, and that notwithstanding the Kellogg-Briand pact. This is a fact which must be faced.
I can readily understand my right hon. friend making the observations he did with respect to conferences. He, like myself, had very great hopes of the Kellogg-Briand pact, but we know it was a broken reed-let us face it frankly. We all had hopes of the League of Nations. It failed because the

United States ceased to be a member of it, although its former president called the first assembly. There never was an effective league of nations when the United States ceased to be a party to it. This is the real fact; let us face it squarely.
Then there is one other matter to which attention should be directed. When the right hon. gentleman was speaking about his faith in conferences he was only saying what is being said by statesmen in many parts of the world. I heard one of the most responsible British statesmen say that he felt it was useless for Great Britain to take part in further world conferences or conferences respecting matters such as are suggested should be dealt with by this resolution. I have not forgotten that a great world economic conference was called in 1933. I know one man, two men. three, who were urged by the president of the United States to expedite in every possible way the work of that conference, yet the conference had hardly met and organized before the president of the United States torpedoed it, for reasons which have never yet been made public. In his judgment conditions in the world were such that it was necessary for him to take the action he did.
I did not understand the right hon. gentleman to suggest that family conferences may not be of the greatest value. By family conferences we mean, in Canada, conferences between the provinces and the dominion, or conferences of the nations comprised in the British commonwealth of nations.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: The disarmament conference was not a great success.
Mr .BENNETT:	I was going to mention
that. The Washington conference on naval armaments did accomplish something, but who will say that the results were at all commensurate with our hopes and expectations? Then my friend the Minister of Justice mentioned the disarmament conference. This house knows, what he was good enough to suggest, that all the world was hopeful that all the world would proceed to disarm. But alas 1 see what the effect was upon the people of the little islands in the North sea that we call the British isles. Their idealism was such that under the then prime minister they endeavoured to give effect to it-indeed, did give effect to it, in a manner and to an extent unequalled by any people who ever attempted to give effect to a principle.


Mr. REID:: And nearly ruined themselves.

World Peace-Mr. Church


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; and to-day with feverish activity they are endeavouring to retrieve their position.
As the Prime Minister was thinking aloud this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I think he was giving expression to views which many of us hoid. We all desire to attain an end, and we would all willingly make any sacrifice we could to attain it. But alas! we realize that any efforts that have been made thus far to induce all mankind to follow a course to attain that end have been fraught with disappointment. Not that I do not firmly believe that they have served a useful purpose; for the mere fact that nations have met together and discussed their problems and gained an insight into one another's difficulties, has been of the utmost value to the world. But when an hon. member suggests that Europe after all is rather insignificant in matters of this kind, we must not forget that thus far the great nations of the world which have been effective in foreign matters have been those of Europe and Asia. America has a declared policy to play no part in what she calls entangling alliances with Europe. Her freedom from responsibility with respect to European affairs and her unwillingness to participate in world movements that have for their purpose the accomplishment of the ends to which this resolution refers have had an injurious effect upon the general state of public opinion with respect to the influence of the western world upon world problems. I say that reluctantly; nevertheless it is a fact and we may as well face it.
Is any good purpose to be served by suggesting that this government, which is the people of Canada, should advise the chief executive of one hundred and twenty million people that the proper thing for them to do is to call a world conference looking to the ends of peace, when they are engaged more feverishly than ever before in their history in arming themselves, and have on many occasions declared that they have no desire to involve themselves in either responsibility or concern with respect to direct participation in world affairs? I cannot but think that the mere suggestion itself carries its own refutation, and it would be regarded as little short of impertinence by any thoughtful people. I make these observations in no spirit of criticism of the people of the United States. It is their right to do as they please, and their president reflects their views. It would be impertinent for us to tell them how to run their business, and we would regard it as highly impertinent for them to tell us how to run ours. I think that with their good sense1 and their extreme
concern for their own welbbeing they will discharge their duties and functions in a manner that will not be unworthy of their history and traditions. This country would not be advancing the cause of peace or its own interests by undertaking to tell other countries how they should conduct their business, especially when we have so much of our own to attend to, the proper conducting of which merits the united effort of all of us.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, if the motion before the chair represents the best policy that the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation can produce in this house, it amounts to nothing more or less than separatism. As I see it, the time has come when this house should look after our own domestic affairs and leave international affairs to experts, and we have very few of them in this house or out of it. Do the members of the party who introduced this resolution propose to have Canada become an adjunct o'f the United States in matters of foreign policy and defence? We see in this very resolution the extreme to which separatism has gone in this country since it was started a few years ago. Separatism in all its forms-that is what the motion amounts to. We, Mr. Speaker, are part and parcel of the British Empire; our foreign policy is largely defined by the motherland, yet this resolution ignores altogether the motherland and the other dominions and proposes to go to the United States looking for peace, when there is no such thing to be obtained from any league of nations. A few years ago it was Woodrow Wilson who started this League of Nations. We have now had seventeen years of peace pacts and peace agreements on four continents, and the net result of the policy of open diplomacy which Woodrow Wilson preached has been absolute failure.
This resolution, as I see it, would have us go to the United States and ask them to found a sort of new league of nations to create peace. As was said by a very great statesman, no one wants war, and in not dissimilar circumstances on the eve of the Crimean war, Stratford Canning wrote:
The extreme desire for peace, if care be not taken, may bring on the danger of war.
And it did bring about the Crimean war. This resolution is not only separatism, but it is a pan-American resolution and ignores the fact that Canada is part and parcel of the British Empire. We have practically no defence policy of our own. I asked five or six times in this house last session what the defence policy of Canada was, and I got no answer
World Peace-Mr. Church

To-day we are dependent on the mother country for our defence on land and sea and in the air, and when resolutions such as this are introduced into parliament it is no wonder that some of the leading statesmen in the old land ask themselves if the dominions are not becoming a drag on the mother country. That is what they are becoming-a drag on the motherland.
Within the past few years we have had about a hundred peace pacts. We had a conference in Washington, and then we had the Kellogg pact, and while Secretary Kellogg was preaching peace from the housetops in one portion of the capital, the Secretary of State for War brought down a budget of several hundred million dollars for defence. That is the kind of peace policy they have over there. I say the principle of this resolution is separatism, and you can see to-day the results of separatism on the peace of the world. If we could have some respite from peace pacts for the next ten years we might possibly attain peace in the world.
In. 1919 Canada signed the treaty of Versailles as a separate nation, and then a separate seat for Canada was demanded and secured at the Assembly of the League of Nations. In March, 1923, the Halibut treaty was signed at Washington by Canada as a separate nation. The imperial conference of 1923 affirmed the right of Canada to sign separate treaties. In 1924 Canada acted separately on the Dawes plan, and in that year Canada urged that the Colonial Laws Validity Act be repealed. In 1926 there was another imperial conference and the right was affirmed of each dominion to make separate and independent treaties not binding on any other country. We were given sovereign powers, and we saw the results in the Kellogg note. Separatism has gone far enough in this country. Some would abolish appeals to the privy council; others would abolish the office of lieutenant governor. Many innovations have been made during the last few years, with the result that we have nothing but a policy of separatism in this country, and this resolution, Mr. Speaker, practically says that Canada is a separate country from the mother country, like Spain or Ireland. We are bound to the mother country by ties of loyalty and affection. The governor general is also now merely a viceroy and removed from getting any advice from Downing Street.
Furthermore, the policy of the United States with regard to European affairs has already been laid down. It is against the constitution of the United States to take any part in European wars, and the senate foreign relations committee have control. The policy of their

administration is non-intervention in European affairs, and if parliament passed a resolution such as this, she would simply make a laughing stock of herself in the eyes of the other dominions and of the mother country. Separatism in this country and in the other dominions is one of the things that makes it almost impossible for the motherland to have a foreign policy. As an eminent writer says in the English Review of August, 1936:
One of the chief weaknesses of the empire to-day is the uncertainty as to the line it will take as a unit, A few years ago the prime minister of a European power said to me, "The difficulty of dealing with your country is that one never knows where the rest of your empire stands. The signature of the French Foreign Minister is binding on all the territory of France, at home and overseas; but the British Foreign Secretary cannot commit the dominions." That is perfectly true, and it is a truth that must be faced by those who greet every advance of the centrifugal forces as a step forward.
It was that state of affairs that was responsible for the Statute of Westminster. The same writer also says of South Africa, after mentioning that the representatives of the empire were not unanimous on sanctions:
Whether the time has come to modify the statute is another matter, but in the meantime the line taken by South Africa with regard to sanctions is a warning to the government not to enter into commitments which may lead to a war in which the dominions might refuse,to participate.
So we see where the policy of separatism has landed the empire.
I do not wish to speak with disrespect of the motion which the hon. member (Mr. Heaps) has introduced. No doubt he is sincere in the observations he has made. The present president of the United States has always been a friend of Canada, but for us to depend on the American people for our protection on land, on sea and in the air is another thing. I am utterly opposed to the doctrine of pan-Americanism, of which we hear so much talk in the house; I am opposed to a policy of separatism, or to one whereby we must depend on the Monroe doctrine, or any other mythical doctrine which would not affect the British Empire in time of war, or protect anyone.
There are people in Canada who believe in a policy by which we would be more closely connected with the United States. Great Britain stands before God to-day as the trustee for the peace of the world. We have more to expect from her than from any other nation. We have seen the results of peace pacts and disarmament. I say that disarmament has brought the mother country

World Peace-Mr. Church
to the very brink of war in the Mediterranean. As many statesmen have said in the British House of Commons, England to-day is no longer a first class power. The disarmament policy nearly dismembered and disrupted the whole empire.
There are some in Canada who believe in the policy enunciated in the resolution. The League of Nations has been a complete failure. When we realize the way it has functioned in the last few years we must know that we can expect nothing from it so far as the securing of peace is concerned. In my opinion Canada should get out of the league altogether while the going is good, if we wish to support this kind of endeavour. We have spent about $3,000,000 on it, and it brought us to the verge of war in connection with sanctions in Italy, its dealings with Spain, and its treatment of other crises.
In an able article entitled "Whither England," by Douglas Jerrold, appearing in the English Review of July 1936, he states:
France we have driven deliberately out of the orbit of our diplomacy into the arms of Russia.
In the article Mr. Jerrold shows what peace conferences have amounted to. We have had about a hundred of them, and now another is proposed. Mr. Jerrold continues:
Italy we have challenged, with results wholly disastrous. To Japan we have delivered moral lectures. The Norwegians, for so long our most sincere friends in Europe, we have deeply offended by our sanctionist policy. The United States see in our shameful diplomatic defeat not a quixotic gesture in favour of the sanctity of written obligations (the only written obligation which concerns America we have repudiated), but a justification of their own policy of non-intervention in Europe.
In a few months, owing to her policy of entering into peace pacts, England lost her position of a first-class power. The ink is hardly dry on these pacts before the bargains are broken by the very nations who were signatories to them. And other side agreements behind the scenes are made secretly, the results of which would offset the terms of the original pacts.
In view of the resolution before us we may well ask: whither Canada? If the policy outlined by the mover of the resolution is to be that of Canada, then the sooner we get out of the British Empire the better. It seems to me that those in church and state who hold the views of pacifists are, unwittingly or unwillingly, doing Canada a disservice. Pacifism means a refusal to defend or protect our king or country.
Pacifism means neglecting our duty to other countries dependent upon us, and, as I say, those who preach it are unknowingly doing their country a disservice. In the past few years we have seen the result of peace folly, and, as I see it, it is the duty of government to-day to bring down a proper defence policy for Canada. We talk about the few-extra dollars provided in the estimates this year for a defence policy-why, that is no defence policy at all. We receive protection from the British fleet, which protects Canada's shores. The mover of the resolution would appeal to the United States, a country which could transport hardly a single soldier to France without the protection of the British fleet. Despite the non-intervention policy of the United States, in the late war what happened? That very country, upon which we are asked to depend, had to depend upon the British fleet during the whole war period for the defence of her shores, and yet we are asked to accept them as our protector in case of future trouble.
There are some in Canada who believe that in the event of war a general election should be called. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) indicated a few nights ago that within fifteen days parliament would be called, and that a resolution would have to be passed by the House of Commons before one soldier could be sent out of Canada. Did anyone ever hear of such a policy? No doubt the next war will be fought in the air, and before we can call parliament things will be happening. Within a few hours aeroplanes travelling two hundred and fifty miles an hour will be coming towards us. They would be in the country before a general election could be called, or before we could get the ballot boxes ready. The day' will never come when Mr. General Election will become commander in chief of the British forces or admiral of the British fleet. Before we could act, the air fleet of the enemy would have passed over Canada and within five or six hours would have destroyed all municipal institutions, barracks, canals, railway terminals, public utilities and parliament buildings, and injured civilian non-combatants. After doing this they could return to their base within a few hours without damage to themselves.
For fifteen or sixteen years pacifists have had their way with peace pacts and peace folly. We now see the lack of wisdom in failure to evolve a defence policy. To-day Europe is an armed camp. Against whom is Germany arming? Is she arming against Great Britain? France is arming; Italy is arming-they are all in the same position.
World Peace-Mr. Cahan

We see evidence of an absolute failure of the policy preached from the housetops seventeen years ago by Mr. Woodrow Wilson; we see evidence of the utter folly of his recommendations. The house would be unwise to pass the resolution proposed by the hon. member. As a matter of fact, in view of the Statute of Westminster I believe the resolution is out of order. Moreover, it does not commend itself to the wisdom or judgment of the people of Canada.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I rose before to say
a few words of appreciation of the very excellent address delivered this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), but my leader, the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has expressed more felicitously than I could have done the views which I entertain.
May I add one word in regard to a suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) to the effect that Canada should enter the so-called pan-American conference and take part as a member in that conference. After living seven or eight years in Mexico I believe I know something about it, something about the central American states, something about the states of South America, something about Haiti, and something about Cuba, all of which I have visited, and I am convinced that one of the most unfortunate political manoeuvres which could be adopted by the government of Canada would be to enter as a participating member in any pan-American conference or union. We to the north of the United States have few interests in common with those states. By uniting with them in a union we would add -nothing to our economic and very little to our intellectual or cultural strength. I am convinced that the idea suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North should be deprecated.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think I said that
we should join with them; I was just referring to some remarks of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe).


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The record will show. I
understood the hon. member to suggest to the Prime Minister that he had made answer on another occasion that Canada had not been invited to participate in that conference. I understood the hon. member for Winnipeg North to deprecate that statement being made, and to suggest that, if an invitation had been given, he would have been quite in favour of Canada accepting.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not say that I would
have been favourable.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not wish to take up
the time of the house, except to add that if there comes a time when Canada is invited to become a member of a pan-American union or association, I trust the Prime Minister will not accept any such membership or will not send any representatives to such a conference until parliament has had an opportunity to discuss the various phases of the matter. To-day a Canadian can go to Mexico, to Central America, to South America, even to Haiti or Santo Domingo or Cuba under a Canadian passport. He is received with respect in every one of these states. The people in those countries have no feeling that Canada is a hostile neighbour. They have no suspicion that Canada is attempting to assert suzerainty or sovereignty in any degree over their political policies or their political future.
I suggest with great deference that our entering into such a union would provoke difficulty and embarrassment for any government of Canada. I do not wish to go into the matter in too great detail, but I ask hon. members to look at the map of South America and study its geographical situation. The fact is that South America is further away from us than the European states. Mexico, Central America and the Pacific coast of South America were undoubtedly settled originally by aborigines who came from over the Pacific. There were great Indian races that settled in Mexico, Central and South America, such as it then was, they developed civilizations of their own. They never succeeded in migrating in great numbers across the Andes to the Atlantic coast. We find Indian tribes settling around the south in Patagonia; and the same migration taking place in the northern part of the South American continent, but the whole wide sweep of the Atlantic coast had practically no indigenous population and was left open to settlement by European immigrants.
The Spanish came to Uruguay, or rather into the district which subsequently became Uruguay, and they came into the states which were united into Argentina. There they developed a Spanish civilization and a Spanish culture with no large admixture of indigenous races or of Indian blood. In cities like Montevideo or Buenos Aires you find a Spanish civilization. The labouring classes are mostly Italian, but you realize you are among white people. When you talk to them you realize that they have a civilization and a culture which are most admirable. But the

World Peace-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)
situation is different in Brazil. The Portuguese settled that magnificent territory of theirs with negro slaves. They brought them in by the tens of thousands, and the present population is largely an ad-mixture of negro races, dominated by the Portuguese. To the north there is Venezuela. Any one who has been to Caracas will have seen an old-fashioned Spanish-American city. The dominating race is Spanish, but the great majority of the population is Indian. Colombia is a great Indian state. There is a Spanish civilization and culture in Bogota, the capital, but the population of that state is made up of Indian races. Bolivia and Paraguay are populated largely with Indian races, many of whom still live in a savage state. Peru is Indian, but Chili is not. The Spaniards who early settled in Chili wiped out the Indian races and the present population is almost pure Spanish. But there is not one democratic state among them all. They are ruled largely by military dictatorships which are changed from time to time by force of arms in times of insurrections. They look upon Canadian conditions with admiration.
If I may be permitted, I should like to relate an incident which occurred in Mexico some years ago. I knew President Diaz of Mexico quite well. One day he came out with me to see a great Canadian work that was being carried on in the valley of the Necaxa river. At that time we were building one of the largest dams in the world to develop a water fall eight times the height of Niagara. If I remember correctly, the drop in the pipes was 1,356 feet. After lunch President Diaz came out on to the verandah of a cottage on the mountain side smoking his cigarette. He laid his revolver down on a little square table in front of him just in case some trouble might arise. He looked with great astonishment at the trains running up and down the valley below carrying materials for this great dam and hydro-electro power installation. There were thousands of men at work throughout the valley. He expressed appreciation and admiration of the work. He turned to me and said, "Signor Cahan, I do like you Canadians." Rather taken aback, I asked, "Why, Your Excellency?" He puffed his cigarette for a moment or two and then he replied, "You Canadians live north of the forty-ninth parallel of latitude and we Mexicans live south of the Rio Grande. That fact alone should make for the eternal friendship of the two peoples." Thirty years ago that same feeling prevailed to my knowledge in many, if not all, of the states of Central and South America. Conditions have since undoubtedly changed as the United
States have become more powerful, both economically and politically, yet despite repeated South American conferences I believe that feeling still exists in every state south of the Rio Grande.
Why should we enter hastily and without due consideration into that association of embroilment and, for us, continuous embarrassment? I trust that before this or any other government of Canada enters into the pan-American union, it will take all existing conditions into consideration and will remember that by the members of that union the Canadian government and the Canadian people are now respected and esteemed; participating in that union they would simply become embroiled in strife and difficulty. I wished to say this in reply to my hon. friend because I have heard much of late on some public platforms and read in the public press suggestions that it is the duty of Canada to assume, what the Americans are trying to escape, a sort of supervision over the political affairs of some of the so-called Latin-Ameri-can states, which are not Latin, and which are American simply because that name has been given not only to North America and Central America but also to the continent of South America.


Mr. P. J. ROWE (Athabaska):: 
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in support of the motion of my colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), of which I am the seconder.
First of all I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is unduly sensitive over criticism of the increased expenditure for armaments in this country. As a matter of fact the member for Winnipeg North scarcely referred to the matter. All he did say, as I recall it, was that we in Canada must have caught the armament fever that was so prevalent in other parts of the world. Surely the Prime Minister must be very sensitive if he objects to a statement of that kind. Is it possible that his conscience troubles him and that he cannot justify the expenditures that are now proposed? At the moment I cannot find any other reason for his sensitiveness.

World Peace-Mr. Maclnnis
One point that was emphasized both by the Prime Minister and by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was that it would be an impertinence on the part of this government to suggest to the government of the United States what they should do in their domestic affairs. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this resolution asks the house or the government to interfere in any way with the domestic affairs of the United States. Owing to the many failures we have seen, owing to the failure of the League of Nations and of the many efforts that have been made to bring about some form of international cooperation that would ensure to the world an enduring peace, the mover of the resolution asks that this government approach the president of the United States and ask him, because of his position, to call a world conference to discuss the question of world peace. The suggestion may not be a good one, it may not be a wise one, but certainly the resolution does not suggest that in asking the president of the United States to do such a thing we are in any way meddling with the domestic affairs of that country.
The resolution indicates that the League of Nations has failed to bring about permanent peace, and I believe all hon. members realize the truth of the assertion. I suggest we should try to find out why it has failed. Some of us believe it has failed principally because it was not so much interested in the maintenance of world peace-a world peace on a proper basis of social justice-as it was in the maintenance of the status quo. In other words, it was more intent on maintaining the advantages obtained by military force in the last war than it was in the maintenance of world peace, and it is for that reason many of us believe it failed. No doubt there were other reasons.
While many nations accepted the principle of the league, they did not accept it in spirit. The two notable league failures to which the mover of the resolution and the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Rowe) referred, namely its failure to stop Japan in Manchuria and Italy in Abyssinia, are so well known and so fresh in our minds that they deserve more attention. In my view the prestige of the league could have survived its failure in Manchuria, but its failure in Abyssinia destroyed it, or made effective work in future very difficult.


Mr. MARTIN:: On its political side?


Angus MacInnis: I find it difficult to distinguish its political from its economic side. There may be-probably is-a difference, but if we cannot settle the world's political differences we cannot settle its economic differences. It may be the other way about, and I am not going to argue the point at this time.
The league failed in the Abyssinian affair largely because the two principal nations who could act in the circumstances, would not act because of self interest. France would not act because she was afraid of losing Italy's cooperation in the event of future aggression on the part of Germany, and Great Britain would not act because, as Sir Samuel Hoare said, she was unwilling to "risk a single ship in defence of Abyssinia."
That is not the spirit in which the league was formed. Great Britain would not be risking ships in the interests of Abyssinia; she would be risking ships in the interests of the whole system of collective security. Because the league failed to stop aggression in Abyssinia we are now faced with greater and graver dangers than we were before. I am in favour of a league of nations, but I am just as much convinced as the Prime Minister, probably more convinced than he is, that we cannot have a league without assuming certain obligations. We cannot have a system of collective security or a system which will ensure the security of the various nations in the event of attack without every nation assuming its obligations in the circumstances.
The Prime Minister accused hon. members in this part of the chamber of wanting a league of nations that had some force. He stated that there had been a suggestion of a league of nations with teeth in it, and his observation was that force begot force. If the right hon. gentleman can apply that observation to the collective force of the league of nations, then I say it is more applicable to the armaments of the nations. There is no such thing as adequate defence, because the minute one nation has adequate defence it becomes a menace to another nation, and it, in turn, must increase its armaments so that it has adequate defence against that nation which first secured adequate defence. That must be so, so long as we have the present system of alliances and balance of power. There is no way in which we can overcome the difficulty except through the acceptance of a league of nations.
It must be a league of nations or chaos, and I prefer a league of nations with the definite provision that obligations as well as security, will be involved. I am convinced we cannot have security without obligations. It would appear however that at the present time the league does not seem to be able to function.
World Peace-Mr. Heaps

The motion suggests that in its wisdom the government should approach the president of the United States and ask him, as the person best fitted in the circumstances, to call the nations of the world together in an effort to find a formula for peace. I do not admit that in so proceeding we would be interfering with the domestic affairs of the United States, and if we fail we have failed in a just cause. I see no reason why the government could not accept the suggestion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this opportunity to reply to some of the observations that have been made this afternoon. It is not my intention to deal with the remarks of certain hon. members in reference to the pan-American conference, because, although that matter may have some bearing on the discussion of the resolution before the house, its importance in that connection is not, in my opinion, such as to call for extended comment at this time.
In his defence of the attitude he takes, namely that of refusing to suggest that the president of the United States call a conference, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) first of all stated he was rather tired of the conferences held in the past and was afraid of conferences which might be held in the future. That observation is a peculiar one when we remember it was only yesterday that the Prime Minister indicated his willingness to call another national conference in Canada. Not only was he in favour of such a conference to discuss a complicated question, but the suggestion was first made by the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). Now, within a few hours after expressing themselves as being in favour of a conference in Canada, they rise in this chamber and say they are sick and tired of calling conferences.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I distinctly stated that I had no reference to interprovincial or family conferences, and I assume the Prime Minister meant the same thing.


Abraham Albert Heaps: While the right hon. gentleman makes a reservation, I still believe the principle is the same. I believe the Prime Minister said he was tired of the conferences that we had had in this country in the past, and did not know whether they were conducive of the good which it had been anticipated they would produce. I am speaking from memory, but if I am not mistaken-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say last year; I was speaking generally and in particular of world conferences.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I might point out that we have had just as little success with our provincial conferences. I do not anticipate that there will be immediate results. I know of no conference in recent years in which the United States has taken a definite part, and I feel that if a conference were called by that country it would be extremely beneficial to all concerned. The last time the United States took any part in world affairs was in connection with the Kellogg-Briand peace pact. I do not think a conference was called on that occasion; it was just a matter of signatories to an agreement. The Prime Minister pointed out this afternoon, and perhaps properly so, that certain nations might not attend, but we cannot be sure of that. I do not think any nation would ignore a call for peace coming from the United States.
I realize that very laudible efforts have been made during the past years by the League of Nations to create a peace atmosphere, but unfortunately these have failed. The Prime Minister has offered no alternative to an international peace conference except the suggestion that we might have certain regional conferences to consider the matter of world peace.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my hon. friend will not misconstrue what I said. I was not taking any exception to the United States calling a world conference if they saw fit. I was pointing out that such a step was a matter for the United States to consider; that it was not for us to make a suggestion to them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think that has the importance which has been attached to it by both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is very important in international affairs.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It would not be meddling in the affairs of another country. We are simply suggesting that a certain proposal should be considered. As I have pointed out, we are in a different position from that of other countries in that we are a neighbour of the United States. As I understand it, the policy of the United States has been that of a good neighbour, and I believe that is the policy of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. The president of the United States could no more confine that policy to the United States and the South American republics than he could confine questions of peace and war to European nations. The Prime Minister gave an excellent illustration of the

Questions
treatment of international problems by Canada and the United States when he mentioned the International Joint Commission.
I do not think there would be anything wrong in our suggesting to the United States the desirability of convening such a world conference. The Prime Minister chose a rather unhappy illustration when he referred to the present catastrophe in the United States. He referred to the control of plagues and such things by departments of health. That is just what I am asking. Our departments of health, federal and provincial, have been established with the idea of preventing such things. It is the prevention of war that I want more than anything else. Certain parts of the United States have been ravaged by floods. The country was not prepared for these floods; the methods of prevention were inadequate, but I have no doubt that the embankments which have given way will be replaced by still stronger ones. I believe we should make all the preparation we possibly can for peace. We should do everything we can to create a peace psychology among the peoples of the world. We should adopt the same procedure as is adopted by our departments of health when dealing with matters concerning the health of the people.
I do not think it could be called an impertinence on our part when we make a suggestion to the president of a friendly nation, as has been intimated by the leader of the opposition. I know very little of impertinence, but I do not think that could be considered as an impertinent action. I quoted this afternoon from a book written by a professor of law at Columbia university. The late Mr. Briand was responsible for the Kellogg-Briand pact, but the statement is made in this book that the original information came to France from American sources.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, January 28, 1937