1937-02-15

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will have observed from this morning's press that since the house adjourned on Friday evening last another hon. member has been taken from our midst by the hand of death, the member for Renfrew North, Doctor Matthew McKay. Doctor McKay's death is the fifth since its last session, that has taken place in the membership of this house; he is the fourth hon. member to have been taken from this side of the house.
31111-55}
Doctor McKay was one of the oldest members of parliament. There seems to have been some doubt as to whether he was the oldest member of this house. I believe it is a fact that Doctor McKay was born in Simcoe county, Ontario, on October 5, 1855. In terms of actual years, therefore, it would appear that he was the oldest member of the House of Commons. Be that as it may, his appearance certainly belied his years; few men of advanced years have appeared keener or more active than did Doctor McKay. His vivid personality and his energetic ways would have led one to believe that he was nearer sixty than eighty.
It is a little difficult for those who were not in the house with Doctor McKay from 1921 to.1925 to appreciate, what his life meant to this House of Commons and to the country. Indeed, it is difficult to judge from the doctor's years in parliament how continuous, how keen and persistent was his interest in public affairs. He was in point of fact, a member of this House of Commons only during the present parliament and the parliament of 1921 to 1925, though he was a candidate in the general elections of 1926 and of 1930. He took in the house very little part in debate; singularly enough, while he was fearless and outspoken on the public platform, owing to a certain timidity of nature or reserve he hesitated to speak to any extent in the House of Commons. The number of his speeches was very few indeed. It would be a mistake, however, to. attempt to measure, simply by his achievements in the House of Commons, the influence in public life of one who has played an important part in public affairs. It would be indeed unfortunate for public ^ life itself if the most useful public activities were necessarily restricted to membership in parliament. Doctor McKay all through his life had been deeply interested not only in municipal affairs of the community in which he lived, but also in provincial politics and federal politics. He was one who believed it was possible to render great service to his country through serving well the political party whose interests he believed it was best for him to serve. He looked upon a party not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end, a means whereby men and women who feel and think alike on great problems are able to unite their efforts to ensure the putting into effect of principles and policies in which they believe. It is difficult to express how much a political party owes to men of Doctor McKay's type.
The late Matthew McKay

Their politics are based upon principle, and for principle, they are prepared to make almost any sacrifice, no matter how great. They never know the meaning of defeat. To them the justice of the cause is everything.
Doctor McKay had deep convictions with respect to Liberal principals and policies. As regards old country politics, he was very much of the school of Mr. Gladstone. In federal politics he was a loyal, ardent and uncompromising follower of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; in provincial affairs he was one of the school of Oliver Mowat. Doctor McKay was familiar in all their details with the politics of the part of the country in which he lived. He was one to whom leaders went to seek counsel and advice with respect to policies arid as regards the conditions governing in their respective communities. His name and his interests had an immediate association with what we speak of as the Ottawa valley. It might almost be said that there has not been a political battle, either provincial or federal, of any significance fought in the Ottawa valley in the last fifty years in which Doctor McKay did not participate or with respect to which in some oapacity his political services were not sought on behalf of the party to which he belonged. I imagine he rather liked to be thought of as a political war-horse, and indeed he was that in every sense of the word. I can think of no one in our public life more deserving of the term "old reliable." For these reasons he played the all-important part which he did over a period, as I have said, of fifty years.
It would be a great mistake, reflecting on a life of service as long as that which the doctor enjoyed, realizing the extent of his achievements, of the honours which crowned his efforts towards the end, to think at this time only, or mostly, of the loss which we of this House of Commons have sustained. Rather may we rejoice at what has been given by way of inspiration, by such a life and such an example, to the young people of our country who have a desire for community and public service and who hope to play a part in public affairs.
Within a few months, Doctor and Mrs. McKay would have celebrated their golden wedding anniversary. This morning, as I was writing a line of sympathy to Mrs. McKay, there came suddenly to my mind those lines of Robert Browning:
Grow old along with me!
The best is yet to be,
The last of life, for which the first was made;

"for which the first was made." I could not but think that when fifty years ago Doctor and Mrs. McKay began life together in Pembroke, his public as well as his married and professional life was then just having its beginnings. He brought to his profession and to the community a mind well trained and stored with information gathered at the public school, at the normal school and at Queen's university. He brought habits of industry as well as habits of thought, and these he sought to turn not alone to his individual and personal advantage, and to the furtherance of the work of his profession, but also to the good of the community in which he lived. He there began the bringing up of a young family, seeking to give to his children educational advantages greater even than those which, as a lad, he himself had been privileged to enjoy. He began to interest himself in community activities and public work, serving at one time on the school board, at another in municipal affairs, and offering himself on different occasions as a candidate for parliament. He became president of the political association of his party and, increasingly the moving spirit in its affairs.
Such were the beginnings of his life. Let us look for a moment at "the last of life, for which the first was made." We see him at the close of life occupying a foremost position in his profession, and looked to by the community generally for guidance and direction in its different activities. We see him with children grown up, themselves taking an honourable part in affairs, and surrounded by grandchildren, bringing their comfort and their Cheer to his advancing years. We see him when nearly eighty years of age, signally honoured by his fellow citizens as mayor of the town in which for fifty years he had lived and carried on his work. We see him at the same great age returned a second time, and with a large majority to the parliament of Canada as a member for the constituency in which he had lived throughout that half century of time. More than that, we see him, as his life draws to its close, a national figure much respected by members of parliament of all political parties, and greatly beloved by those of the party to whom he belonged.
For such a life we have reason to be deeply thankful. It is true that we shall miss him keenly, particularly those of us on this side; our loss is very great indeed. I am sure that to every one of us, as I know it is to myself, the doctor's sudden passing has brought a

The late Matthew McKay
sense of personal loss which it would be difficult to describe. We shall miss him about these halls. We shall miss him in our political gatherings. We shall miss him in our campaigns. But we shall be grateful always, I believe, that one who was spared to serve his country up to eighty years of age and beyond has left behind a career so honourable and a name so greatly honoured.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the leader of the house in his expression of the loss which the house has suffered through the death of one of its number-which reminds me that the sickle of the grim reaper has been very busy of late in this chamber. I should like also to join in offering my sympathy to the right hon. gentleman and his party in the loss they have sustained through the passing of an experienced supporter of their cause and their principles. Doctor McKay was not personally well known to me, but I knew him as a doughty warrior, as one who had firm convictions as to the policies of his party and a robust and vigorous manner of expressing them. That he occupied a very important place in the councils of his party was apparent, I think, to us all.
It is somewhat difficult to look back upon a life that extended over so many years. He was a boy of twelve when confederation was accomplished, and, if my information is correct, he participated in every general election from 1873 to 1935. He was familiar with the giants of the Liberal party in its early days, and he might be regarded as a cross-section of that fine type of Scotsman that came into Canada in the early days and made so great a contribution to the laying of our foundations, legislatively and otherwise. The firmness of his convictions reminds one of Morley's observation that fidelity to conviction is one of the mainsprings of human progress. There are those who would seriously differ from that view, but I think that Doctor McKay's life, his work and his experience, were eminent justification of its soundness.
In this Ottawa valley, and particularly in the community in which he lived, Doctor McKay played a noble part. He was known to almost everyone of importance in his riding and many who were not of his party, and, as the leader of the house has said, his contribution to the public life of this country may be measured, not by his presence or absence from this house, but rather by the influence of an example in public and private life that cannot but be of the utmost value in the years that are before us. For it has well been said by one
whose name escapes me, that if a star were quenched on high, its light still travelling on would influence men for many years.
So, when a great man dies,
For years beyond our ken,
The light he leaves behind him lies Upon the paths of men.
It may be said of Doctor McKay, not that he was a great parliamentarian, not that he participated actively in the legislation of the house, but rather that, by the influence of his example in his profession, in his public service to his community, in his service through small organizations that are so vita! to the creation of sound public opinion, in the councils of his party, on the hustings, and, if I may use the term, in the organization work of his party-believing that party was intended to serve the public and existed for the state and not the individual-his life was indeed one of great usefulness to this country.
It is a tribute to him that after nearly fourscore years of life in the community he was elected to the House of Commons in 1935, when he was about eighty years of age. That in itself is a striking tribute to his qualities of heart and of mind and to the influence of his life upon his fellow citizens; for it does not often happen thus, especially in view of the fact that he had had but one term in this house during all those years.
I can only say how sincerely we on this side of the house regret his passing; for it is the severing of one of the links that join the present to the remote past-the passing of one who was able to speak intimately and with knowledge of the men who in days gone by, in the chamber of the Commons House of Parliament, did much to lay the foundations of the dominion as we now know it. It may well be said of him that he has passed to his fathers having lived a life full of good works; and those who are left behind him can say of him:
Life's race well run,	[DOT]
Life's work well done,
Life's victory won,
Now cometh rest.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Those of us who have been for any number of years in the house will recognize, I believe, Doctor McKay's keen interest in public affairs and in people, Undoubtedly he was a strong party man, but I think we all came to realize that he was also a friendly man, and perhaps now that he has gone we think particularly of his friendliness. I desire to express on behalf of
The late Matthew McKay

the members of this group our appreciation of his work in the house and to extend our sympathy to those whom he leaves behind.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: May I join my voice in honouring Doctor McKay? I might tell a little incident from his life which, I believe, will be to his credit in times like these. Last year he arranged, [DOT]entirely without my previous knowledge, to have me invited to speak upon the new economics in one of the important cities in his riding. In telling me about it just before I went he said, "I wanted those leading men to know what reformers to-day are thinking and their reasons for so thinking." A man of eighty who is as open-minded as that has merited the esteem of all men, and to Doctor McKay the group which I represent accords that tribute.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCO IS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	As a private member from the
province of Quebec may I pay my humble tribute to the memory of a very dear friend who has just passed. Doctor McKay belonged to the old traditionalists of the province of Ontario. He was of Scotch and Irish extraction. He was a man of very deep convictions and as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has just said, he had taken part in every campaign in his constituency and as well in other parts of the good old province of Ontario. Did you notice, Mr. Speaker, that he was sixty-three in 1921 when he ran for the first time? He was elected on that occasion and up to last week was one of the very few members then in this chamber who were in this house when I came here in 1924. In 1926 he was sixty-eight and he ran again in the elections though he was .defeated. But he was not downhearted, for in 1930 he ran again. He was again defeated, and at that time he was seventy-two. But in 1935, when he was seventy-seven, he had the joy of his life; for then he had the satisfaction of knowing that his principles and his views were again accepted by his own electors who were his friends. On many occasions I went to him for advice, and I never regretted having done so. I shall honour his memory for a long time, and I may say that in his departure I have suffered the loss of a very dear friend. The life of a man of such deep convictions is a lesson to all of us and especially to the young. If they will cherish their convictions as Doctor McKay did his, they will enjoy the same respect from their fellow citizens.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: I should like to pay my tribute to Doctor

McKay in recalling the last word he spoke. Last week he invited some of us to attend the play-offs in the junior hockey league when the Pembroke junior team got into the finals, and he said to me, "It is our duty to encourage our youth in clean sport, and I hope you will have time to attend the game."



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. 0. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 20, to amend the Railway Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BOULANGER:: The object of the bill is to amend the Railway Act in order to give jurisdiction to the board of railway commissioners instead of following the ordinary course, in cases of damages caused by the erection of snow fences.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS ACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. 0. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 21, to amend the Government Railways Act.
He said: The object is the same as that of the bill I have just presented.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Was surplus wheat held by the wheat board at July 31 last, from the 1935 crop of wheat, from previous crops or both?
2.	How was the unsold surplus divided between crops of various years?
3.	Does the government consider that the farmers have any share or interest in such surpluses?
4.	Can the farmers expect any further payments from such surpluses?
5.	If so, when, approximately, will the cheques be issued?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes, from the 1935 crop also from wheat purchased by the Canadian Wheat Board from the Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers Limited.
2.	2,030,761 bushels of 1935 crop, 82,667,891 bushels of wheat purchased from Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Ltd.

Questions
3.	The report of the wheat board indicates that there is no surplus profit on the crop of 1935 to be distributed.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Answered by No. 3.


RETURNED SOLDIERS' PENSIONS AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
Mr. MacNEIL:: 1.	What steps have been taken to implement the recommendation of the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems as approved last session, that a board of psychiatrists and neurologists be convened to consider pensions and medical treatment policy as affecting mental, psychopathic, or neuropathic disabilities?
2.	If such board has been convened, what is its personnel?
3.	Have the findings of such board been reported upon to the Department of Pensions and National Health, and will such findings be made available for consideration of the House of Commons?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	The board was duly convened.
2.	Dr. R. Angrove, Chief, Neuropsychiatric Services, Ste. Anne's Hospital.
Dr. W. Baillie, Chief Neuropsyehiatric Services, Christie St. Hospital, Toronto. Secretary, Academy of Medicine, (Neuropsychiatric Section).
Dr. Gaston Lefebvre de Bellefeuille, Professor of Neuropsychiatry, University of Montreal.
Dr. George Boyer, Toronto, Chief, Consultant Division, Toronto General Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Toronto University.
Dr. J. P. S. Cathcart, Chief, Neuropsychiatric Services, Dept. Pensions and National Health.
Dr. Harry Dover, Consultant Neuropsychiatrist, Ottawa Civic Hospital.
Dr. C. B. Farrar, Professor of Psychiatry, University of Toronto. Director of Toronto Psychiatric Hospital, Toronto.
Dr. S. M. Fisher, Instructor in Medicine, University of Western Ontario.
Dr. A. A. Fletcher, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine. Consultant Neuropsychiatrist, Toronto General Hospital.
Dr. Grant Fleming, Dean), Faculty of Medicine, McGill University. Professor of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, McGill University Medical Director, Canadian National Committee on Mental Hygiene.
Dr. W. Leslie, Chief, Neuropsychiatric Service, Deer Lodge Hospital, Winnipeg.
Dr. Hugh Laidlaw, Chief, Pathological Services, Ottawa General Hospital.
Dr. F. H. Mackay, Professor in Neurology, McGill University. Chief, Neurological Division, Montreal General Hospital.
Dr. George Mason, Calgary. Chief Consultant Psychiatrist, Province of Alberta.
Dr. A. T. Mathers, Winnipeg. Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba. Director, Winnipeg Neuropsychiatric Hospital. Chief Psychiatrist, Provincial Services.
Dr. W. J. McLean, Lecturer, University of Western Ontario. Chief, Neuropsychiatric Division, Westminster Hospital.
Dr. W. T. B. Mitchell, Associate Professor, Mental Hygiene, McGill University. Chief, Provincial Mental Hygiene Clinic, Montreal.
Dr. Daniel Plouffe, Chief, Neuropsychiatric Services, Province of Quebec. Superintendent Bordeaux Hospital for Insane.
Dr. C. S. Roy, Superintendent, St. Michel Archange Asylum, Mastai, P.Q.
Dr. Colin Russel, Clinical Professor of Neurology, McGill University. Chief, Medical Division, Montreal Neurological Institute.
Dr. R. S. Stevens, Medical Consultant, Ottawa Civic Hospital.
Dr. G. H. Stevenson, Superintendent, Ontario Hospital, London, Ont. Professor of Psychiatry, University of Western Ontario.
3.	Yes. The findings of the Board of Psychiatrists and Neurologists were laid on the table of the house to-day.


VICTORIA, B.C., MARINE HOSPITAL
Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	By clause G of section 5 of the terms of union between the Dominion of Canada and the crown colony of British Columbia, did the Dominion of Canada agree to defray the charges of a marine hospital at Victoria?
2.	Did the Dominion of Canada cease to defray the charges of such marine hospital at Victoria? If so, when?
3.	If the Dominion of Canada does not now defray such charges for a marine hospital at Victoria, does the Dominion of Canada make any provisions for hospitalization for such patients as were contemplated when the act of union was entered upon?
4.	Has the Dominion of Canada made any agreements for the care of such patients in the Royal Jubilee hospital at the city of Victoria?
5.	Does the dominion government make any annual donation to the Royal Jubilee hospital at Victoria in lieu of the maintenance at Victoria of a marine hospital?
6.	Has the dominion government considered making an annual donation to the Royal Jubilee hospital at Victoria in lieu of maintaining a marine hospital at Victoria?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The following resolution of the legislature of British Columbia was passed on the 28th February, 1911:
Questions

Whereas by an agreement bearing date the twenty-fifth day of October, 1910, made by and between His Majesty King George V, in right of his province of British Columbia, represented by the Honourable Richard McBride as his trustee, of the one part, and that band of Indians known as the "Songhees tribe," of the other part, it was agreed that, upon the terms and conditions therein mentioned the said tribe of Indians would remove from the tract of land on which they resided within the confines of the city of Victoria, British Columbia, and commonly known as the "Songhees Reserve," and would transfer to his said majesty, in right of this province, all their claims for rights in and improvements on the lands within the boundaries of the said "Songhees Reserve":
And whereas by the terms of union under which British Columbia was admitted into the Dominion of Canada, Canada agreed to assume and defray the charges for a Marine hospital at said city of Victoria; and which marine hospital has been erected and maintained on land within the boundaries of said Songhees Reserve:
And whereas it is necessary, for the carrying-out of the purposes for which such Indian reserve is being acquired as aforesaid, that the lands and premises now occupied by or held in connection with such marine hospital should be rendered available forthwith to his said majesty, in right of this province.
And whereas there are two public hospitals in or near said city of Victoria, both of which are available to take care of any patients whom it has been customary to send to such marine hospital:
Therefore, be it resolved, That this house deems it to be in the public interests of this province that the said marine hospital should be closed, and that the lands and premises occupied thereby or used or held in connection therewith should be transferred by the dominion government to his majesty the king, in right of this province; and that this house will consider it a satisfactory performance of the terms of union, in so far as the maintenance of said marine hospital is concerned, if the said Dominion of Canada arranges for the erection of a marine hospital elsewhere within the city of Victoria, or, in the alternative, for the work now being carried on at the present marine hospital to be carried on in either or both of such other existing hospitals:

And that an humble address be presented to His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, praying him that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to His Excellency the Governor General in Council.
The foregoing resolution was approved by order in council P.C. 590, of the government of British Columbia, on the 8th March, 1911, and was confirmed by federal order in council P.C. 2579, dated 14th November, 1911. The last named order in council reported that arrangements had been made with the St. Joseph's hospital, Victoria, for the treatment care of all sick seamen arrived at Victoria, entitled to relief under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act. The actual transfer of patients was effected on the 24th April, 1911.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, also with St. Joseph's hospital, Victoria.
5.	No. Payment is made at a per diem rate.
6.	No.


COST OF SEARCH FOR FLIGHT-LIEUTENANT COLEMAN
Mr. MUTCH:: 1.	How much did the search for Flight-Lieutenant Coleman cost the Dominion of Canada?
2.	How much gasoline was used?
3.	How much would it cost to equip all the commercial aircraft, on schedule runs, with two-way radio?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	852,384.74.
2.	Approximately 14,000 gallons.
3.	The cost of equipping an aircraft with two-way wireless communication varies from 8500 to 83,000, depending on the type of installation required. The number of aeroplanes on "schedule" services depends on the definition of "schedule." The only services which run on exact schedule are inter-city services. All planes on such services are now equipped with two-way communication.


VIMY PILGRIMAGE-CANADIAN LEGION
Sir EUGENE FISET:: 1.	Did the government make any grant of money to the Canadian Legion for the purpose of organizing and carrying out the pilgrimage to Vimy and the battlefields in July, 1936?
2.	Did the Canadian Legion make application for any such grant?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	No.
2.	No.

Questions


TYVAN, SASK., CENSUS
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	What amount of money was paid to one Roath for the taking of the census in the village of Tyvan, and other services rendered?
2.	What amount was paid to the young lady who assisted him in the work of census enumeration?
3.	What was the name of this young lady?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1,	2 and 3. Mr. Roath did not enumerate the village of Tyvan.
farmers' creditors arrangement act-


SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. DOUGLAS:: 1.	What is the personnel of the board of review operating under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What amounts have been paid to each,
(a)	in salaries; (b) living and travelling expenses ?
3.	What was the date of appointment of the present personnel of this board?
4.	How many cases have been reviewed by the present board?
5.	How many cases were reviewed by the previous board under the chairmanship of Justice MacLean?
6.	What is the number of cases settled, (a) under present board; (b) under the previous board?
7.	What is the prevalent rate of interest on debts adjusted, (a) under the present board;
(b)	under the previous board?
8.	What was the percentage of reduction in debts, (a) under the present board; (b) under the previous board?
9.	What is the total amount of, (a) cases reviewed; (b) settled by the board of review since its inception under the act?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Chief Justice J. T. Brown; R. W. Hugg, K.C.; Charles Wilson.
(a) Fees (b)
2.	Chief Justice Brown. None $2,608 05
R. W. Hugg, ICC.. . .$2,875 00	941 21
Charles Wilson.. .. 2,912 50	1,529 41
3.	Chief Justice Brown, July 9, 1936; R. W. Hugg, K.C., August 17, 1936; Charles Wilson, August 17, 1936.
4.	422
5.	1,401.
6.	(a) 351; (b) 1,401.
7.	None. Rate based on merits of each individual case.
8.	(a) 43-9 per cent; Ob) 27-8 per cent.
9.	Of 2,408 cases referred to the board of review to January 31,1987, (a) 1,823; (b) 1,752.


SHEDIAC, N.B., MAIL SERVICE
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Has Alyre Hebert the contract for carrying mail from the Canadian National Railways station, Shediac, to Shediac post office?
2.	If so, when does his contract expire?
3.	Has the department called for tenders for this service?
4.	If so, who was the lowest tenderer?
5.	If no tenders were called, who got the contract, and under what terms?
6.	Was a recommendation made for a change?
7.	If so, by whom?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Yes.
2.	March 31, 1937.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	New contract completed with Alexander Landry at $160 per annum under authority contained in section 73 of the Post Office Act.
6 Yes.
7.	H. R. Emmerson, M.P.


CANADIAN MILITIA-HONORARY COLONELS
Mr. POULIOT:: Referring to the second statement of the honourable Minister of National Defence in the first column of page 508 of Hansard of February 3, who are the two colonels, and w-hat are the regiments mentioned therein?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Colonel A. T. Howard, V.D., The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada. Colonel D. R. Sargent, The Canadian Scottish Regiment.


HAMILTON GAULT FUND
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Is E. H. Seammell, secretary of the Pension and National Health department, also administrator of the Hamilton Gault fund?
2.	If so, (a) what is that fund; (b) what does it amount to; (c) to whom does it belong, and (d) what is the purpose of it?
3.	Is Seammell the only administrator of that fund?
4.	If so, when and by whom was he appointed, and, if not, who are the other administrators?
5.	In the calendar years 1935 and 1936, were there: (a) any returned soldiers, and (b) any civilians who received money in any shape, way, or form, from that fund?
6.	If so, how many: (a) returned soldiers; (b) civilians; who were the civilians, and for what purpose did each one receive any money?
7.	Did a Lieutenant-Colonel Walker, of Ottawa, receive any money at different intervals from that fund, and if so, when and how much each time?
8.	Does he receive a pension? If so, how much?
9.	How7 many returned soldiers' requests for borroAving money from that fund v7ere turned dow7n in calendar years, (a) 1934; (b) 1935, and (c) 1936?
10.	Does the administrator or do the administrators receive anything for administrating that fund, and, if so, how much?


Mr. POWER:: Stand.
Questions


Jean-François Pouliot: May I draw attention to the fact that paragraph 1 of this question in the French version should be in conformity with the English text.


CANADIAN RADIO BROADCASTING COMMISSION
Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Have the services of Mr. Hector Charles-worth, Colonel C. A. Chauveau, K.O., and Lieutenant-Colonel W. Arthur Steel, M.C., members of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, been dispensed with?
2.	If so, when, how, and on what terms and conditions?


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order. This question is exactly the same as question No. 21 standing in my name, and I object very much to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) becoming my new disciple in this matter. Question No. 21 appeared in the votes and proceedings of Thursday last, so I do not see why the question of my hon. disciple from Calgary West should have been put on the votes and proceedings on Friday.
Question stands.


MAIL DELIVERY ON HOLIDAYS
Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Were any representations made to the government by any person or persons or organizations urging the delivery of mail on statutory holidays and Saturday afternoons?
2.	If so, were such representations made verbally or in writing?
3.	How many such representations were made?
4.	When were they made?
5.	Who made them?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Representations were made verbally, in writing and through the press.
3.	4 and 5. See sessional paper No. 145 of 1937 session which was tabled on the 5th February, 1937. No record kept of verbal representations.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MAYBANK:: ![DOT] pid the Civil Service Commission recently establish an eligible list of postal helpers for the Winnipeg post office, and, if so, when?
2.	How many names were upon said list?
3.	Have any persons from said list been given employment as a result of recent changes by the government in the frequency of mail delivery in the area of greater Winnipeg?
4.	How many from said eligible list have been thus employed, and what is the total number of hours of employment thus given?


Mr. RINFRET:: Return tabled herewith.
[Mr Power.]


GRAIN HANDLED BY GOVERNMENT ELEVATORS
Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	What quantities of grain passed through the government elevators at Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Lethbridge and Edmonton during the past five years?
2.	What has been the record of business through these elevators in comparison with the business through privately owned terminals at Port Arthur, Fort William and Vancouver?


NATIONAL DEFENCE-NON-COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	In each of the following branches of the Department of National Defence, (1) administration, (2) treasury office, (3) central registry, (4) contracts branch, (5) printing and stationery, (6) naval service, (7) chief of the general staff, (8) signals, (9) historical section, (10) adjutant general, (11) medicals, (12) records, (13) quartermaster general, (14) master general of the ordnance, (15) Royal Canadian Air Force, (16) No. 1 Aircraft depot, (17) Royal Canadian Air Force Station, Ottawa, (18) Connaught Rifle Range, (19) drill halls-how many non-commissioned officers are (1) older, and (2) younger than thirty-seven (37) years?
2.	In each of the above-mentioned branches, how many non-commissioned officers who are thirty-seven (37) years old and older have been in the line of an actual theatre of war?
3.	Referring to the previous paragraph, how many in each branch have been stationed, (a) farther than twenty miles behind the fighting line, (b) in England?
4.	Referring to paragraph 2, how many in each branch did not leave Canada on active service overseas?
5.	How many of such non-eommissioned officers in each branch were born in Canada and how many were not?


MAIL DELIVERY ON HOLIDAYS
Mr. MAYBANK:: 1.	Was regular delivery of mail made in the cities of Canada on Christmas day, 1936, and on New Year's day, 1937?
2.	Was such delivery made in all Canadian cities?
3.	If such delivery was not made in all Canadian cities, in which city or cities was such delivery not made?


MOTION FOR PAPERS
Sir GEORGE PERLEY (for Mr. Bennett):: For a copy of all orders in council, correspondence, documents and papers dealing with the retirement from the public service of (a) Mr. Hector Charlesworth; (b) Colonel C. A. Chauveau, K.C.; and (c) Lieutenant-Colonel W. Arthur Steel, M.C.

Labour Disputes-Mr. Rogers


LABOUR DISPUTES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. 0. B. ELLIOTT (Kindersley): Before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) if he is prepared to make a statement with regard to the dispute between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways and their employees.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Elliott) was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question. The procedure followed under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act in dealing with reports made by boards of conciliation has been to send to both parties to the dispute copies of the report and ask them to state whether or not they are willing to accept the recommendation of the board. This was done in the present instance. A reply was received from the representatives of the employees advising the department that the report was not acceptable, and further stating that a strike ballot was being prepared for submission to the employees. This reply from the employees was immediately communicated to the presidents of the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways. On February 4 Sir Edward Beatty and Mr. Hungerford acknowledged receipt of the report of the board of conciliation and indicated their attitude toward it in the following paragraph:
The railways are prepared to accept the recommendation of the board as a basis for an agreement between the railways and the employees for the adjustment of the dispute.
The railways in the conciliation conferences having offered, as stated in the board's report, to reduce the rate of deduction from compensation from 10 per cent to 9 per cent as from February 1, 1937, they will immediately take the necessary steps to put into effect that part of the board's recommendation.
I may say that I have had informal discussions with representatives of both parties to the dispute, since the conciliation board made its report. I cannot usefully add anything further to this statement at the present time, except to say that we are keeping in constant touch with the situation.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with I should like to ask a question of the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). It has been drawn to my attention by wire from Vancouver over the week end that there has been trouble between the management of the Bums packing plant in Vancouver and the employees; whether it is a strike or a lockout I do not know at the moment, but it has been going on for the last seven weeks. I should like to know whether a dispute of this kind comes under the activities of the Federal Department of Labour, and if so, what action if any has been taken.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): The hon member was good enough to inform me that he would ask this question to-day. Our information indicates that on December 29, 1936, nineteen employees of the Burns plant were dismissed. These were mostly employees who had been in the service of the company for many years, and seven of them composed the entire executive of the union formed in April, 1936. A strike followed immediately.
The western representative of the Department of Labour, Mr. Harrison, at once interviewed the company's manager with a view to settlement by conciliation. On a number of occasions subsequently both Mr. Harrison and Mr. Bell, Deputy Minister of Labour for British Columbia, conferred with the company manager and union officials in an effort to bring about a conference between the parties. They were not successful. The company manager refused to meet the dismissed strikers and employees jointly, and the employees refused to meet the management unless the dismissed employees were also present. Mr. Harrison, the representative of the dominion Department of Labour, went to Calgary in an endeavour to secure the consent of the president of the company to allow the dispute to be dealt with by a board of conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, but has been unsuccessful up to this time. The employees have agreed to a board being established. For this type of industry a board can be set up only by joint consent of the parties involved in the dispute.
I might say that I have been in touch with the Minister of Labour for British Columbia, and it seems probable that an inquiry will be instituted under provincial legislation.


CANADA-UNITED KINGDOM TRADE AGREEMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Shaver Woodsworth: According to the Canadian Press, Sir Francis Floud, High Commissioner for the United Kingdom, speaking in Montreal
876	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. MacNcil
on Saturday, made reference to the proposed new trade agreement between Canada and the United Kingdom, saying:
We have reached a conclusion, and I hope the new agreement will be presented to the Canadian parliament very shortly.
I should like to know whether the government can give us any indication as to when parliament will be informed as to the terms of this agreement.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I think it was on Friday that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked me a question along these lines, the answer to which doubtless escaped the hon. member who has just spoken. I indicated then that while conclusions have been reached, a great deal of what might be called tidying up requires to be done in putting into words all the details of such an important document. That work is proceeding, and I hope to be able to indicate to the house within a week as to when we can deal with it.



SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['Mr. Speaker, this question is very important, first, on account of the amount involved, and second, on account of the principle involved.\nIf we consider the amount involved, and compare it with what was expended in previous years, it is rather a large amount; but if we compare this amount with what has been voted in countries like the Argentine Republic, Chile, Switzerland or the Irish Free State, it is not a large amount. The South American countries have no more reason to arm than we have. If the Monroe doctrine means anything, they are protected by it just as much as we are. They are further away from Europe and Asia, and yet they spend larger amounts on armaments than we are asked to spend, If the amount is considered in relation to the armaments that we had here, it is not a large amount because we had nothing at all before, as was so well said by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie).\nBut I feel that the question is rather one of principle, and the principle involved is that of contribution to the future wars of Europe. If national defence meant contribution to the future wars of Europe, then I say undoubtedly I would have to be against national defence. If it meant contribution to European wars, I am sure that the people of my own province would soon ask themselves the question: Is it worth while to stay within the British Empire if we have to go to war because South Africa wants its independence recognized, because Germany wants its colonies back, or for any other reason?\nBut if we have to defend1 Canadian territory and if it means only the defence of our territory, I am going to vote heartily for this measure of defence. It is true, in my opinion, that, legally speaking, we are just as independent as we can be. The Statute\n\nof Westminster is not, unfortunately, a title that we can take and register in the book of independence as a proprietor would register title to his own property. Perhaps because we have not gained this statute at the price of bloodshed, we do not accord it as much importance as we should. On the other hand, we bear the earmark of a British country; we have the same flag; we have the same king, and if England or some other part of the British Empire were attacked, we would have to defend ourselves. I say gladly that I am ready to stay a long time within the British Empire at the price of defending my own country against any attack. It is true that Canada is further removed than any other part of the empire from any conflict which we to-day can foresee. But the high seas are not so far away nowadays as they were many years ago. True, we cannot argue away the Atlantic or the Pacific ocean, but it must be remembered that Washington is nearer to London than it is to Mexico.\nWe hear a lot about the Monroe doctrine. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might give this house the benefit of some studies I have made recently with regard to that doctrine. It was formulated in 1823 as a defence against the Holy Alliance, reactionary powers of Europe that wanted to bring the Spanish colonies of South America into submission to Spain. It was directed against England, against France, and against Russia, but it was formulated without any request on the part of the South American colonies. It has been interpreted by the United States in fifty different ways, and its only meaning as far as that nation is concerned is that the United States shall intervene whenever they want to intervene and that they will not intervene if they feel it is in their interests not to do so. Very often its effect has been to stop other countries from interfering with the states of South America, not only from armed intervention but from purchasing land or territory when they wanted to acquire such lands or territories for themselves. We know what happened as far as Texas, New Mexico, upper California and Cuba are concerned. The Monroe doctrine is a doctrine of "no colonization." We are apt to forget that confederation itself was passed as an answer to that doctrine. I have before me a book written by Professor Reddaway, of Cambridge university, and he quotes the words of President Adams, some time in 1827, that "the union must soon include all North America." In 1866, not only the president of the United States but the house of representatives con-\n\nNational Defence-Mr. Bertrand (Laurier)\nsidered a bill to annex the colonies north of their northern frontier, and Mr. Reddaway\nsays:\nThese feelings found utterance when, in 1866, the house of representatives considered a bill for the eventual annexation of the continent north of their own borders. They were answered by the British North America Act, which united Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick into a single dominion. This constituted the sharpest check which the development of the Monroe doctrine had received.\nThere are numerous quotations similar to this in the book to which I have referred and in another book written in 1897 by a French professor, M. Delarue de Beaumarchais. The South Americans did not like the Monroe doctrine. It is said in Mr. Reddaway\'s book that they never called for it and they never recognized it. As I said a few minutes ago, the United States have interpreted it to suit their own interests of the moment. With regard to Cuba, Mr. Reddaway states:\nThe question of Cuba, however, interwoven as it was with the question of slavery, continued to occupy the attention of the United States. The succeeding president, aiming at preventing emancipation by annexing the island, endorsed the Monroe doctrine in his message of 1853.\nThis is what I want to come to:\nNext year-\nIn 1854.\n. . . the ambassadors of the United States to London, Paris and Madrid met at Ostend, and astounded Europe by a manifesto. if Spain refused to sell Cuba to the republic, they declared, ail laws divine and human would justify the republic in taking it by force.\nWell, I say that this is not a doctrine to protect the neighbours of the United States. Even if we were independent to-day we should have to spend more than we shall spend under the present program of the government. In 1895, war was almost brought about between the United States and Great Britain, by virtue of the Monroe doctrine, in connection with the borders between Guiana and Venezuela. But where the effect of the doctrine clearly showed itself is with relation to Cuba. I am not going to relate the more recent history of Cuba, for I think it is known to everybody, but I suggest it indicates that we should protect ourselves without having too much recourse to the Monroe doctrine. It indicates that if we depend upon the United States for our defence, we must pay for it. In the history of the United States, we cannot find anywhere that the American government has sacrificed money and men without receiving due return. We are all thankful for the part the United States took in the great war, and the words of General Pershing when he arrived in France,\n" Lafayette, we are here," will go down in history. But we must also remember that four or five years afterwards congress said to the allies, and especially to France, " Lafayette, here is the bill." And they are still pressing for it.\nSo far as my province is concerned, the question is one of national defence, but our opponents in that province are trying to induce the people to believe that national defence means participation. Allow me to quote from a newspaper which is not particularly sympathetic to the Liberals in the province of Quebec; I refer to Le Devoir. I believe the editors of Le Devoir are sincere, but they forget what they wrote in 1914. I find in Le Devoir of August 3, 1914, the editor-in-chief, Mr. Heroux, writing the following words:\nOn annonce que la Commission du Port et la eompagnie du Grand-Tronc font particuliere-ment surveiller les elevateurs a grain et leur materiel, et que le Commission du Port a demands au gouvernement d\'exercer une surveillance speciale sur les canaux et les ports. Tout cela est de premiere necessity et utile au premier chef au gouvernement canadien, comme la mise en defense de nos cotes et le maintien de la paix interieure.\nLet me translate the principal words: "All that is of the greatest necessity and of vital importance to the Canadian government, and so is the proper defence of our shores and the maintenance of internal peace." But that is not all. Again, on August 3, 1914, Mr. Armand LaVergne made a speech which was reported in Le Devoir:\tHe said:\nM. Armand Lavergne, le jeune depute nationa-liste, que l\'on a interroge sur la participation du Canada a la guerre europerenne et sur la rumeur de son depart pour la guerre, a declare: "II n\'est pas vrai que je pars pour la guerre ear j\'ai toujours desapprouve la participation du Canada aux guerres k 1\'etranger, que ee soit avec la France ou TAngleterre. Si les troupes sont mobilisees pour la defense du Canada, j\'obeirai aux ordres. Je considere que les Canadiens rendraient un meilleur service 5. TAngleterre en protegeant Sydney, Halifax et Quebec, plutot que d\'envoyer des troupes se battre en Europe.\nLet me translate this again: "If mobilization is ordered for the defence of Canada I shall obey orders. I consider that Canadians will render a greater service to England in protecting Sydney, Halifax and Quebec, than in sending troops to fight in Europe." Well, to protect any of these ports or the port of Vancouver from a raid, we need anti-aircraft guns and boats to sweep the St. Lawrence clear of mines. We cannot defend these towns with water pistols or pea-shooters. On August 5, 1914, Le Devoir said:\nChaque lieure rend plus claire la gravite et Tetendue des mesures que nous impose la defense du Canada proprement dit-noire devoir\n920\tCOMMONS\nNational Defence-Mr. Bertrand (Laurier)\nparticulier, ou personne ne nous suppleera et pour l\'aecomplissement duquel nous ne devons rieri epargner.\nThis is important and I want to translate it: "Every moment shows more clearly the gravity and the extensiveness of the measures which the defence of Canada is imposing upon us, which is our duty where anybody may attack us, and for which we shall neglect nothing." I am not going to quote many more, though I could if I wanted to go through the files; but on August 5, 1914, Mr. Armand LaVergne also said:\nEn face de la situation qui nous est faite, nous devons nous demander, dit M. Lavergne, quels sont nos devoirs? Je considere que nous avons pour premier devoir de defendre notre territoire. Le danger que court l\'Angleterre n\'est pas dans l\'armee autrichienne ni dans la flotte allemande. L\'Angleterre peut etre affa-mee dans tous sens et nous devons proteger les ports de Sydney et de Halifax et garder libre la route du Saint-Laurent, afin de pouvoir lui offrir un grenier ou elle trouvera ses vivres.\nI think this deserves to be translated at length: "Confronting the situation which is facing us we must ask ourselves what our duty is. I consider that our first duty is to defend our territory. The danger to England is not from the Austrian army or the German navy. England will be needing foodstuffs and we must protect our ports of Sydney and Halifax and keep free the St. Lawrence route so that she may have access to our granaries from which to secure her bread."\nOn August 17, Mr. Heroux of Le Devoir, wrote words that are still more in our favour to-day. He said:\nNous estimons avec la vieille tradition cana-dienne, que les obligations militaires du Canada se limitent a la defense du territoire: ee devoir, il est absolu et nous devons l\'aeeomplir, quelle que soit 1\'attitude du gouvernement ontarien. Si nous eroyions que notre devoir va au deli, nous dirions encore a nos eompatriotes: Accom-plissons ce devoir, quoi que fasse le gouvernement. On ne marehande pas dans ce domaine.\nI translate: "We feel with the old Canadian tradition that the military obligations of Canada are limited to the national defence of our territory. This duty is absolute, and we must perform it whatever may be the attitude of the Ontario government to the school question. If we thought our duty went further we would so inform our compatriots. Let us discharge this duty, whatever may be done by the government of Ontario. We must not bargain in this domain." He was referring to the Ontario government of that time. These are words that are true to our best traditions and I am proud to-day to defend these preparations for national defence. I am proud to-day to support these proposals for national defence. I am proud\n\nto think that the minister who first proposed in this house the act to set up the Canadian militia was a French-Canadian from Quebec, who sat among the Conservatives.\nOn July 9, 1914, before the war broke out Mr. Bourassa was in London, and, speaking before the Liberal Colonial Club, he is reported by the newspapers to \'have said:\nII a declare qu\'il appartenait a la Grande-Bretagne de garder les mers tandis que le Canada ferait sa part en defendant son territoire. M. Bourassa a tres bien resume la situation canadienne en montrant plusieurs partis oecu-pes a fortifier les liens imperialistes, pendant que les seuls nationalistes travaillaient sur des bases logiques au developpement de la defense nationale.\nThis means: He declared that the safekeeping of the high seas belonged to Great Britain, while Canada would do her share in defending her territory.\nMr. Bourassa summed up the Canadian situation by showing that other political parties were working for the imperial link, while the nationalists were working on a logical basis for the development of national defence.\nAgain, on February 24, 1917, speaking of Canadian statesmen, he said:\nS\'ils etaient restes fideles a la tradition canadienne et aux accords arretes avec la Grande-Bretagne, ils se seraient bornes a preparer la defense du territoire canadien.\nWhich means that if the government had restricted itself to the motives governing all other statements, if it had remained trua to Canadian tradition and to accords made with Great Britain, our statesmen would have restricted themselves to providing for the defence of Canadian territory.\nThen, another question which is asked in the province of Quebec is: Where is the enemy? This question we can read in many newspapers, including Le Devoir. To-day with the airplane enemies may come from afar. But if there is a man who should not ask this question, it is the ex-director of Le Devoir. In 1914, Mr. Bourassa was in Europe; on July 30 he was in Strassbourg; on July 31 he was in Cologne, and on August 2 he was in Cologne. Coming back to this continent, on August 22 he gave to the newspapers an interview in which he said that he even had to walk to the German frontier, the train service being completely disorganized by the state of war, and that he had to leave his trunks in Germany.\nThese, Mr. Speaker, are the reasons why I intend to vote with the government and to vote against the motion. As a Canadian speaking the French language, I feel that I would be belittling my country if we did not\n\nDominion-Provincial Relations\nmake provision to defend ourselves properly. I should be belittling my province and my own race. To conclude, let me quote a word of Mr. Reddaway, written in 1898. Speaking of the southern nations of America, he said:\nThe nations of South America would no doubt sacrifice much to gain the United States as an ally. They would be untrue to their Spanish ancestors, on the other hand, if they accepted her protection at the price of any portion of their political independence.\nIf we rely solely on the Monroe doctrine for our defence, we are absolutely abandoning our independence, or at any rate a great part of it. I am sure that in my own province the leader of the government, whose ancestors suffered for the autonomy of Canada, is going to be looked upon as a true Canadian; the province of Quebec will have faith in him and will not have any trouble in voting for these appropriations.\nOn motion of Mr. Thorson the debate was adjourned.\nOn motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.\nTuesday, February 16, 1937']
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: 882	COMMONS
National Dejence-Mr. MacNeil
were made at the outbreak of war by the general staff. The effective military strategy that later developed came from Britain's amateur soldiers. Thousands of lives were lost as a result of these ghastly and stupid blunders, because professional soldiers without vision were entrusted with great responsibilities and could not readily adapt their ideas to the changes in the requirements of modem warfare. Apparently it has always been so in the British Empire. We are about in the same position in Canada.
If any of us make an earnest endeavour to face this question of defence, we are asked to place blind trust in the advice of an organization in which, because of our experience in the last eighteen years, we have no reason to have confidence. As evidence of this I suggest it is an open secret that the powerfully entrenched clique or national union of generals, colonels and majors who actually control the military policy of Canada offered definite opposition to the very modest plan of reorganization of the department which was recently attempted by the minister. Here I think I should make a few suggestions to the minister. I would suggest that he issue an order forbidding the use of dress uniforms in Canada and the use of uniforms at any time except when a man is actually on duty. We might thus discourage the time and money-wasting activities of individuals whose only apparent function is to strut like peacocks in their gorgeous plumage on ceremonial occasions. If the danger is as great as suggested by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in his recent remarks in this house, and if our main consideration is to resist invaders who may land on our coast, why not more thoroughly overhaul this department? Why not wipe out the unnecessary administrative headquarters of thirteen military districts and establish coastal and defence headquarters on the Atlantic and Pacific with central administrative control at some central point. Eliminate parades and ceremonies that have no other purpose than that of training? If we pay for technical services at rates sven higher than those sometimes demanded in industry, why can not the minister demand the same standard of efficiency and the same attention to duty as we find demanded in all branches of competitive industry at this time? Let us have more attention to duty and less attention to the social round; that would make for much greater efficiency. Why should general orders-as we find them in sessional papers-be cluttered up with instructions to officers as to how many buttons there should be here and there, what the
[Mr. MacNeil.)
width of a dress tie should be, and all that sort of thing, in order that men may appear in their authorized regalia on ceremonial occasions?
I submit that one of the first and most necessary contributions to national defence, and one that should be made before we pay over additional millions, is so to purge the present establishment as to place it on a businesslike and sensible basis. Eliminate patronage, social nonsense and obsolete military routine, and there might be some opportunity for men in that department to do something, men who have some technical knowledge and grasp of the requirements of national defence. If the country wants defence, there might then be some hope of its getting value for its money.
I have followed attentively the debates of this house and particularly the remarks of the ministers of the crown on this subject in a personal effort to make a conscientious approach to this matter, which I consider of vital consequence to our people at this time. I have been trying to reason my way through to a rational approach free from the prejudice, fear and hysteria that usually characterize the consideration of matters of this sort. I find that many people have been made aware, by the remarks of ministers, of some vague external danger, and they have a hazy idea that something should be done about it; but very few have reasoned their way through to a conception of what would constitute an adequate or first-class defence program in Canada. I cannot, for instance, accept the suggestions made in this house recently by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) when he said on the fourth instant that we should have the world's best fleet in our waters, the world's best army in our land, and the world's best air fleet in our own country. I hope I am not doing him an injustice when I quote his remarks apart from the context. I mention this because it illustrates a sentiment that is expressed by some people at this time without any very clear conception of where such reasoning leads them, and the rather preposterous and absurd conclusions that follow from suggestions of that kind. If we are to have the world's finest navy in our waters we shall require one that surpasses the British navy, which has now a naval tonnage of 1,161,000, with something like 200,000 additional tonnage under construction, and a personnel of something like 90,000 seamen. If we were to have the world's finest army we should need an army greater than Germany's or the Soviet union's, 1,300,000 men under arms. And if we were to have the world's greatest air force we should have to

National Defence-Mr. MacNeil
have a fleet greater than that of the Soviet union or that of Germany, in excess of 4,000 aircraft. To establish and maintain such an organization would require almost three times the available man power in Canada and it would be necessary for us to conscript women and children to man our industries. It would require at least four times our present total national revenue, reported by the Minister of Finance last year to be something like $372,000,000. As a matter of fact, if we continued along these lines we should so disorganize industry and bankrupt the country that it would not be worth defending. A little sober reflection will convince us that we cannot prepare to shoot it out with all comers.
Nothing would be more dangerous than to create the impression that Canada can rely solely on armaments for defence. Even to attempt anything of the sort would be like a small boy brandishing a toy pistol in the face of a dangerous and well-armed bandit.
I was impressed by the recent remarks of the Minister of Justice on this subject. He spoke feelingly of the necessity of protecting our women and children. Every red-blooded man in this chamber will applaud that sentiment. But from what shall we protect them? Should we not know? As I listened to his remarks I wished that he had spoken with the same tender solicitude for the protection of women and children to-day who are being exposed to, and, if I may use the expression, destroyed by foes even more deadly than those we may have to meet from abroad-poverty, malnutrition and social insecurity. Many thousands of our homes are being laid waste to-day, and we might well consider the advisability of using our knowledge of science at this stage to benefit our people rather than to plot the destruction of our fellow beings.
But what actually are the potential dangers from which we must defend our homes? The minister suggested that the madmen of Europe might break loose and descend upon our shores. He evidently contemplated a combination of either fascist or communist powers that might find it possible to dispatch an expeditionary force with suflicient striking power to seize and occupy Canadian territory. In order that I might explore thoroughly the possibilities of such a menace I took counsel with some of the arm-chair strategists or fireside generals who are so actively engaged in propaganda for bigger and better military preparations, to see just where I stood and to try to strike a definite balance of thought on this matter. I asked
31111-56*
them:	Do we require defence against the
United^ States? They agreed with me that it is inconceivable that the United States would suddenly develop warlike intentions toward Canada; and if they did, no protection that we might provide would be of avail. Apart from all sentimental considerations, however, the American people would hardly undertake to blow up an enterprise in which they have such a large investment. And what are the potential dangers from across the Atlantic? Are there any powers that are looking longingly at Canada and that could afford to risk the enmity of the United States by attacking Canada? Could any great power or combination of powers develop a striking force that could actually seize and occupy Canadian territory? These strategists suggest that Germany or Italy might mobilize a fleet which would endanger Canada, or that Russia and France might combine on such a venture, or the social democratic governments of Scandinavia, using Ireland or Greenland or Newfoundland as bases from which to direct operations against our shores. But they were not prepared to say what might happen while such enterprises were under way. Could any of these powers, while engaged in striking a blow at Canada, effectively protect their own frontiers, or deal with other obstacles which would certainly arise in their path? Any such development would presuppose the total collapse of Great Britain, in which case we would be very definitely in alliance with the United States. Or, looking across the Pacific, could we reasonably anticipate that Japan might successfully plot the conquest of Canada? Here again they would definitely have to reckon with the United States. Perhaps the forces of the Soviet union might cross the Behring straits and descend upon us from the north on skis.
Every possibility was canvassed, but after exploring every angle of the situation as presented in the world to-day it could not be shown that there was even a remote possibility that any power could seriously consider an attempt to seize and occupy Canadian territory, unless they were crystal gazing. Crystal gazing just about describes many of the statements made by our militaristic friends.
Let us go one step further. Assume that it is within the range of possibility that some first-class power might descend in force on our shores and seize our territory; what would we require in the way of defence? It is estimated by those who have some knowledge of the subject that successfully to resist any such invasion we should require first of all naval
884	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. MacNeil
squadrons on either coast of at least 250,000 tons with a personnel of 15,000 men. We should1 require mines, mine-sweepers and minelayers. We should require fortifications along the coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and right down the St. Lawrence to Montreal as formidable as those on the Franco-German frontier, not to overlook the fortifications that would be necessary on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland of British Columbia- yes, and someone suggests Hudson bay. We would require strong mobile forces behind such fortifications. And as transportation systems are vital in a scheme of defence we should practically have to rebuild our railway systems in those areas. In addition we should require at least half a million mem under arms, with all1 the equipment of modern warfare.
Our resources in wealth and man power do not permit us even to start on such a program of defence, in order to be equal to any emergency which we might have to face if Canada were to attempt defence alone, without the friendly intervention of the United States. If we should attempt to proceed too far in that direction we most certainly would be inviting aggression rather than depending on our alliances to remain at peace. If there should be any general outbreak of hostilities the worst we might anticipate, in my opinion, would be sporadic visits of raiders attempting to molest shipping in our harbours, hit and run squadrons or submarines or possibly aircraft. For defence against these raids we do not require any additional expenditure, if we accomplish reasonable concentration on *coastal defences so as to make it hazardous for raiders, and so thus effectually ward them off. It does not follow that by providing more costly armaments and more elaborate defences we shall enjoy any greater security or be able to sleep more soundly at night.
After all, when we examine our military and naval preparations we find' that we are not simply planning for defence of Canadian shores. It is hypocritical to pretend that such is the case. As I view it, we are planning to intervene on the side of Great Britain in a European struggle. The plans disclosed point clearly to preparations for the training and equipment of an overseas expeditionary force. From every side we read inspired editorials and articles preparing public sentiment for this contingency. An emergency will be declared, the declaration of war in Great Britain will be given effect in Canada, whatever procedure may be followed. Sentiment will run at fever pitch, and little consideration will be given to the causes leading to the outbreak of war. Our military caste to which we have given so much power, will

attempt to move our boys into the appointed place in the line of empire defence. Why else have we ten or twelve imperial officers at present on exchange in Canada? Because the drift of policy is in this direction, it is necessary to point out the danger of costly blunders into which we may be led by overzealous professional war maniacs.
It may be a magnificent gesture to rush to the assistance of the motherland, but it may not be sound military strategy. Here we are in grave danger of thinking in terms of the last war. Many military strategists agree that in the next war Great Britain may be fighting on three or four fronts, and it may not be feasible to divert sufficient naval strength to convoy troops across the Atlantic, or supplies for the maintenance of such an expeditionary force. It may easily be that we may squander not only our millions, but the lives of thousands of Canadians in vain by considering defence plans on that basis. If we participate in such a war it may prove the better strategy merely to protect our harbours, using our man power in the production of essential war materials. Apart from these considerations we might play a far greater part by interpreting the peaceful intentions and good will of the British people to our great neighbour to the south. The more warlike our intentions, the more we disqualify ourselves for such an important mission.
It has been well said that Canada has no enemies. If we are attacked it will be because of our relationship with Great Britain or of our proximity to the United States. If either of these powers gets us into trouble we have no choice but to rely on it for defence against invasion from a first class enemy power. It is not a question of sponging on the motherland or hiding behind the skirts of the United States, as is so often said in derision. It is vain for us to rely on armaments that we ourselves can provide. There is no point in ruining ourselves merely to satisfy false national pride. In the final analysis the question will be settled, not on a basis of. sentiment, but as a matter of good business. Canada will find its defence, in the event of a major outbreak of war, in those alliances made possible because Canada is an important source of essential raw materials, and a source of these materials which will be far removed from the scene of conflict.
It is incredible that we should place our sole reliance for defence on armaments. It has been demonstrated that in modem warfare one of the most important factors is the organization of war industries. Armaments and armies are of little use unless industry is

National Defence-Mr. MacNeil
organized to maintain them in action. This organization cannot be accomplished over .night. There must be an immediate and continuous supply of goods and munitions. Such a plan cannot be left to chance, as was shown during the last war. If therefore we are asked to make additional sacrifices in order to support the burden of armaments, and if the danger is as great as has been suggested, why has no mention been made of the part that Canadian industry must play in such a program? The planlessness of modern competitive methods will not effectively serve the national interest in a time of grave danger. The authority of the government must be exercised or extended in some degree to assure the efficient maintenance of a national plan which will bring into play the maximum industrial effort. I do not suggest that it should be put into operation now, but our industrial leaders should be warned, and our people should know it, that they must serve the national interest in time of danger, according to plan, as may be determined by the exigencies of the situation.
There is general agreement, I find, that war profiteering activities should be restricted not only during war but in advance of war. There are few who served in the last war who do not remember with some bitterness the inequalities of sacrifice and duty imposed on the Canadian people at that time. The results of those inequalities are still painfully apparent. We may not be able to equalize the sacrifices of war, but at least we can plan to demand the same level of patriotism on the economic plane as may be demanded in the field. We do not agree, as was suggested by the Prime Minister, that we should await the outbreak of war to face this issue, or that men should lay down their lives with the incentive only of patriotism while others should engage in war production in comparative security with the incentive of profit. Such measures to be effective in order to restrain war profiteering should be introduced now. The issue has been faced already in the United States, and plans have been prepared. There is no valid reason why, if we are truly interested in an effective defence program, we should not now introduce similar measures in Canada.
Such measures would serve a twofold purpose. They would provide for more adequate defence and at the same time would act as a deterrent to unwise and reckless war sentiment. I do not suggest for a moment that our business men are consciously conspiring to provoke war, but I do know that there are branches of the armament industry in Canada. As has been
suggested already by the Prime Minister, these people manufacture armaments for profit and only for profit, and their greatest profit is found in a time such as this, when fears are aroused and armament competition is keen. I cannot close my eyes to tl e fact that the anticipation of war profits, is we find it existing at present in Canada, has the effect of arousing a dangerous pre-war psychology. I ask hon. members to consider the situation as it exists in Canada to-day, to examine the stock market quotations, particularly with regard to the stocks of firms engaged in the manufacture of armaments. Go down the list one by one and you will find that there has been an increase of one hundred per cent in capital profit in the last six months. The profiteers are now casl ing in on the profits of the next war.
The danger of the situation is that Canadian industry is finding too great an investment in the making of war. Canadian industry is being offered too great an incentive, a dangerous temptation, to inspire a pre-war pyschology. In Great Britain they are well aware of this danger. They have instituted measures to audit, to restrict and in some measure to control profits made on the manufacture of munitions and war equipment. They have instituted measures to license the export of war materials. We have taken no such steps in Canada. We apparently prefer to close our eyes to the situation which exists and to go on our way. I direct the attention of members to the increase in our shipments, to Morocco, as follows:
September	 $ 1,929
October	 16.461
November	 4,392
December	 4^836
September	$296,752
October	 291,135
November	 678,101
December	 505,809
It will be seen that in the last two months of 1936 our exports increased by over half a million dollars per month. Unquestionably large profits are being made on material exported to Morocco for the assistance of the fascist insurgents in Spain. Already we have a large investment in the making of war.
It is generally recognized by financial experts that if we should face another war emergency the government could not possibly finance along orthodox lines. Financial writers generally agree with that conclusion. In this connection I would refer to the findings brought down by a committee of the senate of the United States, after an exhaustive study of various aspects of this question. I need
$86	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. MacNeil
not detain the house by reading the report at length, but it points out that immediately upon the outbreak of war the country is overtaken by dangerous inflation, and that unless preparation is made in advance no steps can be taken then to defend a country against what is described as a very subtle foe.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the government is not justified in asking for greater expenditures on armaments until a defence program has been brought down which also includes measures to provide for:
1.	Heavy and sharply graduated taxes on incomes in the higher brackets, with fewer exemptions and heavier penalties.
2.	Provision whereby the government may draft " useful " industrial management into the military service at military rates of pay.
3.	A system for control of commodities and commodity exchange.
4.	A system for control of securities and securities exchange, and supervision of new issues.
5.	Provision for the government to fix and regulate prices, establish priorities and conscript the use of necessary property and equipment.
If the government intends to assume authority to demand the lives of our young men can it in all justice refuse to exercise some authority over the property of individuals? If this were done there would be a great deal less enthusiasm for war preparations on the part of those who now hope to escape sacrifice.
A defence program is not a defence program in the strict sense of the term unless it incorporates such provisions as I have suggested. Since no such provisions are now incorporated in our proposed defence program I can very well understand why business leaders everywhere are giving it their approval. They quite openly state in their public remarks that it will afford a very satisfactory and profitable stimulus to business at this time. We hear these words from the same men who have been actively advocating a reduction in our relief expenditure and the elimination from the relief lists of so called racketeers. When we consider how in the past contracts have been made and orders for supplies have been placed with various firms in Canada we can readily understand why their mouths are now watering at the prospect of a generous cut from this juicy melon. Unless some control is exercised in the public interest I predict that this expenditure will become nothing more or less than a camouflaged pork barrel, and the painful part is that it will be artfully draped with the folds of the familiar red, white and blue of our ensign.

Another thing that apparently has been overlooked is the fact that we will require men to man our guns, men who are physically fit and technically trained. If we are to expand our armament preparation we must face the issue of compulsory military service in Canada, even as they are facing that issue in Great Britain at the present time. I have no hesitation in saying that compulsory military service in time of peace is repugnant to Canadian traditions. Nevertheless we must take it for granted that compulsory military service must come sooner or later if we are to prepare for war. Whether or not we rely upon voluntary enlistment in the meantime we must face this problem, as they had to face it in Great Britain, that a large percentage of our young men at this time are below the physical standards usually set for military service. It has been admitted that our military organization does not intend to assume any particular responsibility with regard to the physical fitness of our young men or their technical training. Apparently they are regarded simply as another crop of cannon fodder. One point was stressed over and over again by our late corps commander, General Sir Arthur Currie. I believe I may not with propriety quote his words concerning national defence, but I may observe that on this one point he had vision. He said, that given the right leadership, if we had in Canada physically fit young men we might cheerfully face any emergency of defence. He added however that one of the most important factors is that we should have available for military service men who are physically fit.
Men cannot be made fit in any brief space of time. I suggest that if we are in earnest about the problem of national defence we cannot overlook the serious and tragic position of our young men of to-day. It has been officially reported that approximately 150,000 men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five are without gainful employment, which means that they are without the opportunity to make themselves fit and without opportunities to acquire any form of technical knowledge. We now propose to divert millions of dollars for armament and thereby still further deprive them of opportunities they have a right to expect. Certainly increased armaments spell lowered living standards for the workers of Canada.
I have found that many of these young men are now reaching manhood without the slightest chance of even having the necessary diet with which to build up physical stamina necessary to meet the struggle of life, let

National Defence-Mr. Coldwell
alone the more severe tests of warfare. We cannot justify the purchase of naval vessels and war equipment until we give these young men in the pursuits of peace an opportunity to realize more fully the rights of their manhood. If we are sincere about the defence of our women and children we should realize that our greatest bulwark and protection is a young Canadian manhood, physically fit, technically trained and with a stake in the country they are asked to defend. If they are made ready and given an opportunity to play their part in the development of our country in peaceful endeavour, they will not fail it in any defence emergency.
I submit we are being asked to support measures of defence which offer no defence. We are being asked to jeopardize our social security and to perpetuate social inequalities without the assurance that there will be additional security against danger from war. In the name of national defence we are facing commitments which mean anything but the defence of Canadian soil or Canadian homes. We desire peace, and we are taking the road to war. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the situation demands a straightforward statement from the government as to its intentions for the future.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, It is with some hesitation that I rise to follow the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) who has just placed before the house a complete analysis both of the estimates for the Department of National Defence and of the situation surrounding the entire defence problem.
At the outset I am going to ask the government to give the house an answer to the question which has been asked again and again this session with respect to foreign policy, and to present to us an outline of the policy which Canada is at present pursuing. For we insist that not a dollar should be expended for national defence, so-called, until we in this country know precisely the policy which makes that defence necessary.
Students of foreign affairs know well that invariably parliaments base their defence programs upon their foreign policies. I believe that is particularly true of Great Britain. Her naval, military and air force estimates are framed by experts on the basis of the policy laid down by the foreign office. In this chamber we have the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the person of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and we are asking that before we are called upon to vote the estimates he lay before the house the precise policy which undoubtedly he has placed
before the Department of National Defence and upon which these increased estimates are based. We cannot discuss the estimates intelligently without such outline. I believe it is the right and duty of parliament to receive the statement and to consider the advice given.
Up to two years ago estimates in Great Britain were based upon what was known as the ten-year rule-that is, that there would be no major outbreak of war within a period of ten years. But obviously in the past year or two that basis has been abandoned, and it seems to me that the present estimates for Canadian defence are also based upon an abandonment of the idea that there will be no major war in the near future. What, may I ask, has made the change in imperial policy necessary? Was it not the determination of great imperial interests to disregard their league responsibilities and at all costs to defend the economic imperialism they had established over regions in Africa and Asia, and over which they still wished to continue undisputed mandate or control? We find that simultaneously with the resultant breakdown in the ideal of collective security, Canada is faced with an increase in her national defence estimates. Is there a connection between the imperial policy and the increase in our estimates?
We are told by the Prime Minister that if war should come, Canada would decide. But, taking these estimates at their face value, it seems to me that some sort of decision has already been made. We contend that information regarding any such decision should be given to parliament. Apparently, that some understanding exists, is the point of view of Sir Samuel Hoare, whose policies were repudiated a little more than a year ago by the British people, and the statesman upon whose shoulders probably more than upon those of any other rests the responsibility for the overthrow of what we might call the collective system of security. A few days ago, on February 6, Sir Samuel Hoare was reported in the Montreal Gazette as follows:
Sir Samuel referred to the empire's unity in the major developments of the last twenty years-the outbreak of the war in 1914, the illness of George V in 1928, the silver jubilee in 1935, King George's death and the abdication crisis.
He urged expansion and development of a common outlook iln the empire through economic development and the study of imperial defence problems.
"I believe these two fields are closely connected. For unless we do our utmost to foster the economic development of the empire the units that compose it will not be economically right enough to take their full share of empire responsibilities."
888	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Coldwell
In these words, it seems to me we find the fundamental basis of those vested financial and economic interests which have from time to time crippled the League of Nations because their policies, to use Sir Samuel Hoare's own words, have been based "upon the expansion and development of a common outlook in the empire through economic development and the study of imperial defence." Obviously in his mind economic interests and armaments were closely related, and a league of nations which did not serve those eternal interests, as they have been called, had to be disregarded from time to time. If it is not for such interests that we are asked to vote millions to prepare our sons for the slaughter, let the government answer the question by telling us upon what other policy this demand for increased armaments is based; and until that has been done clearly, I maintain that we should unanimously oppose the increase in these estimates. If, then, the government can justify a war preparedness program, let us immediately prepare for war, as was suggested by my friend from Vancouver North, by organizing our potential war industries for national defence, and let us make them perform their service, not without recompense, but for the equivalent of the S1.10 a day which this country gave its soldiers in the last war.
In spite of the defence of the International Nickel Company, for example, which was made by one of our Liberal friends from the other side of the house the other evening, with its profit of $23,000,000 in the first nine months of last year, I say that under these conditions, with the people fearing war, no corporation should be allowed to make that amount of profit in an industry which is in large measure an industry based on preparation for war. If we are to call upon the Canadian people to make sacrifices, let these great war industries set the example of sacrifice first, and now. That is our suggestion. Otherwise we should not vote an additional dollar for preparedness.
In an interview given a few days ago at Jamaica, the Right Hon. David Lloyd George, speaking of the tremendous so-called defence expenditures, had this to say:
The world is going mad. At the present moment we are spending $1,500,000,000 for armaments.
That, may I add, was before the announcement the other evening of the additional war loan for $2,000,000,000 that is proposed in Great Britain. Mr. Lloyd George continued:
Ten years ago the entire world spent $3,500,000,000 for armaments, and now it is spending $12,500,000,000. They have almost quadrupled it in the past ten years, and it is still going up.

The report continues:
The veteran British Liberal leader was bitter about the huge sums the mother country was spending on rearmament while "we have found it very difficult to get a few millions for the relief of suffering in the distressed areas.
For a very small proportion of that sum of money we could have had unbelievable empire development; but no, the whole money is to go to the dogs of war."
Now the question we are asking is this: Are we in Canada going to join in this mad race without knowing precisely the policy that underlies the increased estimates upon which we shall shortly have to vote? Our answer in this little group is, of course, no, because we believe that such defence preparations only breed fear, and that hate, which, in turn, is the child of fear.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), speaking in the house this session, devoted a good deal of attention to the relationship between armaments and Canadian neutrality. He argued that increased armaments and neutrality go together, that if we want to remain outside of an impending conflict we must see to it that we shall be able to defend the women and children of our country if madmen should attack us. Does he really believe that our women and children are in any danger of attack from without? Have they not endured) great suffering and an attack upon their standards of living from within for the last few years? And have they not needed even greater expenditures for their protection during those years than they have enjoyed? Is not this the attack that we should have been considering, rather than endeavouring to justify preparations for the slaughter of the grown-up children of the very women in whose names attempts are made to justify these defence estimates?
Writing in 1914, shortly after the outbreak of the great war, Lord Grey had this to say of such preparediness:
The increase of armaments that is intended in each nation to produce consciousness of strength and a sense of security does not produce these effects.
On the contrary, it produces the consciousness of strength of other nations and a sense of fear. The enormous growth of armaments in Europe, the sense of insecurity and fear caused by them-it was these that made war inevitable.
And yet in the face of such opinions we who are separated from the volcanoes of Europe and Asia by mighty oceans, we who live in peace and amity beside a great people to the south, are being called upon to make preparations for war and to join in what I might term potential international suicide, which, unless checked, will become a reality.

National Defence-Mr. Coldwell
The Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) the other evening ridiculed the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and his plea for neutrality, by asking of what use his neutrality resolution would be in the face of an invader approaching our shores. May I ask the Secretary of State of what use two second-hand destroyers would be in the case of an invader coming to our shores? May I also ask him if he really thinks a neutral Canada could or would be invaded by a European or an Asiatic foe? Any nation embarking on such a mad adventure would have to come across a minimum of 3,000 miles of water. Apart from the Monroe doctrine and the statement of President Roosevelt made at Buenos Aires a short time ago, the feat is a military impossibility, and intelligent naval and military men know it. Mussolini, for example, did not begin his Ethiopian war until he had assembled some four hundred thousand troops in Africa. These he required to subdue ten million primitive Abyssinians. I venture to say that to subdue ten million Canadians equipped with our present defences and industrial development would require the transportation of at least as many men, and there is not a single nation in the world, including Great Britain which has sufficient ships to do this effectively, even if we had no friends and no allies. For public men to frighten timid and ill-informed folk with threats of overseas invasion is, if I might use the term employed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) the other evening, to do violence to their own intelligence and the intelligence of this nation. Moreover, an invading force must always reckon on a possible retreat. That is a fundamental of military strategy. The great Prussian general Bliicher was asked by his emperor if he could land an army in England. He answered, "Yes, your majesty, but how would we get back?" That is the problem which an invader must always face.
I say, then, that these estimates cannot be construed as defence estimates, but that in reality they provide for the training and equipping of a potential expeditionary force to send abroad. The government may not consciously believe that that is the interpretation we should put upon them, but in view of the fact that we do not need these defence forces for the defence of our own shores, or an increase in that defence, what other interpretation is possible? Or again the government may say, in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), that when the time comes Canada will decide. But we know that when war hysteria comes, the people will be governed by newspaper, radio and other propaganda. We know that to our
sorrow. Even under conditions such as we now have, newspapers at any time are liable to tell their writers that they must put the soft pedal on criticisms of national defence. Those of us who have been reading the editorials in some papers friendly to the government now in office know that there has been a change of attitude during the past few months. To-day sedulously they are saying that the people must decide this, that and the other thing, but all the time they are endeavouring to show the people that we must prepare for war. We also know this, that upon the declaration of wTar the people will not know the truth of the situation. Somebody once said that in war truth is the first casualty, and when we look back on the great war and we realize the preposterous things that we were told in order to drive men at each others' throats-told in English, in German, in French, in Italian-we know beyond doubt that truth was the first casualty of the great war. That war taught us that lying is a necessary military device, and if propaganda is artfully and carefully placed before them, war lies will take into war even a peace-loving and generous people; even the Canadian people.
Some people have said that in part our opposition to the defence estimates is due to our distrust of the policies of the national government of Great Britain. I think that is partly true. Moreover, the judgment recently rendered by the privy council makes me all the more careful in dealing with these estimates. I am looking forward with a good deal of interest to the interpretation to this house by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) of the meaning of the references to, for example, Canada's power to make .treaties, and references to Canada's legal subservience, to a degree at least, to the will of the imperial parliament. To some extent in the light of those utterances I am anxious that we shall carefully consider the problem before us. Unfortunately no government has done more than has the present national government of Great Britain to undermine faith in the League of Nations.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh.


Major James William Coldwell: I was one of those who hoped when the great war ended that the British commonwealth of nations would form within the league a nucleus around which collective security for all the world might ultimately be achieved. I confess that to-day I am sadly disillusioned in that regard. Though I believe that the league offered a great ideal to our people and that we must rebuild the League of Nations, I recognize that the
890	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Coldwell
British national government quite lately undermined the league. Let me point out one or two incidents that, I think, make that clear. Speaking at Glasgow on November 22, 1934, Mr. Baldwin said:
It is curious that there is growing among the Labour party support for what is called a collective peace system. Well now, a collective peace system in my view is perfectly impracticable.
Mr. Baldwin proceeded to state his reasons for his conclusion that the collective peace system under the League of Nations was "hardly worth considering." Yet less than six months later we find Mr. Anthony Eden, one of the members of his cabinet, stating:
It is clear that our part should be to pursue a foreign policy that is frank, stalwart and above all firm in support of the League of Nations and of the collective peace system.
Less than two weeks after that Mr. Baldwin himself stated:
The League of Nations is the sheet anchor of British foreign policy.
Why this extraordinary example of blowing cold and blowing hot in relation to the league? This is an example of the attitude that has undermined confidence in the league. In my opinion it was not unrelated to the fact that during the intervening six months a peace ballot had been taken in Great Britain and overwhelmingly the British people had shown their faith in the league and in some measure of collective security within the league.
The dictatorships that threaten the world are made, perhaps, more real by the approach of a war. Most of us in this house realize, I believe, that if through our defence preparedness, through our military commitments, we plunge into war, we too may lose, as other nations undoubtedly will lose, democratic institutions upon entry into war. I desire to see no form of dictatorship.


Mr. MARTIN:: The hon. gentleman used the phrase " military commitments." Is he suggesting that this country has any military commitments?


Major James William Coldwell: I did not catch the question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman used the phrase " military commitments." The question is, is he suggesting that this country has at the moment any military commitments?


Major James William Coldwell: I am suggesting that these estimates and the large increase in the amount appropriated imply that we have in effect understandings which may be interpreted as commitments. That is my interpretation, because, as I said a few moments ago, I cannot see any reason for these

increases unless we contemplate the use of our military machine in a war, and as far as we in Canada are concerned, I can see no possibility of such a war in the immediate future.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must deny categorically and immediately what my hon. friend has said. There are no commitments and no understandings in the nature of commitments between this government and the government of Great Britain or any other government.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to hear that; but may I say that with the increased estimates, with the presence of ten British military gentlemen in our militia department, the inference which I drew from these two facts was, I think, warranted under the circumstances. I am glad to get the Prime Minister's denial, which, of course, I accept.


Mr. DUNNING:: But the hon. member keeps on repeating the statement.


Major James William Coldwell: The Minister of Finance says that I have repeated the statement. I have repeated it, and I have repeated it designedly because up to this time I, at least, have heard no denial of the particular statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: In the plainest of terms this session.


Major James William Coldwell: We are opposed to the estimates because they move in the direction of war, because they deny to our people the social services which they need. You cannot under present conditions spend millions in armaments and provide the people with the social services which they lack. And when we hear the statement made that these appropriations are necessary to cope with the possibilities of subversive elements within our own country, I would observe that there is only one way to deal with subversive elements and that is to make conditions such that subversive elements will not appear and expand. That is the only way. Repression breeds revolt.
Surely our generation, at least, should have learned our lesson from the last war. Let me point out that had we spent for the good of humanity the billions which were spent in that war, the world would not now be faced with the types of dictatorship that prevail in many countries. The Manchester Guardian summarized the physical loss to the world very well when, in February, 1931, it made this very careful appraisal of the war expenditures:
With the war costs it would have been possible to provide every family in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, Bel-

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
gium, Germany, and Russia with a home costing $2,500 standing on a five acre plot, equipped with furniture worth $1,250 and to provide each group of 20,000 families with hospitals and educational institutions and pay the salaries of teachers, doctors, professors and nurses to operate these social services.
I am convinced, therefore, that if we in ^Canada are to progress we must stand clear / of this mad race for armaments which can lead only to war. On the other hand, if this house decides that we are going to i prepare for war, then I submit that those i who believe we should prepare, should bring II down proposals which are in line with that Sj preparedness. I would not support them, but || I maintain that the next war will be a chemical i j war, a war of scientists, and under the conditions which are likely to exist, our govern* ment, if it is going to prepare for war at all, should do it as economically and as efficiently as possible. Call in the best scientists you have in the country, chemists and others, and let them prepare the most horrible gases they can think of. Let them assemble the most terrible germs of the type the nations will use, and let them prepare adequately for the real war that they foreshadow in the future. And as for our young men, as my colleague from Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) has said, we should care for their physique and health for, after all, in any form of defence we need well-nurtured, well-developed bodies. As far as I am concerned, however, I oppose such war preparations. I oppose war because I do not believe in war, and I conscientiously object to it. But there is another thing that I believe, and it is this: that when people talk about the inevitability of war, at any rate let them not say that participation in war is a Christian duty.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I desire to speak to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) and seconded by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). The amendment reads:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for purposes of national armament in contrast with the inadequate provision for the social security of all sections of the Canadian people."
I do not at present intend to raise a question of order or procedure with reference to this amendment, although that could be done. I intend at the moment to point out the absolute inconsistency of this double^jarrelled amendment. If the two hon. gentlemen, the mover and the seconder of the amendment,
had been content this afternoon merely to express their disapproval of the increase in the estimates for the Department of National Defence, they could very well have concluded the phraseology of their amendment with the words "national armament," and that would have been a vote of want of confidence in this administration with respect to the estimates submitted to this house and to the committee afterwards for its approval.
What have they done? They have built up an alternative program, and thereby they are inviting every hon. member when he comes to record his vote, which if it were in support of this resolution would be a vote of no confidence in this administration, not only to express his disapproval of the extension of the estimates of the Departmental of National Defence, but to express approbation of tne measures of social security which would be adopted under the political philosophy with which my friends are identified. In other words, they are asking this House of Commons not only to express disapproval of the essential measures which have been proposed, not for purposes of war but for the security of this dominion at this time, but to endorse the political philosophy which my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has been preaching in this house and outside for many years.
Now, may I recall the occasion in February 1933, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved a resolution which concluded with these words:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately take measures looking to the setting up of a cooperative commonwealth in which all natural resources and the socially necessary machinery of production will be used in the interests of the people and not for the benefit of the few.
What took place? Speaking in the debate which followed the introduction of that resolution, the right hon. leader of the opposition at that time, now the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mackenzie King) outlined to the house and to the country an alternative program of social reconstruction and for social security throughout Canada, and that program consisted of the fourteen points and principles upon which the Liberal party went to the country in 1935, and which were endorsed by the biggest majority that any government has had in this house since confederation. So, I say, if they merely disapprove the estimates for national defence, why not say so boldly and bluntly, without intriguing through their amendment for some approbation of the political philosophy embodied in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation program?
892	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)


James Shaver Woodsworth: Or the Liberal program.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the hon. gentleman intend to imply that the political philosophy of this group alone represents a program of social security for the Canadian people?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I implied the very opposite. His leader definitely specified in that resolution the remedies he proposed for providing social security for the Canadian people, and that policy was completely repudiated and rejected by the Canadian people in 1935.
I desire now very briefly to deal with some of the submissions made by the hon. member for Vancouver North. In the first place he says this is a declaration that Canada must now prepare for war. With all the knowledge I have of the preparation of these estimates I contend that they could not, by the wildest flight of imagination, be saidi to be designed to prepare Canada for war. These estimates-every cent of them-are intended only for the security of the Canadian people. The hon. member speaks of social security. I ask him this question: If he and I worked all our lives for the promotion by legislation and otherwise of social security for the Canadian people within this dominion, could that security be safeguarded if our national security were imperilled by a wanton assault from an enemy without? National security at all times must come first. I am sure that every hon. member, according to his particular political and economic philosophy, is glad and proud to do all he can to build up the fabric of social security within the confines of our territory. But national security, national defence, the direct defence of Canada, of our coastal areas, our ports, our shipping terminals, our territorial waters, the focal areas of our trade routes adjacent to our harbour mouths-there are the matters dealt with in these estimates. May I tell my hon. friend there is no new defence policy embodied in these estimates. There is no new policy here at all. These estimates represent only an honest attempt by those who for the time being are charged with responsibility for the national well-being, to see to it that we have something effective and efficient for the purposes of direct defence of Canada or for defending our neutrality should it be assailed by anyone outside.
I intend to deal with this further in detail after the recess, but the horn, member for Vancouver North said we are replacing the peace establishment with a war establishment. That is utter nonsense. We are not only not replacing the peace establishment with a war 
establishment, but during the short time I have been in charge of the Department of National Defence, we have reduced the military establishment of this country from 135,000 to 90,000; in fact we have done that within twelve months. All we are doing now is to see to it that this small force shall be properly equipped. The hon. member quoted General Currie, saying that we had men in Canada who can defend Canada. Yes, sir, we have, I believe, the finest men in the whole world. But is he going to send his comrades, our Canadian citizens, to the coastal areas of Canad'a to defend our shores without guns, without equipment, or with equipment that the enemy can outrange by hundreds of thousands of yards? Is he going to send them with obsolete equipment, some of it twenty years old? When he says we have men to defend our shores, I say, yes, we have, and they will defend them; the men of every province are ready and willing to defend Canada's shores. But it is the duty of this government, it would be the duty of any government entrusted, with the responsibility of office at the present time, to see to it that our Canadian boys, if they have to defend our shores, are armed, and1 equipped with the most modern and efficient machinery of defence that the resources of this country can provide. That is the entire policy of this administration, with reference to this question of defence.
The hon. member said that warlike preparations bring a warlike attitude. I have not seen any warlike preparations. I have heard much discussion about the expansion of our naval program. Let us see what it amounts to. The entire increase of the Canadian navy is one little training ship in Nova Scotia. Yet I have heard people hush-hushing around about the great new naval policy of this administration. My hon. friend talked about cruisers. Unfortunately we have no cruisers in this country. When we took office last year we had two efficient modem destroyers, and two old and obsolete destroyers, which did not even belong to us, which are with us on loan from the British admiralty. The only change is that we have purchased from the British admiralty two practically new efficient destroyers-four years old-of the same type that we built in 1931, and in two or three months' time we shall have four destroyers, just as we have had for several years. That is all, except that the two we have acquired from the British admiralty are more modem and better equipped and more serviceable for the essential services of the defence of our Canadian coast line and harbours than the two which were demilitarized recently.

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
Then there is provision for four mine sweepers. I think the item in the estimates is about $750,000; the total cost will be around $1,000,000. These will be built in Canadian yards. There is nothing new in that. We had four mine sweepers ever since 1920 until they became obsolete; we have one still which is very nearly obsolete, hardly fit for active service. So, in regard to the $1,000,000 proposed to be expended upon mine sweepers, there is no new policy there. We are trying, sir, to repair the gaps; we are trying to maintain the modest naval force we have had in this country for years.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: They cannot be sent to the battlefields of Europe.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
certainly cannot. I think my hon. friend himself proved that; they could not possibly cross those 3,000 miles of which he has spoken.
One of the hon. gentlemen spoke of the impossibility of attack by air. I wonder whether he recalls the great flight of General Balbo's squadron from Italy, over Montreal and on to Chicago, a few years ago. I wonder whether he saw in the press about ten days ago a description of the flight of a squadron of United States battle planes to Honolulu. I wonder whether he read a description which appeared in the press the other day of the manoeuvres at Singapore, with combined operations of the British fleet, the British air force and some other forces. I wonder whether my hon. friend has studied the bill passed by the United States in 1935, which bill particularly provided for the defence of that great republic against air attacks by nations three thousand miles and more distant. So, when my hon. friend pits his marvellous, strategic brain against wise counsel and wise influences, in reference to these matters, I think he is going a little too far.
Then the hon. gentleman said we wanted a calm, cool appraisal of this problem. I think by the time this discussion has been concluded it will be found to be very complete from his point of view. We have nothing to hide; we are only too glad to explain every single item with reference to the expenditures on national defence. As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, there is no idea whatever of sending a single Canadian soldier overseas in any expeditionary force, and there is not a single cent providing for that in the estimates this house will be asked to vote. I say again to my hon. friend, with reference to our friendly relations with the great republic to the south, that there is no idea of any possible conflict with that country, and not one
cent is provided for that purpose. We have an appreciation of our happy relationship with the United States extending over one hundred years, during which we have had peace, harmony and accord with that great republic, and under these estimates not a single cent is to be expended for the purpose of protection against that country. We believe, we know, protection is not necessary in that direction.
We have in this dominion, sir, a tremendous territory with two ocean flanks. Under modern conditions of warfare, which have changed so drastically in the last few years, it is the opinion of many of those who advise us that our flanks may be vulnerable. When the hon. member for Vancouver North referred to these estimates, he spoke of Canada becoming a highly militarized nation. I wonder whether I would shock hon. members if I told the house the truth. Later on this evening I am going to place upon Hansard the per capita expenditures upon armaments of every nation in Europe and every nation on the South American continent, as compared with Canada, as well as the per capita expenditure of those nations which my hon. friends visited and from which they returned with such evidence of admiration. I refer to Sweden, Norway and Denmark, and also that great nation of permanent neutrality, Switzerland. What is the comparison? As against our per capita expenditure last year of S1.77; as against Australian per capita expenditure last year of $5.28, we have the per capita expenditure of Switzerland upon armaments soaring to $19.50. Yet it is said that because of an increase of eleven and a half million dollars in the defence estimates we are becoming a highly militarized nation. The neutrality of Switzerland is guaranteed, but despite that fact-or possibly because of it-her per capita expenditures have mounted sky-high so that to-day they stand at $19.50. And the expenditures of Sweden, to which my hon. friend referred so eloquently, socialist Sweden-and I do not say that with disrespect-are very much higher per capita than are those of Canada. I admit that there are two obscure nations on the South American contin :nt whose per capita expenditures for defence are slightly lower than the Canadian figure, but those are the only two countries I can find in that category.
To-day, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with this fact and all this talk of war on the part of my hon. friends does not touch the essential problem: Can we afford to neglect altogether the question of national security? That is the question. With reference to the Department of National Defence, I listened to the
894	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
criticism of the hon. member for Vancouver North. Certainly what he said is not in accordance with the facts; but even assuming that it might be true, the two alternatives confronting this or any other government worthy of the name would be these: Either abolish the Department of National Defence altogether or try to make that department efficient, and that is all we are trying to do at this time. We are making a definite effort to provide an efficient defence department in the Dominion of Canada; it is becoming efficient, and next year it will be more efficient than it is at the present time.
The hon. member for Vancouver North seems to have a particular dislike for some of the higher officers of the department. I wish to say to him at this time that most of those officers served Canada in the great war. Many of them served, as my hon. friend himself did, in the very honourable capacity of private soldiers. Many of them were seriously wounded and disabled in the great war. To-day, sir, in the competitions in which they take part with officers from other nations, I believe they are as well possessed of initiative and as well qualified to advise on questions of strategy as are the officers of any country in the world. As proof of that, let me cite this instance. A few days ago, in one of the colleges overseas, two of our Canadian boys, taking a course of training there, were placed first and second among those attending that school.
Does it do us any good as Canadians to have the quality and calibre of those who are doing all they can for their country, those who have great records as Canadians, maligned and impugned in this House of Commons? I do not think it does. I know these men and I know they are striving to do their very best for the protection and the defence of this dominion. The best proof which can be given of that is the fact that they are the first to be called upon if Canadian defence becomes an actuality. So I do not think we should criticize these men unduly. I have great admiration for their ability in the naval services, limited as they are; in the air services, limited as they are, and in the militia' services. We have at the head of our militia training in this dominion men who have won the highest decorations in the whole empire practically; yet my hon. friend says they are unable to give us proper and expert advice. Then, to show his wonderful consistency, he proceeds to say that he has consulted with some of them-I gathered that it was in a clandestine way, not officially-and they told

him that there was no danger of attack by a country 3,000 miles away. The best opinions to-day indicate that we are not invulnerable to such attacks.
Then my hon. friend went on to speak about social conditions in my own city, and I want to tell him this: Just as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) said in this house the other day that those who believe in increasing the estimates for defence have no monopoly of patriotism, so I say to the hon. member for Vancouver North, to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in this house or in the country have no monopoly of a real desire to help the struggling masses in the Dominion of Canada.
Then my hon. friend spoke of this " farce called national defence." I suggest that that was hardly worthy of a member of this house, because it reflects upon our Canadian citizens. There is nothing militaristic about any of the plans which are before the house at the present time. I have described what was done in regard to the navy, and this is only a humble attempt to repair the deficiencies in equipment that resulted from the years of depression in Canada. What was the result of those years of depression? There was no equipment for the training of our military service in Canada. I shall tell, later on, what we have done during the last year. We have taken some effective action, and this year we intend to pursue that course and to take further action along those lines.
The point I wish to establish is this: There is no expansion, no extension, no increase- we have only been making effective and efficient what we have at the present time. I concede that there is some increase in the air force. If hon. members will look back through the estimates of former years when this party was in power, they will find that about seven and a half million dollars were expended, and that probably through the necessities which arose during years of depression that amount was reduced to one and a quarter million dollars. Sixty-nine officers and two hundred air men were discharged from their duties. Some of those men were of the finest trained air men we had in Canada.
Once again I say we are trying to make good what was lost to Canada through policies which had to be pursued during years of depression. This year we are, I concede, increasing the personnel of our air force. We are to build more aeroplanes in Canada. May I tell the house that when this government

National Defence

Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
took office in October, 1935, there was not a single fighting aeroplane in Canada; there was not a single bomb to be dropped by an aeroplane; there was scarcely any amount of ammunition for guns. If I were to hold office without looking after these details, I could be accused of treason to the high office I now have the honour to occupy. It was my duty to protect our Canadian people, knowing the conditions which prevailed in Canada at that time.
The policy of the present government is not one of seeking war; it is not a policy of affronting enemies. It is a peace loving policy, and every hon. member of the government and all private members in the house, including those who have expressed themselves, have no desire for war. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said a few days ago, we detest war. We love peace, and will do all we can to preserve it. There are no commitments, no understandings, no agreements, open or secret, of any kind. The hon. member for Vancouver North seems to think there are. He said something about a blank cheque to be written in blood, or used some fearsome phrase such as that. I wish to say that I was in London for five or six days in connection with the great Vimy pilgrimage. At that time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) was engaged in connection with the continuance of the trade treaty between the United Kingdom and Canada. Never was any suggestion made to me-and I am sure there was never one made to him- with reference to an agreement, blank or otherwise.
It is important that the country and the house should know these things. It is well that this talk, bludgeoning the house into fearsome fright with reference to war, which was indulged in by the hon. member for Vancouver North, should be discouraged. The house should know, without further discussion, for what purpose the estimates are intended. As I said before, they are entirely for the protection of Canadian shores, the protection of Canadian homes, the protection of Canadian shipping terminals and harbours. A few days ago someone said in the house that parliament might have power to regulate Canadian neutrality. May I say that any student of the law of neutrality knows that any other belligerent, without consulting this parliament, may declare us to be belligerents, and that we have not the power to protect our own neutrality.
So, Mr. Speaker, up to this point I have dealt only with the remarks of the mover and seconder of the amendment. After recess, I intend to explain exactly what these estimates are for, and to show that they are for the direct defence of Canada and for the defence of Canadian neutrality.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, before the house took recess at six o'clock, I was endeavouring to reply to some of the points which were raised in the course of the discussion on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North and seconded by the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar. Since then I have examined certain notes which I took in the course of their remarks, and I should like now to deal with one or two of their observations before I proceed to a considered analysis of the present situation.
The hon. member for Vancouver North referred, during his remarks on the estimates for national defence, to conditions existing among ex-service men in the Dominion of Canada. Seeing that he and I have had the pleasure for many years, some twenty years now, of working together on many committees, both doing the best we could for the cause of ex-service men in this country, and seeing that there has been in this house for the last twenty years almost, ever since the armistice, a well-defined tradition that any legislation affecting ex-service men should not be interjected into any contentious or acrimonious debate, I was indeed surprised at the remarks made by my hon. friend. But when he referred to the Hyndman report and to the attitude of ex-service men, I think I am entitled to quote at this time a declaration of policy in regard to these very estimates which was made recently in the capital city of Canada by the Canadian Legion, of which my hon. friend as well as I are old members This was the Canadian Legion's declaration of policy:
(1)	That the Canadian Legion believes that the first essential toward the promotion of world peace is universal disarmament to a point consistent with preservation of order within national territorial limits, and the efficient policing of the seas.
(2)	But in view of the fact that efforts made since the war toward procuring universal disarmament have, thus far, been unsuccessful, and that as a result the nations of the world
896	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
are now rearming to a greater degree than ever before and, in view of the fact .that certain of the great powers do not adhere to the League of Nations, and that others, on occasion, have flaunted its decisions, the Canadian Legion believes that the time has now come when the people of Canada should give consideration to the problem of national defence.
(3)	That in view of the fact that since the passage of the Statute of Westminster Canada is now an independent nation within the commonwealth of the British Empire, it is necessary that Canada should assume the responsibilities of nationhood, and that we should not rely upon the United Kingdom for our defence by sea or land.
(4)	That we, therefore, believe that it is essential that Canada should, forthwith, develop a defence policy which, in the first place, would be designed to enable us to effectively defend our neutrality in case of war and protect our trade and commerce, and ultimately enable us to defend our eastern and western coasts from aggression by enemy forces.
(5)	That in so declaring we definitely exclude a policy of arming for purposes of aggression; that we regard our frontier with the United States as one which does not require protection, but we feel that if Canada is to retain her place as an independent nation in the world, she must be able to defend herself from threats of aggression from overseas, which in the present state of world politics cannot be regarded as idle.
(6)	That accordingly-
This, Mr. Speaker, is the major organization representing the ex-service men in the Dominion of Canada, speaking within the last two weeks in the capital city of Canada:
(6) That accordingly, we endorse the proposals of the government to increase our national defences and trust that such defences may be developed along the lines suggested, to make our coast secure from attack by sea, land and air, and to preserve our position as an independent nation which does not seek to interfere with the rights of any other nation but only to develop its national life in a world where peace should prevail.
So I submit that when in a debate concerning an increase or extension in the estimates of the National Defence department, the hon. member for Vancouver North raises the issue of the Hyndman report, he is hardly doing justice to himself or to his splendid record of service over many years in the cause of the ex-service men in this dominion.
My hon. friend also said in the course of his remarks that instead of suppressing discontent we should try to remove the causes of discontent. I thoroughly agree with that sentiment.
Mr. WOOD8WORTH:	Hear, hear.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver); And the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, "Hear, hear." I want to tell my hon. friends

once again that in the removal of the causes of discontent in Canada they have no monopoly of intent or of idealism or of action.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Rut may I suggest that the government has the power.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Vancouver North by his amendment is seeking to obtain power, because the carrying of his amendment would mean the defeat of this government; a socialist government would then be in control in this dominion, and we would have the establishment of a socialist state. That is what the amendment means, and nothing else.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is wrong with that?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. member for Vancouver North spoke of vessels making sporadic raids on our Canadian shores, and asked: Does that require any additional defence? Well, Mr. Speaker, the whole theory of national defence to-day, with reference to coastal defence, deals with that specific problem, and it is for meeting these sporadic raiders or aircraft carriers that these estimates are compiled. If my hon. friend has read, as he probably has, the most recent pronouncement of those who are competent to make proper observations upon the subject, he would find that the entire conception of Canadian naval, military and aerial defence is based upon the action of sporadic raiders, or upon aircraft carriers. I want to tell my hon. friends this:	We are prepared to build
a hundred aeroplanes in the country. These, sir, are not necessarily finally localized in any portion of this dominion. They would be machines of high velocity, capable of being moved within a few hours for the defence of any portion of Canada-available for the protection of the great St. Lawrence river, available for the protection of Montreal, available for the protection of Quebec, available for protection against any raid that might be made on the grain elevators of this country. In this day of aircraft earners it is quite conceivable that enemy nations might raid this nation, supplying food as a neutral amongst belligerents. Our elevators and our food supplies might be raided, and apart from our essential coast defence our food supplies must be protected in the case of any hostilities.
The hon. member for Vancouver North also mentioned the organization of war industries, and I intend1 to deal with that very briefly before I conclude. He also dealt with the

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
question of profiteering. I desire, before I go any further, to say at this moment that ever since this government has been in power it has been giving very serious attention to this whole question. It has been dealing with the question of profits in peace time, dealing with the export of munitions in peace time and dealing with the provision of supplies in war time. I want to tell my hon. friend that all these matters of which he has been advocating a vigorous and relentless supervision, have been anxiously considered1 by the government with a view to meeting the situation. So it is purely academic for him to bring up the question at the present time.
I should like to deal briefly with some of the remarks made by the seconder of the resolution. He wanted an outline of government policy in relation to foreign affairs. I thought the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice had already given, during the present session, a concise and comprehensive review of the position of Canada with relation to foreign affairs, and I doubt not that before this debate is concluded a further contribution may be made in this regard. My hon. friend also spoke of the organization of potential war industries, and he said' that these estimates connot be construed as defence estimates but must be taken as estimates for an expeditionary force. I dealt with that before six o'clock.
My hon. friend also referred to imperial officers on exchange in this dominion. There is nothing new about that; it has been going on in Canada for a score or more of years. Officers have been on exchange from Canada to England, and from England to Canada, just the same as they have been on exchange with other portions of the commonwealth. That has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with questions of policy. It is purely for the purpose of a better understanding of training systems, systems of organization, and systems of equipment of the various nations. It has nothing whatever to do with the increase in the present estimates or with the policy of the nation in connection with these estimates.
I should like now to review briefly the world situation at the present time to indicate why it is necessary for us to repair the deficiencies that exist in our equipment and in our facilities in Canada if we are to provide reasonable security and reasonable defence.
Look at Spain torn with ruthless civil war, with class passions threatening any moment to engulf the whole group of European nations. Italy having just completed a successful defiance of the League of Nations, is continuing to arm at a furious pace. Germany is spending 84,000,000.000 on a.rmaxnents this year. Russia, armed and disciplined as she has never been before since the days of the czars, possesses the greatest air force in the world, and maintains constant vigilance on her coasts both east and west. Her defence appropriation last year, according to the estimates received, was $3,000,000,000. Czechoslovakia, the most perilously situate of all the mid-European states, has just enacted the most drastic law in history, appropriating to the state every soul between the ages of sixteen and sixty, and the use of any and all property, private and individual. The Popular Front government in France, dominated by socialist philosophy, has just put through a new three-year defence program. The Maginot line, costing $2,000,000 a mile, is to be extended from the Mediterranean to the North Sea. France is expending forty per cent of her budget upon her national defence. Poland likewise has set about erecting a maginot line of her own on her German frontier. What Great Britain is doing is, I think, known to every hon. member. Then let us cast our eyes to the far east, where China is torn with civil faction, and Japan seems to be restlessly seeking continental expansion. Clashes are in evidence every day. In Australia all parties, including the commonwealth Labour party, are joining together for an adequate plan of national defence. The other day we witnessed, as I mentioned before this afternoon, the British manoeuvres at Singapore, and last year, very near the Canadian, shores, off the coast of Alaska, we saw the greatest war manoeuvres in the history of this great peace loving neighbour of ours, the United States.
So let us face realities. Look at Europe; witness what has happened there-the conflict between force and reason, the repudiation of treaties, the destruction of dynasties, the violation of the cardinal principles of the League of Nations, and to-day the ugly menace of civil war. In the orient, I regret to say, conditions are scarcely better, and the United States is spending the greatest sums in her history upon the coastal defence of the Pacific ocean. Let us remember that many nations to-day are ruled not by parliaments but by individuals and dictators. We in Canada are very happily placed in that parliament still governs, democracy is still in the saddle, and autocracy has not yet obtained the supremacy. We are, as has been said, a fortunate nation, fortunate in our great institutions of liberty, fortunate in the contributions which all the various races have made toward the development and the upbuilding of this Canadian land. And that race, sir, of which you are such a distinguished

898	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
representative, has made to this nation a contribution which is abiding and beyond price.
Let us look at our situation to-day. As my leader has said, I believe, the house in which we dwell, this Canada of ours, has its front door open with no one to watch it, and its back door open with scarcely anyone to guard it. We in this country, in this parliament, in this government, are not concerned with any policy of aggression; we are concerned purely and simply and entirely with the defence of Canada. As I said before, there is no need of defence against our great neighbour to the south. The possibility of conflict there has been entirely discounted. As I said before six o'clock, there is in the estimates nothing for any expeditionary force, but provision only for the defence of Canada against those who might assail us or violate our neutrality. I cannot repeat too often that the defence of our shores and the preservation of our neutrality are the cardinal principles of the defence policy of the Dominion of Canada.
This afternoon I heard an hon. member refer to protection from two other countries. May I say in reply that we cannot afford nor do we wish to lean too much upon any nation. Let us put our own house in order so that we shall not be dependent or a burden upon either the great republic adjoining us or the commonwealth of British nations to which we are so intensely proud to belong. Some in this house and in the country would have us do more than we are doing. Some in this house and in the country would have us do nothing at all. I desire to suggest that the safe policy is to preserve the unity of the Canadian people, to avoid, on the one hand, extremes of inaction as suggested here this afternoon, or, on the other, extremes of excessive action as may be suggested before this debate is concluded, and to preserve a prudent, moderate and safe course, in other words a rational policy of domestic defence for the Dominion of Canada.
Someone-I think it was the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar-referred this afternoon to our foreign policy. In my judgment, looking over the field in possibly an academic way, we should have a home policy and a foreign policy. In that I agree with my hon. friend. In my judgment our home policy is to preserve at all costs the unity of Canada and our Canadian people upon this and all other problems. In regard to foreign policy I think the finest guiding maxim that we ever had was given us by our leader the other day when he quoted from Holy Writ these words, "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you live peaceably

with all men." According to the practice of the Scottish Presbyterians I should like to divide that into three parts: in the first place, "if it be possible." In other words, we may not be the masters of our fate or the captains of our souls. But if it be possible, we are pledged to the great cause of world peace. The second part is, "as much as lieth in you." We may not be free agents eventually or finally in the settlement of this great problem. Other nations, unfriendly nations, may settle it against our judgment and against our will. But if the first two conditions are fulfilled, "if it be possible" and "as much as lieth in you," then what is the great ideal? "Live peaceably with all men." In other words, the ideal of this government and its supporters, and I believe the ideal of all hon. members of this house, is to do all we can for the preservation of world peace, in our nation, with other nations, and in our time.
That brings us to the inherent obligation of our dominion or its own primary responsibility, which is its own defence. The obvious responsibilities of Canada might be regarded as fourfold: the responsibilities of Canada to Canada itself; the responsibilities which might eventuate to Canada as a member of the British commonwealth; the responsibilities of Canada as a member of the League of Nations, and the responsibilities of Canada as one of the great and growing nations of the world. To sum it up again, may I say that these are threefold: the maintenance of internal security in our dominion; the preservation of strict neutrality, law and order within our territorial waters in time of peace, and the protection of our coasts and focal areas in case there may be conflict. In other words, as I have already mentioned, our duty is the direct defence of Canada and the defence of Canadian neutrality, and the latter is of significance with respect to Canada's responsibilities along her seaboard, and perhaps particularly along her western seaboard. At the present time, I must state, Canada's existing naval, military and air forces are incapable of ensuring anything approaching adequate supervision of her harbours, her coasts, and her great shipping ports. If we have this mad race of armaments to which reference has been made, that is the extreme in one direction. On the other hand, Canada has been neglecting the matter of essential armaments even to the point of endangering her national security, and that is the extreme in the other direction. It cannot be too strongly emphasized in connection with the estimates now before the house that the two essential principles have been observed in our action with

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
reference to the friendly republic to the south and in the fact that there is not a single cent in the estimates for sending a mobile or expeditionary force overseas.
Now I should like, with the consent of the house, to place on Hansard the record of the per capita expenditures of Canada as compared with those of the other nations of the
world. First, there is a comparison between Canada and the other nations of the commonwealth with reference to per capita expenditures on armaments; second, a comparison between Canada and other nations on the American continent, and third, comparison between Canada and the other world nations with respect to the same expenditures:
Per Capita Defence Expenditure 1931-32 to 1936-37 for the Defence Forces of Canada, Australia, New Zealand
and South Africa
(Latest figures available)
Year	Canada	Australia (b)	New Zealand (b)	South Africa	Canada's Defence Expenditure1931-32	$ cts. 1 71 (c) 1 35 (e) 1 24 (c) 1 19 tc) 1 41 (c) 1 77 (c)	$ cts. 2 53 2 27 2	40 3	17 (a) 4	37 5	28 (a)	$ cts. 1 66 2 00 1	50 2	22 (a) 2 38 (a) N.A.	$ cts. 2 02 2	03 2 20 3	34 (a) 4	53 (a) N.A.	$ 17,585,460 13,348,716 13,149,409 13,041,000 (d) 15,397,065 (d) 19,358,454 (d)1932-33	1933-34	1934-35	1935-36	1936-37	
Notes: (a) The exchange rates used are those for December, 1934 and 1935 respectively.
(b) New census figures were available for 1935-36 and have been utilized for that year's com putations.
(c)	Cost of civil air operations, civil aviation, general services (civil government), N.W.T radio
service and other similar services have not been included in computation of per capita expenditure. Information provided by F. S. Branch, National Defence Dept.
(d)	Information supplied by F.S. branch, National Defence Dept.
N. A.-Information not available.
Expenditure on National Defence-South American Countries (latest available figures (a) ).
Country	Population	1934-35			1935-36		
		National Defence Estimates(b)			National Defence Estimates(b)		
Total 000's omitted f cl	Per capita	Per cent of total Budget	Total 000's omitted (c)	Per capita	Per cent of total Budget12.393.000 44.002.000 4.508.000 18.596.000 6.147.000 3.324.000	34^900 53,784 35,090 16,740 6,969 8,235	$ 2-82 1-22 7-78 0-90 M3 2-48	15-4 25-0 340 22-5 td) (d)	$ 46,068 57,816 18,100 20,850 7,982 7,930	s 3-72 1-31 401 1-12 1-	30 2-	39	(d) (d) (d) (d) 22-0 (d)
Note: (a) The figures u^d were obtained from the League of Nations' Armaments Year Book (1936) and Statesman s Year Book (1935 and 1936), and are the latest available figures. No figures for 1936-37 available.
(b)	Estimated expenditure only is available-no statements of actual defence expenditure for 1934-35 and of actual defence appropriations for 1935-36 are available.
(c)	Currency rates prevailing in December of each year used in computing dollar figures.
(d)	Total budget figures not available.
31111-57}



[Stage Direction]
(Latest available figures)
Country	Population	1934-35	1935-36	1936-37	National Defence Expenditure	National Defence Appropriations	National Defence Appropriations or Estimates	Total 000's omitted	Per capita	Percent of Total Budget	Total 000's omitted	Per capita	Per cent of Total Budget	Total 000's omitted	Per capita	Per cent of Total BudgetAustralia	
Canada	
Great Britain and N. Ireland.. New Zealand	
South Africa	(a) 6,724,305 10,949,000 (g) 46,889,000 1,573,000 1,914,700 (whites)	$ 21,017 13,041 491,436 3,495 6,405	S 3 17 1	19 10 48 2	22 3 34	10-4 (d) 2-7 140 3-8 31	$ (b) 29,189 15,397 660,305 (j) 3,744 (j) 8,675	$ 4 37 1	41 14 14 2	38 4 53	(b) 9-5 (e) 2-9 14-8 G) 3-6 a) 4-9	$ (c) 35,237 19,358 (h) 966,522 (k) (k)	S 5 28 1 77 20 61 (k) (k)	(c) 10 8 (f) 3-7 (i) 24-7 (k) (k)Belgium	
Denmark	
Finland	
France	
Germany	
Italy	
Japan	
Norway	
Russia	
Sweden	
Switzerland	
United States	8.276.000 3.684.000 3.762.000 41.940.000 66.616.000 43.009.000 69.251.000 2.884.000 168,000,000 6.248.000 4.163.000 127,500,000	58,415 9,042 15,366 744,265 352,354 359,893 264,685 9,105 1,000,000 32,075 29,920 804,700	7	05 2	45 4	08 17 94 5	29 8	36 3	82 3 15 5 95 5	13 7 18 6	31	12-2 11-2 25-4 23-0 13-8 19-3 43-7 9-9 10-2 11-6 19-5 10-9	37,984 9,192 15,514 704,285 (n) (o) 348,668 296,975 9,547 1,640,000 30,914 31,475 (s) 906,700	4 59 2	50 4 12 16 79 (k) (o) 8 11 4 30 3	31 9 77 4	95 7 56 7 11	11-	3 10-	9 21-1 22-4 (k) (o) 22-4 46-6 9-3 12-	6 11-	4 20-1 (s) 11-8	57,214 9,164 18,680 (1) 861,600 (n) (o)	245,400 (p)	402,410 9,628 (q)	2,960,000 31,500 (r)	80,480 (s)	985,455	6	92 2	48 4	91 25 00 (k) (o) 5 69 5	81 3	33 17 62 5 04 19 50 7	72	(u)	16-0 (k) (k) (m) 41-3 (k) (t) 15-1 46-8 (v)	7-9 18-9 (k) (k) (s) 14-5
General: Computations for non-Britisli countries for 1934-35 and 1935-36 based on League of Nations Armament Year Book (1936) and Statesmen's Year Book (1935-36) statistics except where otherwise stated in Notes.
Currency rate prevailing in December of each year used in computing dollar figures.
(a)	Australian population figure prior to 1936 Census-6,668,195-used for per capita costs of 1934-35 and 1935-36.
(b)	Official Australian report.
(c)	Reported in Australian Intelligence Diary No. 9/1936, dated 28th September, 1936.
(d)	Percentage of total actual expenditure as given by Minister of Finance, in House of Commons, 1st May, 1936.
(e)	Percentage of total extimated expenditure as given by Minister of Finance, in House of Commons, 1st May, 1936. (Figures of actual expenditure not yet
available.)
900	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
(f)	Percentage of total estimated expenditure as supplied by financial superintendent's branch, November, 1936.
(g)	British population figure prior to 1936 census-46,681,000-used for per capita costs of 1934-35 and 1935-36.
(h)	From "London Times", 10th July, 1936.
(i)	From "Ottawa Journal", 4th July, 1936.
(j)	From Statemen's Year Book, 1935.
(k)	Information not available.
(l)	From "Ottawa Journal", 10th November, 1936.
(m)	From "Montreal Gazette", 29th October, 1936.
(n)	Quoted in British House of Commons (20 July, 1936) as being $4,000,000,000 for each year and to be expended on defence forces, on strategic roads and on other
matters which are directly or indirectly connected with problems of defence.
(o)	Does not include extraordinary expenditure for Italo-Ethiopian war.
(p)	From "London Times", 17th January, 1936. Reported that a further sum (estimated at about $550,000,000) over and above this figure is to be spent on expansion and rearmament of defence forces during the next five years.
(q)	From "London Times", 17th January, 1936.
(r)	From "London Observer", 21st June, 1936.
(s)	Official Budget statements of 1935 and 1936.
(t)	From "Montreal Gazette", 11-1-37.
(u)	"Canadian Commercial Journal", 21-11-36.
(v)	"London Times", 16-1-37.

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
902	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
Coming now to a discussion of the question of neutrality, let me envision the situation with Canada out of a prevailing conflict and with Canada being faced with the necessity of protecting her own neutrality. In other words, she must be able to defend her territory from being utilized by combatants for belligerent purposes. As a rule I do not like using quotations, but I should like to quote in this connection from an address delivered at the Canadian Institute of Economics and Politics last year by Professor Lower. He contemplates the situation and names the combatants. I would not do that, but I think I am entitled to quote from his remarks. He says:
If a war should break out between Japan and the United States, we should be affected at once. The question would immediately arise as to whether we would maintain our neutrality.
There are a number of factors which might render it difficult for us to do so. We would have to keep the warships of both belligerents out of our ports and prevent either one of them using any part of our coastline against the other.
The Americans might wish us to give them the right to fly across our territory to Alaska. . . . But we could not give privileges to one of the belligerents that we would not give to the other. . . .
It would seem to be only good judgment for us to prepare our western coast so that we would maintain our neutrality as against both combatants. . . .
If the coast continues defenceless, Japan might try to make use of its islands and inlets as bases for operations against American ships.
If that were to occur, the Americans would at once demand the right to put the Japanese out. . . .
Once allowing that, we would have virtually abandoned neutrality, and we would be in great danger both of being drawn into the war and of losing control of our own territory. . . .
Measures of coastal defence on this sector would appear to be both wise and self-respecting.
I suggest, therefore, without referring to wihat I might term the alleged obligations of Canada as a result of various conferences, but only the obligation of Canada in relation to Canadian defence, that problem is no longer the traditional obligation of local defence but the complete responsibility for defence in consequence of Canada's new sovereign status. And I would direct that remark particularly to those in this dominion who very properly have strong nationalist ideals. The more you believe in, the more you subscribe to doctrines of Canadian nationalism, the more must you provide for the defence of the Dominion of Canada. You cannot any longer lean upon the alliances or the implied alliances of the past; you can no longer lean upon the implications of the Monroe doctrine. If you

are going to profess the virtues and the pride of nationalism, you must face your responsibilities and meet your obligations in accordance with the status of sovereignty.
As I said before, the present policy is not new. It was formulated by Canada and it is limited to the defence of our shores, our homes, our territorial waters and our neutrality. And I desire to say very definitely that the development of any policy of defence is not greatly assisted, at the present time especially, by the declarations of those who speak in other places with reference to a compulsory coordinated defence policy in which Canada would assume automatic responsibilities. In maintaining the essential principles of Canadian unity it is necessary to observe that the prevailing sentiment of public opinion in Canada to-day would not be in favour of committing the Canadian people to automatic responsibility in regard to any centralized or coordinated scheme or plan of defence, and just as we in Canada are not inclined to assume any automatic obligations or any automatic responsibility, so also, as was definitely proved by recent discussions in this house, Canada is opposed to any precarious policy of automatic neutrality. The reason for that is that so long as we have international brigandage as at the present time, so long as the swash-buckling international gangster is stalking about the world, so long as we have dictatorships in power, swayed by ambitions of conquest and the passion for personal power, so long will it be necessary for the smaller nations of the world, lovers of liberty, to be prepared to defend their liberties against licence and their freedom against aggression. That is why a policy of precarious permanent neutrality spells the death knell of democracy throughout the world.
It has been said many a time in this parliament, from 1923 when the Prime Minister made his declaration down until a week ago, that parliament will decide in so far as the initiative may rest with Canada and the Canadian people. But if we were unable to protect our own neutrality we might be declared a belligerent, and some foreign power might decide that we were involved. Therefore we must be equipped successfully to protect our own shores, our seaports and the focal areas of trade routes adjacent to the coasts of Canada. If parliament decides we are neutral we must be able to protect our neutrality; otherwise we may be dragged in by causes over which we have no control.

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
I therefore approach the keynote of the present increase, or extension, or expansion in the estimates, and its purpose is fourfold. In the first place, we must provide for additional aircraft together with supplies and accommodation and personnel for patrolling our coasts and shipping terminals and for defending ourselves against the attacks of those who may violate our neutrality. In the second place, there is in addition to supply and shore structures a very slight and unpretentious addition to our naval strength, to patrol our coasts and shipping terminals, to keep our harbour mouths free of mines and to challenge any suspicious craft. In the third place, there is provision for additional coastal batteries, including anti-aircraft defence equipment to engage hostile craft and defend the entrances to our ports and inland waters. And lastly there is additional training for the militia, especially coastal artillery and services likely to be called upon in various emergencies.
May I sum up this part of my explanation by referring to the cardinal principles of the present defence program as submitted to the house about a week ago by the leader of the government. In the first place, our enlarged defence estimates are submitted only for the defence of Canada. In the second place, they were not arranged between Canada and any other nation. In the third place, there has not been in connection with a single item of the estimates so submitted any request from any government in any other place whatsoever. In the fourth place, parliament itself must be the final judge as to Canada's participation in any future war, and in the last place, with reference to the League of Nations, only a universal league would be an absolute guarantee of peace.
I should like to approach the third aspect, in regard to the conditions which prevailed in the defence situation in Canada in 1935. Certain matters were brought to my attention in 1935 and I want to explain to the house frankly the position and what was done. In regard to our naval forces it was reported that even assuming an effective air force and militia cooperation, Canada did not possess adequate naval forces to guarantee her neutrality in a war in which she did not wish to be a belligerent. In October, 1935, Canada possessed two effective torpedo boat destroyers, two torpedo boat destroyers due for retirement or demilitarization, and one inefficient mine sweeper. The action already taken has been as follows: The two old destroyers have been demilitarized; two new destroyers-four years old-have been purchased; a small training schooner is under
construction in Nova Scotia; the outfit of ammunition for ships in commission has been virtually completed, and gunnery and other equipment of ships in commission have been modernized. That is all that has been done, and the estimates this year are just by way of continuing and carrying on that work.
In reference to shore facilities-the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Tolmie) knows about and will appreciate the situation there-it was reported that the barracks, dockyards and other shore facilities were inadequate. Immediate action was taken to remedy this condition. It was further reported that the naval magazine at Esqui-malt harbour was condemned in 1905 and was a positive menace to the surrounding community. Immediate action was taken in this regard. It was also reported that the wireless equipment at both Halifax and Esquimalt was inadequate; immediate action was also taken in this regard.
Then, to come to the militia services, it was reported that there was not a single modern anti-aircraft gun in the whole Dominion of Canada. What a splendid condition for a great and wealthy nation like Canada I In justice to my hon. friend the member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), I want to say that he took action with reference to that before I stepped into office as Minister of Defence. He commenced a program which I am endeavouring to carry out in reference to anti-aircraft guns. It was also reported that the stock of field gun ammunition was precariously low. It was reported that coast defence armaments were in many cases defective. It was reported that beyond a few batteries no provision had been made for mechanical transport. Action was taken in these matters. It was reported that there was an insufficient supply of respirators even for the permanent force, and action was taken in this regard. It was reported in regard to manufacturing facilities that none existed in Canada for the production of rifles, machine guns and artillery weapons. Action has been taken to a certain extent in this regard, and more is to be taken under the estimate now under consideration.
In regard to reorganization, it was reported that reorganization of the militia had been recommended in 1932, approved in principle but no further action taken. May I say that the post-war establishment consisting of eleven infantry and four cavalry divisions has been reduced to six infantry divisions and one cavalry. The form of militia organization had to be adapted to modern types of arms and equipment. A few inactive units have been disbanded; thirty-six regiments of cavalry
904	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
have been reduced to sixteen, plus four armoured car regiments, and in regard to infantry and machine gun battalions, one hundred and thirty-five units have been reduced to ninety-one. It is true there has been an increase in artillery units and Royal Canadian Engineers. In the Royal Army Medical Corps thirteen surplus units have been disbanded. That means that the paper strength of 135,000 has been reduced to 90,000. All have been made ready for the process of reorganization and mechanization, and the duty of this parliament at the present time as I see it is to provide equipment for the small militia force which we have to-day in Canada. When we come to discuss the estimates, hon. members will find that the main increase is to provide stores and equipment in order to provide a more efficient and effective force.
WTith reference to the air force, it was reported that only twenty-three aircraft of a service type were available in Canada. Not one plane was suitable for active service under present day conditions. Orders were placed last year, some by my predecessor, for eighteen aircraft, and under the present estimates steps are being taken to increase this number. Now let me deal with what happened to the air force of Canada. I find that the appropriations were as follows:
Air Services
1930-	31	
$7,475,7001931-	32	
5,322,0001932-	33	
1,750,000
Or a total reduction in two years of $5,725,700 or 75 per cent.
Then the Royal Canadian Air Force:
1930-	31	
$2,510,0001931-	32	
2,266,0001932-	33	
1,555,000
Or a total reduction of 36 per cent.
Then we have the most disastrous reduction of all. In 1931-32 flying hours were increased by 5,000. But in 1932-33 flying hours were reduced by 27,095 hours, from 32,095 hours to a total of 5,000 flying hours. In the following year a further reduction of 3,800 hours was made so that the total hours of flying in this dominion were reduced in three years from 32,095 to 1,200. In other words, flying was discontinued in Canada during the years of the depression. This will explain the reason for the present increase in the air force estimates.
For the purpose of my argument I am not going to refer to the personnel of these forces. But I wish to drive home as strongly as I can that the increase of $6,706,000 in the air force vote is to repair what was done during the years of the depression.
JMr. I. Mackenzie.]
Next I come to the question of industrial organization. I think both the mover and seconder of the resolution said that nothing had been done by this administration with reference to industrial organization or industrial mobilization in Canada. But I want to tell my hon. friends that for the last eight or nine .months the Department of National Defence in cooperation with other departments of the government has been engaged upon the most comprehensive industrial survey of Canada that was ever made in her history. This has been done in other nations. Australia has been carrying out such a survey for the last fifteen years; England has been doing so for the last eight years; we are endeavouring to do in two years what should have been done many years ago, and inside two years we shall have a comprehensive industrial survey covering every industry in Canada so as to enable it to be mobilized for this nation in case it should be assailed or in case of any national emergency. What has been done? We have obtained information as to the availability in Canada of facilities for the production of shells, fuses, explosives and propellants, guns and gun cartridges, motor vehicles, aircraft, aircraft engines and accessories, and we have received the most loyal cooperation from other departments of government, notably the Department of Labour, the Department of Mines and Resources, the Department of Transport, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce.
May I repeat once again that this is not in any way to develop, in regard to the equipment required for our militia service, a policy of centralization, or for any other extraneous purpose. The reason for the increase in the militia service vote, which possibly is not as popular as the increase in the vote for the air force or the small increase in the naval vote, is twofold. In the first place, it is to provide new, modern and up to date equipment for our militia services and, in the second place, to give us a small force to cooperate with our air force and our naval force for the protection of Canada, within Canada only. I hope that is quite precise, definite and clear to every hon. member.
I think, sir, I have dealt with the question of industrial mobilization. Now I wish to deal with the question of profits, raised in a previous debate, and mentioned by both speakers this afternoon. This question divides itself into three categories. The first is the supply of defence equipment in peace time; the second is the export of munitions or supplies beyond the country, and the third is

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
the supply of munitions and equipment in war time. With reference to the second and third, these can and will be controlled, and measures of the most vigorous and relentless nature already are under preparation for this purpose. With reference to the first of these categories, having to do with the supply of defence equipment in peace time, government policies were formulated some time ago. They are very similar to those recommended by the commission in Great Britain and by the senate commission of investigation of the United States, to which reference was made this afternoon. They are designed to safeguard the public interest as far as possible by competition, where competition is possible. Where this cannot be done; where competition is not possible, they are designed to establish rigid principles of reasonable remuneration, to make unfair profits impossible and to provide for a thorough system of inspection and audit. So I trust my hon. friends will realize that when they raised this question they discussed a matter which was decided and acted upon by the present administration many months ago.
Now I come to an analysis of the estimates for 1937-38. Before going on with this, however, I desire to make one or two references to the change in conditions of warfare, as they affect our air forces in particular. This afternoon I referred to the air defence bases bill of 1935, adopted by the United States, which proved that the great republic to the south does not consider itself unexposed to air attack from Europe and Asia. It is taking defensive measures in consequence of that view. As the eastern and western portions of Canada lie in the great circle routes from Europe and eastern Asia to the United States respectively, it is clear that Canada is still exposed to air attack from overseas. Consequently the question of air defence is becoming one of increasing importance to this country.
With reference to the militia situation of a year ago, I desire to repeat that the militia possessed then, and to-day possesses, little of armoured fighting vehicles, of supplies of mechanized transport of approved design or of modern weapons. To revert to the air forces of Canada, while it is not contended that Canada's requirements are comparable with those of the great powers, perhaps at this time it is pertinent to remind hon. members that Canada's air force is entirely inadequate to meet her modest defence requirements; further, that at the present moment this country does not possess an aircraft industry worthy of the name and that all our airplane engines are being imported. With reference to coastal defence, at both Esquimalt and Halifax it was necessary to embark upon the modernization of equipment.
The immediate requirements in our air force are modern aircraft bases; advanced and intermediate operating stations; repair and supply depots and training centres. The requirements of our air defence on both east and west coasts necessitate provision for the reconnaissance of vast sea areas and lengthy coast lines, and the defence of our ports from hostile aircraft carriers or overseas borne aircraft. As I said before, under modern conditions, with aircraft carriers the enemy could attack our coastal cities and smash up our elevators and other places used for the storage of foodstuffs
I have before me an actual analysis of the estimates of the Department of National Defence. Taking first of all our naval forces, the increase in the present year over last year is $1,832,310. The increase in personnel is: Royal Canadian navy, 373, by reason of the larger size of the newer vessels, and Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, 161, making a total, after these estimates are adopted, of 2,771 in the navy. The details of the
increase are:
Pay and allowances	 $359,325
Stores and allowances-
Ammunition and stores	 350,760
Four minesweepers	 750,000
Repairs-maintenance	 128,000
Works-lands and buildings

Joint service magazine	 200,000
In regard to the air force, the increase amounts to $6,706,622, which can be divided into permanent, $6,176,692 and non-permanent, $529,930. Those amounts can be again subdivided into:
Permanent-
AdministrationTraining and maintenance..	$ 629,749
Stores and equipment	 4,524,847
Engineer services	 1,022,096
Non-permanent-
Administration and maintenance	107.715
Stores and equipment	 413,215
Engineer services	 9,000
In other words, stores and equipment take up over $5,000,000 of the total increase of $6,706,622. I should like to make that very clear. The increase in personnel of the air force, made necessary by the modest program of expansion being undertaken, is forty officers and 519 airmen. In regard to stores and equipment, the subdivisions are as follows in part:
Aircraft stores	 $ 345,924
Ammunition	 113,934
Stores	 1.499,763
Aircraft	 2,019,263
Engines	 187,500
906	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
This makes a total of nearly $5,000,000. The new aircraft proposed will include twelve two-seater fighters; seven Stranraer flying boats; eighteen coastal reconnaissance ships; eleven torpedo bombers; twenty-seven (ab initio) training planes and twenty-four bombers and three army co-operation, or a total of 102 airplanes costing in round figures $3,000,000, with engines costing $237,000. The engineer services in connection with the air force provide for an increase of $1,000,000, of which the central depot at Trenton takes $747,000; the Pacific coast, $450,000, and the Atlantic coast, $435,000. These, together with some smaller items, account for the total air force increase of approximately $6,700,000.
In regard to the militia services, the total increase is $5,831,502. That amount is broken up as follows:
Engineer services and	works....	$1,867,850General stores and	equipment..	3,509.499Permanent force	
234,713Militia	
220,640RJVI.C	
8,800
The amount of $1,867,850 for engineer services and works is for works at Ottawa, Petawawa, London, Barriefield, St. John's, P.Q., Valcartier, Halifax, Winnipeg and Shilo, with about $1,000,000 to be expended on the Pacific coast for emplacements, gun positions and technical equipment, and small amounts for Dundurn and Calgary. Of the increase of $3,509,499 in general stores and equipment, artillery stores take up $2$58,616 and the dominion arsenal at Quebec about $450,000. The artillery stores include ammunition, shells, cartridges, fuses of various sizes and descriptions, as well as tractors, training equipment, machine guns, anti-aircraft searchlight equipment and anti-aircraft guns, together with batteries of coast defence guns as well as a substantial number of the new light Bren machine guns.
In the non-permanent militia service the increase is $220,640, and this increase is in order to give additional days of training to the small, compact force we have now established in the Dominion of Canada. In the permanent force the increase of S234.000 is caused by an increase in the personnel of twenty-two officers and 173 other ranks, including nine officers and eighty other ranks previously under civil aviation vote, largely the result of new instructors being required consequent upon the reorganization and mechanization of the militia.
To sum up all these figures, the militia service is increased $5,832,000; the naval service is increased $1,832,000 and the air service is increased $6,552,635, deducting the items in last year's estimates not repeated this year in connection with projects generally, $2,601,332, making a net increase of $11,615,000

in this year's estimates. These are the actual details of the estimates. They are all for the purpose of coastal defence, and for increased equipment and for cooperation of militia services of Canada with the air force and naval forces for the protection of Canada, within our own borders. I cannot make that sufficiently clear to hon. members of the house.
I desire to deal once more with the amendment of the hon. member. It is strange that in Canada, which is probably potentially one of the richest countries in the world, that we do not find the same cooperation between members of the Labour party and the government of the day with reference to the question of defence as we do in other countries. Canadian socialists oppose even these modest provisions for defence in Canada. That is not the policy of the Labour or Socialist party in Great Britain. It is not the policy of socialists in France. It is not the policy of the Australian Labour party.
I desire to read with emphasis a motion carried at the recent labour conference held in Edinburgh in October of last year. On motion of Mr. Dalton, the Labour party conference adopted by a majority of 1,081,000 the following resolution:
That in view of the threatening attitude of dictatorships which are increasing their armaments at an unprecedented rate, flouting international law, and refusing to cooperate in the work of organizing peace
[Stage Direction]
Listen to this:
-this conference declares that the armed strength of the countries loyal to the league of nations must be conditioned by the armed strength of the potential aggressors.
The conference therefore reaffirms the policy of the Labour party, to maintain such defence forces as are consistent with our country's responsibility as a member of the league of nations-
And now I desire to emphasize these three points:
(a) the preservation of the people's rights and liberties, (b) the continuance of democratic institutions, and (c) the observance of international law.
I suggest that all three of these points apply to the Dominion of Canada to-day. Here we have members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation whose political philosophy is based essentially upon the doctrine of socialism. Here we have hon. members of that party moving a vote of want of confidence in this administration, with two points in mind: (1) a disapproval of the modest expansion of our defence system, and (2) a spurious laudation of their own political philosophy of socialism.
May I now quote the final words from Major Attlee's speech, leader of the Labour party in Great Britain. He said: The La-

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver)
hour party believed that they must take every step to deal with the curse of war, and on the other hand, they were not prepared to bow down to fascism or to be conquered by fascism from without or from within. "The level of British armaments," he said, "must be fixed with regard to our position in relation to collective security."
In the Australian Labour party which follows a policy similar to that of hon. members in this chamber, there has recently been a complete change-due to what? The change has been due to recent world developments and the present menace. The Australian Labour party has now adopted a defence program of its own providing: (1) for the defensive organization of industry; (2) for training and equipment of a substantial nucleus of effective field forces, capable of speedy expansion; (3) for a strong air force, and (4) for development of the country's capacity to provide adequate munitions.
As hon. members know, South Africa has followed the same course. In this connection may I quote from the observations of Mr. Pirow, Minister of National Defence in that country. A press dispatch states:
Pirow emphasized that South Africa was not preparing for war in the near future but merely taking elementary precautions "which every nation must bear in mind if it values freedom and independence."
He also disclosed to parliament that hi3 technical department was exploring the possibility of manufacturing in South Africa various military necessities hitherto imported. .	.	.
A survey is also being made Pirow announced of industrial possibilities for war purposes which he said would ensure supply of the necessary stores without dislocating civil requirements and without profiteering.
I now come to that section of my remarks dealing with the estimates. I suggest, first, it is very regrettable indeed that unanimity of opinion in Canada seems to be impossible with reference to a question as non contentious as the requirements of Canadian defence. The most important contribution we can render at this time, when shadows of impending disaster seem to be hovering so darkly over a doubt-torn and tempest-tossed world is, so far as possible, to resist all suggestions of partisan controversy, and to respect the heartfelt opinions and1 profound convictions of those who may differ from the defence policies of the government of the day. It is not for us at this time to say that those who are opposed to us are of necessity wrong, but we should endeavour to prove that what we are trying to do is the right thing and in the interest of the nation.
While we adopt the attitude of not being too critical of one another, we on this side of the house are convinced that the policy
presented at this time by the present administration is one which, by reason of its studied moderation and its avoidance of and severance from any extraneous commitments, should commend itself to the free and unfettered judgment of the Canadian people.
Some may criticize us as pursuing a purely national policy; some may say that we are evading our empire responsibilities. May I say just a personal word in that connection. I have the greatest veneration for the contribution that has been made by the British Empire, especially in recent years, toward the preservation of the peace of the world. When I think of the great contribution made by our great empire, I think of Gladstone's great words when he referred to "the noble fabric of the British Empire." I recall the words of the great intellectual statesman Mr. Herbert Asquith, when he referred to the empire as "the greatest and most fruitful experiment that the world has ever seen in the cooperative union of free and self-governing communities."
I recall the words of Lord Rosebery when he referred to the empire "as the noblest example yet known of free, just and adaptable government." I recall the words of a great Canadian Doctor Macdonald, once of the Toronto Globe, who said:
It would indeed be a calamity beyond compare were that world empire broken and its dismembered fragments scattered abroad.
I recall the words of Burke who said: "Ties of the empire are light as air but strong as links of iron."
Yet, sir, our duty is to the dominion and the Canadian people; this defence policy is a Canadian defence policy for the direct defence of our Canadian shores and our Canadian homes.
Finally, may I say that with great veneration for empire idealism we in Canada to-day are looking to the future of this great dominion of ours, preserving so far as we can the unity of our people, with reference to all policies. In the great words of Sir George Foster, quoting Rudyard Kipling, "We are daughter in our mother's house, and mistress in our own."
While some hon. members may call to their support the Monroe doctrine of the southland and others may look for support to the forces of empire in other directions without doing anything to bear our own burden, may I conclude with the words used by Sir George W. Ross in Toronto thirty years ago:
Oh! This may love the southland,
And this may cross the sea But this Land is our Land And Canada for me.
908	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mitchell
Mr. A. H. MITCHELL (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, speaking to this motion of want of confidence in the government, I must say at the outset that I am not in full agreement with it. I have not confidence in some of the policies of this government; its financial policy and its unemployment policy are examples. But I do agree with the defence policy of this government, and I wish now through you, sir, to compliment the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) upon giving to the house a clear and what I believe to be a true statement of the national and international situations as they see them. I have listened to them on each occasion they have spoken on this subject, and I very much appreciate the statements they have made from time to time.
The amendment which was moved to the motion for supply does not state that these defence estimates are to appropriate money for defence at the expense of social security. Although the amendment infers this to be true, it does not say so. Accordingly it leaves the way wide open for myself and for those around me who wish to do so to continue their struggle for social security without in any way interfering with our desire for national safety in times like these.
I think it is very timely just at this stage for me to point out on behalf of my colleagues and myself how much easier apparently it is to finance war than to finance peace. That was true in the last war. There was a condition of emergency which came upon us overnight, and that emergency was financed to the last dollar. But peace, Mr. Speaker, and the emergencies arising out of conditions of peace-these apparently are very difficult to finance. That is one of the paradoxes of this age, and one of the grave indictments of our present economic system.
This is a very practical world in which we live, and as a practical man I do not hesitate to suggest to this House of Commons that the ultimate security of nations does not lie in armaments, as was demonstrated by the last war. Security, in the well known language of the Oxford Group, lies in God control, God controlled individuals, God controlled homes, industries and nations, and may I say to my friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and to socialists everywhere and other reformers, that the same thing is true of all our suggested systems. However, the ideal state of affairs that men envision is not here; we are not yet living in times like

those. Around us everywhere it is a fact that Canada is not providing adequately, to use the language of the amendment, for "social security of all sections of the Canadian people."
It is also a fact that the nations are rearming on every hand; that millions of dollars and millions of pounds and millions of various other moneys are being voted and appropriated in every country for armaments, and that millions of men are training at this time for war. No matter how idealistic we may be, we cannot hide the fact that what I have just said is true, no more than we can escape the fact that every last one of the leaders of all these arming countries proclaims loudly now and again that the armament campaign which is going on in 'his country is not intended for offensive purposes, that it is only for defence. I wonder if that might not cause some of us to stop and see whether Canada's danger and the world danger to-day is not only international but intra-national. I wonder if the attacks which we fear are altogether external attacks. I wonder if there is not perhaps a force at work internally, not only in Europe but in America as well, including Canada, for which we must be prepared, and of which we have every reason to have grave fear. That, Mr. Speaker, is not necessarily a bogeyman. So far as the invader coming across the ocean to Canada is concerned, goodness knows why they would come to Canada to attack our shores. That, as the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) has suggested, may very easily be a bogeyman. But if the danger is more local than that, if it exists within our own nation and not outside our nation altogether, then I believe that all possible steps ought to be and must be taken to give Canada at least an ordinary fighting chance to protect herself. In saying that, I feel that I am doing only what is my duty, and in doing so I am not giving the government blanket approval in regard to all its policies. I feel now, although it might better come upon the discussion of the defence estimates themselves, like describing to the house the pitiful equipment and the terrible uniforms and materials that our men are expected to use in some of the armouries west of the great lakes. However, I might better wait for the discussion of the estimates.
I conclude with the thought with which I started, that we are living in a world where there is actual danger, and while certain ideals may be very desirable, and will eventually become realities, yet the real and present fact is that grave danger confronts us, not alone externally, but internally.

National Defence-Mr. Raymond


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) was about to ask for the appropriations which he deems necessary for his department, is of the utmost importance, first of all on account of the increase of these estimates over last year, due to war preparations in Europe and following the rather ill-timed statements of some foreign or semi-foreign individuals, some of whom have no right to interfere in our political discussions and for whom past experience should have been a lesson.
I wish to avail myself of this opportunity briefly to state my views and those of the people I represent on this question of national defence, and I shall do it, to use the expression of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) " with a feeling of doing as my conscience bids me."
During the last few months we have had the visit of imperialist pilgrims-that is how they were called by the Minister of National Defence-who came here to show us our duty. We were able to read out the suggestions that were made by outstanding men in British politics, when some of them told us how many military aircraft we should have and others warned us that at the coming imperial conference the dominions would be called to decide as to their partaking in the defence of the empire. We have also read suggestive articles both in the British and Canadian press, and about war scares in Europe and to crown it all we now see that the estimates for military purposes are being substantially increased. You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that we 'have reason to wonder whither we are going.
In justice to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) I wish to recall right now the firm view which he took on September 29 last, when speaking at Geneva, before the Assembly of the League of Nations, he thus asserted our sovereign status:
We will not necessarily become involved in any war into which other parts of the British Empire may enter, simply because we are part of the British Empire.
And further:
Any decision on the part of Canada to participate in war will have to be taken by the parliament or people of Canada.
Speaking right here in this house on January 25 last, he stated:
That, on questions of defence or foreign policy Canada's attitude shall be guided by its own interest.
These are statements of principles with which I am fully in accord. They differ absolutely
from the old formula according to which Canada was necessarily at war when England was at war.
However, there are facts which we cannot ignore, and it is these facts about which we are concerned and which require some explanations from the government.
This year, the estimates amount to about $34,000,000 compared to about $20,000,000 last year. Why this increase?
The right hon. the Prime Minister, in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) said:
As far as the estimates presented to parliament at this session are concerned, any increase placed there has been only and solely because of what the government believe to be necessary for the defence of Canada and of Canada alone. The estimates have not been framed with any thought of participation in European wars.
That statement was repeated this evening by the hon. Minister of National Defence. Without expressing any doubt as to the judgment of the government, it seems to me that some further explanations are called for.
Defence of Canada! against whom and against what?
Where lies this sudden threat which requires such a considerable expenditure for defence purposes? Abroad or at home? Let us consider the facts. The defence estimates, including those for air services, amounted, last year, to about $20,000,000, after the last appropriations were voted on June 22, 1936.
I have every good reason to believe that the Minister of National Defence, advised undoubtedly by his military experts, had then asked the house the necessary appropriations to maintain the efficient defence of Canada and that nothing had been neglected. Then, barely seven months after, he comes here and asks for an increase of $14,000,000. What did happen during this short period to justify such a substantial increase, apart from the visit of Lord Elibank, following the warning of Sir Samuel Hoare?
Our boundaries are the same. Our neighbours are the same and are just as peaceful as they were. Our geographical position has not changed and we are still separated from Europe and Asia by oceans, that mean almost an absolute security. We have no enemies that we know of. Moreover, the friction that existed by reason of the sanctions against Italy has disappeared since these sanctions have been removed.
Did the conditions in Europe grow worse? There is not any more talk about war than there was last June, when the estimates were voted; as a matter of fact, there is less talk
910	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Raymond
about it since the Italo-Ethiopian conflict is over. At any rate, our frontiers are not in Europe.
Then where did this danger of aggression from outside spring up since the end of June, 1936, that compels the Minister of National Defence to come up before parliament and ask such a substantial increase in his estimates, being a further charge for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) who still needs every dollar for our most essential expenditures. This is the question I am putting to the Minister of National Defence, and I do not intend to prejudice his answer. However, you will admit that there are coincidences and facts that are liable to throw some anxiety in the minds of those who believe in the defence of Canada within the limits of her needs and resources, but who are against any military preparations for other purposes.
Will the menace come from within? Some people say so. On January 14 last, L'Action Catholique reminded the governments that their duty was to preserve order in this country, be it even by force, and it drew attention to possible troubles. We all know what is happening in Russia, in Spain and even among our neighbours, the United States. Quite recently, speaking about the strike in the General Motors' plants, Father Coughlin pointed out the influence of communism in that strike, and he brought to the attention of the authorities, before it might be too late, the threat of a revolution. During that strike, the civil and judicial authorities were flouted.
In our own country, in Canada, volunteers have sailed in order to enlist in the red army of Spain. This, I admit, does not give me any sorrow; it will rid us of these undesirable people, provided they do not return here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Maxime Raymond: But it shows that there are some of them in our country. Besides, well informed people tell us that communism is a real threat which must be faced. This being so, let us guard against unpreparedness. If, in order to face such a contingency, an increase in our forces is necessaiy, let us not hesitate to bring it about, for we need an adequate organization to maintain order within our country and to protect our institutions. Such is the essential duty of the state.
We must guard, protect and defend ourselves not, as I take it, against any invading army, but against the overrunning of our country by these professional agitators, these

fomenters of trouble who are at work elsewhere, and who have already begun to make their presence felt here.
In this connection, I was recently reading a pamphlet in which the federal authorities were criticized for having done nothing to thwart communism, and where they were being rebuked for having repealed section 98 of the Criminal Code. I do not doubt the good faith of those who write such things, but if they really wish to educate the public, let them first read or study the act by which section 98 of the Criminal Code was repealed. They will find that by the same act section 133 of the Criminal Code was amended, through the addition of paragraph 4, which goes further in its import than section 98; that is why the Right Hon. Senator Meighen said in the Senate:
This bill repeals section 98, it is true, but in another section it restores section 98, or the full effect of it, after the repeal.
Then, on the subject of unlawful association, he said:
Under this bill, if it passes, and under the law as it then will be, nobody can be a member of such an association, for such membership is sedition and sedition at common law is forbidden. So there is no change there. The law said there was a presumption a man was a member, not if he attended a public meeting, but if he attended a meeting of the association. If it was not a member it was not very hard for him to discharge the onus. All he had to do whs to swear he was not a member. That is no great hardship. That presumption in similar cases runs through the Code almost from cover to cover. But to be a member of such an association will be an offence after this bill passes. (Debates of the Senate, session of 1936, p. 619.)
And Hon. Senator Cote, appointed by the Bennett government, gave a similar opinion about paragraph 4 added to section 133 of the Criminal Code.
In this section 4 is involved a point of law which is interesting not only to lawyers, but to every citizen who concerns himself with matters affecting the safety of the state. Under this amendment it will be easier to obtain a conviction, for the crown will not have to establish that the actions of the accused amount to an intention to bring about governmental changes by force. If the accused is a person who "publishes, or circulates any writing, printing or document in which it is advocated, or who teaches or advocates the use, without the authority of law, or force, as means of accomplishing any governmental change within Canada," he shall be presumed guilty. I am perfectly satisfied with this amendment. It goes farther than section 98 and justifies me in voting for the repeal of that section. (Debates of the Senate, session of 1936, page 622.)
I may now add that it devolves upon the attorney general in each province to prosecute those who transgress this law.

National Defence-Mr. Raymond
Whether the threat may come from the outside or arise within our own borders, I frankly admit, Mr. Speaker, that I findi it hard to get a clear idea as to the extent or the limit of our requirements as regards national defence. We do not know what the future has in store for us, although we try to foresee it. Besides, we scarcely know about the present. And unforeseen events may always alter the most reasonable expectations.
The minister has given us some explanations,-andi I believe in his sincerity-but they are open to question. He told us, in brief, that on the advice of his experts he asks but the minimum that is required to ensure our security. A perusal of the debates that have taken place in this house, will show that in the past cases have occurred where the minister of militia, after bringing down his estimates, had to alter them, in spite of the adivice of his experts. As an instance, I may refer to the House of Commons debates, session of 1922, volume 2, page 1135. Here is what the Minister of Militia, Hon. Mr. Graham, had to say in submitting his estimates :
The militia estimates, I might say, have been pared down to a point as low as is compatible with national safety; in fact, I have been criticized quite severely for some of the reductions.
Nevertheless, in spite of that statement by the minister and notwithstanding the opinion of military experts, a few Liberal members, and among them our Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power), our Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret), availing themselves of their right to question the need of these estimates for the purpose of ensuring our national security, did not take the same view as the then Minister of Militia upon different items, especially the vote for $1,400,000 for " annual drill." And Mr. Power, who is now the Minister of Pensions and National Health, moved, seconded by Mr. Lanctot, member for Laprairie-Napierville, an amendment calling for the reduction of this vote by $1,100,000 because they could not see the necessity of it. (House of Commons Debates, session of 1922, pages 1173-1174).
It is true that the amendment was negatived, but the amendment to the amendment brought by the Hon. Mr. Lapointe, then Minister of Marine, with a view to reducing the vote by $400,000 was agreed to (Debates of the House of Commons, session of 1922, at page 1578). On that occasion, the Minister of Militia said:
It is the desire of the government, of course, to meet the wishes of parliament, for parliament is supreme.
In fact, reductions totalling S700,000 were made in the militia estimates amounting approximately to $10,000,000 brought down by the Minister of Militia.
Now, if you recall the words of the Minister ot Militia which I quoted a moment ago on the absolute necessity of these minimum expenditures to ensure national security, you will realize that predictions made by experts do not always come true, as despite their prophecies, no catastrophe has befallen us after 1922 and our country has enjoyed complete security, notwithstanding the reduction of $700,000 made in the militia estimates then proposed.
This shows that bona fide opinions may differ on a question of appreciation, and that it may be advisable to revise the proposed figures when the various items are considered, without in any way affecting the security of this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize my views on these defence estimates. I cannot vote in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North, be it for the sole reason that he wants this house to pass sentence before having heard the evidence. But I am not prepared to vote for those increased expenditures, unless it is clearly shown to me that they are warranted.
We are told that these estimates are necessary for the defence of Canada, and for Canada alone, and we are asked to have confidence in the government. I am quite willing to do so, but we should not be asked to vote blindly. Too many happenings of late have aroused our attention. Too many people from abroad have taken upon them to advise us. We have heard of national defence estimates amounting to $70,000,000, of 1,000 military planes for Canada, and so forth. Could it be that these present expenditures are but the beginning of the carrying out of a more extensive program? We are fully aware of the purposes of certain advisers from abroad, but we should rather like to know the present and future intentions of the government.
My duty to my electors is to oppose Canada's participation in any war outside of her own territory-the horrors of the last war are still too vivid,-and I will not vote a single dollar increase that will not be spent "wholly and exclusively" for the defence of Canada, and in Canada only.
Since our dominion is now a sovereign state, the obligation rests upon us to see to our own national defence, and we must protect our-

National Defence-Mr. Reid
selves against dangers from within and without. For that reason, I am prepared to vote any amount shown to be necessary to make this country safe.
But again, I say that our army, our air force and our navy must be called out only in defence of Canada and solely within her territory.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Translation):: Hear, hear.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: Interest
guides all nations. Our interest tells us not to participate in any foreign war and consequently, not to prepare therefor. Our policy should be essentially a Canadian policy.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I listened with a great deal of attention this afternoon to the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) when he introduced this want of confidence motion as the house was about to go into committee of supply on the estimates for defence, and before proceeding with what I have to say on the motion I think it incumbent upon me to make a few remarks with regard to some of the statements made by the hon. gentleman. Let me say at the outset that if any opinion goes abroad in this country after to-day to the effect that Canada is preparing for war, it will have been started by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group across the floor, one member of whom, the hon. member for Vancouver North, this afternoon, on beginning to speak, said it appeared that Canada was now preparing for war. This was the first intimation on the part of any hon. member that the defence estimates about to be introduced represented the beginning of Canada's participation in any war preparations.
As I say, I followed very closely the remarks of the hon. gentleman, and before I go further there are one or two other matters to which I wish also to refer. The hon. member spoke about the pre-war mental attitude. Well, if there is any pre-war mental attitude, it certainly is not very manifest in this country. Looking around the world and seeing what is happening in various countries, one cannot help realizing that this is the last country in the world where one would expect to find that spirit. The hon. member spoke also about the rush of armaments throughout the world, suggesting that perhaps it was the beginning of the destruction of democracy. Need I point out that democracy's greatest bulwark is Great Britain? Linked with the dominions and the colonies she is the greatest factor in the world to-day in the safeguarding of democracy. But what 
is Great Britain doing along these lines? For quite a number of years she went about preaching peace and suddenly woke up to the fact that she was in great and grave danger, and in what is now taking place there is evidence of the fact that Great Britain is alive to the mistakes of the past years. It is said on reliable authority that at Christmas she gave every one of some forty million citizens a gas mask, free. Evidently she is alive to the danger from the air through poison gas.
The question of defence, Mr. Speaker, like that of neutrality, is different from the question of Canada's participation in any European war or the question of joining with or assisting Great Britain in any conflict in which she may participate either as aggressor or in self-defence. It is easy to understand the wide divergence of views with regard to the sending of troops across the seas to take part in conflicts in regard to which we in Canada have never been consulted and with which we may be or may believe ourselves to be remotely concerned. But the question of military equipment becomes an entirely different one when we come to the simple question of the defence of our own shore and country. Generally speaking, it is safe to say that there might be numbers of Canadians who would be hesitant about Canada participating in wars abroad, but who would never for a moment hesitate when it came to a question of defending Canada against attack. I noticed in the press, only this afternoon, a statement by the seconder of the resolution when, speaking at a gathering, he said he had been educating a boy of his not to participate in any foreign wars, telling him that it would be better for him to become a convict than a soldier. But I noted in the account that it was stated the boy said, "With the exception of the defence of Canada." And that question is the great one confronting this country.
It is hardly necessary to take up the time of the house in explaining what the various countries of the world are doing at the present moment? This was ably done this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), but I am going to touch for one moment on the great armament race which is taking place, and to point out that what we are doing in Canada is comparatively speaking nothing. Our proposed expenditure this year is something like one-half of one per cent of our total budget, as compared with budgets in countries like Japan where it is 46 per cent, Russia where it is 20 per cent, Jugoslavia where it is 21 per cent, and so on. Great Britain has likewise embarked upon

National Defence-Mr. Reid
a large program; her armaments budget for this year is close to 20 per cent of the total budget for the nation. And need I point out that we are no longer dealing with nations as nations? Contrast the statements recently made by Premier Mussolini of Italy and Herr Goebbels of Germany with that to which we have listened, made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Woodsworth). Mussolini said:
r I hold out a great olive branch to the world. This olive^ branch springs from an immense forest of eight million bayonets, well sharpened and thrust from intrepid young hearts.
There is Italy's olive branch. Contrast it with the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who I think should be sent over there as an emissary to see if he could do anything with that dictator.
And echoing through the world we hear the same sentiment. Herr Goebbels said:
We took precautions on the principle that the League of Nations is good, but air squadrons and army corps are still better.
So one could go from one nation to another telling what each is doing, arming and rearming in a feverish, mad rush.
But we come to the question of defence. That is the question confronting this house, the defence of our own land. I realize that it is a serious question, one in regard to which there are many schools of thought. The hon. member for Vancouver North, who introduced the resolution, referred, I think correctly, to the impossibility of effectively arming ourselves against modern warlike nations. I do not think there is an hon. member who seriously believes that eleven million people could adequately arm to protect themselves to-day against any of the major nations of the world who are now armed to the teeth. But may I say to the hon. member that I was painfully surprised by his remarks in which he seemed to express a little slurring sarcasm, as to the efficiency of British professional troops. It will be remembered that at the outbreak of the great war, no one would care to think of what might have happened, but for that little band of professional troops which went over to France and stemmed the tide of the great German rush.


Charles Grant MacNeil: May I remind the hon. member that I referred only to the genera! staff.


Thomas Reid: Well, the hon. member makes that explanation now but he did not make it clear in his speech this afternoon, and that is what I am dealing with.
Then the hon. member said something to the effect that if Canada did get into trouble, perhaps the United States or even Great Britain would not stand by and see us put to the wall; but later he denied that it was a sponging policy. I cannot quite understand what he meant, because if we are going to depend forever upon the might of Great Britain and the United States, it certainly is a sponging policy and cannot be anything else.
We come, then, to the courses open to Canada. The first is that we can do nothing, nothing at all. Now that is very simple. Second, we could cooperate within the empire. But I know there are those in this country who will have no truck or trade with the old country. May I say this in kindness to the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group; I have sat for six years in this house and never heard him say one kindly word regarding Great Britain. Of course I may have missed it. Then a third course proposed is to separate entirely from the empire, and that course involves one of two things, namely, make alliances, or arm. Those are the three courses which I see open to this country.
That brings us to the question of neutrality, which was briefly touched upon by the Minister of National Defence this afternoon, and which I am going to take a little time to elaborate. First, I should like to draw this fact to the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the leader of the group. We are dealing with realities; we are not dealing with theories. I could liken him to a labour leader in the old country who later became Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who talked about peace, peace, and who at one time almost gave away Singapore. Had it not been for the Lords of the British Admiralty, that naval base, so much needed to-day, would have been given away by the then Labour Prime Minister of Great Britain. He kept talking peace, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has talked since I came into the house. It seems to me to be time partly wasted; it is on the European continent these things should be preached, not here, because we are a peaceable nation. Ramsay MacDonald balked peace in Great Britain, yes, and started to practise it while he was Prime Minister. But did any country in the world follow his lead? No, not one. In fact, .the reverse was the case. Almost every country was quietly and secretly arming, until last year it was brought forcibly home to the British people how dangerous and futile that policy had been. Whether we like it or not, for the first time in the history of



National Dejence-Mr. Reid
the British nation she had to take backwater and could not give world leadership when that leadership was required, as instanced during the time of the Ethiopian trouble. I say again, if anything happened to the British Empire, heaven help democracy! It surprises me that I have not heard one word of commendation from that group about the great struggle for democracy and the bulwark that Great Britain has been. I think some meed of praise is due Britain for that. But lot us look seriously at Great Britain for a moment. Will anyone seriously dispute the statement that Great Britain has been and still is the greatest factor in 'the world for peace, or the greatest bulwark of democracy in the world? Would any hon. member seriously dispute that statement? I think not. Consider, then, her position to-day and just what she is doing in the way of war preparation. Among other things, as I have pointed out, she is presenting every citizen with a gas mask, and her latest program is running into a cost of billions of dollars.
That gives me a thought, Mr. Speaker. The other day I was just wondering what the two great labour leaders of Great Britain, Ramsay MacDonald and Philip Snowden, who is today in the House of Lords, would think now in view of the fact that in 1931 they went around the country preaching ruin if certain economies were not effected. And be it remembered those economies were effected by cutting the rates of unemployment relief, by cutting teachers' salaries, and by reducing other social services. I wonder what they would think now that this latest program has been commenced, because it certainly makes their total budget of 1931 look very small indeed. As a rule, the British people are lovers of peace, and during the years of Arthur Henderson and Ramsay MacDonald Great Britain went further than any other nation in an effort to induce all other countries to beat their swords into ploughshares. But the British people realize now that they went too far in that direction. Not only did it do no good at all; it was a dangerous experiment. It was laudable, I admit, to endeavour to practise the principles which were laid down by Ramsay MacDonald when he was Prime Minister, but theorist as he was, he failed to discern that he was dealing not with theories but with realities.
I am inclined to think the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in this house is somewhat that same type of theorist. It could be said also, perhaps, that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party stands in almost the same position in Canada as the party formerly headed by

Ramsay MacDonald occupies in Great Britain. It is well known that Ramsay MacDonald ruined the socialist cause in Great Britain for many, many years to come. That is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seems to have done for his party in Canada. He endeavoured to form a new political group in this country; he attempted to join, farmers and labour under one political head, and designated the party the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, with the theoretical doctrine of state socialism for labour on the one hand and private ownership of land for the farmers on the other. That was a beautiful theory, but just the same it was a theory which was doomed to failure from the start. Those who have given any thought at all to the subject know full well that state ownership was abandoned long ago as an obsolete doctrine and a socialist idea, and if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had been a little more practical he never would have attempted such a political union in this country. It was unfortunate for his party, and like Ramsay MacDonald he must accept some responsibility for the unfortunate experiment. It is little wonder that in British Columbia the party is split in two.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I should like to deal with the question of neutrality, but I want to deal with it in a practical way in order to show this house how real the question is and just how it will and does affect Canada. To maintain neutrality Canada must become a full-fledged nation supporting international law and able to play its part. But we heard nothing like that from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he spoke of neutrality. He just waved his arms and said "neutrality" as if there were nothing to it. If we in Canada are going to have neutrality, we must be able to enforce international law and to play our part as a full-fledged nation. But when we endeavour to make a beginning in playing our part as a full-fledged nation; when we endeavour to put ourselves in a position to respect and enforce international law, we are met by a want of confidence motion introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). I should like to quote Lord Birkenhead on international law, but I do not intend to quote very extensively because the lawyers in this house might be tempted to object if I did so. At page 325 of his book on International Law, Lord Birkenhead says that when a neutral government does not or cannot expel an enemy or an enemy ship, the other belligerent is justified in taking complete charge of the situa-

National Defence-Mr. Reid
tion, and according to the Hague Convention of 1,907 failure to enforce neutrality is a breach of neutrality. Then, with respect to international law, Lord Birkenhead says further, that a country guilty of a breach of neutrality must pay damages, et cetera.
According to international law which is in effect to-day, no belligerent ship may remain in any neutral port longer than twenty-four hours. Just consider for a moment what would happen if, say the United States and Japan were at war and a Japanese submarine or battleship endeavoured to enter or to remain in one of our Pacific ports. If we did not take action, we certainly would be in trouble. I am going to visualize for a moment what might take place as far as the Pacific coast of British Columbia is concerned. The coast line of British Columbia is some 750 miles in length, and in that distance there are numerous islands and bays. There would be nothing to hinder the Japanese, we shall say for the sake of argument, from hiding large quantities of oil and gasoline on one of these islands. Then, in case of war, a Japanese submarine or some other Japanese ship could, if required refuel at that point. What would be our position if we took no action in connection with that ship while it was in our territory? Do you think we could just say "We are neutral and will do nothing?" Would that be the end of it? I do not -think so, nor would it.
I am going to cite actual cases. One of them may be rather ancient, but one is a very recent case. I do so in order to draw to the attention of the house just what could and would happen in the event of our neglect or inability to chase out one of the belligerents. The first case I have in mind is that of Alabama, which is a historical case. Great Britain allowed that ship to escape. The United States filed a claim against Great Britain for $15,000,000, part of which has been paid, and I understand the rest would have been paid if it had been possible to locate the owners of goods which were damaged. Then, during the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, a Russian destroyer took refuge in a Chinese port. China was a neutral country and could not either order the destroyer out or put it out. Well, the Japanese just went in there and blew up the ship. We all remember the case of the German cruiser Dresden during the last war. Oh, yes, the cruiser was a long way from home, but still this happened out in the Pacific. The Dresden escaped after the battle of the Falkland islands. The British warships hunted the Dresden for three months and finally located it in Chilean territory at 31111-584
Juan Fernandez island. Rather than, surrender the ship the commander had the crew taken off and then he blew up and sank the cruiser.
I know there are some who say that war between the United States and Japan is unthinkable. Pray heaven it never comes! But if one believes the statements we have heard in this house recently that preparation for war brings war. there is then certainly a grave possibility of war between those two nations, because they are arming at an unprecedented rate. If war ever takes place, let me warn the house and the country that we cannot stay out of it. It is no idle boast of the Japanese on our coast that if war ever occurs, she intends to use the territory of British Columbia as a base for operations. AVhether we like it or not., we are not going to escape the responsibility of lack of enforcement of neutrality in the event of hostilities between two other nations. If American trade were interfered with on our Pacific coast and if it were known that a Japanese submarine or destroyer were harboured in any of our ports, the United States would not hesitate for a moment, and rightly so, to come in and take complete charge of the territory.
Yet there are those who say that our remaining neutral does not imperil us. I say again to the hon. member for Vancouver North, when he speaks of being neutral, to look at the matter from a practical viewpoint, from the standpoint of realities. If he does he will come to the viewpoint to which I have come, that we cannot remain neutral unless we are prepared to do more not only toward chasing out an enemy ship but toward protecting our own.
I had not intended speaking as long as this, but I thought it incumbent upon me to rise in my place and say that I for one could not and would not support the want of confidence motion, believing as I do that it is the duty of a nation to defend herself. I realize the truth of what the hon. member said, that perhaps more should be done for social purposes and by way of alleviating distress. I am all for this, but I agree with Adam Smith who many years ago said that defence is greater than opulence. In this country opulence means trade and commerce. If we are going to take our part as a nation, it is high time we began looking after our own defence.


Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the impas-

National Dejence-Mr. Pelletier
sioned speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) as it was delivered both before and after recess. It was almost as forceful as some of his speeches I read regarding proposals for credit and currency in terms of public need. However, since he made those speeches he has become Minister of National Defence, and his slogan seems to have been altered to guns and battleships, in terms of military demand.
He spoke about lack of consistency in the amendment, as well he should; he himself is so consistent that he must deplore inconsistency in anyone else. I would ask hon. members to note how strikingly similar both slogans are; both demand something for someone. Of course, it is not the same "someone," but one must remember that the minister is not now occupying the same position as he did at another time. This may account for the slight change of wording.
However, ait this session, of parliament he is about to ask for a vote of some millions of dollars to be expended, as he explains, for national defence purposes. May I state clearly at this point that this afternoon the minister stated that this is not in any way to be considered as helping in, or part of the British Empire defence plan. A short time ago the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) stated that we should speak about the glorious part Great Britain has taken in order to preserve world peace. I do not for one moment doubt ilhat all the glory coming to her should be given her. She should be given credit for it, but in view of the declaration of policy of the Minister of National Defence, I fail to see that in these defence estimates we are called upon to make any decision on that particular point. Apparently he does not wish to 'associate himself with any empire defence plan. On the other hand, he does not like to prepare for war, and would have us believe that these expenditures are merely for the defence of Canada, and of Canada alone.
In view of the fact that last year we spent millions of dollars for the same purpose and that this year we are called upon to spend more millions of dollars, it seems to me the question of defence is one which should be defined. I wonder where the limit is going to be, so far as defence is concerned. That- is one thing the minister has not fold us. For example, he told us about the efficiency of his department. His department had pointed out to him what was needed in Canada. They wanted some battle ships, some anti-aircraft guns, new equipment, and so on. I find in a return tabled at this session that some
^Mr. Pelletier.]
$45,807,928 was spent strictly for military requirements since 1920. Yet we find the Minister of National Defence telling the house that we have nothing by way of defence in Canada. He tells us we have not a gun worth while keeping; he says we have no machine guns, no anti-aircraft guns, despite an expenditure of over $45,000,000. I am wondering where the money went.
This afternoon he pointed out the necessity for the defence of Canada, should anyone attack us. But, like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), he failed to mention who the supposed enemy might be. The Minister of Justice ait least said that there were three or four dogs, allegedly mad,, running around Europe. They 'have not yet snarled at the Minister of Justice, because he did not name them. Undoubtedly a local disturbance of such a nature as to demand all the hearing powers of the Minister of National Defence must surround him, and prevent him from hearing the same noises as does the Minister of Justice. We are told by the Minister of National Defence that these are armaments for defence purposes. What do other nations say? Germany is arming, and Hitler says:
It must be thoroughly understood that the lost lands will never be won back by solemn appeals to the good God, nor by pious hopes in any league of nations, but only by force of arms.
Italy is also arming, and Mussolini says:
We reject the absurdity of eternal peace, which is foreign to our creed and our temperament. We must be strong; we must be always stronger; we must be so strong that we can face any eventuality.
Russia is also arming, and Stalin says:
The trend towards disarmament is openly being replaced by a trend toward arming and rearming. The people of the U.S.S.R. would fight to the very death to preserve the gains of the revolution.
France, too, is arming. Premier Leon Blum says:
The Europe of 1914 has been reconstituted not only in its material but in its moral elements. Faith in peace is shaken and dislocated. The final catastrophe seems to be preferred to the worry.
Great Britain is arming, too. My point is that exactly the same situation prevailed in the years prior to the last war. This is something which should cause alarm. I have in my hand the speeches delivered in the Imperial House of Commons in August, 1914, relative to Great Britain and to European powers. I ask hon. members to note how similar are the pronouncements of the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice at this session of parliament, in

National Defence-Mr. Pelletier
these times, to those spoken in 1914 in the British House of Commons. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir Edward Grey, said this:
Last week I stated we were working for peace-
The Minister of National Defence said exactly the same thing to-day. Sir Edward Grey continues:
-not only for this country

The minister would have some of us believe that it is only for this country.
-but to preserve the peace of Europe. To-day events move so rapidly that it is exceedingly difficult to state with technical accuracy the actual state of affairs.
The Minister of National Defence no doubt realizes that the world is faced with exactly the same eventualities to-day. We have the same pronouncements about the building up of armaments in order to defend the integrity of one's country or to bring about world peace, but let us see what the result has been of all these cries about saving democracy for posterity, fighting in defence of freedom, and so on, because in the final analysis it is results that count.
Apparently a large number of people have been forgotten, and perhaps it is right to forget them because they are dead. They are the eight million people who gave up their lives in the last war. There died in the last war 1,611,014 Germans; 1,427,800 Frenchmen; 2,672,064 Russians; 911,000 Austrians; 807,451 Englishmen; 507,160 Italians. Those were the soldiers who died in the last war. This number does not include many others of other nations who met their deaths in the last war, and all this was done after we had been told by the great statesmen of the world that they were arming in order to keep democracy safe for posterity.
Now let us see how many were wounded in the last war. The number was 20,297,551 soldiers wounded. Even to-day in this Canada of ours we can go about the country and in all parts we find soldiers who are still lying on their beds of agony as a result of the wounds they received in the last war. In addition, there were 9,000,000 war orphans, and 5,000,000 war widows. The total capitalized value of the civilian lives lost has been estimated to be $33,551,276,280, and I give it to the very last dollar because it is so many dollars' worth of civilian lives. The property loss on land was figured at $29,960,000,000; property loss on sea, $6,800,000,000; loss to neutrals, $2,000,000,000, and loss to the world, $337,846,189,667.
The hon. member behind me asks, where does the money come from? I wonder. It is something that cannot be explained by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when we require certain moneys for social purposes. It is something that cannot be explained by any of the governments under the present existing financial system. They do not know where the money is to come from for social services, but when it is to be used for purposes of destruction, to snuff out the lives of brother human beings, to build up armaments with which they can fight and kill each other, then there is no difficulty about finding all the money that is necessary, and in destroying all the goods that we could put to better use.
I have no doubt it is quite easy for the Minister of National Defence to make such an impassioned plea as he did to-night, because he is surrounded by many of his colleagues who are honoured and happy to applaud him every once in a while. That gives him a great deal of courage, and undoubtedly pushed him to extremes so far as his oration to-night was concerned. When I saw his colleagues pounding their desks to-night, and saw the minister of National Defence himself pounding his own desk this afternoon, I felt they were pounding upon the hearts of those who are always the losers in any war, and that is the mothers in all countries. They are always the losers, and have been in every war since man first lifted his hand against his brother. Millions of them are now the mothers of spirits whom once they called their sons.
So, I cannot find it within myself to support increased armaments for Canada because I do not believe these armaments are really and truly only for purposes of national defence. The Prime Minister this afternoon-and I think I heard him correctly-denied that any sort of agreement either implied or otherwise existed between any country and Canada in connection with these millions of dollars which Canada is asked to expend on armaments. I would point out, however, that before the last great war broke out, an agreement or at least an understanding existed between the general staffs of Great Britain and Belgium that was not recorded at the time but was eventually found to have been in existence, and when we read statements such as were made by outstanding men like Sir Samuel Hoare recently in England, I cannot see much consistency in the statement of the Minister of National Defence that these armaments are not for empire defence. It is almost impossible to know what the true position is. The govern-
91S	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Bertrand (Laurier)
ment persistently refuse to give us their policy. They tell us they do not want to have anything to do with the British Empire, that these moneys are not for empire defence. They have repeated that time and time again. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) feels he can support these estimates because he believes they are not for the purpose of empire defence, but in the next breath he would like to have us contribute something to Great Britain. It is most difficult to know the true position, and until such time as we have a definite statement from the government as to what these armaments are really for, I cannot find myself able to vote for these increased armaments.


Mr. ERNEST BERTRAND (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, this question is very important, first, on account of the amount involved, and second, on account of the principle involved.
If we consider the amount involved, and compare it with what was expended in previous years, it is rather a large amount; but if we compare this amount with what has been voted in countries like the Argentine Republic, Chile, Switzerland or the Irish Free State, it is not a large amount. The South American countries have no more reason to arm than we have. If the Monroe doctrine means anything, they are protected by it just as much as we are. They are further away from Europe and Asia, and yet they spend larger amounts on armaments than we are asked to spend, If the amount is considered in relation to the armaments that we had here, it is not a large amount because we had nothing at all before, as was so well said by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie).
But I feel that the question is rather one of principle, and the principle involved is that of contribution to the future wars of Europe. If national defence meant contribution to the future wars of Europe, then I say undoubtedly I would have to be against national defence. If it meant contribution to European wars, I am sure that the people of my own province would soon ask themselves the question: Is it worth while to stay within the British Empire if we have to go to war because South Africa wants its independence recognized, because Germany wants its colonies back, or for any other reason?
But if we have to defend1 Canadian territory and if it means only the defence of our territory, I am going to vote heartily for this measure of defence. It is true, in my opinion, that, legally speaking, we are just as independent as we can be. The Statute

of Westminster is not, unfortunately, a title that we can take and register in the book of independence as a proprietor would register title to his own property. Perhaps because we have not gained this statute at the price of bloodshed, we do not accord it as much importance as we should. On the other hand, we bear the earmark of a British country; we have the same flag; we have the same king, and if England or some other part of the British Empire were attacked, we would have to defend ourselves. I say gladly that I am ready to stay a long time within the British Empire at the price of defending my own country against any attack. It is true that Canada is further removed than any other part of the empire from any conflict which we to-day can foresee. But the high seas are not so far away nowadays as they were many years ago. True, we cannot argue away the Atlantic or the Pacific ocean, but it must be remembered that Washington is nearer to London than it is to Mexico.
We hear a lot about the Monroe doctrine. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might give this house the benefit of some studies I have made recently with regard to that doctrine. It was formulated in 1823 as a defence against the Holy Alliance, reactionary powers of Europe that wanted to bring the Spanish colonies of South America into submission to Spain. It was directed against England, against France, and against Russia, but it was formulated without any request on the part of the South American colonies. It has been interpreted by the United States in fifty different ways, and its only meaning as far as that nation is concerned is that the United States shall intervene whenever they want to intervene and that they will not intervene if they feel it is in their interests not to do so. Very often its effect has been to stop other countries from interfering with the states of South America, not only from armed intervention but from purchasing land or territory when they wanted to acquire such lands or territories for themselves. We know what happened as far as Texas, New Mexico, upper California and Cuba are concerned. The Monroe doctrine is a doctrine of "no colonization." We are apt to forget that confederation itself was passed as an answer to that doctrine. I have before me a book written by Professor Reddaway, of Cambridge university, and he quotes the words of President Adams, some time in 1827, that "the union must soon include all North America." In 1866, not only the president of the United States but the house of representatives con-

National Defence-Mr. Bertrand (Laurier)
sidered a bill to annex the colonies north of their northern frontier, and Mr. Reddaway
says:
These feelings found utterance when, in 1866, the house of representatives considered a bill for the eventual annexation of the continent north of their own borders. They were answered by the British North America Act, which united Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick into a single dominion. This constituted the sharpest check which the development of the Monroe doctrine had received.
There are numerous quotations similar to this in the book to which I have referred and in another book written in 1897 by a French professor, M. Delarue de Beaumarchais. The South Americans did not like the Monroe doctrine. It is said in Mr. Reddaway's book that they never called for it and they never recognized it. As I said a few minutes ago, the United States have interpreted it to suit their own interests of the moment. With regard to Cuba, Mr. Reddaway states:
The question of Cuba, however, interwoven as it was with the question of slavery, continued to occupy the attention of the United States. The succeeding president, aiming at preventing emancipation by annexing the island, endorsed the Monroe doctrine in his message of 1853.
This is what I want to come to:
Next year-
In 1854.
. . . the ambassadors of the United States to London, Paris and Madrid met at Ostend, and astounded Europe by a manifesto. if Spain refused to sell Cuba to the republic, they declared, ail laws divine and human would justify the republic in taking it by force.
Well, I say that this is not a doctrine to protect the neighbours of the United States. Even if we were independent to-day we should have to spend more than we shall spend under the present program of the government. In 1895, war was almost brought about between the United States and Great Britain, by virtue of the Monroe doctrine, in connection with the borders between Guiana and Venezuela. But where the effect of the doctrine clearly showed itself is with relation to Cuba. I am not going to relate the more recent history of Cuba, for I think it is known to everybody, but I suggest it indicates that we should protect ourselves without having too much recourse to the Monroe doctrine. It indicates that if we depend upon the United States for our defence, we must pay for it. In the history of the United States, we cannot find anywhere that the American government has sacrificed money and men without receiving due return. We are all thankful for the part the United States took in the great war, and the words of General Pershing when he arrived in France,
" Lafayette, we are here," will go down in history. But we must also remember that four or five years afterwards congress said to the allies, and especially to France, " Lafayette, here is the bill." And they are still pressing for it.
So far as my province is concerned, the question is one of national defence, but our opponents in that province are trying to induce the people to believe that national defence means participation. Allow me to quote from a newspaper which is not particularly sympathetic to the Liberals in the province of Quebec; I refer to Le Devoir. I believe the editors of Le Devoir are sincere, but they forget what they wrote in 1914. I find in Le Devoir of August 3, 1914, the editor-in-chief, Mr. Heroux, writing the following words:
On annonce que la Commission du Port et la eompagnie du Grand-Tronc font particuliere-ment surveiller les elevateurs a grain et leur materiel, et que le Commission du Port a demands au gouvernement d'exercer une surveillance speciale sur les canaux et les ports. Tout cela est de premiere necessity et utile au premier chef au gouvernement canadien, comme la mise en defense de nos cotes et le maintien de la paix interieure.
Let me translate the principal words: "All that is of the greatest necessity and of vital importance to the Canadian government, and so is the proper defence of our shores and the maintenance of internal peace." But that is not all. Again, on August 3, 1914, Mr. Armand LaVergne made a speech which was reported in Le Devoir:	He said:
M. Armand Lavergne, le jeune depute nationa-liste, que l'on a interroge sur la participation du Canada a la guerre europerenne et sur la rumeur de son depart pour la guerre, a declare: "II n'est pas vrai que je pars pour la guerre ear j'ai toujours desapprouve la participation du Canada aux guerres k 1'etranger, que ee soit avec la France ou TAngleterre. Si les troupes sont mobilisees pour la defense du Canada, j'obeirai aux ordres. Je considere que les Canadiens rendraient un meilleur service 5. TAngleterre en protegeant Sydney, Halifax et Quebec, plutot que d'envoyer des troupes se battre en Europe.
Let me translate this again: "If mobilization is ordered for the defence of Canada I shall obey orders. I consider that Canadians will render a greater service to England in protecting Sydney, Halifax and Quebec, than in sending troops to fight in Europe." Well, to protect any of these ports or the port of Vancouver from a raid, we need anti-aircraft guns and boats to sweep the St. Lawrence clear of mines. We cannot defend these towns with water pistols or pea-shooters. On August 5, 1914, Le Devoir said:
Chaque lieure rend plus claire la gravite et Tetendue des mesures que nous impose la defense du Canada proprement dit-noire devoir
920	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Bertrand (Laurier)
particulier, ou personne ne nous suppleera et pour l'aecomplissement duquel nous ne devons rieri epargner.
This is important and I want to translate it: "Every moment shows more clearly the gravity and the extensiveness of the measures which the defence of Canada is imposing upon us, which is our duty where anybody may attack us, and for which we shall neglect nothing." I am not going to quote many more, though I could if I wanted to go through the files; but on August 5, 1914, Mr. Armand LaVergne also said:
En face de la situation qui nous est faite, nous devons nous demander, dit M. Lavergne, quels sont nos devoirs? Je considere que nous avons pour premier devoir de defendre notre territoire. Le danger que court l'Angleterre n'est pas dans l'armee autrichienne ni dans la flotte allemande. L'Angleterre peut etre affa-mee dans tous sens et nous devons proteger les ports de Sydney et de Halifax et garder libre la route du Saint-Laurent, afin de pouvoir lui offrir un grenier ou elle trouvera ses vivres.
I think this deserves to be translated at length: "Confronting the situation which is facing us we must ask ourselves what our duty is. I consider that our first duty is to defend our territory. The danger to England is not from the Austrian army or the German navy. England will be needing foodstuffs and we must protect our ports of Sydney and Halifax and keep free the St. Lawrence route so that she may have access to our granaries from which to secure her bread."
On August 17, Mr. Heroux of Le Devoir, wrote words that are still more in our favour to-day. He said:
Nous estimons avec la vieille tradition cana-dienne, que les obligations militaires du Canada se limitent a la defense du territoire: ee devoir, il est absolu et nous devons l'aeeomplir, quelle que soit 1'attitude du gouvernement ontarien. Si nous eroyions que notre devoir va au deli, nous dirions encore a nos eompatriotes: Accom-plissons ce devoir, quoi que fasse le gouvernement. On ne marehande pas dans ce domaine.
I translate: "We feel with the old Canadian tradition that the military obligations of Canada are limited to the national defence of our territory. This duty is absolute, and we must perform it whatever may be the attitude of the Ontario government to the school question. If we thought our duty went further we would so inform our compatriots. Let us discharge this duty, whatever may be done by the government of Ontario. We must not bargain in this domain." He was referring to the Ontario government of that time. These are words that are true to our best traditions and I am proud to-day to defend these preparations for national defence. I am proud to-day to support these proposals for national defence. I am proud

to think that the minister who first proposed in this house the act to set up the Canadian militia was a French-Canadian from Quebec, who sat among the Conservatives.
On July 9, 1914, before the war broke out Mr. Bourassa was in London, and, speaking before the Liberal Colonial Club, he is reported by the newspapers to 'have said:
II a declare qu'il appartenait a la Grande-Bretagne de garder les mers tandis que le Canada ferait sa part en defendant son territoire. M. Bourassa a tres bien resume la situation canadienne en montrant plusieurs partis oecu-pes a fortifier les liens imperialistes, pendant que les seuls nationalistes travaillaient sur des bases logiques au developpement de la defense nationale.
This means: He declared that the safekeeping of the high seas belonged to Great Britain, while Canada would do her share in defending her territory.
Mr. Bourassa summed up the Canadian situation by showing that other political parties were working for the imperial link, while the nationalists were working on a logical basis for the development of national defence.
Again, on February 24, 1917, speaking of Canadian statesmen, he said:
S'ils etaient restes fideles a la tradition canadienne et aux accords arretes avec la Grande-Bretagne, ils se seraient bornes a preparer la defense du territoire canadien.
Which means that if the government had restricted itself to the motives governing all other statements, if it had remained trua to Canadian tradition and to accords made with Great Britain, our statesmen would have restricted themselves to providing for the defence of Canadian territory.
Then, another question which is asked in the province of Quebec is: Where is the enemy? This question we can read in many newspapers, including Le Devoir. To-day with the airplane enemies may come from afar. But if there is a man who should not ask this question, it is the ex-director of Le Devoir. In 1914, Mr. Bourassa was in Europe; on July 30 he was in Strassbourg; on July 31 he was in Cologne, and on August 2 he was in Cologne. Coming back to this continent, on August 22 he gave to the newspapers an interview in which he said that he even had to walk to the German frontier, the train service being completely disorganized by the state of war, and that he had to leave his trunks in Germany.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the reasons why I intend to vote with the government and to vote against the motion. As a Canadian speaking the French language, I feel that I would be belittling my country if we did not

Dominion-Provincial Relations
make provision to defend ourselves properly. I should be belittling my province and my own race. To conclude, let me quote a word of Mr. Reddaway, written in 1898. Speaking of the southern nations of America, he said:
The nations of South America would no doubt sacrifice much to gain the United States as an ally. They would be untrue to their Spanish ancestors, on the other hand, if they accepted her protection at the price of any portion of their political independence.
If we rely solely on the Monroe doctrine for our defence, we are absolutely abandoning our independence, or at any rate a great part of it. I am sure that in my own province the leader of the government, whose ancestors suffered for the autonomy of Canada, is going to be looked upon as a true Canadian; the province of Quebec will have faith in him and will not have any trouble in voting for these appropriations.
On motion of Mr. Thorson the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Tuesday, February 16, 1937