1937-01-25

RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID LACROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 10, to amend the Railway Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency):: This bill is introduced to clarify the jurisdiction of the board of railway commissioners in connection with telephone tolls and services, and to fix the limits within which such tolls shall be applicable. A case was submitted to the board of railway commissioners when sitting in Quebec and the chairman, the Hon. Mr. Guthrie, declared that the board was without authority to act therein and suggested that the law be amended.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ESLING:: 1.	What is the total indebtedness of the Canadian National Railways to the public?
What is the total annual interest on this indebtedness?
3.	What is_ the total indebtedness of the Canadian National Railways to the consolidated revenue fund of Canada?
I- (a) On what portion of the indebtedness to the consolidated revenue fund is the Cana-d*an National Railways obligated for interest; lb) what amount, if any, of this obligation is paid annually?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	SI.184.612,248.59 at December 31, 1936
2.	$49,184,622.87 (1936).
3.	Of the total cash expenditures by the dominion, amounting to $1,468,611,114.00 (not including interest on loans) as shown on page 7 of the Department of Railways and Canals report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1936, the following are the amounts that may be considered as charged against the Canadian National Railways:
Loans to C.N.R. (includes loans to former privately-owned roads) on which interest is accrued but not Paid	$645,527,455.83*
31111-14J
Investment in Canadian government railways	
Stores and open accounts of Canadian government railways	
The following amounts are in suspense: Temporary loans (interest
paid currently)	
Expenditures under supplementary public works construction act, 1935 (unemployment relief)	
Balance covering all deficits, subsidies, and all other items which have been absorbed in the net debt of the dominion	
388,880,002.78
15,748,921.60
36,390,204.25
5,068,081.85
376,996,447.69
Total	$1,468,611,114.00
* Interest on $645,527,455.83 accrued and unpaid, to March 31, 1936, is $536,585,117.10, as shown in Auditor General's report, Volume 1, page 161, fiscal year 1935-36.
4.	(a) $645,527,455.85 C.N.R. loans (nonactive).
(b)	Nil.


CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS-EMPLOYMENT OF CANADIANS
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Has the recommendation, made by the industrial and international relations committee and passed by the House of Commons at the last session, relative to the employment of a greater number of Canadians by the Canadian national steamships, as applying particularly to the Atlantic coast, been acted upon by the said Canadian National Steamship Company?
2.	If so, to what extent?
3.	If not, why?


Mr. HOWE:: 1. The answers supplied by the Canadian National (West Indies) steamship management are as follows:
The Canadian National steamships are employing as many Canadians as possible on board all ships, and this policy has always been in effect, and at all times preference is given Canadians who have the necessary qualifications to handle the various positions involved.
2.	At the present time, the number of employees afloat is as follows:
Masters and officers, 45. (All of whom are Canadian residents and British subjects; 96 per cent are Canadian born).
Pursers' department, 24. (All of whom are British subjects).
Doctors, 7. (All of whom are British subjects, the majority being Canadians).
Questions

Engineers, 85. (All of whom are British subjects, 79 of which are domiciled in Canada and 6 in the British isles).
Plumbers and electricians, 16. (All of whom are British subjects and Canadian residents; 86 per cent of whom are Canadian-born).
Carpenters, boatswains, sailors, etc., 197. (All of whom are British subjects and Canadian residents; 97 per cent are Canadian-born).
Firemen and oilers, 138. (Twenty-six are Canadian residents, 112 West Indians; II are white and 124 coloured).
Stewards' department, 632. (Of this number 335 are West Indians, the balance are British subjects domiciled in Canada, 90 per cent of whom are Canadian-born).
The total number of employees afloat is 1,144.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SALE OF LAND IN HALIFAX, N.S.
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	Were tenders called for during the past year by the Canadian National Railways in connection with the sale of a parcel of land situated in Halifax, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what were the names and addresses af tenderers, and the amounts of respective tenders?
3.	Was said land sold; if so, to whom, for what amount, and what are the names and addresses of purchasers?
4.	Has deed been given for said land?
5.	If so, to whom, and what is the date of such deed?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes; by public advertisement in August, 1936, for 7-174 acres, fronting on Quinpool road, Halifax, expropriated by the crown in 1913, and found not to be required for railway
purposes.
2.	F. J. Crooks, Halifax, N.S.. .. $12,500 H. V. Cleveland, Dartmouth,
N.S	 12,055
Fred C. Manning, Halifax, N.S.	10,200
The Melvin S. Clarke Company,
Halifax, N.S	 7,800
J. E. Rutledge, Halifax, N.S..	5,500
H. Hemming, Halifax, N.S.. ..	5,200
3.	The board of trustees of Canadian National Railways by resolution of date September 4, 1936, recommended acceptance of the highest tender, that of F. J. Crooks, at $12,500. This offer was accepted and sale authorized by order in council, P.C. 2481, of September 24, 1936.
4.	Yes; by letters patent, No. 30219.
5.	Norwood Realties, Limited; November 27. 1936.


PRINCE ALBERT NATIONAL PARK-APPOINTMENTS
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	How are appointments made to the staff at Prince Albert National park?
2.	Was one Arthur Campbell employed there?
3.	Is he a British citizen?
4.	Are numerous unemployed ex-service men
resident in the Emma Lake district denied employment when others obtain work there? If so, why?	_
5.	On whose recommendation is such employment given?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	The civil service commission or the minister depending on the nature of employment.
2.	Yes, fourteen days from October 22nd to November 7, 1936, on telephone work and 193 hours during summer fighting fires.
3.	Not known.
4.	Park superintendent reports he is not aware that any ex-service men resident in Emma Lake district denied employment. Five men from Emma Lake district employed last season, of which one was ex-service man.
5.	Superintendent and park engineer pass on qualifications of men employed.


DISPOSITION OF IMPERFECTLY PRINTED POSTAGE STAMPS
Mr. WILTON:: 1.	What disposition is made of imperfectly printed air mail and other types of postage stamps?
2.	Is it true that they are offered for sale to stamp collectors in England, and not offered for sale to stamp collectors in Canada?
3.	If so, why are Canadian stamp collectors not given an opportunity to purchase these stamps?
4.	What is the financial income to the government annually, from the sale of imperfectly-printed postage stamps?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Stamps detected as being imperfectly printed are not accepted by the department. Wastage is destroyed at the manufacturer's plant under supervision of the Post Office Department.
Occasionally slight engraving defects in one or more stamps in a sheet of one hundred are observed by philatelists or collectors after these stamps have been sold to the public. When a number of orders are received at the department for these particular stamps, an examination is made and when the defect is discovered, the stamps are placed in the philatelic section in order that they may be available to all collectors.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 1 and No. 2.
4.	Face value.

Questions


WAIN WRIGHT BUFFALO PARK EMPLOYEES
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What parties share in the cost of the elimination of level crossings throughout Canada?
2.	In what proportion do they share this cost?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	In most cases the cost is divided among the railway grade crossing fund, the railway company, and the province or municipality.
2.	There is no set proportion for sharing the cost. In the majority of cases of payments coming under the railway grade crossing fund the cost is apportioned 40 per cent to the fund, 30 per cent to the railway company, and 30 per cent to the province or municipality. However, the division of cost among the railway company and the other parties may vary. Contributions up to 100 per cent of the cost of protective works may be authorized out of funds provided under votes 417 and 420, special supplementary estimates, 1936-37. In the majority of cases these funds have contributed 70 per cent and the remainder contributed by the province or municipality, or jointly by them and the railway company concerned.


HAMILTON, ONT., CUSTOMS COLLECTOR
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Was the office of chief customs inspector for the Hamilton, Ontario, district filled in order of seniority within that district?
2.	If not, why?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Apparently the hon. member for Wentworth refers to the position of collector of customs and excise for the port of Hamilton.
Following the established practice, the civil service commission invited applications from the permanent employees of the department located in inspection district No. 5, division "C," and from those attached to the inspection staff with headquarters at Ottawa who wished to be considered for the collectorship at Hamilton. The various applicants were rated by departmental officers on the basis of efficiency in their respective positions and their general fitness for advancement to this higher grade. The rating on seniority was fixed by the civil service commission, but seniority is only one factor in arriving at a decision. Mr. Adam Ballentine, of the inspection staff at Ottawa since 1934 but who was formerly attached to the Hamilton port for approximately twenty-eight years, being considered the best qualified candidate, was promoted to the collectorship by the civil service commission.


Mr. FAIR:: 1.	Who is responsible for engaging and dismissing the help at the Wainwright buffalo park?
I* under the Civil Service Commission?
3.	When was he appointed?
4.	What is his salary?
5.	Is he permitted to dismiss returned soldiers whose work has been satisfactory?
6.	How many men have been dismissed since October 22, 1935?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	The civil service commission or the minister, depending on the nature of the employment.
2,	3, 4, 5. Answered by No. 1.
6.	In addition to the permanent supervisory, clerical and warden staff there are a number of persons employed at Buffalo national park in positions which are exempt from the operation of the Civil Service Act. All such employment is considered temporary as the personnel changes from time to time according to the labour requirements for the park. These employees may be divided into two classes, as follows:-
(a)	Those who occupy seasonal positions who are employed for varying periods each year.
The superintendent's November attendance statement shows -there were ten (10) of this class of employees in November last and these same ten (10) employees were shown on the attendance return for October, 1935, during which month there were fifteen (15) of such employees. The services of five (5) were dispensed with since October 22, 1935.
(b)	Those who may be classed as casual labourers employed from time to -time as required for short periods.
Employees in this class were engaged and retired as and when it became necessary to do so.


DEMONSTRATION FARMS-ILLUSTRATION STATIONS
Mr. LAOOMBE:: 1.	Does the federal Department of Agriculture establish demonstration farms?
2.	If so, does the said department make a grant to the proprietor of the farm which is utilized for demonstration purposes?
3.	What is the amount of the grant generally given ?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	The federal Department of Agriculture does not make grants to establish demonstration farms.
The federal Department of Agriculture does operate illustration stations which involve
Questions

only such areas of the farmers' property as may be required for plot work for the purpose of discovering the applicability of the results of experiments on experimental farms to other localities in that region.
2.	In connection with illustration stations the federal Department of Agriculture does not make any grant to the operators.
3.	For small areas ranging from 8 to 25 acres, for plot work, the rental is $5 per acre, per annum. For larger areas, for rotation and cultural trials, the rental is $1 per acre per annum.
The operator in return must conduct all operations under close supervision of the departmental supervisor, do the work accurately, maintain records, and give liberally of his time to visiting farmers. The area is used for field meetings, demonstrations and to otherwise serve the agricultural interests of the locality.


MR. GALLACHER, MEMBER OF BRITISH HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: 1.	Did Mr. Gallaeher, member of the House of Commons in England, come to Canada during the last twelve months, and, if so, how long did he stay in our country?
2.	What was the purpose of his visit?
3.	Did the government receive any protests against his admission into Canada?
4.	Is the government aware that he gave lectures or made addresses in favour of communism?
5.	If so, did the government take any steps to prevent him?


Mr. CRERAR:: .
1.	Yes. The exact length of his visit is not known.
2.	Was admitted as non-immigrant. The department has no information as to the purpose of Mr. Gallacher's visit otherwise than as a visitor. It has always been the Canadian custom to extend courtesies to members of the British House of Commons or other persons in a similar position, in the same way as similar courtesies are extended to the members of the Canadian House of Commons.
3.	Yes-one.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by number 4.


REVENUE DERIVED BT PROVINCES FROM DOMINION AND BY DOMINION FROM PROVINCES
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	How much revenue, directly and indirectly, was derived, in 1935 and 1936, by the dominion treasury from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and British Columbia, respectively?
2.	How mpch revenue, directly and indirectly, have Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and British Columbia, respectively, derived from the dominion treasury in 1935 and 1936?


Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. Speaker, this is a
question which it is impossible to answer. I have no means of securing this information accurately.
Question dropped.


WAIN WRIGHT BUFFALO PARK FARM SUPERVISOR
Mr. FAIR:: 1.	Who is the present farm supervisor at Wainwright buffalo park?
2.	What is his salary?
3.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
4.	Had he any previous experience?
5.	If so, how long?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	D. H. Folkins.
2.	$1,800 per annum.
3.	Owing to the conditions existing at the park and among the animals it was considered advisable to secure the services of a technical agriculturist and the present incumbent was chosen because he possessed these qualifications.
4 and 5. Graduate of the Vermilion School of Agriculture, also Bachelor of Scientific Agriculture, from the University of Alberta.
For over six years has taken active part in management of 2,000 acre farm and 300 head of live stock at Chauvin.


HAMILTON, ONT., FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What departmental offices of the federal government in Hamilton, Ontario, are not housed in the new Federal Building, or other buildings owned by the government?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	What rentals are being paid for the premises they occupy ?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	(a) Post Office Department (handling of mails); (b) National Defence Department (R.C.N.V.R.); (c) National Defence Department (armoury).
2.	(a) Canadian National railway station; (b) 41 Stuart street; (c) 242-246 James street North.
3.	(a) $3,750 per annum; (b) $1,500 per annum; (c) $2,200 per annum (lease to be terminated January 31, 1937).


MARKET GARDENING PRODUCTS
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What was the approximate value of market gardening products produced in Canada during the year 1936?
2.	What percentage of this was produced by Ontario growers?

Questions


Mr. ROGERS:: 
FRENCH VILLAGE, N.S., WHARF
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Were certain repairs made to the government ivharf at French Village in the county of Halifax, Nova Scotia, during the year 1936?
2.	If so, what was the (a) cost* of material; (b) cost of labour?


Mr. CARDIN:: Yes.
2. (a) $699.80; (b) $562.18.


CUBAN DUTY ON CANADIAN SEED POTATOES
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Was a duty of $10 per barrel recently imposed by the Cuban government upon Canadian certified seed potatoes entering that country?
2.	If so, on what date was this duty to take effect ?
3.	Has the Canadian government or any department thereof made any representations to the Cuban government with the object of having the duty removed or lowered?
4.	If representations were made, what was the nature of such and to what effect?


Mr. ROGERS:: (1)	The Cuban tariff provides that whole potatoes, of the varieties:	Bliss Triumph,
Green Mountain, Irish Cobbler, Presidente (Never Rot), certified to be seed, and imported to be used exclusively for seed with formalities and guarantees established by the treasury department, are duty-free when imported from September 1 to January 31 inclusive of each year. Potatoes certified to be seed, cut in pieces, with eyes plainly visible, preserved in ashes or other substances, are duty-free all year. Potatoes from Canada which do not come within the aforementioned categories are dutiable at 810 per 100 kilogs. (220-4 pounds) gross weight, if imported between November 1 to June 30, and $8 if imported during the other months of the year. While there has been no recent change in the actual duty, a Cuban decree gazetted January 18, 1937, not to be enforced pending a further decree, proposed an alteration in the nature of the bond previously required as a guarantee that potatoes would be used for seed. The new decree called for a cash deposit or bank guarantee that the seed would be planted in Cuba within three months. The cash deposit or bank guarantee presumably contemplated the amount corresponding with the rate of duty leviable in the event of the regulations for free entry of seed potatoes not being met. A further decree gazetted January 21 removes any difficulties arising out of the decree of January 18.
(2)	Answered by No. 1.
(3)	Yes.
(4)	A Cuban law of March 15, 1935, provides that countries which purchase from Cuba less than 25 per cent of their sales to Cuba shall be subject to the maximum tariff; if purchasing between 25 per cent and 50 per cent of their sales to Cuba, subject to the minimum tariff, increased by 25 per cent; if purchasing 50 per cent or more of their sales to Cuba, subject to the minimum tariff. In pursuance of this, Cuba as from March 10, 1936, applied her maximum tariff to Canada, except as regards some goods specially excluded from its scope, with the result that the maximum tariff rates quoted above apply to Canadian potatoes not admitted duty-free under the provision for certified seed potatoes. The maximum tariff is twice the minimum.
Representations have been made by the Canadian government to the Cuban government seeking removal of the maximum tariff on the ground that Cuban statistical returns do not give Canada credit for as large purchases of Cuban goods as are shown in Canadian statistics and also that Canada purchases Cuban goods in the United States. Negotiations are still proceeding for the conclusion of an arrangement which will remove Canadian products from liability to the Cuban maximum tariff.


PERPETUAL BOND ISSUES
Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: 1.	How many "perpetual bond" issues have Seen negotiated by the federal government, and for what amounts?
2.	What were the rates of interest, and the commissions to brokers on each?
3.	What are the annual brokers' commissions for bond flotations for the years 1926 to 1936 inclusive?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	One, $55,000,000.
2.	3 per cent interest rate; commission paid to banks, brokers and dealers-three-quarters of one per cent.
3.	Commissions paid to banks, brokers and dealers, fiscal year ended March 31:
1926	
$1,318,500	001927	
730,650	001928	1929	1930	1931	
1,604,000	001932	
4,559.449	531933	
796,485	001934	
2.602,608	021935	
2,018,268	961936	
3,135,476	50
Questions


C. P. FULLERTON
Mr. LEADER:: 1.	When was C. P. Fullerton appointed to the bench: (a) how long did he serve, and (b) what Tvas the amount of salary received?
2.	When was C. P. Fullerton appointed as chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada: (a) how long did he serve, and (b) what was the total amount of his remuneration?
3.	When was C. P. Fullerton appointed chairman of the board of trustees of the Canadian National Railways, and what was the amount of his salary?
4.	Did C. P. Fullerton receive a gratuity in addition to his salary as chairman of the above board; if so, what was the amount of this gratuity?
5.	Is provision being made for granting a pension to C. P. Fullerton; if so, what is the amount of his pension?
6.	Will the receipt of this pension preclude Mr. Fullerton from practising his profession in Canada?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	July 20, 1917; (a) until August 12, 1931; (b) $7,000 ,per year from date of appointment until July 1, 1921, when salary was increased to $9,000.
2.	August 12, 1931; (a) until December 31, 1933; (b) salary as chief commissioner was $12,500 per annum; total remuneration received was $27,617.60.
3.	January 1, 1934, at $30,000 per annum.
4.	Following his retirement as chairman of the board of trustees, he received a remunerative payment of $30,000 from Canadian National Railways.
5.	He is entitled to a pension of $6,000 per annum as a former judge.
6.	No.


CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD
Mr. GOSSELIN:: 1.	If the loan records of the Canadian Farm Loan Board at Ottawa are not kept hy constituencies. or, at least, by counties where registry offices are established, are such records kept by counties at the Quebec branch office?
2.	If such records in and for the province of Quebec are not kept by counties at the Quebec branch office, why are they not so kept?
3.	If such records in and for the province of Quebec are not kept by counties at the Quebec branch office, is it the intention, (a) to have such records in and for the province of Quebec kept, in the future, by counties, and (b) to have them compiled by counties for at least the years 1935 and 1936?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	No.
2.	Records are not required by the board in this form for the purposes of administration and the additional expense involved in maintaining such records has not accordingly been considered as warranted.


NATIONAL PARK, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. RYAN:: 1.	Did the government of the province of New Brunswick notify the dominion government that a site for the establishment of a national park had been selected?
2.	If so, what site has been selected?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	No. A parks officer has investigated certain sites suggested by the province for consideration but no selection has been made.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


OLD AGE PENSIONS, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. RYAN:: 1.	How many persons have qualified for old age pensions in the province of New Brunswick?
2.	Of this number, how many are being paid the maximum amount of $20 per month?
3.	What amount of money has the dominion government paid the province of New- Brunswick under the Old Age Pensions Act?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	9,986 (July 1 to December 31, 1936).
2.	At December 31, 1936, the number receiving $20 a month was 605. Number of pensions on December pay-lists, 9,617.
3.	$559,271.96.


BOOK OF REMEMBRANCE
Mr. PINARD:: 1.	What progress has been made to date w-ith the Book of Remembrance?
2.	How many names have been inscribed therein to date?
3.	What is the total number of names to be recorded ?
4.	Who prepared the official list of names?
5.	When is it expected to complete the book?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	All materials, with the exception of leather for binding the cover of the book, have been procured and are in stock. The names of all Canadians who died whilst serving with the Canadian Expeditionary Force have been compiled. The names of Canadians who died whilst serving with the British Forces are being compiled. The illuminating of the title and dedicatory pages is well in hand, and the illumination of the name pages has been commenced.
2.	40,140 names have been inscribed by hand.
3.	Approximately 66,990.
4.	The Department of National Defence.
5.	31st March, 1939.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. COLDWELL:: 1. What was the total cost to the dominion and provincial authorities in connection w-ith the inquiry into the Regina riots during the year 1935?

Motions for Papers
2.	What was the total cost to the dominion authorities in this connection?
3.	What are the names of those who were employed by the dominion government in connection w'ith this inquiry?
4.	What payments were made to each of the said counsel, (a) during the fiscal year 19341935; (b) during the current fiscal year?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: 1.	How many immigrants have entered Canada each month from February 1, 1936, to January 1. 1937?
2.	Were they all natives of the country from which they migrated to Canada?
3.	What was the country of origin of each such person?


GOLD RESERVE
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	How much gold reserve is held by the dominion treasury?
2.	How much currency is issued by each chartered bank?
3.	How many loans are issued by each of such banks ?
4.	How much currency is issued by the Bank of Canada?
5.	How much does it cost to operate the Bank of Canada?
6.	What is the salary of the president of the Bank of Canada?
7.	What are the salaries of all other officials of the said bank?
8.	What is the purpose of the Bank of Canada?
9.	Who are the presidents of each of the chartered banks?
10.	What are their respective salaries?
11.	Are chartered banks controlled by a central organization?
12.	What principle controls the amount of the issue of such banks?
13.	What per cent of currency issued in Canada is backed by gold?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, in asking that this question stand as an order for return, I should like to point out that the information asked for in some of the questions is not in the possession of the government and, therefore, cannot be given. The return will be made as completely as possible.



C. P. FULLERTON

Mr. LEADER:: Was C. P. Fullerton, K.C., ever employed by the federal government, and, if so, in what capacity; (1) how long was he employed; (2) what was the amount of his remuneration?



FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO NEW BRUNSWICK

Mr. RYAN:: Hoav much money ivas contributed by the dominion government to the province of New Brunswick during the years 1935-1936 for (a) direct relief; (b) dominion and provincial projects to create employment?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all pay rolls shoAving money expended and to Avhom paid, on certain public works carried out in the parish of Cambridge, Queens county, Neiv Brunswick: (a) on Humphries wharf; (b) on Motts wharf.



CUMBERLAND COUNTY, N.S., PUBLIC AVORKS

Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a copy of all pay rolls showing money expended and to whom it ivas paid, in connection with certain public works carried out in district No. 10, Cumberland county, Nova Scotia, in the year 1936, on: (a) breakwater built at Eatonville; (b) public Avorks at West AdA'ocate.



MILL COVE, N.B., POSTMASTER

Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a copy of all papers, affidavits, evidence, correspondence and other documents concerning the dismissal of Mr. Charles Orchard, former postmaster at Mill Cove post office, Queens county, New BrunsAvick, together with a statement of cost of investigation shoAving to Avhotn money Avas paid.



FISHING BOUNTY PAYMENTS

Mr. DONNELLY (for Mr. Kinley):: For a copy of orders in council relating to the payment of fishing bounty prior to April 26, 1922, and also order in council in effect after April 26, 1922.



SHERBROOKE, QUE., ASSISTANT CUSTOMS AND EXCISE INSPECTOR

Mr. LACOMBE (for Mr. Lalonde):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents relative to the appointment by the Civil Service Commission of an assistant bilingual inspector of Customs and Excise for the district of Sherbrooke, province of Quebec, and bearing the examination number 25508.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
RIVIERE DU LOUP-GASPE DISTRICT TIE CONTRACT!
Mr. MAURICE BRASSET (Gaspe) moved
For a copy of all correspondence exchangee between C. P. MacLaren, purchasing depart ment, Canadian National Railways, Montreal and J. A. Romeo Lynch, Matapedia, Quebec, in connection Avith tie contracts granted by the Canadian National Raihvays in the district from RiA-iere du Loup to Gaspe, since 1930 to date. Also a statement showing the names and addresses of contractors and the amount of each contract.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, this motion refers to correspondence between the purchasing department of the Canadian National Railways and one of its contractors. It is the practice of the government, in the case of its independently man-
2 IS

Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Neill
aged corporations, to ask the corporation for the information desired, and to table it if the corporation cares to give it. In this case the Canadian National Railways have followed their usual practice of refusing to give the information sought. I would say, however, that the officers of the Canadian National Railways appear during each session before the special committee on railways and shipping prepared to answer any questions relating to internal management of the railway property and the hon. member can obtain the information at that time.
Motion dropped.



SALMON TRAP NETS


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the best interests of British Columbia would be served by the government ceasing to issue trap fishing licences in British Columbian waters.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the importance of this matter to the fishermen of British Columbia, the urgent need for immediate action, and the fact that there is an international angle to the situation is I think justification for my bringing the matter up at this time.
May I digress for a moment to suggest to the government that the business of this chamber would be expedited and the consideration of such matters as the one before us even better undertaken if we went back to the old custom when the present leader of the government was in power a number of years ago, when it was usual for the Minister of Fisheries or the chairman of the fisheries committee to move at the beginning of the session that the report of the fisheries department be referred to the committee on fisheries. In that way we would be able to bring before that committee practically any matter connected with the fishing industry without its having to be formally referred there by this house. If some member brought before the committee a grievance that found few sympathizers in the committee the matter ended there and the house was not troubled with it, but if the grievance was shown to be a substantial one the committee would bring in a report to be dealt with in the house. But the rule now is to consider nothing whatsoever in the committee that has not been referred to it by the house. That forces members who have a matter such as I have before me to bring it up here for discussion in a superficial way before members many of whom are not interested in the subject, and then perchance have 
it sent to the committee where the performance has to be gone through all over again. It would save the time of this house if we were allowed to discuss these matters originally, so to speak, in the committee.
Coming to the motion now before the house, I shall endeavour to be as brief as possible. There are four major methods of fishing salmon in British Columbia-trolling, gill netting, purse seining, and trapping.
Trolling, which must not be confounded with the system of trawling as practised on the Atlantic, is always done by one man in a small boat; it might be a row boat, but the great majority of them are boats from eighteen to thirty feet in length, powered with an engine, and the boat is kept moving along slowly, dragging behind it from five to seven lines with baited hooks attached to catch the fish. In that way they get the best quality of the particular kind of fish that they can fish for, and they get the best market, as principally it goes to the fresh fish market. I think it is safe to say that in that way there is a bigger return for the individual fisherman per fish than there is by any other method that we practise out there. The trolling is restricted by certain difficulties. First of all, only two or three varieties of salmon will take the hook or bait in that way. Secondly, the weather very often prevents them fishing for three or four days at a time. Thirdly, even when they are fishing they are limited, because the fish will bite at only certain hours of the day. Their gear naturally occupies a very small space; that is to say, the width of it, if they are running through a school of fish, would be only twenty or thirty feet, so there is no possible fear of the fish being depleted by means of trolling.
The next method is that of gill nets, which is very often done by the same men in the same boat at a different season of the year. They have a long net which is buoyed in an upright position by floats, and it drifts down with the current or the tide. The mesh is made of a size that when the fish endeavour to go through they will be caught by the gills, and so they are taken. The government by regulation says that the mesh shall be such that only the biggest and finest fish are taken. The length of the net is very strictly defined. They can fish only at night, -not by law, but that is the only time they can operate. There is a forty-eight hour close season each week, with power to the chief supervisor to extend it if necessary to a greater number of hours. They are allowed to put a net only so close to another-I think they must be one hundred yards apart. So it is obvious that there, too, the fish have an

Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Neill
ample chance to escape. It is recognized that both these methods permit the salmon every opportunity to get away. The policy of the government for many years past has been to encourage this and rather to curtail fishing by means of seines of which I will speak in a minute. But of course they are conscious of the fact that certain waters under certain conditions can be fished only by means of seines.
The next method is that of purse seines. They use larger boats with a crew of as many as seven men. They have a large net, 200 fathoms long-nearly a quarter of a mile. They fish almost entirely by day. When they see signs of a school of fish they let out the net and make a wide circle, bringing the end of the net around to where it started from. Then they hastily pull the purse part of it, that is the rope at the bottom, which closes in the fish, otherwise the fish would dive and escape the net. It is something like the ^ld-fashioned lady's coin purse that used to be used. Suppose the fish are schooled, that is gathered together, and are at the mouth of the liver where they are getting ready to go up and spawn; if there were nothing to prevent it the fishermen would go right to the mouth of the river and ruin the catch in one year-certainly in two, because they take practically ninety per cent of the fish-and it would: be ten or fifteen years before the run would recover. Consequently the government makes rules to prevent the seines from going within half a mile of the mouth of the river, and in some cases debar them for as far as two miles. They may take a few score or several thousand fish at one turn of the net, and they take everything that is inside the net-trout and every other kind of fish that happens to be there. Consequently the government saw fit, and properly so, to put heavy restrictions on these operations. The fishing can be done only by daylight: that is not a regulation but a fact, because they cannot fish by night. They have a forty-eight hour weekly close season imposed on them, and more if deemed necessary. They are not allowed to tie their nets to the shore, which would multiply by a hundred per cent their ability to fish, as traps do; and if they do so they are liable to a heavy penalty and their boat and gear are confiscated. They are allowed only twenty minutes from the time their net touches the water until it must be closed; if it is open beyond that time they are subject to a penalty. All this is calculated to restrict their activities and give the fish, or at least some of them, a fighting chance to escape. The length of the net is very sharply defined; so is the mesh, and the
superintendent can close their operations at any time on the most summary notice; he can declare a whole area closed to seine fishing.
Now we come to traps, and that is a very different picture. There the butter is all on one side of the bread. Fish traps well located are the blue ribbon of the fishing industry. What a marshal's baton is to the soldier, or the supreme court bench to the lawyer, or the senate to the politician, so is a well established fish trap to the fishermen of the Pacific coast. Of course these paradises are hard to achieve entry into. The scripture says " many are called, but few are chosen." Perhaps I might paraphrase that by saying that many call and only a few can be chosen. However it is the one highest ambition, the blue ribbon of the industry, to get hold of a well located fish trap site. It is generally admitted, perhaps not by those who actually use it. but even by those who would like to get one, that it is a most destructive form of fishing. The owners call it " effective," which it undoubtedly is; other people call it ruinous. It takes everything and leaves nothing behind it. There is no escape. Once a fish gets within half a mile in front of one of these traps there are only two ways by which he can evade the trap. One is by climbing around it at the end, by the shore, on the land, making a portage around; the other is equally impossible, in so far as the instinct of the salmon is involved, that is to turn and go back, because the salmon are full of the homing instinct to go on to the river or the creek where they will spawn, and nothing will divert them from that. If they cannot go forward they will stay there and die, for they certainly will not go back.
The trap is built right out from shore as no other gear is. It is pegged out by a row of poles driven in the ground, and hung with a heavy net-in many cases a wire net- closely meshed so that it is impossible for the salmon to get through it. There is no limit to the length they can go out; they can go a mile if they like, provided it is convenient. When the fish come along there is a solid wall that obstructs their progress. Usually it is put at a headland, where the fish are going along hugging the corner, much as a man will do who is driving along a road and, turning to the right, naturally keeps to the right side of the road. So the fish, hugging the headland, run up against this obstacle. They try to go through it; they nose along, go, say, to the left, and run against the shore; then they turn to the opposite side, the right, and nose along, pushing, pushing, trying to get through, following their instinct. Presently

Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Neill
they come to a nice open space, with no apparent obstruction. Naturally they go in there, thinking they are getting along, and presently they find themselves in the pot of the trap, in the centre of a maze from which there is no escape whatever. And that is the end.
These traps are "lifted," as it is called, once or twice a day. Sometimes they take ten thousand fish in a lift, and it has been- known to go as high as thirty thousand. But even at ten thousand, with two lifts a day, and only four or five -men being employed, is it to be wondered- that there is agitation and prejudice, in these days of unemployment, among those interested in the fishing industry in British Columbia against such methods? It would take two hundred trailers to catch that number of fish. And they take everything; there is no discrimination:	small,
immature fish

all go into the trap. The other means of gear can fish only twelve hours on account of the weather, or between daylight and dark, and those operating them have to g-o out and find the fish, which may take half of their open hours, but the trap owner need only to sit tight and wait and the fish will come to him twenty-four hours of the day. The gill netting and seining have a forty-eight hour restriction per week, and so has the trap; but the others are liable to further restrictions, and the trap is not. Some years ago it was found necessary to have a complete ten days' shut-down in the middle of the season on gill netting and seining on the coast in order to encourage conservation, but it did not apply to this favoured method known as trap fishing.
I said it was effective, and so it is. So is a gun in the hands of a madman very effective. It has been said that it is cheap. Well, it is cheap-it is cheap if you care not for the conservation of fish or for the maintenance of the fishermen employed in the industry. So is an automatic shot gun cheap and effective, but you are not allowed to use one when you go duck-hunting. A machine gun would be effective against deer and -bigger game, but you are not allowed to use one. Why are y-ou not allowed to use salmon roe as -bait for trout? Because it is recognized to be so effective that it would not give the trout a chance; it would not give them an even break, so to speak, and it is therefore forbidden by law.
I might mention the views of someone else, because sometimes an outsider's view is more readily accepted than the opinions of those who are interested. The salmon industry of Alaska is an enormous one, and before the last change of government it was supervised by

one man, a man named O'Malley. He was a very able man, and I have a note to the effect that it -was his intention to close fifty-one traps in southeastern Alaska that year. In his opinion, he said, he might find it necessary to close down the whole lot of them there. Then the government changed and a Mr. Frank Bell took over Mr. O'Malley's position. He was a man with a new angle and this is what he said:
Fish traps for the taking of salmon were described here by Frank Bell, United States commissioner of fisheries, as the "most vicious type of gear in operation."
That is pretty plain, and that is not my idea.
-because they are driven along the shore lines in locations where they may interrupt the runs of salmon twenty-four hours a day.
"It is only a question of time until they must be eliminated entirely or regulated, so they will not be so destructive," he said.
"I have already closed 100 of the 400 traps operating in Alaskan waters during my first year in office, and I am in favour of eliminating them all.
Further on he says:
By giving the seine fishermen a chance, we will be giving work to hundreds who have been practically forced to the wall by the traps. Two men with a trap can catch as many fish as twenty-five men with a seine.
It is so generally admitted to be a bad thing that -the dominion government have forbidden the use of traps except along the Sooke shore. An attempt was made in 1929 to open them again and a debate took place on the subject. That debate can be readily referred to if hon. members will look up Hansard of June 10, 1929. There was considerable discussion in which members from various districts took part, and all, regardless of political affiliations, and representing parties in every part of the house, made such a vigorous protest against the use of traps that the government abandoned the idea of reintroducing them, with the exception of those along the Sooke shore. I will explain why they were permitted at Sooke.
The large body of sockeye salmon going into the Fraser river come down the west coast of Vancouver island, and down the Juan de Fuca straits between British Columbia and the American side. At first they come down along the territory known as -the Sooke shore and then for some reason they strike across from there to the other side of the straits and move along the American shore for a considerable distance. They do not go up -the American rivers, however; they are still Fraser river fish and they go nowhere else. That is where the Americans put their traps for our fish, and the average, for the years 1933 and 1934,

Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Neill
was 219 traps. Then what is left of our salmon come back into our territorial waters, going into the Fraser river. In the last year of which there is record, when they were running their traps-and this was the usual average-United States traps took from seventy-two to seventy-nine per cent while British Columbia fishermen took from twenty-one to twenty-eight per cent.
The Americans naturally took advantage of their geographical position, and it was therefore felt that if they were to get seventy-nine per cent of the fish it would be better to allow our fishermen to catch some by traps along the Sooke shore. For that reason the traps were allowed to remain at Sooke. Still, we did not like the idea of the Americans taking seventy-nine per cent while we got the rest, but there was nothing that we could do about it. Diplomacy failed and at last common sense sought the remedy. Our fishermen fraternized with the Americans on common ground beyond the three mile limit and said to the Americans, "If you will agitate for the abolition of traps on your side we will do the same." The Americans did so and they were more successful than we were. It was up to them to take the first step, and in the fall of 1934, by means of the initiative, they passed a law forbidding the use of traps in those waters -one of the few instances in which the principle of the initiative proved to be a good thing. The powerful vested interests which we hear so much about may be able to lobby a legislature but they cannot lobby a whole state, and the result was that the bill went through like lightning before these people knew what was happening. As soon as that was done I tried to get our traps cut out for 1935-36. The late government hesitated, waiting to see whether the Americans would really withdraw their traps, and therefore I could not get action taken either in 1935 or in 1936.
We know now what effect the withdrawal had. Two things resulted-conservation of fish and profit to our fishermen. Let me give you an illustration. I have taken the two last years before the United States gave up their traps and the next two years immediately thereafter; that is to say, the years 1933 and 1934 when they had traps as compared with 1935 and 1936 when they had not. I will not trouble the house with detailed figures; I will simply give the results. The total catch of Fraser River sockeye salmon, including what was taken by our traps at Sooke, what was caught by our fishermen in the Fraser river, and all that was taken in the American waters by seine and by traps, where traps were formerly in use, represented -in the two years when traps were not
allowed on the United States side-a decrease of forty-five per cent. In other words, forty-five per cent less was taken in the years when the Americans had given up their traps than in the two years before that. It may be said that this makes for conservation at the cost of employment, which would be undesirable; but that is not so. Let us look at our side of the question.
I have a record of the fish we took in the years when they had their traps and in the years when they had no traps, and our fishermen, according to this record, took exactly twenty-six per cent more when the traps were not running on the American side, because the fish got through into our waters again. So that we find the total catch reduced by forty-five per cent, while our British Columbia fishermen and canneries got twenty-six per cent more. That is rather profitable, is it not?
We have had numerous petitions on the subject; I had one some years ago.


Mr. TOLMIE:: What were the years
mentioned by the hon. member?


Alan Webster Neill: The years 1935 and 1936 as compared with 1933 and 1934, the two years after the traps had been abandoned as compared with the last two years during which they were in operation. Some years ago a petition was drawn up, signed by 1,506 fishermen and presented to the government of the day, asking for the abolition of traps. The government refused owing to the situation that I have outlined and which has now ceased to exist. And that is my argument. Then I have resolutions passed by the Kyuquot Trailers' Cooperative Association, one passed in June, 1935, at their annual meeting and one passed this last year. This is a very fine, energetic cooperative body, having 288 members, all owning their own boats and gear. I read the second resolution:
Whereas the salmon traps are the most destructive fishing gear in use, by intercepting the entire shoal of salmon, not ensuring a proper escapement for spawning, and by destroying immature and yearling salmon, bottom fish and any species of fish that may run foul of their leads;
And whereas a trap licence is an exclusive privilege to fish a certain location twenty-four hours a day;
And whereas other types of gear are licensed to fish in waters open to all, and with frequent closed periods for conservationary purposes;
And whereas the district of Sooke where the only traps in British Columbia now are located would afford ideal fishing grounds for seiners, thus increasing employment;
And whereas all Puget Sound, Washington traps are now eliminated;
Be it therefore resolved that all salmon traps be completely eliminated.

Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Neill
I have a similar resolution passed by the Pacific Coast Fishermen's Union, British Columbia section. They have a local m Vancouver numbering, they say, 800 fishermen, and they have locals up the east coast of the island as well. They take the same line, and I shall not repeat that portion; it is practically the same.' They point out that the traps were taken out by the Americans for purpose of conserving the sockeye run, so why are they allowed to operate in British Columbia waters? A hard question to answer. And they say that if the traps are made legal again in Washington it will work a hardship on both Washington and British Columbia fishermen. Then they deal with employment. They say:
At present the operation of traps on the west coast of Vancouver Island employs about forty workers. . .There are no fishermen operating in the immediate area of Sooke, where the traps are located, owing to their being unable to market their fish to the company owning the traps, who will not buy any fish from an individual fisherman, as they can get the fish from the trap much cheaper. At the present time if the traps were not operating there would be ample fish caught by fishermen to supply at least two hundred fishermen with a decent livelihood and a fair return for their work and capital investment for the year round, instead of having a few that are seasonally employed as now.
Concerning conservation they say:
Owing to the peculiar make-up of a trap net, all sizes and species of fish are caught, from the smallest to the largest. As the canners are only interested in the salmon for canning, it is a fact that many scowloads of ground fish, herring and pilchard are taken from the trap each year and are killed in the operation of cleaning the trap. This is the case with young salmon that are too small to be canned, and all these fish are taken to deep water and dumped. This in our opinion is wanton and useless waste of our natural resources.
For these reasons they ask that fish traps be abolished. And of course I have others, I am only giving illustrations.
This is our last chance. The legislature of Washington state is now sitting and there is active propaganda of the most intensive character being waged there to have fish traps again allowed. It is inevitable that that law will be repealed and the traps allowed again if we do not let it be known very shortly that we are going to meet them half-way and play the game. Half-way is a ridiculous statement, considering that we would be cutting out four traps this year, five last year on our side, and 219 were done away with on the American side. We are only asked to do the same as they are doing. We have so much to gain and so little to lose by meeting them. Pressure is being brought to bear on that
[Mr. Neill. 1
legislature, according to my information, and the strongest argument they can bring is that they made a gesture to Canada and Canada has not responded. It is not a breach of treaty; there was no bargain; it was just a gesture, but we have not responded. We recall other cases where nations made a gesture, in the way of reciprocity in tariffs or disarmament, and when the other party to whom the olive branch was held out did not respond it always resulted in resentment and in the nation making the original gesture going back to conditions more drastic than before. And so it will be here.
Another point. We are negotiating now and have been for years to make a reciprocity deal with the Americans in regard to the Fraser river, to take joint action along certain lines for the conservation of the fish. There are firebrands on both sides of the line, people who for their personal advantage are quick to make use of any passing prejudice. There are men on the other side of the line who will be quick to use this argument and say: They threw us down about the traps at Sooke; we can't trust perfidious Albion; do not make a treaty as regards the Fraser. It certainly would have a bad effect in respect to that. If we fail to act in this matter now, and the Washington legislature repeal their legislation, the blame will rest on this government or on this house.
There is one thing more, and I commend it to the notice of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), who is British Columbia's representative in the cabinet and responsible to us in British Columbia for the cabinet. I tell him this: if we allow these traps at Sooke to be continued in spite of the fact that the Americans have done away with the traps on their side-and they were allowed only because of the traps on the American side -if we do not follow suit, if we allow the traps to stay there, in logic and reason we cannot refuse traps all over British Columbia. I have letters and correspondence and resolutions from the canners' association, asking to be allowed to have traps all over British Columbia. The government is not now in a position to say: We will draw the line and forbid traps all over except at Sooke, but will allow them at Sooke alone; because now there is no justification or excuse for having them at Sooke. Therefore if we continue to allow them at Sooke we will be asked to allow them all over British Columbia. If we do that it is not a question of throwing a few men out of employment, a dozen or a score or a hundred; it is a question of 11.000 men, because the whole fishing industry will then be carried on by means of traps. This is the

Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Stevens
point to which I want to direct the attention of the Minister of Defence. With the shadow of war hanging over us, as it is today and all the time, in the east and elsewhere, the minister will surely take a little comfort from the fact that he has on that Pacific coast, fronting the far east, a comparatively large number of fishermen who are loyal to Canada and who are familiar with every bay and headland in that area. They know where every rock is, every bar-bars of gravel or sand I mean; possibly they know of the other kind too. Their local knowledge is invaluable. They know where to put mines; they know how to aid our warships or obstruct those of the enemy. If this thing goes through and traps are allowed all over, those men are put out of business, and you cannot bring them back in a day or a month. What does the poet say?-
*-a bold peasantry, their country's pride,
When once destroyed, can never be supplied.
When our day of tribulation comes it will be too late to say: We wish we had treated these fishermen in such a way that they could have maintained their position and usefulness in case of need. If we surrender to this demand for traps, and these men are wiped out, you cannot get much loyalty from a trap built of piles and wire netting. In time of war a fish trap is not of much use as a weapon either of offense or of defence. To some it may seem that I am exaggerating, or trying to be melodramatic, but it is not so. We who live on the Pacific coast know how familiar with our shores are certain powers fronting on the Pacific, and we know how desirable and urgent it is to maintain a white front line on that ocean. Therefore I urge the government, for these and many other reasons which I could mention if time permitted, to make a pronouncement immediately so that it may have its effect on the legislature sitting in Washington state and induce them to continue their ban on traps.
As I have said, we have everything to gain and so little to lose. A few men will be put out of work, yes; thirty or forty men will be put out of work, but hundreds and hundreds will get work instead. The fish must be caught; they will not be allowed to run away. Other lines of fishing will take the place of this. It will be argued, I know, and I may as well anticipate it, that there is a cannery at that point which exists solely through this type of fishing, and which would go out of existence if the traps were taken away. That is rather a curious thing. They have a privilege which is denied to every other cannery. There are some forty-eight
canneries operating in British Columbia; forty-seven of them can exist without traps, but one, and one alone, says that it will go down to ruin and financial destruction if it is not permitted to retain this privilege which it has enjoyed for so many years, in fact since 1904. Is that not about long enough to have a privilege? I will admit that the argument might have been sound that since the fish were going to be taken on the American side in any case they might as well be taken on our side, but that argument does not exist any longer. Therefore it is up to us to adhere to the working fishermen, the white fishermen, rather than to a steel trap.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, with very much that has been said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Neill) I am in hearty accord, but I think it would be unfortunate if the decision of the house were to be based upon the case as presented by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. One or two points made by the hon. member, I think, should be elucidated a little further.
For instance, the hon. member undoubtedly left the impression that traps operated in competition with the trollers. He repeatedly stated that it would take two hundred trollers operating with their boats to catch a similar number of fish, but he very unfortunately- I will put it mildly-avoided saying that trollers do not catch the same kind of fish that are caught in traps. The traps catch very largely the fish that school, the sockeye, the humpback and the pinks, whereas the trollers catch the spring salmon, chiefly steel-heads and a very limited number of types that will take a bait. The sockeye salmon will not take a bait, nor will the pinks, so that these traps do not affect the trollers in that respect, that is, the traps to which the hon. member has reference, near Sooke on the west coast of Vancouver island.
Another point to keep in mind is that the discussion of 1929, to which the hon. member has referred, was in connection with the proposed introduction of traps in northern British Columbia. The subject was keenly debated at the time, and many of us took the ground that it would be perhaps unfortunate if a general policy of traps were adopted in northern British Columbia, though I am bound to say that in one or two locations, where the geographical or physical conditions were of a certain type, there was some justification for the use of traps. But that issue has been disposed of. Then we come down to the Fraser river run, which for many years has

Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Stevens
been the subject of a great deal of discussion. There is no question as to the accuracy of the hon. member's observations when he says that the large number of American traps, located as they were in the shoals along the shore immediately south of the mouth of the Fraser river, did contribute very seriously to the depletion of the fisheries of that river. Another thing we should bear in mind, however, is that the agitation a few years ago for traps in that area was for traps on the Canadian side close to the location of the American traps, and again I say that as far as that is concerned I am in entire accord with the hon. member.
I was under the impression that there was only one trap at the point to which my hon. friend has referred. The hon. gentleman says there are four. That is something that can be ascertained without difficulty; no doubt the minister will be able to say just how many traps there are. As I say, it was my impression that there was only one, operated by one of the oldest fish packing companies in British Columbia, the Todd Fisheries, on the west coast of Vancouver island, that is, in the straits and in the lower part of the west coast, a very long distance indeed from the mouth of the Fraser river. This cannery is so located that there is virtually no other type of fishing that could be resorted to in order to serve it, in that isolated spot. I assume there is the possibility of using purse seines, but my hon. friend has been just as vigorous in his denunciation of purse seines as he has been of traps, and again to a certain extent I agree with what he has said. But I think in all these matters we must look at the situation taking into consideration all the factors that are involved. If this trap, or these few traps, located at this particular place, constituted a distinct menace to the continuity of the fisheries of the Fraser river, I should not hesitate a moment to urge their withdrawal, but I am not at all persuaded that such is the case. On the other hand, as the hon. gentleman admitted, this form of fishing at this particular location has been in vogue for nearly fort}' years, and it is a drastic proceeding to come forward now and suggest that, because we favour the general policy, in this particular instance we should deny the company the right to operate these traps or this trap, as the case may be.
Reference has been made to Alaska, and here again, I find myself largely in accord with what the hon. member has said. It is quite true that the institution of traps became a menace to the fisheries of Alaska, but there it was a case of the wholesale construction 
of traps. Some four hundred of these great traps were in operation in Alaskan waters. I frankly admit that such a wholesale operation did constitute a menace to the fisheries. I share my hon. friend's views in regard to Mr. O'Malley, one of the most outstanding authorities on salmon and other fisheries on this continent for many years. Mr. O'Malley took a stand against these traps, but only in the latter days of his long term of administration. In the earlier years he did not recognize the menace, and did not do so until the multiplicity of traps, to the extent of some four hundred, had become a very serious menace. Later his successor did much to eliminate many of the traps, although I am under the impression that some two hundred are still operating in Alaskan waters.
The hon. gentlemen has stressed the international point, and I think perhaps that is the one part of his address that merits very careful consideration. I would suggest to the minister lhat all the facts of the case might be very carefully studied, and if one operation of this kind constitutes a threat of international discord, naturally the government must take it into consideration. But I cannot conceive of that being the case. I would not want the house to get the idea that this is a case of introducing a wedge. This operation has been carried on for forty years and it is necessary for the successful working of the cannery. The company operating this cannery is one of the oldest, one of the most reputable and in every sense one of the most admirable concerns in the province. I do not think there is anyone, no matter what his prejudices may be, who can make any criticism of the Todd company. It is controlled by an old established family in British Columbia, which has operated this business from early pioneering days down to the present time in a very humane and decent manner. I am quite confident it will be found, to use a colloquialism, that the relations of this company with labour are as sweet as those of any other company.
There does not seem to be any real argument for the elimination of the trap in this particular case. Before the minister or the government makes a final decision I would suggest that the matter be calmly and fairly considered. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, may I say that I am strongly opposed to the adoption of trap fishing in a wholesale way or the issuing of permits for new traps in other areas. I endorse the views of the hon. member in that respect, but I cannot agree with him when he applies a general discussion to an individual and particular case.

Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Reid


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, as seconder of the motion before the house I feel it incumbent upon me to say a few words in support of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). The hon. member has covered the matter so well that very little remains to be said, but there are one or two points which I think should be emphasized still further.
First of all, I should like to reply to the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens). The hon. member stated that if he was convinced that the abolition of traps would help the fishing industry along the Fraser river, he would be in favour of their abolition. However, I think the gist of his remarks was to the effect that he could not depend upon what had been said in the house this afternoon to convince him that abolition of traps would help the industry. Whether he is willing to take the word of the member for New Westminster I do not know, but let me assure him, as one who has made a considerable study of the matter during the past year, that _ the operation of traps is taking away the livelihood of our fishermen. I have been told that this is a fact and by every fisherman with whom I have discussed the matter, either publicly or privately.
It is true that traps were in operation for many years by American interests in the Puget sound, but we on the Canadian side have always advocated the abolition of all tiaps, both on the American and Canadian sides. Since traps have been abolished by the American interests there has been a noticeable increase in the catches of all varieties of fish by the Fraser river fishermen. Those of us who have given any study at all to the matter know full well that the traps catch not only sockeye salmon but every other variety of fish that happens to enter the trap. I do not think the minister will dispute the fact that the trap at Sooke and those formerly across the line catch all varieties of fish. Mlany immature fish are taken in these traps, which are either placed on the market in some form or other or taken out and destroyed.
Like the hon. member for Comox-Alberni,
I should like to see this matter referred to the fisheries committee for discussion. I realize that it is not possible to go into every detail and aspect of the situation at this time, but I think the whole situation could be covered succinctly under three headings: first, the conservation of fish; second, the greatest good to tihe greatest number. In these days we are looking for increased employment and this cannot be achieved by maintaining the
trap at Sooke to which the hon. member referred. I do not think we should follow the Japanese method. Japan has had no thought at all of the conservation of fish and their fishing banks along their coasts have been almost entirely depleted. They went into fishing in a ruthless manner and paid no attention whatever to the manner of catching or different ways of conserving the fish. Their one thought was for profits. I am not unmindful of what the hon. member for Kootenay East has said with reference to the particular firm that has been referred to. He tells us that it would be bad to do anything against this very reliable firm, which has been in existence for some forty years, but I would rather have heard him stress the conservation of fish and the employment of greater numbers of our fishermen. If it was thought desirable, I could place on record figures to prove the statements I have just made.
I should like to say one word with reference to something that took place last year which very much pleased the fishing industry in British Columbia as a whole-and I do this without the consent of the minister. In 1936 the minister was good enough to pay a visit to British Columbia with the object of looking into our fisheries and obtaining first hand information thereon. I think the minister has seen more of British Columbia than any other cabinet member has seen of it since confederation. It was my privilege to be with him at that time. We travelled some 1,400 miles by water, and the minister was always eager to see everything that could be seen in the time at his disposal.
It was our privilege to visit one of the traps in Alaska, located at Hidden inlet. This trap is operated by American interests, and at the time we visited it there were between
7.000	and 8,000 sockeye salmon in the trap. We witnessed the bailing or brailing out of the fish, as they call it. A boat brought a scow alongside which already contained about
60.000	sockeye salmon and into which these additional 7,000 were put. I should like to relate to the house a little incident which occurred in connection with this trap. The trap was located a considerable distance from shore and two employees of the company were set to guard it. The manager told us that they were forced to keep a patrol boat in operation to watch the men. That seemed rather strange, but he told us that as the fish were caught in such large numbers, if the two guards were not watched an attempt might be made to bribe them. He stated that it would be possible for a boat to draw alongside and take two or three thousand fish from the trap and they would not be missed at all. After

226	COMMONS
Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. MacNeil
some years experience they had come to the conclusion that it was harder to bribe four men than it was to bribe two. I think this illustrates also the fact that great numbers of fish are caught in traps. We in British Columbia were more than pleased with the minister's visit, and he deserves to be highly complimented upon the extensive and exhaustive study he made of the Pacific coast fisheries in 1936. I feel sure he is just as fully aware as any of us of just what the traps mean to the fisheries of the Pacific coast.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I should like to see this matter placed before the committee on fisheries where many aspects and details of the question could be gone into which have not been fully touched on here and which perhaps could not be very well discussed on the floor of the house. I also support what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has stated, that it would certainly lend weight to the arguments which could be used across the line as they can now say: The Canadians are using traps now, and we are not.
A strange state of affairs existed last year as a result of the abolition of the traps in United States waters. As is well known, there was a conflict of interests between the seine fishermen and those controlling the traps, and it was partly the agitation of the seine fishermen, I believe, that brought about the abolition of the traps in United States waters, they believing that if the traps were eliminated the seine boats would catch more fish. Last year, however, the seine boats were practically idle; the traps were not in operation, and the seine-boat men discovered that the poor results were due to the schooling up of the fish, their attention being diverted from their true course by the traps, which was what enabled the seine boat owners to catch the number of fish they did. There might well come now an agitation from the seine-boat men to replace the traps in United States waters, and we do not want them to be able to use the argument:	The Canadians
are using traps, and we are not. In the interests of the conservation of fish, not only sockeye but all varieties, in the interests of the greatest good to the greatest number, and for the well-being and welfare of our whole cannery industry, I am certainly in hearty accord with the motion that has been introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, and I trust that the last trap fishing will be done away with.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to indicate my support of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill).

My remarks will be based on representations made to me by practically every organization of fishermen with which I have had contact, and on the expert observations of those who have studied the habits of fish and know the needs of the fishing industry in British Columbia, all of whom seem to be in unanimous support of the purpose of this resolution.
Some time ago it was indicated that the minister intended to issue no further licences for trap fishing in British Columbia, and that announcement was greeted with general approval in all quarters. Viewing the question from the standpoint of conservation, as the majority of the fishermen do, to me it would seem most advisable to discontinue the issuance of licences for trap fishing in British Columbia.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) seems to be under some misapprehension as to the species of fish that are caught in the traps. I have before me a copy of the last report of the Department of Fisheries, and it indicates that the traps catch sockeye, spring salmon, bluebacks, steelheads, cohoes, pinks and chums. I have also reason to believe that other fish, such as herring and immature salmon, are caught in the traps, and they are thrown aside.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I never questioned that.
My point was that the class of fish that will take a trolling bait is a different class of salmon from those that will come into the trap. The sockeye, which is the main class of fish, and the pinks, will not take bait and therefore cannot be caught by troll. That is the only point I made in that respect.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Tolmie
the Americans will get all the fish and we won't have a chance at them at all.
It has been stated also that in traps small fish are destroyed to a great extent. At Victoria, the nearest market for the fish from the traps at Sooke, certain varieties of fish are marketed which are not suitable for canning; they are disposed of not only in Victoria but also in Vancouver and other markets near by at reasonable prices, making these valuable food fish available for all the people.
The hon. member for Comox-Albemi also stated that after the American traps were closed the increase of fish in the Fraser river was very marked, particularly in the year 1936. Let it be remembered that the salmon, as they enter the strait of Juan de Fuca in search of the Fraser river, swing over to the north on the Vancouver island side, thence directly to the American side, where they are caught by American seiners and fishermen and, in the case of traps, by the trap owners. In 1936, for a reason which nobody has yet explained, although perhaps to-day I may have one to offer, the great bulk of the fish, instead of coming in by way of the strait of Juan de Fuca, swung away up north around Vancouver island and came in on the inside passage. The only solution we can find for that proceeding is the fact that they weie visited during that time by the hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud).


Thomas Reid: Has the hon. member any figures as to how many fish, if they went around by the north, were caught by traps in 1936 as against the year before-


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I am sorry I have not the figures at hand, but I assume they are easily obtainable. Of course this year, after the traps on the American side were abolished, the great bulk of the fish, coming in by way of the inside passage from Vancouver island south, were caught in the Fraser river and in Canadian waters, and naturally the catch on the American side suffered to that extent.
What is the feeling in the state of Washington about the abolition of traps? They do not feel satisfied about it. Traps were abolished owing to the very strong propaganda put out by those who were in favour of sport fishing, those who had sporting goods to sell, those who desired to encourage fishing at certain resorts. These were a strong combination, and as a result of their influence at Olympia, Washington, traps were abolished for a period on the American side. How long will they remain abolished? Hon. Clarence D. Martin, governor of the state of Washing-

ton, speaking at Olympia on January 13 at the opening of the state legislature, made this statement:
I direct attention to an alarming and costly trend in one of our major national resources .	.	. the commercial fisheries. It is now
obvious that the initiative is not working out as well as had been promised. Oregon and British Columbia are taking more salmon, while Washington's share is decreasing.
Again he says:
The fisheries department will submit a program for your consideration, but I should like to make one recommendation:	that we
declare that the state's interest is larger than, and prior to, that of any or all of the conflicting groups or forces within the industry; and that we shall, by law or regulation, control and distribute the fishery resources as found best for the present and future benefits of the state as a whole.
After all, how many fish do we catch at Sooke? One would imagine, listening to some of the statements that have been made, that the quantity was so large as seriously to interfere with the industry in British Columbia. As a matter of fact there are areas where ordinary methods of fishing are not practicable owing to such conditions as strong currents, tides, and so on. This particular area between Sombrio Point and Beechey Head near Victoria where the traps are located is subject to swift currents and heavy tides, with the result that other forms of fishing cannot be carried on there.
I am not a fisherman but a live stock man, and I cannot discuss this subject from personal experience; but I am given this information by those who are well posted in the industry. How much fish does this much-abused company capture there? The combined catches, United States and Canadian, at Sooke last year amounted to 2-2 per cent.


Alan Webster Neill: Of what?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Sockeye, the great commercial fish.


Alan Webster Neill: Of what catch-British Columbia and United States together?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Yes; that is the percentage of the catch between the state of Washington and British Columbia. It is evident then that the Sooke traps have little effect on gill net fishing on the Fraser river, but rather more effect on the United States industry. These fish on entering the straits-and I wish to emphasize this particular point-swing up north to Vancouver island where there is opportunity to catch them by means of proper appliances, and traps are the proper appliance in these particular locations. Then they swing south to the United States and are lost
JANUARY 25, 193V	229
Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Hanson
to us except for those that happen to escape the American seines and nets, reaching the Fraser river a little later.
I am as much for the conservation of fish and timber in British Columbia as anyone else, and I say that if we catch too many fish by this method, so as to jeopardize the future of the fishing industry, then we should regulate the fisheries to such an extent as to obviate any such danger. It would be better to do that than to try to eliminate some particular form of fishing, wiping out a valuable industry employing a number of men, an industry that has paid out a million dollars in wages alone in eighteen years, and another business which gives employment to a number of men in the fishing season. The matter can be easily handled by regulation.
These fish are spawned in the headwaters of the Fraser river area. They proceed to sea when they are large enough and able to take care of themselves, remaining in the Pacific four years, and then they come back as the commercial fish which the fishermen endeavour to catch. Of these British Columbia spawned fish that come back into these waters the Americans capture from sixty-eight to seventy per cent, and I contend that we should take every opportunity in carrying on our Canadian business, to get as much as we possibly can of that catch by fair means.
As I said a moment ago, the Americans are not satisfied with the removal of the fish traps. They believe that their commercial catch has shrunk to a remarkable extent, and there is therefore to-day a strenuous effort on the part of fishermen on the United States side to reestablish traps in American waters. Where shall we be if we eliminate the Sooke traps first, in the hope that the Americans will not reintroduce their system, only to find that they have done so?
I do not agree with the resolution. In my opinion it is unfair to vested interests and to those who make a living out of these traps and out of the cannery, and who have established homes near these places. Not only is it unjust, but it does not touch the point we are after, namely, the conservation of fish. Let us conserve the fish by means of proper regulations such as are enforced in any otner branch of industry, in any part of the Department of Agriculture, or in any other line. 1 think that to adopt the method suggested would be to sacrifice Canadian opportunities to the advantage of our friends to the south of the line, and therefore, being of the opinion that on the whole this is not conducive to the progress and prosperity of the British Columbia fishing industry, I must oppose the resolution.


Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: I think
it is necessary for me to say a few words in regard to this resolution. In the first place, I regret that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) or the chairman of the fisheries committee did not see fit to have this whole subject brought before that committee, because in my opinion there are certain aspects of the subject that could be discussed much better in committee than they can be on the floor of the house.
I am absolutely in favour of the resolution, but I wish to refer to certain conditions which, as I see them, do not warrant the government in taking any drastic action at the present time. I am speaking as one who is interested in the cannery business and who therefore knows something about the fishing industry of British Columbia. As the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) has said, the firm that has been operating in that district is an old and reputable one, and it has enjoyed a special privilege for forty years. In my opinion, if a particular firm has had a certain privilege for forty years while a large number of other canneries have not been so favoured, it is high time, if they have not benefited by that advantage which they have had, either for them to give up that privilege or for the others to share in it.
At the time the Todd company and other pioneering concerns in British Columbia began operations, it might have been necessary for the government to pass certain regulations to encourage the development of the industry. During these forty years, however, several other concerns, engaged not only in fishing but in every other branch of industry, have been carrying on without a similar privilege, and this particular firm, with its long experience, cannot expect any longer to enjoy exclusively a privilege in which others do not share. I do not think anyone doubts for a moment that the masses of the fishing population of British Columbia would benefit by the abolition of these traps. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has said that when anywhere from ten thousand to twenty thousand fish are caught in twenty-four hours it requires two men to watch the operation and another two men to watch them; and as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has pointed out, it would take hundreds of fishermen to catch that quantity of fish by the ordinary methods. That is a point that must be considered in this time of stress when the government is trying to provide employment for those who are out of work. Anything that can be done, even in a small way. to provide more men with employment should be done, and therefore I am strongly in favour
230	COMMONS
Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Maclnnis
of the resolution. If it comes to a vote I shall vote for it because I know it will not be detrimental to the canning industry-I am interested in that-but will help British Columbia and its fishing population. I am disappointed that this resolution has not gone before the fisheries committee where it could be discussed more fully and explanations could be given that cannot so well be given here.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I wish to say a very few words in support of the resolution introduced and so ably supported by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I doubt if there are many hon. members from British Columbia who have been in .this house a few years who have not received protests from the fishermen of that province in regard to these fish traps. On a number of occasions I have drawn the matter to the attention of the department, and I know it has come up several times in the legislature of British Columbia. To me it is altogether a matter of the conservation of the fishery resources of this dominion. We have squandered other resources to such an extent that it will take a long time to replace them, if they can ever be replaced. In British Columbia we have squandered our timber resources like drunken sailors, as the saying goes. And with our fisheries we have done pretty much the same thing.
In a well-organized society I should not consider it good policy to take more time than is necessary to catch the fish we need. We should be concerned with catching the greatest number in the least possible time. However under an economic system whereby the fruits of industry are not equitably distributed, we are driven to the expedient of trying to increase the amount of labour spent for the production of an article rather than to reduce it. In the matter of conservation of fish the strongest argument made by the mover of the resolution, and one which we have to keep continually in mind, is that not only the Dominion of Canada but the country to the south of us, is concerned and if they have abolished fish traps on the understanding that they will remain abolished provided British Columbia also pursues that policy, or if they abolished them as a gesture anticipating their abolition by British Columbia, then certainly if we do not take that course the traps will be restored by the other country, to the detriment of both. If we are to formulate policies for the conservation of the fish resources of the Pacific coast we can do so only in conjunction with and with the assistance of the government on the other side.
[Mr. Hanson. 1


Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries) :: I think it is proper that I should add a few words to what has been said on this resolution. The administration and supervision and licensing of the methods of fishing in tidal waters is under the jurisdiction of the federal government exclusively, and is carried on by the Department of Fisheries.
As was well said by the mover of the resolution (Mr. Neill) there are four main methods of fishing resorted to on the British Columbia coast. There is the individual fisherman, called the troller; there is the gill netter, who sets a kind of trap-he also is an individual fisherman. There is the purse seiner who also operates a kind of trap, assisted by other men, but not in great numbers; and finally there is this method of the fixed trap or set trap, which is employed in British Columbia waters as well as United States Pacific coast waters.
The method of fishing by traps is not new. It was sanctioned by order in council of the dominion government as far back as 1894, and has been in use more or less ever since that time, but subject to restrictions for very obvious reasons which I shall try to present. The order in council of 1894 to which I refer resulted from the report of a commission appointed for the province of British Columbia, which reported also on the Georgian bay fisheries; we have its report and recommendation. I will agree that the method of fishing by traps exclusively would tend, if no regulation were imposed upon them, to exhaust the supply. I will not agree that it is the easiest and cheapest method of operating the salmon fishing industry, but from the information I have been able to gather it is the method which enables the canners to place the highest grade products on the markets of the world. For that reason many of those interested in the salmon canning industry on the Pacific coast have at different times tried to get licences to use trap nets to catch their fish. However, governments ever since 1894, and particularly since 1904, have seen to it that the proper balance is maintained between those interested in that branch of the industry and the net fishers who are really the primary producers. Rules and restrictions have been made in order not to give exclusive privileges to one class of people as against another. The gill netters and the trollers were allowed to use their methods in certain waters; purse seiners were licensed, and so were trap fishermen.
At different times, I find according to the records, applications were made by various interests in the province of British Columbia for permission to use traps as a means of securing their raw material. In some instances that was permitted on a larger scale

Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Michaud
than is the case at present. That was during the war period, when there was such a demand for the product and such a shortage of labour in that part of the country. During the war the government of the day issued temporary trap licences to those packers who had supplied the market but who could not secure the necessary labour in order to bring to the canneries by other methods or fishing the material that was required. Outside of that period, however, with a few exceptions in the north which did not continue for very long, trap fishing in British Columbia has been confined to the waters at the southwest point of Vancouver island, for the reason that the choicest variety of salmon, which as the house well knows is the sockeye, runs up from Puget sound or the strait of Juan de Fuca, in a straight line to the southern point of Vancouver island. Then it goes back to American waters in order to come in to the Fraser river. This is the course followed by the salmon on that coast, according to information which has been verified by inquiry, and I am told that the fish in those waters cannot be caught by any method other than trap fishing.
That is so for several reasons. In the first place the trollers and gill netters cannot operate successfully because of the phosphorated condition of the water. There is so much phosphorus in the water at that point that gill netting and trolling cannot be resorted to, and the waters are too swift for the operation of purse seines. That is shown by the fact that no purse seine fishing has been carried on in those waters, although there is nothing to restrict or prohibit it. This information is given to me by the officials of my department from the records of the department, and has been confirmed by those who know something of fishing in that locality.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister permit
a question? Even if the fish cannot be caught in that particular area by other means, do not the traps intercept the main movement of the fish, which may be caught elsewhere in Canadian waters?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I am told by the officials of the department, who have had many years of experience in the matter, that instead of being a hindrance to those who want to resort to purse seining the traps are a help to them, because they help gather the fish at certain points, where they can be caught more easily by purse seines than they could if the traps were not there. In any case we have this fact, which is not contradicted, that the purse seiners have not resorted to these
waters, though there is nothing to prohibit them or restrict them in doing so. I am told by the officials of the department, who know something about those waters, that these are the facts, and1 that the reasons I have advanced are the reasons why fishermen do not go to these waters.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, succeeding governments since 1904 have permitted trap fishing in the waters in question. The number of licences taken out has varied, but according to the records not more than three or four, or in some years five, traps have been used in that area. It has been stated that a monopoly has been created in the hands of some individuals. That may be so, but I do not know of any other applications which have reached the department to permit the use of traps in those waters. Because of the fact that these licences have been issued, since 1904 a considerable industry has been established in the vicinity of these traps, which depends upon the traps for its operation.


Alan Webster Neill: I thought a few minutes ago the minister said 1894.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I said that fishing by means of traps has been sanctioned by the government since 1894. Traps have been established at the point under discussion since 1904.
The resolution states that it would be in the best interests of British Columbia, because it would be in the interests of the greater conservation of salmon, if these traps were done away with. That is a matter of opinion, and I doubt if that statement will be borne out by the facts. I am told that the quantity of non-salmonoid fish or whitefish incidentally taken in the traps is very low in comparison with the salmon caught there. These white-fish are put on the market in the city of Victoria and adjoining districts, where they are sold at lower prices than the better classes of fish, and where they are welcomed by people of moderate means who are pleased to get them.
It has been stated also that there is a large proportion of immature salmon being taken in the traps, which would not be taken otherwise, and which means that these fish are destroyed. Everyone knows that it is exceptional for immature salmon to come back to fresh water for spawning purposes. Ordinarily salmon do not return for three, four or five years. Generally speaking the fish that come back from salt to fresh water are mature fish, and it is the exception when an immature salmon returns to fresh water. These salmon are caught when they are on their way to fresh water for spawning purposes. So that
232	COMMONS
Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Michaud
from the point of view of conservation, in regard to the destruction of immature fish, I submit the records show that there is no destruction of fish to any considerable extent. If there had been such destruction I doubt whether succeeding governments since 1904 would have permitted that type of fishing to continue.
Reference has been made to the large quantities of fish taken in the traps, but I cannot agree with those who contend that the source of supply is in danger of being exhausted because of the licensing of a few traps. I have the records from 1930 to 1936.


Mr. STIRLING:: Will the minister put those figures on Hansard?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I shall give first the percentage of sockeye salmon caught in traps as compared with the total catch:
Year	Per Cent
1930		 1-05
1931		 0-97
1932		 1-27
1933		'	 3-41
1934		 1-49
1935		 1-58
1936		 1-00


Olof Hanson: Do those figures cover all the fish caught?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: No; they refer only to sockeye salmon. The following table gives the percentages of all varieties of salmon caught in traps as compared with the total catch:
Year	Per Cent
1930		 0-44
1931		 3-33
1932		 1-04
1933		 3-09
1934		 0-55
1935		 2-57
1936		 0-5
I think these figures will show that there is no danger of exhausting the source of supply by permitting trap fishing in a particular area. Another argument has been that the elimination of traps will provide more employment. This is also a matter of opinion. I should like to lay before the house certain facts which will permit hon. members to obtain the proper viewpoint on this matter. It must not be forgotten that no other method of fishing could be resorted to in the areas now fished by means of traps. I do not think it is altogether correct to assume that the elimination of traps will provide employment for more fishermen. I understand that the industry which has been built up around these traps has made a specialty of supplying a better grade of salmon to the
fMr. Michaud.]
market. This helps to raise the standard of our exports to the markets of the world where we must compete with other countries. We must remember that the bulk of our canned salmon is exported. In order to maintain our position in the markets of the world we must compete against other countries which have not the same standard of living and which do not pay the same wages as those which prevail in Canada. We have been able to maintain our position because of the high quality of product we have been able to export. The canneries operating traps play a considerable part in maintaining this standard of quality.
Reference has been made to possible international complications. The neighbouring state of Washington during the past two years has permitted the operation of a large number of traps. In 1934 there were 235 traps in operation and in 1935 there were 209. These figures compare with three and four traps on the Canadian side during the same years respectively. I have not been able to find any records which would show any relationship between the two countries in connection with the abolition or use of traps. The records show that where traps have been removed from American waters the removal has been obtained by those who resort to other methods of fishing. This has been done through the cooperation of the trailers, the gill netters and the purse seiners. I do not think the permitting of traps in Canadian waters will have any effect upon action taken in connection with American waters. The argument advanced by those in the United States who are seeking to bring back the operation of traps is that the interest of the industry is dependent upon that type of fishing. The attitude of Canada has not entered into the picture at all. I can assure the house that if representations are made that the maintenance of traps in Canadian waters will bring about any increased use of traps in American waters and thus deprive the fishermen on the Fraser river of their full share of the fish that run in those waters, the government will not close their eyes or ears to such representations.
I can also assure the house that there is no intention to depart from the policy which has been in force and adhered to in this country since 1904, to limit the issue of licences for trap fishing to the waters which I have described south of Vancouver island. It is by way of an exception that these trap licences are issued, and for the very obvious reason that no other method of fishing can be resorted to in those waters. The fish that are

Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Michaud
being caught there by traps would not otherwise be caught by Canadians, and a very high class product is being marketed by the Canadian industry by reason of its being permitted to use traps in those waters.
What would be the consequence of refusing to issue licences for trap fishing to those who have been licensed and have been operating traps for almost the last thirty-three years? There is a large capital investment, about $100,000 I am told, in those traps; there is being spent every year on every trap, in material and labour used to set up the traps, from $10,000 to $15,000, and in addition there are the wages paid to those who practise the fishing. Around that area there has grown up a community of about 300 people who are solely dependent upon the trap fishing and upon the canning factory. If licences were refused it would follow that those who are now operating the cannery would close it up, and all that community would be thrown out of employment. Many of them own their own houses; there are stores in the locality, and there is in the vicinity no other industry upon which these people could depend. So I submit, Mr. Speaker, that before adopting the resolution we must carefully consider the consequences. If we refuse to issue any more licences, we would, I repeat, be abandoning a policy which has been in force since 1904, and we would not be providing labour for any more people in British Columbia, because the fishermen could not resort to these waters to fish.
It might be advanced as an argument that the fish which is being canned in the cannery might be purchased elsewhere, from people who use other methods of fishing, but I am told, and I have the assurance of those who are operating the cannery, that they would not find it profitable to operate and maintain their very high standard of product if they used fish caught by any other method. So it is fair to assume that if we refused the licences the cannery would be closed, and those who are dependent upon the cannery for their livelihood would be thrown out of employment and deprived of the wages they now receive.
I have said that the capital investment in the traps is about $100,000. I am informed that the capital investment in the cannery, outside the traps altogether, is $150,000. There are at the cannery twenty-five permanent employees and 125 seasonal employees, who would be thrown out of employment if we refused to issue the licences. The annual pay-roll is $35,000. In addition it must be remembered that these people pay licence
fees; they pay high fees to the province of British Columbia, which imposes on them a special tax. All told, in fees and licences there is a revenue of about $7,500 a year, which would be lost if the licences were refused. The loss to the province and to the dominion government would be $35,000 in income and sales taxes, and so on.
The number of men permanently employed at the traps, exclusive of the cannery is forty, with an annual payroll of $58,000. There would also be the loss to those who sell the supplies. The employees at the traps have an average length of employment of 13^ years. The company has maintained group insurance on their men, several of whom own their own homes, and if they were thrown out of employment they would be losing not only their jobs but their savings invested in their homes.
So I submit, sir, that the house should be satisfied to leave it to the government of the day to continue the policy which has been followed for almost thirty-three years, and in the issuing of licences to try to consider the greatest number of people possible, at the same time bearing in mind the necessity of maintaining the industry at the high standard which it has reached in order that it may retain its position in the markets of the world. We should also be very careful to avoid the destruction of a community which apparently would have no other resources and would have to fall back on relief or start all over again to rebuild, with no prospect of employment in sight. I trust the house and particularly the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) will be satisfied with the assurance that the number of licences in British Columbia will not be increased, and I hope hon. members will be content that this peculiar situation, which is an exception, should be maintained until it is established that these people could be reabsorbed in other industry, and until it can be demonstrated that the revenue which they have been deriving from the industry in which they are at present engaged can be derived elsewhere. I can assure the house, with regard to any international complications arising out of the fact that the government of this country permits trap fishing in that area, that we shall do our best to avoid any such complications.


Mr. BARBER:: What is the objection to
referring this question to the fisheries committee where we might have an opportunity of calling as witnesses those who are better informed upon the subject than members of the house?
Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Neill


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I have no objection whatever to having this matter referred to a committee.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should thank the members of the house who have supported this resolution; I assure them that in my opinion they were doing good work for the province from which they come, and I do not think the public will be remiss in remembering this when the time comes.
I am sorry that my first reference to my friend the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Tolmie) should be concerned with a difference of opinion. May I turn aside for a moment and heartily congratulate him upon his natal day and upon his reappearance in this house. I know that every one of us, irrespective of politics, is pleased to see him back here again, and I am sure I voice the wishes of all when I say that we hope he may enjoy many years of happiness, if happiness can be attained in this house, and that he may grow in grace as he has in stature.
I will, if only incoherently, so to speak, answer various objections that have been made. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) said that the fish caught in these traps were of such a kind that trailers could not catch, and I rather think he also suggested that the seiners would not do much. He also said that sockeye was the main run. For many years sockeye was the main run that was caught in these traps. But I have in my hand statistics furnished by the department which show that for the year 1936 sockeye caught-I am just quoting round numbers-were sockeye, 44,000; springs, 54,000; steelheads, 1,000, and cohoes, 36,000. So that the sockeye were not the dominant catch this last year. Springs, steelheads and cohoes are all fish that can be trolled. I am surprised to find that the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Taylor) did not take a stand in opposition to these traps, inasmuch as the traps catch so many springs, steelheads and cohoes, which are the mainstay of the tourist trade, the fishing to which we on Vancouver island look more and more to furnish a substantial revenue. There is every reason to hope that we can make Vancouver island the mecca of a tremendous number of tourists from all over the world if we facilitate their enjoyment of the fishing resources we have there. Steelheads, by the way, are not a salmon at all; they are a trout, and should Dot be taken in a trap. Cohoes and springs-the springs are the same class of fish-are the same variety for which, under the name of tyees, Campbell

river is so noted. I have met men from all over the world who were going to Campbell river; they said that each salmon they caught cost them ten dollars, but it was worth it because of the sport afforded by these tyees, which are identical with springs, and in the right place can be taken in the same way. As regards these 36,000 cohoes, it has been discovered in the last two or three years that they will rise to a fly, and English sporting fishermen want a fish that will rise to a fly. The possibilities of developing fishing in that country are enormous, but the catches are getting less, because they are being taken in seines and traps. I think Brentwood is within the district of the hon. member for Nanaimo, so he should support this proposal with both hands and both feet, because it means the devolpment, in the spring of the year, of travel there by tourists who for the moment cannot go anywhere else and who are enormously attracted by the possibilities of catching with a fly cohoes in that neighbourhood.
The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) spoke about its being a monopoly down there. He never said a truer word. I think the minister, when he came to that point, virtually admitted that there was a monopoly, although he suggested it was a beneficent one or one that could not well be vitiated. The hon. member for Vancouver North wondered why there were only four traps, or rather five last year and four the year before, while the number of licences taken out is eight. I will tell him-because they want to maintain a monopoly. It is ostensibly two companies, but the one washes the other one's hands. They take every valuable site-that is why they have 'eight licences-and pay a heavy licence fee, but operate only four or five. One would suppose that the whole of the strait of Juan de Fuca was available to these fish. But fish go exactly like a man driving a car; that is they go the nearest way. If a man is driving a car along a road and comes to a sharp turn to the right, will he not hug the righthand corner? Of course he will, and that is exactly what the fish do. That is also what these clever trap owners do. They take their reservations, their locations, out at the edge of the headland around which the fish 'have to go, and that is where they get them; they will take eight licences because experience has shown that there are only eight major profitable available sites there, and they will keep on paying for these eight sites although they take all they want from the operation of four traps.

Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Neill
While I am on the subject, the minister said there is no fishing by seines in that area and that is evidence of its not being possible to fish there, because, he says, seines can fish in the strait of Juan de Fuca. Yes, they can, but the places where the fish run, where it can be calculated they can be caught, are around these headlands, and the trap owners have their sites located there. Then the minister told us his officials had informed him that seiners liked the traps because they afford a better opportunity for them to get fish. That is a misconception. Either his officials have deceived him or they have unwittingly misrepresented the situation. Perhaps it is true as regards the state of Washington, but we are dealing with British Columbia where conditions are quite different. In Washington where traps were located, apparently the custom was to give those traps to people much as is done on our side of the line, but there was no restriction outside the actual location of the trap; seiners could go and fish within ten feet of the trap if they so wished to. The seiners on the American side found this quite useful, because the fish congregated there in their endless attempt to get through this barrier before they started going to the right or to the left, and that was the place for the seiners to make a killing. I say that was true on the American side, but it is not true on the British Columbia side, because we have a regulation restraining the seiners from operating within a certain distance-half a mile, I believe-so that the traps do not give them any advantage; they do not have the effect of holding the fish for the seines, and no one in British Columbia would suggest that a seining organization or any other fishing body would ever favour the traps.
The hon. member for Victoria, B.C., said that the United States were going to open the traps in any event because they found on their side it was profitable to do so. If that is the case, let us not give them the excuse that they do so because Canada is not playing the game. The hon. member said that it was due to propaganda that the traps on the American side were abolished. That is not so. This was done through the operation of the initiative, and people do not propagandize when there is an initiative; it is the common people rising up and demanding .the enactment of the law; it is put before the people to be voted on, if I understand the situation correctly, by the people, and not by the legislature, which might be influenced by the big interests. That sort of influence cannot be exercised where there are thousands and thousands of people
voting. I think it is entirely unjust to say that it was propaganda which put over that restriction; I think rather that propaganda is behind the attempt to repeal the bill. The hon. member quotes Governor Martin, who is a well known reactionary, as against the operation of the initiative. I have no doubt he is, but let us remember that the present law was put through by the vote of all those citizens who are qualified to vote; it was not a vote of the legislature.
The hon. member for Victoria, B.C., says that the Sooke catch is small; I think he himself quoted it as being two per cent of the total catch. If so, and if there are only four or five traps, why grudge the elimination of such a small quantity when we have so much to gain? We are going to have the opportunity, in return for the giving up of four or five traps on our side, of having the Americans abandon 219 traps. Is that not a good deal? Why be fussy about two per cent when we stand to gain so much?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Has the hon. member any
guarantee that, if the traps are eliminated in British Columbia, Washington will not reinstate the traps on their side?


Alan Webster Neill: No; but the minister could
very well make a statement here to the effect that it was his intention to stop them in British Columbia this year provided Washington would not reinstate traps there; and we know that in dealing with nations and people there is such a thing as quid pro quo. When Canada gave the old country a preference we expected something in return and eventually we got it. The minister said that these waters were not adapted to seines. Well, here is Kyuquot Trollers' Cooperative Association making a statement on the subject-I suppose they know what they are talking about- and this is what they say:
Whereas the district of Sooke where the only traps in B.C. now are located would afford ideal fishing grounds for seiners thus increasing employment. . . .
That was passed on December 17, 1936. They are a well-established and thoroughly reputable body; I do not think they would make such a statement unless it could be proved, and it is capable of proof only when the traps are taken away, because they can not seine these waters when all the available fishing sites are already preempted. People have an idea that you can go into the ocean and catch fish anywhere. You can catch the odd one, but you can seine only where the fish congregate in schools, as they do around these headlands.

Salmon Trap Nets-Mr. Neill
The minister spoke at some length and his first and last argument was that this practice has been going on for forty years. As a matter of fact the actual operation has lasted thirty-two years. But conditions vary over the years and we must change with the times. We all know, looking back over a period of less than forty years, what changes have taken place in every direction. He said that fish cannot be caught in this district otherwise than by traps. I have quoted the opinion of the association in that regard; I might say that the same opinion was expressed by the Pacific Coast Fishermen's Union, and I have the authority of Major Motherwell, the chief supervisor, that the association is mainly composed of seiners.
The minister said that the traps would help the seines. I think I have explained that. It is curious, if the traps would help the seines, why the seiners are all so deadly opposed to traps. The minister said, further, that the few traps at Sooke would not kill the industry. Undoubtedly not; the operation of four or five will not kill the industry. But I am pointing out that this is perhaps our last chance to trade four or five traps for 219 on the other side. The sentiment was voiced by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson), who pointed out that if the traps at Sooke were allowed to remain and the Americans kept theirs off, the justification would be gone for continuing that privilege to them alone, and every cannery in British Columbia would be demanding it.
The minister said that it would cause more memployment, but that this was a matter of opinion. It certainly is. I have already read the opinion of Mr. Bell, an expert in Alaska, who said:
By giving the seine fishermen a chance, we will be giving work to hundreds who have been practically forced to the wall by the traps. Two men with a trap can catch as many fish as twenty-five men with a seine.
That is not my opinion; Mr. Bell made that statement off his own bat some time ago. The minister said that the firm which has the monopoly at Sooke puts up good packs. Undoubtedly; but is that the only cannery in British Columbia which is putting up good packs? They all do. There are companies of greater importance that put up just as good packs, and I cannot allow it to be said that this particular cannery is the only one which puts up a good pack. Moreover, the others put up a good pack without traps. Why cannot this one do the same?
The minister gave us a picture of the losses in investment that would follow the shutting down of this cannery. Who said that it would
fMr. Neill.]
be shut down if this company did not have this long term privilege extended? Why, they did. Who said that the textile industry would shut down if the government made a deal with Japan? The textile industry did. And who opened their factory forthwith when they found their bluff called? I shall take a chance on this cannery shutting down.
The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) says that they are in an isolated position. They are not, for every day tugs pass the door of that cannery going with fish from the west coast to the Fraser river to be canned. Why cannot this cannery buy its fish from these tugs? The whole trouble is that these people have enjoyed a monopoly for a very long time and now they are howling because they believe there is a danger of their losing it. It is nothing but propaganda. The same thing happened in the days of St. Paul, in Ephesus I believe, when a famous attack was made against the Christian religion Demetrius the silversmith gathered his people together and pointed out to them that they were likely to lose their business, which was the making of images of Diana. For the space of two hours-there was no forty minute rule there-they howled against St. Paul. They did not argue; they did not use logic; they simply howled, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians." Here we have pretty much the same sort of thing. These people are as reluctant as I should be to give up this valuable, profitable and fortune-making monopoly, and now they threaten to shut down. Not a bit of it. Talk about their investment of $20,000! Do you know that the investment of the troller association amounts to half a million dollars? Yet they are not looking for any special privilege, and there is no danger that they will discontinue operations. We need not fear this company shutting down if we take away this privilege. If forty-two or forty-eight other concerns can make a living and pay the same wages, and a good deal more for their fish than this company pays, why cannot this particular cannery do the same?
The minister said that he could see no connection between our traps being removed and the removal of the United States traps. There might not have been any connection, but we may rest assured that there will be a connection if we do not abandon our traps, because the legislature on the other side of the line is waiting to see what we are going to do, and if we do not play the game their traps will inevitably be restored.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
I must say, with all due deference to the hon. gentleman, that I was disappointed at the attitude he took. I thought his mind was rather turning toward a yielding on this point, but apparently his mind is made up, and I do not know that I can do anything more than vote for the motion as it stands. At any rate my skirts will be clear and I shall have done my duty to the constituency I represent. In his closing remarks, in reply to the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber), he said that he had no objection to referring the question to the fisheries committee. Well, it is always better to get something rather than nothing at all, and if he would move to have the motion amended to that effect I would be agreeable. I cannot amend my own motion, but if he would move such an amendment, to have the matter sent to the committee, though I cannot say that I should be glad I can say that it would be better than nothing.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: If the hon. member will allow me, my suggestion was that he should withdraw his motion and the matter be referred to the fisheries committee.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister give that assurance?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Oh, yes.


Alan Webster Neill: Because, as the rule stands to-day-and I remember it being enforced last year-nothing can be debated in that committee unless sent to it by order of this house. But the minister's word is good to me. So with the consent of my seconder I shall withdraw the motion on that understanding, and I thank the minister for his courtesy.
Motion (Mr. Neill) withdrawn.



FOREIGN POLICY


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the foreign policy of Canada should conform to the following principles:
1.	That under existing international relations, in the event of war, Canada should remain strictly neutral regardless of who the belligerents may be.
2.	That at no time should Canadian citizens be permitted to make profits out of supplying war munitions or materials.
3.	That the Canadian government should make every effort to discover and remove the causes of international friction and social injustice.
He said: It seems to me that unsettled conditions both in Europe and Asia make it imperative that we should consider our Canadian foreign policy. The world is rapidly becoming an armed camp. We were told that the last war was fought to end war, but now it would seem that the last war might easily prove to be simply the prelude to a greater one. The government have intimated that they are bringing down proposals for increased expenditure on armaments. In past years we have been told by Ministers of National Defence that we need an army only to keep subversive elements in order. Occasionally we have been told that we need forces to protect our own shores. Now we are being told that we need a force to protect our neutrality, whatever that may mean. A great number of people believe that these increased estimates definitely foreshadow the possibility of Canada being drawn into another European war. We are being told from very influential quarter that Canada must prepare to assist in the defence of the empire. It seems to me that now is the time when we should have very clearly expressed to us what the policy of the present government is on these matters.
Canada is no longer a colony; we all recognize that. I suggest that we have not yet adopted a policy of our own but are content to tag along, following the lead of Great Britain, or, what is even more serious, try to escape responsibility for any very active policy. I am well aware that there exist great diversities of opinion in Canada with regard to this matter, but for that very reason it seems to me we should face the question now rather than wait until some critical moment when we would find how divided the country really is. I suggest that the oncoming of a war, which might mean our participation, would split this country from stem to stern. One can hardly go to the province of Quebec, or read even cursorily the French-Canadian press, without realizing that there is a very strong sentiment there against being dragged into another war. I would respectfully suggest to the French-Canadian members of this house that if that is so, their responsibility is to say so here and now. I would suggest that when increased expenditures are proposed they ought to join with some of the rest of us and ask the reason for these increased expenditures. Are they merely for our own defence or are they being made in order that we may one day participate in a European war?
I think of the situation in the west. I do not think the west is any less loyal than any other part of this country. But over fifty per cent of the people there are not of Anglo-

foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
Saxon origin. They are interested in the welfare of Canada; they are much less interested in the adventures which may be entered upon by Great Britain in various parts of the world. Many of them came here to escape the burden of militarism, and hence perhaps are able to see things a little more clearly than those who are almost blinded by a certain emotional attachment to the motherland. I can understand the attitude of people who were born in England and whose immediate relatives are still living there, but I do not take their word as final in matters of this kind.
Let me attempt to forestall some rather unwarranted criticisms which have been made of the position which I am trying to state in this resolution. First, I say emphatically that I am not what might properly be called an isolationist. I recognize that to-day no individual can live to himself; that in our modern life every day we are dependent for necessities upon the community around us. To prepare a very modest breakfast table requires the help of workers in almost every part of the world. In our industry, our commerce, our finance, we are closely connected with every other part of the world. No man to-day can live to himself. And as with individuals so with nations. Canada cannot live to herself. A very little disturbance on the stock market in New York is apt to bring about a decided disturbance in financial circles all over the world, and may affect the standard of living of a large part of our population. No, we cannot live apart from the larger world.
Again, I do not think I need tell at least the older members of this house that I am not anti-British or un-British. In Great Britain the policies of the country are discussed fully. The Labour party there may adopt a policy differing very widely from that cf some of the big industrialists. But there they consider it very desirable that all sections of the community should be heard from. That ought to be true in this country; it is the only way by which our democratic machinery can operate.
Furthermore, it seems to me thart the people who believe in military preparation as a means of defence have no monopoly of patriotism. Some of us who were born in Canada and whose ancestors were born here and helped to lay the foundation of this country have just as much right to speak on the subject as have some of the individuals who differ very widely from us. I think when I undertake to express my views I am far more British in spirit than if I slavishly followed the lead of some people who live in Great Britain.
TMr. Woodsworth.]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Again, I am not
what might be called a do-nothing pacifist. But there are several things which I have come very firmly to believe. The first is that war settles nothing. A year or so ago Canadian Business quoted a statement by Nicholas Murray Butler, who estimated that the cost of the last war was some thirty million lives and some four hundred billion dollars. I do not know that there is any very clear statement as to what it cost Canada. The Financial Post, which is usually considered to be conservative in these matters, put it some time ago at $4,341,488,904. We lost over sixty thousand of our best men, and to-day we have some fifty thousand unemployed veterans who are not receiving the assistance they should get.
All this is but indicative of the cost in blood and treasure of the great war, and yet that great war settled no major problem. Eighteen years later instead of a kaiser we have a Hitler; instead of the assistance of Italy we have the aggressiveness of Mussolini; instead of a friendly Japan we have the oriental menace. Everywhere there is confusion, and the danger of a still greater war. I should like to ask whether there is any prospect that the "bigger and better" war of the future, to use the common phrase of the street, will settle anything.
Again, I am coming pretty firmly to the conclusion that as war settles nothing, so armaments are no insurance against war. Before the last war Germany was well prepared; yet Germany suffered very heavily. Responsible British leaders have assured us that England was never better prepared, but the last war came and the best prepared suffered the most severely. It is all very well for us to talk about fire insurance and ladders and	hose, but	if we live in	a	jerry-builttown I do not think the ladders and the hose are going to make our homes safe from catastrophe. More attention must be paid to the kind of buildings if we are to have any sort of security. If we are to secure peace we must adopt policies that are constructive. We	must not	be	content with	merely anegative attitude; we must set out deliberately to discover and adopt those policies which will help to prevent war. Further than that-and this is perhaps not quite so palatable to a good many people-we must be prepared to pay the price of peace. If, when war	comes, we	are	prepared	to	spend ourhundreds of millions; if, even long before war	comes, we	are prepared	to	spend the
millions that are set out in the estimates now before us, I suggest that we should be

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
willing to spend a half, a quarter, even only a tenth part of that amount, if you will, in attempting to carry out some sort of policies that might lead to peace.
In the first paragraph my resolution refers to existing international relations. I do not say that this should be so under some ideal system, or with a world league functioning properly; I say that under existing international relations, in the event of war Canada should remain neutral regardless of who may be the belligerents.


Norman McLeod Rogers: Does that mean subject to existing international obligations?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not taken that particular matter into account in my resolution, because no nation connected with the League of Nations has lived up to its international obligations and, as an hon. member behind me suggests, Canada has never accepted any definite military obligations. We have always refused to give pledges beforehand.
In formulating a Canadian policy consideration must be given, it seems to me, to three things: Our relationship to the league; our relationship to the empire, and the welfare of Canada itself. I submit that the league as constituted has failed. I am not talking about the league as it should be. In more recent years I have endeavoured to do all that I could for the league, because it is the only instrument we have. Sometimes it has been said that when I spoke along this line I was repudiating the league. That is not my thought, but I do urge that as far as the safety of this country or of other countries is, at the moment concerned, we must confess that the league has failed. Manchuria and Ethiopia are the most outstanding examples, as well as indications of the inherent weakness of the present set-up. The fact is that the great nations have not taken the league seriously. From 1913 to 1930, before the last great armament race, Great Britain and France increased their armaments fifty per cent. That is, while talking about the league and while contributing small amounts to it, they were not relying upon it for their security; they were going ahead steadily with their individual armament programs long before this last crisis came upon us. The United States, which of course is not in the league, trebled its armaments. While we were supposed to be relying upon this rather evasive thing called "collective security," there were increased armaments all along the line.
I urge that Canada should work for a league in which each nation would be willing to surrender its sovereignty and its individual armaments; that is, in very simple terms, the
right to do as it pleases and, in the last resort, the power to enforce its own decision. That is what we do in our community life. We surrender to the courts what were once regarded as individual rights. There has been a general tendency to decry any attempt to erect the league to the position of being a super-state. I am convinced that it is only that kind of league which is going to prove worth while. Mr. Eden, according to the papers, is now advocating what is termed a tame league. Let me suggest that collective security should be more than a phrase. If we are to have collective security insured by armaments, then those armaments must be collective armaments. If we are to have collective security by other and more peaceful means, then there must be collective agreements. To those people who charge that we are giving up the league, I should like to put the question: Are you prepared to work for a league that will have teeth in it, a league that will be effective, a league to which the nations will give such allegiance that in the last analysis they will be willing to give up what the lawyers hitherto have termed our national sovereignty, and our national armaments?
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When the house
took recess I was suggesting that in formulating a Canadian policy consideration must be given to our relationship to the league, our relationship to the empire and, lastly, the welfare of Canada. I suggested that the league, as it is at present constituted, had failed to offer security, and I urged that we must seek to build a more effective league. At the present time, in despair of attaining security through the collective agency of the league, there seems to be a tendency to revert to various alliances, to go back to the old system, and to depend upon the strength of the empire.
What is this empire that we are called upon to defend? Generally the term "commonwealth" has been used to designate the selfgoverning British nations, but recently there has been a tendency to use this synonymously with the word "empire." This seems to me subtle propaganda on the part of the imperialists. For example, in the Canadian Defence Quarterly of October, 1936, an editorial review of an article in the Round Table refers to the Mediterranean policy of the jommonwealth of nations. I must say that
240	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
during my fifteen years in parliament I have never heard the most remote reference to a Canadian Mediterranean policy. At a recent meeting of the Imperial Parliamentary conference Sir Samuel Hoare spoke of the solidarity of the commonwealth upon the sea. He referred to Singapore as being a vital contribution to the British commonwealth. He said, "We look with confidence for the cooperation of the whole British commonwealth of nations." I rather thought we had settled that matter pretty well away back in Laurier's time. It would1 be strange indeed if the Liberal government of our day should succumb to the same old proposal brought forward in a somewhat camouflaged way.
Remember that the so-called self-governing nations constitute only fifteen per cent of the British Empire. What about the other eighty-five per cent? As a boy I used to read of the trial of Warren Hastings, and I then obtained a little idea of how a part of our empire had been acquired. During the Boer war I was a student in England and I remember how Lloyd George protested against the British action in the Transvaal. However, it was not until several years later that I really began to understand what imperialism meant. I can remember very distinctly visiting the army and navy museum in Whitehall. I remember seeing all the engines of war, ancient and modern. There were set out the tattered flags that had been carried by British regiments in all parts of the world. I saw blood stained garments worn by natives of almost every country in the world. I then began to understand a little more clearly the price of empire paid in human blood and human suffering.
A short time later, when returning from Egypt, I fell in with a young British engineer who told me in detail something of the progress of empire in northern Africa. He told me how the unscrupulous traders would go in and exploit the natives. The natives in desperation might murder a white man. Then an expeditionary force would be sent in. There would be reprisals and counter reprisals. A protectorate would be declared, and before very long this particular territory would be annexed as part of the British Empire. I am speaking particularly of the British Empire as I know a little more of that than I do of other empires, but the same proceeding has characterized the building up of the French empire, of the American empire and of the Japanese empire. These empires have been acquired to serve the interests of a very small part of the community which has had to

spend so much upon them. As I see it, imperialism is simply capitalism in international affairs. Recently I came across an almost prophetic statement by Sir Thomas More. He said:
Everywhere do I perceive a certain conspiracy of rich men seeking their own advantage under the name and pretext of a commonwealth.
Let me read J. A. Hobson's considered statement:
The decades of imperialism have been prolific in wars; most of these wars have been directly motivated by aggression of white races upon lower races by forcible seizure of territory. Every one of the steps of expansion in Africa, Asia and the Pacific has been accompanied by bloodshed.
What a terrific indictment of imperialism! I think anyone who has taken the trouble to read the history of imperialism must come to some such conclusion as that. If I can prevent it, I do not intend to have my boys and my neighbours' boys sacrificed to any such system, a system which results in exploiting native races or building up fortunes for a few industrial and financial magnates and war profiteers-all under the guise of patriotism. I have nothing whatever to say against that country which we so affectionately term, "The Motherland," but I think we in Canada must be very careful lest we lend ourselves to carrying out the policies of a few great industrial and commercial and financial groups in the motherland. I am getting somewhat tired of being told that we in this country are unpatriotic because we do not jump when Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Chamberlain or someone else tells us to do so.
I suggest that if the British connection is to be maintained, Canada must have an effective voice in the policies which vitally concern her people. Canada should claim at once the right to declare war or peace. I brought this matter up last year. I suggested that Canada is said to be autonomous under the Statute of Westminster, but we are also told that when Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war. It would appear that while Canada has now full control of her own legislation, she has not full control over the executive functions of government. South Africa by her Status of Union Act and Royal Executive Functions and Seals Act sought to attain such control over her own affairs. Some one may object that if that policy is carried out it will mean independence. If that is so, then I say, by all means let us have independence. On the other hand, as one who desires to preserve the British connection, I would suggest quite seriously that it is only

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodswortli
in so far as we in Canada have effective control over the policies which concern our people, and the other dominions have similar control, that we shall be able to maintain the British commonwealth.
I assume I still have distant cousins living in Yorkshire. They may be in a position to decide what is a good thing with regard to the foreign policy of Great Britain, but I do not think it is egotistical for me to say that I, living in Canada, have just as good a right to take my part in deciding what ought to be the foreign policy of Canada. I think that should be clearly understood. I do not propose to take any position inferior to that of my distant cousins in Yorkshire. I suggest that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) did not lose all the brains he possessed when he left the old land and should not be placed in an inferior position simply because he has come to Canada to reside. There is, then, the need of arranging our affairs in such a way that Canada shall have complete control over her foreign policy.
I should like to ask, in the next place: What should be Canada's policy, from a purely Canadian standpoint, with regard to war? Canada as a nation does not stand in any immediate danger. The United States is our only powerful neighbour, and she, I feel quite sure, will not make any military attack upon us. In fact, those who rely on military force may rest assured that the United States would resist outside aggression upon us, and that for her own sake. Some may feel that we should not be under obligations of this kind. On the other hand, let me ask: Why should we not take advantage of the position in which we find ourselves on this continent? If I live in an area of fireproof buildings, why should I not be happy in enjoying greater immunity from fire hazards?
Those who say that we ought not to be under any obligation to the United States should carry their reasoning to its logical conclusion. The United States has a population of some 120,000,000, and we a population of some 11,000,000. If we are going to be able to "talk up" to the United States, as they sometimes put it on the street, we ought to be prepared to have a national defence program at least as large as that of the United States. Surely that is an absolute absurdity. Why not, on the other hand, recognize that the people of the United States are our friends, and that we may be their friends, and be secure in that happy position?
Lest it should1 be considered that I am stating what is simply a personal position I should like to read to the house a resolution which was adopted last August by the national convention of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation held in the city of Toronto early in August. The following resolution on foreign policy and world peace was adopted:
The imperialist powers have betrayed the principles of the League of Nations and are feverishly preparing for another war. The situation is so serious that it is no longer possible to content ourselves with vague declarations about our devotion to peace. A clear and conscious foreign policy has become of paramount importance.
Government Policy and the People:	The
stron&ly condemns the secrecy with which foreign policy has been conducted by .Liberals and Conservatives alike. Under Mr King as under Mr. Bennett, it has been the practice to delay and avoid discussion of what our Department of External Affairs has been doing and of what commitments it may have undertaken. Yet upon these secret decisions may depend the lives of tens of thousands of young Canadians. Such conduct is a denial of all the democratic principles of responsible government. A C.C.F. government will take the Canadian people into its confidence on this as on other matters.
Canada and the empire: At present, Canada has not legally achieved complete control over her foreign policy because she is technically at war when Great Britain is at war. The C.C F therefore favours legislation similar to that recently passed in South Africa, which will remove the legal and constitutional obstacles to independent action by the Canadian parliament and government on all questions of peace and war. Such legislation will make it clear to the world that Canada is free to be neutral m any war, even in one in which the other members of the British Commonwealth are engaged.
Canada and the League of Nations: The C.C.h. reaffirms its belief that the principle causes of war in the modern world are economic competition, the struggle for raw materials and markets, and the class conflicts, which are an essential part of the capitalist system. It is evident that the most socialist countries to-day are the strongest influence for peace, whilst militarism, aggressive nationalism and war propaganda are flourishing amongst the capitalist and fascist powers. The change from capitalism to a socialist economy planned in the interest of the people will be the best protection against war.
It is, however, clear that a properly organized League of Nations can be of great help in organizing world opinion against war and in establishing a system of collective security to prevent aggression. The present league has failed because imperialist governments have used it as a screen behind which to play the old game of power politics. To be effective the league must provide machinery for the peaceful change of treaties; it must deal fearlessly with economic conflicts arising from trade rivalries and from the struggle for raw materials; it must work out in advance a clear policy for



Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsicorth
collective action against an aggressor; and its members must disarm. The C.C.F. will actively support any policy which aims at such developments in the league.	.
Neutrality:	Until such reorganization is
achieved, the C.C.F. believes that Canada should remain strictly neutral in case of war regardless of who the belligerents may be. The Canadian government should avoid all commitments in any schemes of imperial defence and should confine its defence policy to local Canadian needs.
An hon. MEMBER; Who wrote that?
Mr. WOODSWORTH; Somebody asks; Who wrote that? I am not quite sure who drafted the resolution, but it was passed at our convention with a very large majority.
Let me come to the second clause in my motion:
That at no time should Canadian citizens be permitted to make profits out of supplying war munitions or materials.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, to be utterly despicable to profit by the miseries of others. Canada like most other nations has imposed trade restrictions, which are always a cause of friction. Further, we have allowed certain groups of Canadians to profit out of the troubles of others, and apparently we are proposing to permit this on an even larger scale. Doctor Stephen Leacock is reported recently as having said:
Europe's preparation for \yar, in a cold mean business sense, helps us immensely.
Something more than a recognition that this is a cold, mean, business proposition is necessary if we are to avoid the inevitable consequences of such a policy. I venture to quote a passage from Scripture, which I think still holds good, "Be not deceived, God is not mocked." That nation which permits its citizens to profit out of the miseries and bloodshed of others, is headed for disaster and richly deserves its doom. As I said earlier in my remarks, if we want peace we must be prepared to pay the price of peace.
I come now to the third clause of my motion:
That the Canadian government should make every effort to discover and remove the causes of international friction and social injustice.
As I have done before in this house, I urge a scientific approach to this problem. We have all had more or less of a scientific training, either academic or practical. If your car stalls, you do not say resignedly, God wills it; you do not pray about it; you may curse it, it is true, but you get out and try to find out what is wrong. Before a doctor prescribes he makes what he calls a diagnosis, a careful study of the case in order to discover

the cause of the trouble. Ultimately the medical health officer, it appears to me, will to a large extent replace the individual practitioner. Now war, like disease, does not come simply out of thin air. It is the result of definite, ascertainable causes, and our job is to discover and to remove those causes.
What, then, are the causes of war? In the past there has been the pressure of population; there have been dynastic and religious wars, and so on. I think the cause of modern wars might be classed largely as psychological and economic. Many nations have developed a sort of megalomania, or magnified sense of their own importance, and in consequence we have "Deutchland uber Alles," "Britannia rules the waves," "Japan the child of heaven," and all that kind of thing. We learn to think and speak contemptuously of our rivals or of those whom we call "lesser breeds without the law." As long as we apply opprobrious terms and have this manner of looking at things, we are undoubtedly laying up trouble for ourselves in the future. But I submit that the economic causes of war are more fundamental. Since machine production has been adopted there has been a search for markets and for sources of raw materials. This was followed by an effort to secure fields of investment, which generally meant markets for capital goods. Markets and investments and trade routes had to be protected. The flag followed trade. Thus we see the development of that imperialism which is one of the characteristics of the last fifty years. Modern wars in a very large measure have been occasioned either by the extension of territory or by the defence of empire. According to a recent book issued by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the western powers now control 84-6 per cent of the earth's surface. Japan has recently more than trebled her holdings. Great Britain controls nearly twenty-five per cent of the world's total population. Here, then, we have a situation that undoubtedly is fraught with danger. Let me quote Mr. Harold Butler, director of the International Labour office:
War is not caused wholly or mainly by lust for territory or booty or prestige; it is also caused by low standards of living, by the feeling of economic insecurity, by the desire for moral or social emancipation. The founders of the organization were right when they discerned an indissoluble connection between peace and social justice.
There you have it in a nutshell-we cannot have peace until we have social justice.
As I see the matter, there are two cardinal principles that should underlie Canadian foreign policy. The first is to keep out of war-

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
I think I could almost add "at any cost." The second is that we must seek to remove the causes of war. Let me once more quote Mr. Butler:
No doubt the underlying causes which have brought the world once more face to face with disaster are largely to be found in the deep-seated flaws of the economic structure which were created or intolerably aggravated by the world war.
Future wars cannot be national wars. They will result from the clash of rival imperialisms and antagonistic class interests. In such wars there can be no neutrals, and it will be a fight to a finish. I ask: Is there no other way?
In closing, may I say that I do not accuse the members of this house or any other Canadian of really wanting to bring on war, but I am compelled to think that a great many rely upon armaments as a defence, even when again and again it has been shown that armaments are not effective. We as a people follow those policies that inevitably lead to war and we refuse to try out any policies that might bring peace.
Last Christmas, when peace and good will were literally in the air, or on the air, I listened on the radio to those messages of love which were going out from fathers and mothers to their sons in the far northern country. One could not but be stirred by the tones of the mothers whose voices trembled with emotion. They sent out a few words to their boys in far-off mining camps or in patrols in the Arctic. I felt that that is true Canadianism-not this talk of war, not this preparing to send those boys to Europe, but the conquest of the natural resources of our own country and the building up here of a country that is worth while. Then I listened again and I heard once more, in a round-the-world broadcast, those wonderful old Christmas carols so familial to us all. These were coming to us from the various British dominions, and not only from them but even from Germany and other countries that we are coming to hate or to despise but that, after all, share with us a great cultural heritage.
I am convinced that if we spent one-tenth of the money and effort which we would have to spend in war, in getting together now as groups and nations, to discover the road to peace, we would be able even yet to avoid that greatest of all disasters-another world war.
One other radio message to which I listened on Christmas day was the presentation of that old Christmas story of Charles Dickens, "A Christmas Carol." Some way or another old
31111-16$
Scrooge had discovered through that series of dreams a new way of life. It may seem to us quite inconsistent that a man can give up his money and still be happy. Scrooge learned, when he ceased to be a miser, that there was a great deal more in life than he had imagined. He entered upon a real life. I could not but wish that we had in Canada to-day some Charles Dickens who could do for us in these days, in some measure, what was done a hundred years ago in Great Britain. We need someone to-day to reveal to us what are the true realities and what is the true way to peace; that we can afford to give up instead of holding on, and be none the poorer; that we can afford to regard the stranger as a friend instead of an enemy. And while I do not want to be guilty of making a mere emotional appeal, I say that we stand to-day in a position in the history of our own country and of the world when it is imperative that every thoughtful citizen should consider whether there is not yet some way in which we can avoid a war; and further that if war comes, Canada at least may not be in it.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister):	The resolution which my
hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has just introduced relates to the foreign policy of Canada, and it sets forth certain principles to which my hon. friend asks that the foreign policy of Canada should conform. May I at once say to my hon. friend that I agree with him in stressing the importance of discussion in this house of Canadian foreign policy. I do not think, however, he was quite fair either to himself or to the house when he told us that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation had denounced both political parties- the old political parties so-called-for not having permitted in this house an early opportunity of discussion of foreign policy. My answer to my hon. friend is that we are now discussing foreign policy within ten days of the opening of parliament, and that at a very early stage of previous sessions, had they wished so to do, precisely the same method as he has adopted to-night was open to my hon. friend and to all other hon. members of the house to bring about a similar discussion of foreign policy. If, in previous sessions, my hon. friend has been disappointed in not having as early a discussion of foreign policy as he might have wished, he has only to thank himself for any delay or omission there may have been in the introduction of an appropriate motion.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will my right hon. friend permit me? I believe that even last year the Prime Minister refused to enter into a discussion of foreign policy on the ground that it was not wise to do so at that time.


An hon. MEMBER:: He adjourned the
debate.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: If I recall
correctly what took place last session, it was that it was considered advisable to agree upon a day for the discussion of foreign policy; that conditions in Europe at the time rendered it inadvisable to have the discussion early rather than a little later on. The house generally agreed with that view. When the time came, a full day and, I think, more than a day, was allowed for the discussion.	.
However, my purpose in speaking^ to-night is not to disagree with my hon. friend any more than I can possibly help but rather to agree with him as much as I can. There is much in the resolution which he has introduced, which, I believe, is in the right direction.
The resolution has three distinct proposals setting forth principles to which Canada's foreign policy should conform. With one of them I am in entire agreement. With another, I agree in part. With the third. I totally disagree. I believe the hon. member would have made his resolution more logical if he had dealt with its third proposal first, and reversed the order in which he discussed the other two. The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the foreign policy of Canada should conform to the following principles:
1.	That under existing international relations, in the event of war, Canada should remain strictly neutral regardless of who the belligerents may be.
2.	That at no time should Canadian citizens be permitted to make profits out of supplying war munitions or materials.
3.	That the Canadian government should make every effort to discover and remove the causes of international friction and social injustice.
I submit that the last of these proposals should have been discussed first. If causes of international friction and social injustices were removed there would be no wars. There would be no occasion to discuss neutrality if there were no war. I agree entirely with my hon. friend when he says that the Canadian government should make every effort to discover and remove the causes of international friction and social injustice. I believe it is true that the governments of Canada, speaking generally, have had that as a primary objective. So far as opportunities have permitted, this country, speaking generally, has

sought, in cooperation with other countries, to do what it could toward removing the causes of international friction. Certainly the present administration has put that objective in the forefront of all its endeavours. There never before was a time when, so far as relations with other countries are concerned, Canada's position was better than it is to-day. The policy of the good neighbour is outstanding, I believe, in the relations between the United States and Canada. So far as other countries are concerned, we have sought in every way possible to show them that it is our desire not only to trade with them, but to have the friendliest relations in all directions, and to cooperate with them as much as possible in removing their grievances as well as our own. My hon. friend will not say that the world must look to Canada alone to remove social injustice or the causes of international friction. That is work which of necessity requires cooperative effort. I believe that this country, in conjunction with the great country to the south, in the constitution of the International Joint Commission, to which are referred questions capable of creating differences between the two countries, has set the world the finest example it enjoys in the way of dealing with possible international differences. By the establishment of legations in the United States, in Japan, and in France, we have endeavoured to show our desire to conduct our relations with these nations, our nearest neighbours, in a way which would help to promote good will as between them and us.
Speaking of concrete policies, we hold very strongly, and I believe my hon. friend does also, that certain economic policies may be the cause of international friction; that, for example, high tariff barriers, which destroy trade between countries, help to create a condition of economic nationalism which is at the root of much of the unrest from which the world is suffering to-day. From the time the present administration came into office, we have done our best to remove some of these causes, and to make clear that our policies were in the direction of removing them as generally as we possibly could. 1 cannot recall any instances where we have imposed barriers to trade. I can mention innumerable instances in which we have removed barriers and. to that extent, created a more friendly and favourable relation between other countries and ourselves.
May I refer to two outstanding causes of friction between other nations and Canada which we found when we came into office. We had left office in 1930 with a prosperous trade

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
between Japan and Canada, and with the best of relations existing between the two countries. When we came back into office in 1935, a trade war was being waged between Japan and Canada. Owing to disputes over the interpretation of statutes and restrictions imposed in various ways, there had come about a cessation of trade between the two countries. This trade war might have led to bitter enmity between the two countries had it been allowed to continue indefinitely. We set about immediately to remove the causes of friction. We succeeded in removing them, and from that day to this the relations between Japan and Canada have improved economically and in other ways to the mutual benefit of the two countries.
Under the previous administration Canada had placed an embargo on certain of the products of another great country, as a result of which an embargo had been placed on products going to that country from Canada. In less than a year from the time the present government came into office, we were successful in arranging for the lifting of the embargoes which had served to destroy trade between Russia and Canada. When I attended the League of Nations last fall, I had occasion to speak on the relations of Canada with other countries of the world. Fortunately I was able to say that, so far as Canada was concerned, there was not a single country in the world toward which we were exercising discrimination in the matter of our trade; that we were ready and willing to trade with any country which was prepared to trade with us. But had it not been for the removal of the embargoes which were in force when we assumed office, I should have had to make an exception to that statement, an exception which it would have been most unfortunate for me to have to make at that particular time and in that particular place. These are but instances of the general policy of the government, a part of its foreign policy based upon a determined effort to remove causes of friction wherever they may exist between other nations and ourselves.
I believe that another way in which that objective can be furthered and is being furthered by Canada, and has been furthered by all governments that have held office in Canada, is through a policy of non-interference in the domestic affairs of other countries. We have become so used to boasting of our right to govern ourselves, and of our complete autonomy in all matters of government, that it is very natural for us to adopt toward other countries the attitude that their matters of domestic concern should not be made the
subject of direction on the part of other countries. That is a very important position to maintain to-day having regard to the turn of events in many countries. As the house well knows, some nations have changed their form of government and system of social organization. There are political philosophies and economic doctrines held by some nations, to which other nations strongly object. I am certain that any effort on the part of one country to dictate to other countries what their political or social systems shall be. cannot, in the long run, do anything other than make for trouble and friction. Canada has been careful not to interfere in any way with the domestic affairs of any other country. I might go on to mention numerous other instances where we have sought to avoid and to remove the causes of friction, but perhaps I have given enough to make clear what the objective of the ministry is in that particular. I cannot, on the other hand, think of any case in which the present government has created friction with other nations. That, after all, is perhaps the strongest indication of what we are seeking to do in our relations with other countries and of the success of our foreign policy.
I listened with interest to what my hon. friend said in the concluding part of his remarks about trying to improve conditions generally; his suggestion was that instead of spending money on armaments and munitions, it should be spent on social well-being and human betterment. As my hon. friend spoke, there came to my mind those lines which Longfellow wrote many years ago on the Arsenal at Springfield. As nearly as I recall them at the moment, they ran something like this:
Were half the power that fills the world with terror,
Were half the wealth bestowed on camps and courts,
Given to redeem the human mind from error, There were no need of arsenals or forts:
The warrior s name would be a name abhorred!
And every nation that should lift again
Its hand against a brother, on its forehead Would wear for evermore the curse of Cain!
These words were written some years ago. They were true then. They were equally true nearly two thousand years ago. The great principles which underlie them were enunciated by the founder of Christendom almost two thousand years ago.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Never practised,
though.
246	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, that is the unfortunate part, and it is because they are not practised that we find it necessary to do some things which otherwise it would not be necessary for us to do.
My hon. friend, speaking about social conditions, referred in the earlier part of his argument to conditions in cities. He said that we would not have any need of fire engines and like apparatus or of firemen if our houses were all properly built, and if we did not have jerry-ibuilt houses. Well that is not quite true. Let us assume for the moment that we have a city with properly constructed buildings. My hon. friend has not made allowance for one thing, the thing of which we have been speaking, namely the possibility of someone whose mind is not free from error being guilty of arson, setting fire to a building, and the certainty of the fire spreading to all parts of the city unless there are firemen and fire engines and other forms of protection. That is pretty much the position the world, is in to-day. There are many men and women in all countries who are just as anxious as my hon. friend not to have their sons sent to war, not to have their homes bombed, not to have their families smothered with gas. But they are trembling to-day lest those very things may come to pass. That' fear is not confined to any one country; it exists more or less in every country of the world. We are fortunate in having reason to feel that we are least likely to suffer in this way. The possibility of these conditions exists because the human heart is not free from error, because the principles of Christianity, which I believe my hon. friend shares as strongly as I do, have not been practised, and men throughout the world still lack that regard for their neighbours which they ought to have, and are not prepared to extend to their fellow mem the understanding, the sympathy and the love which they should extend. That is what makes it necessary for those who desire to follow the law of peace and health and work to place themselves also in a position where they may be able to resist those forces which make for destruction and death.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Are we to wait until the others practise all these virtues first before we try to put them into effect?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know that I quite get the force of my hon. friend's remark. Unhappily the angels of light or of darkness do not preside exclusively over any particular country, over any particular race or any particular class; they contend for
[Mr Woodsworfch.l
supremacy in the breast of every individual. In some breasts the angels of darkness triumph, and in others the angels of light. As long as they continue to carry on their conflict in individual lives, so long will those who are seeking the good of their fellows have to be prepared. Whether they like it or not, to protect themselves and others against the possible injury which may be wrought where the wrong forces obtain the ascendancy.
To explain the causes of the world's unrest to-day, one would have to soar into the realm of metaphysics and discuss the fundamental problem of good and evil. There can be no denying the fact that forces of evil are present in the world, fighting against the forces of good. As long as there is this conflict, those who wish to see the good triumph must take every possible means to prevent evil from gaining control.
My hon. friend referred to the estimates. He stated some were claiming they were evidence of preparation for another European war. The hon. member asked: Are these estimates for that purpose? Are they for the defence of Canada, or what are they for? I am not going to anticipate what the Minister of Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) may have to say when the estimates of his department are before this house for discussion. But I do wish to say at once that, as far as the estimates presented to parliament at this session are concerned, any increase placed there has been only and solely because of what the government believe to be necessary for the defence of Canada, and for Canada alone. The estimates have not been framed with any thought of participation in European wars. They have not been framed as a result of any combined effort or consultation with the British authorities, beyond what would obviously be in the interests of all in the matter of gaining the benefit of expert opinion where expert opinion was obviously desirable. So far as policy is concerned, I wish to make it perfectly clear that no request of any kind has come from the British government to our government with respect to a single item that appears in the estimates as they have been brought down. Whatever is there is there as .a result of what this government feel is necessary in Canada to-day, Canada being part of the world as the world is to-day.
My hon. friend has referred to the United States and the detached position of that nation, and the determination of the United States not to become entangled in European or Asiatic affairs. What he said in that

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
regard is perfectly true. But it must be obvious that at no previous time has the United States found it necessary to spend the amount of money it is spending to-day on purposes of defence. May I repeat that whatever has been done or is being proposed with respect to necessary increases and expenditure to bring Canada's defence to a more efficient standard than at present has been done with consideration for the needs of Canada and of Canada alone.	_
I come now to the second clause in my hon. friend's resolution-
That at no time should Canadian citizens be permitted to make profits out of supplying war munitions or materials.
-Here I find myself pretty much in accord with what I think my hon. friend has in mind. I share the hon. member's abhorrence of anything in the nature of profiteering. I cannot imagine a more contemptible means of seeking to make one's fortune than by doing so at the expense of the lives of others. But that is not the purport of the resolution. The resolution states that at no time should Canadian citizens be permitted to make profits out of supplying war munitions or materials. "No time" goes pretty far. That is where my hon. friend, perhaps more often than anyone else, errs in the drafting of his resolutions. He goes to too great an extreme. When he says "at no time," he simply renders it impossible to have an exception made regardless of what conditions may be.
Let us assume that there .were a war; that this country unhappily were in the war, and that we had to secure munitions. Does my hon. friend say that we should not allow any Canadian citizen to make profits out of supplying war munitions or materials? If he does, then all the munitions and the equipment necessary for war would have to be made under nationalized industry. Perhaps the nationalization of the entire munitions industry may be what he has in mind.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should be very glad to have it nationalized, but that is not contained in my resolution. The resolution states that no profits should be made out of it. We would not have had our great war debt to-day if there had been no profits made out of the last war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there are to be no profits, I cannot think of any way in which industry can be carried on other than by its complete nationalization. If my hon. friend can tell me of another way, I shall be glad to learn of it. Of one thing I am perfectly sure; no manufacturer of munitions
will engage in that business for the sake ol charity. The choice lies between state monopoly and private industry, or partly the one and partly the other. Some years ago the League of Nations recognized that there was great danger in permitting private industry to engage too largely in the manufacture of munitions. I think the league was right in that. I think private industry, where it is engaged in the manufacture of munitions and war materials, has to be watched closely, for the very reason mentioned by my hon. friend, namely to see that excessive profits are not made.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Did not the private soldier have to risk his life for $1.10 a day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but that does not affect the point. I am speaking now of how munitions are to be produced without profit, which is what my hon. friend says should be made a part of our foreign policy. At "no time" may mean a period when the country actually may be at war, or it may be a time when the country is not at war. Let us take conditions as they are at present. At the present time, in order to be prepared in the matter of defence, we must have a supply of small arms and of munitions of different kinds. Does my hon. friend say that it should all be manufactured under state ownership and control, which would eliminate the possibility of profits altogether? Unless he goes that far, he must concede that the only other way in which these materials can be supplied, if they are to be obtained in Canada, is through private industry. I agree with my hon. friend that we should seek most carefully to control private industry, but I cannot see how, in a system of competitive industry, you can totally eliminate the possibility of some profit being made.
Guns and shot and powder are not the only materials required for war. They are not the only materials that present a temptation in the matter of profits when war occurs. I think my hon. friend was in this house when we saw at the time of the last war what had happened with respect to the sale of horses and binoculars. Grain and foodstuffs of different kinds become in the nature of war supplies.


Mr. CAHAN:: Wheat and beef and pork and cheese and potatoes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and all the rest of the necessary supplies.


James Shaver Woodsworth: You might throw in nickel for good measure.
248	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And boots and shoes and clothing. Are all these things to be procured only under a government owned and controlled system which will not permit of profits being made? All that could result from a policy of that sort, if it were possible, would be the creation of a non-profit socialist island inside a competitive economy. But I doubt very much if we could get that far in Canada in a great many years, and, even if we did, whether it would be a good thing for the country. Even if we succeeded in bringing about the nationalization of industry to the extent that all war materials could be manufactured without profit, I am afraid that for a long time to come we would not recover what in the interval we had lost in the way of individual initiative and freedom.
As no doubt hon. members know, this question has recently been the subject of very careful study in the old country by a royal commission on the private manufacture of and trading in arms. The commission has just presented its report. As yet the report has not been either accepted or rejected. If I am not wrongly informed, however, members of all political parties served on the commission, the finding of which with respect to this matter is of interest. That finding is as follows:
The establishment of a universal system of state monopoly of the manufacture of arms is likely to be impracticable, and in present conditions the promotion of general state monopoly should not be a part of the policy of this country.
The	abolition	of the	private industry	inthe United Kingdom and the substitution for it of	a	system	of state monopoly	may	bepracticable; but it is undesirable. No sufficient case has	in our	opinion	been made	out	fortaking	so	drastic	a step.	We believe	that	the
reasons for maintaining the private industry outweigh those for its abolition.


Mr. HEAPS:: May I ask the right hon. gentleman if that report was unanimous?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My impression is that it was.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have a different impression.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There may be some reservations here and there, but my impression is that with regard to the clause I have just read, there was complete agreement. The signatures of all the members named on the commission are subscribed at the conclusion of the report. However, I do not wish to argue that point. What I do say is that I believe any similar inquiry in Canada would bring about similar conclusions. Government manufacture may be desirable in regard to certain kinds of essential supplies which
[Mr. Woodsworth.J
we require continuously. As hon. members of the house know, there is a great variety of special articles required as war supplies and equipment. It would be going much too far not to expect these to be obtained, at least in part, from private concerns which would expect to make some profit. Where, however, private industry is permitted to undertake the manufacture of munitions and war supplies, I believe there should be very strict government supervision. All contracts should contain provisions which will ensure that there will be no opportunity for other than a reasonable profit. I may tell my hon. friend that this whole matter has been given very careful consideration by the government. So far as any contracts with which we may have anything to do are concerned, every effort will be made to prevent anything in the nature of undue profits being secured by those who obtain the contracts.
Let me cdme to the first, and as far as I am concerned the last of the three clauses of the resolution. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the foreign policy of Canada should conform to the following principles:
1. That under existing international relations, in the event of war, Canada should remain strictly neutral regardless of who the belligerents may be.
The first objection which I have to that clause is that it binds the hands of parliament entirely. After all, we who sit in this House of Commons have been sent here as representatives of the people of Canada. They have placed their trust in us. They expect us. particularly with regard to matters of peace and war more than anything else, to exercise the wisest judgment it is possible for human beings to exercise. If my hon. friend's resolution were to carry, the hands of this parliament would be immediately tied with respect to the attitude of Canada in regard to war, regardless of what the circumstances of the war might be or of who the parties concerned might be. This is something I could not accept for a moment. Parliament must be free to decide its attitude in the light of the circumstances as they may exist at the time. Parliament acting for the people is the supreme authority in the state with respect to all matters, and certainly with respect to what is most vital to the nation, namely, the question of whether or not it shall be involved in war. The policy of the present administration is that, in deciding matters of this kind, as the representatives of the people parliament shall be the voice of the nation; parliament shall decide.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
My hon. friend says that, having regard to existing international relations, Canada should remain strictly neutral regardless of who the belligerents may be. In other words, it does not matter in the least to my hon. friend what the circumstances of a great world conflict may be. It does not matter who is responsible for the conflict. It does not matter what the issue may be. It does not matter what other countries are involved, or what their attitude may be. It does not matter what danger there may be to Canada or the extent to which Canada's interests may be involved. It does not matter what other considerations may be involved. We are to declare now that, under all circumstances, this country will remain neutral. I do not believe that any member of this house except my hon. friend-and I doubt very much whether he actually would-would sanction this parliament tying its hands to that extent.
The question of Canada's participation in a war has been discussed many times in this parliament. Neutrality is just another aspect of the same question. Participation in war is the positive aspect, if I may put it in that way, and the question of neutrality is the negative aspect. Over and over again we have laid down the principle that so far as participation by Canada in war is concerned, it will be for our parliament to decide. Having taken that attitude with respect to participation, I think we might well take a similar attitude with respect to neutrality. It will be for this parliament to say in any given situation whether or not Canada shall remain neutral. At any rate that is the position which the present administration proposes to take.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In order that the
house may be perfectly clear on that matter, may I ask this question: Suppose a crisis should arise where it would not be convenient to call parliament within a few days-it might take a week or two-am I to understand that the government would take no action committing the country to war until parliament had been called?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I recall it, the Militia Act requires that parliament must be convened within fifteen days after the militia has been placed on active service. I do not think it would be possible for the militia to be placed on active service and sent out of the country within that period of time. I do not think any government in Canada would contemplate for one moment the placing of any of the forces of this dominion on service beyond the dominion without parliament meeting in the first instance.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I may say so,
that hardly touches the point. The Prime Minister just said that neutrality was the negative side and participation the active side of this war question. I should like to get from him a statement as to whether this country might possibly be committed to war, even though it was not committed to the actual sending of troops out of the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Most certainly not. Our policy is that parliament alone can commit Canada. I cannot make that too clear. At the present time there are no commitments, so far as Canada is concerned, to participate in any war. Equally, there are no commitments of which I am aware, or of which any one else is aware, whereby we agree to remain neutral under all circumstances. The policy of the government with respect to participation and neutrality is that parliament will decide what is to be done.
I think I made the position of Canada very clear when speaking last year at Geneva. I shall quote only two paragraphs of what I said at that time. They will, I believe, remove any doubts there may be in the mind of any hon. member as to the position of the present administration. I want to make it quite clear that 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. It is for this parliament to decide whether or not we will participate in a war in which other parts of the British Empire may be engaged. Let me read what I said at the assembly of the League of Nations in the presence of British ministers and the representatives of other nations.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before the Prime
Minister goes on with that, if I might be permitted, does his statement mean that, even though the British Empire is involved, we shall remain neutral until parliament decides?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have already said that parliament will decide that question. Just how far we shall remain neutral will depend in part upon ourselves and possibly in part upon an enemy which might take it into its head to attack us.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If Great Britain,
went to war, does the Prime Minister consider that we would remain neutral when that, country was involved?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the very point I am objecting to in my hon..
250	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
friend's resolution. He wants us to say here and now that we will remain neutral no matter wrhat the circumstances may be. My reply to him is that parliament will decide whether or not we will remain neutral. We will not be bound in advance as to what position we will take. We will in a ease such as he has mentioned take into account all the circumstances which have occasioned Great Britain entering the war. We will take into account the situation in our own country. In reaching a decision parliament will consider everything that has a bearing on the question of the war.
Let me now read.the statements of Canada's position which I made at Geneva. They ought surely once and for all to be an answer as to where Canada stands on this subject, so far at least as the present administration is concerned.. There may be-I am not quite sure that there are not-some who will differ from the statement of policy, but it is a statement of the present administration's policy, and it is the policy which the present administration intends to follow as long as it remains in office. These quotations are from a speech delivered at the seventeenth session of the assembly at Geneva on September 20, 1936.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is it published separately for distribution?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I shall be glad to send my hon. friend a copy if he has not one. I thought he had one. This is the first statement:
The nations of the British commonwealth are held together by ties of friendship, by similar political institutions, and by common attachment to democratic ideals, rather than by commitments to join together in war. The Canadian parliament reserves to itself the right to declare, in the light of the circumstances existing at the time, to what extent, if at all, Canada will participate in conflicts in which other members of the commonwealth may be engaged.
There was also the following:
The Canadian House of Commons by unanimous resolution has made the adoption of undertakings to apply either military or economic sanctions subject to the approval of parliament.
What I have said and quoted does not mean that in no circumstances would the Canadian people be prepared to share in action against on aggressor; there have been no absolute commitments either for or against participation in rear or other forms of force. It does mean that any decision on the part of Canada to participate in war will have to be taken by the parliament or people of Canada in the light of all existing circumstances; circumstances of the day as they exist in Canada, as well as in the areas involved. fMr. Mackenzie King.]
I do not intend to say more on the subject to-night than to indicate what appear to be the different attitudes being assumed in Canada by various groups of people toward foreign policy and defence, particularly in relation to the question of Canada's participation in war. As far as one can gather from what has appeared in the press, and from what has been said in both houses of parliament, and by public men in different places, it would seem that there are three different positions being assumed with respect to the interrelated questions of empire defence and foreign policy. There are three schools of thought, or three different policies being asserted.
There is what I might call the imperialistic school, and I hope that those who share its view will not feel that I am misnaming it in any way, those who take the position that the British Empire is one and indivisible, and that in matters of defence there should be a common policy, which of necessity means a common foreign policy for the empire. Those who hold this view link the dominions irrevocably with the British Isles with respect to any decision which the latter may make in regard to war. That is the extreme on one side; "a thorough-going imperialism" it has been termed.
Then there is another group, the isolationist, which takes what has been referred to as the "regardless nationalism" view, a thorough-going isolation; the view that Canada should be completely severed from all contacts with countries engaged in war whether the contacts be with other parts of the British commonwealth or with other nations; that we should be an isolated country refusing in any way to be drawn into conflicts across the Pacific, across the Atlantic, or to the south of our boundary.
These are the two extreme views. It is impossible to say in how extreme a form any individual may hold either of these views. Also a point is reached where it may be difficult to say just where one opinion shades into the other, but just as there is a difference between day and night, so there is a difference between these two extremes. As between the two, there is a central moderate attitude, to which it seems to me most of the people of Canada adhere. It fills a middle area in which there is room for a diversity of views and policies having however one thing in common, that the policy must be Canadian throughout. Those holding this attitude are neither imperialistic nor isolationist in their outlook, but they are distinctly Canadian in their outlook. They believe in deciding questions relating to

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
defence or foreign policy by reference to what is Canada's interest. Decisions must be made by Canada primarily in the interests of Canada. In considering her own welfare Canada will naturally take into account the interests of all those with whom she may be associated, but her position will be based upon what appears to be in the interest of Canada in the situation as it may present itself at the time. It is from this point of view that the present administration approaches the questions of peace and war in a world such as we live in to-day. In practice this will not mean a rigid policy expressing itself in automatic action or inaction as trouble arises, but a policy in keeping with conditions and circumstances. In so far as we come to parliament with an expression of our opinion, we will give it to parliament from the point of view that a certain course should be taken because, having regard to all the circumstances existing at the time, we believe it to be in Canada's interest it should be taken.
If I had to find words, Mr. Speaker, m which to express Canada's foreign policy, I would use those which the Apostle Paul addressed to the Romans, when he said to them, "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Those words, applied to Canada as a nation, express our policy. There is not a phrase in that little sentence which is not significant. "If it be possible"; those words are not without their meaning. When we say that we would live at peace with all men, it may nevertheless not be possible in a world such as we are in to-day to live at peace with all men. That is the most serious circumstance with which this country and many other countries are faced at the present time. The world is not in a normal frame of mind. The world has been going through a condition of stress and strain in the last five j'ears which has affected the mentality of men. No one can tell what terrible situation may appear on the horizon at any time. No one can say what mad act may be performed in the course of a crisis which may precipitate a great world catastrophe. God forbid that anything of the kind may come! But no man would be worthy of a place in this parliament who did not realize that there is no part of the world to-day that is not menaced with danger from without, and very few parts not menaced equally from unrest within. It is that fact which lends significance to the next phrase in the sentence I have quoted from St. Paul "as much as lieth in you." "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you"-the Apostle Paul was making clear
when, he used those words that he realized that within an individual-and it is equally true of a nation-there were conditions or forces which sometimes made peaceful relations with others very difficult if not next to impossible.
A government, in dealing with the affairs of a nation, and particularly with international relations, has to consider all possible situations that may arise. Any action for purposes of defence that the present administration has taken or may take will be due to the fact that, as men of affairs and as men of the world, knowing and understanding something of human nature, knowing and understanding something of the world situation as it is to-day and as it is developing, we feel it wise to recommend such action to parliament.
There is one other thing I should like to say, which has an immediate bearing upon the effect of any declaration of neutrality on the part of Canada just at this time. There are times and seasons for all things. In any action this parliament takes, we shall do well to have regard for the world situation as it is to-day and for the way in which our action may be viewed by other parts of the world. If ever there was need for unity on the part of nations and peoples who hold certain cherished ideals of freedom and liberty, that need exists to-day. We have need for unity in our own country. Nothing can do this country more injury than internal disruptions and differences. We have need for unity as between all parts of the British commonwealth of nations. I for one believe that the British commonwealth to-day is exercising a greater influence for peace than any other force in the world. For my part, instead of talking about the danger of Britain dragging us into war, I would say that I think there is not a man living in England to-day who wants war. I believe that the entire British nation-working men, professional men, public men, all classes-are determined to exercise their powers to the last degree to avert a great world catastrophe and to prevent if possible a war into which Britain may be drawn. What Britain has done to appease antagonisms in the last few years is something that the rest of the world hardly begins to appreciate. What, I wonder, would be the condition of Europe to-day if Britain had not endeavoured, as she has at every moment, to avert or circumscribe conflict? She has been the great pacifier. If, at, the moment, the Spanish civil war has not grown to proportions involving the whole of Europe and

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
possibly other parts of the world as well, too much credit cannot be given to Britain. We shall do well to keep this thought in mind as we discuss our relations with the British empire.
Let me proceed. There is more need of unity to-day than ever before, not only among the copies of the British commonwealth, but among all the English speaking peoples of the world. There is great need of unity between the British commonwealth of nations and the United States in seeking to preserve the traditions and safeguards of freedom and of liberty upon which both great political entities are founded. Let me add that there is need to-day for unity among all those nations which cherish democratic ideals and individual freedom, and which in matters of government seek to maintain democratic institutions.
What would be the effect, regardless of who the belligerents may be, of a declaration of neutrality on the part of this parliament to-night? It would simply offer succour and support to those forces that are ready to oppose Canada, to oppose the British commonwealth of nations, to oppose the English speaking peoples, and that have their hand out against democracy and democratic institutions. In the eyes of the world it would simply be a "contracting out" of any endeavour to preserve all that we hold dearest in our national and in our individual lives.
I should like to have said something with regard to the League of Nations; I might just express one thought and close with it. I agree very largely with what my hon. friend has said to-night about the league being founded in some respects on a wrong principle. At the time the covenant was framed, the world was far too much under the war mentality. Instead of emphasis being placed upon the attainment of peace by peaceful means, friendly consultation and cooperation, too much reliance was placed upon force or the threat of force. Had it been otherwise, the world situation might be quite a different one to-day. The league has failed, in part because emphasis was placed upon the prevention of war by warlike means, rather than upon a constructive peace policy based upon the investigation and disclosure of the causes of grievances between nations, and their removal through the operation of an informed and enlightened world opinion. As my hon. friend said this afternoon, war never solved any problem. It has generally made it worse than it was before. Undoubtedly the only way in 
which these great problems will ultimately be solved will be by getting rid of the fundamental grievances that lie at the root of them.
I believe that the League of Nations has yet a great part to play, but it will be able to play that part effectively only when it comes to have universality of membership. A league of nations without the United States, or Germany, or Japan, with Italy neither in nor out, with Brazil out, and with other nations not prepared to live up to obligations which they had assumed, is not an institution which can maintain peace. The reason some countries never came into the league, and the reasons why others went out, or were unwilling to assume risks involved were in part because of the war obligations which the league imposed upon them, or to which they saw its obligation were certain to lead. I believe that with a revision of the covenant which will enable the league to proceed long lines which with further consultation, conciliation and mediation, we shall see develop a great institution which will serve the world well. I had that feeling very strongly at the League of Nations last year. One felt at Geneva in a very real way the absence of Germany, of Japan, of Italy, of the United States and of one or two other countries. The one thing the statesmen of Europe were seeking above all else at that time might have been found at the league, had it been formed originally on a peace basis rather than a war basis. The English, the French and others were asserting the need of a conference of the great powers of Europe. Up to the present time they have not been able to bring such a conference about. Had the league from the outset been functioning as a body for consultation, for conciliation, for mediation, those countries would have been there, and such a conference would have taken place in the natural course of events. I believe that had there been a conference among men of the character of those who were in attendance at the league, with those of the countries not represented who hold the positions of secretaries of state in foreign affairs of their respective countries good results would inevitably have fol'"*ved.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): It is rather a pity that I did not speak before the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), because I was all ready to tender him very hearty congratulations upon his speech at Geneva and to spend some time praising his courage and the clear-cut action which he took there. But the encircling of the circumference of opinion which he has done to-night has tempered my

Foreign Policy

Miss Macphail
enthusiasm. The imperialists ought to be fairly well satisfied with the second last part of his address. At any rate it impressed me as being an assurance to them that they need not worry too much.
The thing that concerns me, all the more so after the Prime Minister's utterance just now, is this new cry of old words-the defence of democracy-even if we have to go to war about it. We fought one war to make the world safe for democracy, but we have had less democracy since than before, and now one can see the same slogan getting into current use again. Surely we ought to be able to think up something different. I saw the other day that Anthony Eden had said that we ought to have a nation fit for heroes. That is so close to "homes fit for heroes" that he should not be credited with originality. It is these recurring phrases that startle thinking people, and I believe that everyone in this house, to whichever group he may belong, is deeply concerned. We all fear another war and we fear that Canada will be dragged into it. But I really did not think we should ever be asked to go to war again on the same old slogans; I thought new ones would be devised.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) ought to be congratulated upon having, by means of this resolution, brought up the question of Canada's foreign policy. Whether we entirely agree with the resolution or not, it has served a very useful purpose, and certainly with parts of it I agree. I agree with the hon. member when he says that Canada's foreign policy has not been given any considerable place in the parliament of Canada. I have been in this house for fifteen years and Canada's foreign policy has been for the most part either too important or not important enough to be discussed; there has always seemed to be some reason why it should not be given a major place in the debates of this house. I suppose that one reason why Canada's foreign policy has been hazy, particularly in the years since the war, has been the fact that there are three distinct schools of thought in Canada. I shall not describe them by the names which the Prime Minister called them, but no doubt I mean exactly what he meant. There is the league or collectivist school; the imperialist school-whether or not that is what was called by the Prime Minister a Canadian school. I cannot be sure-and there is the North American or the Canadian or the isolationist school. If my judgment is correct, the tendency to-day is toward a thoroughly Canadian policy which recognizes
more clearly than before Canada's geographical position. In my opinion the government deliberately refrained from being too specific -and I am referring not only to this government but to others-with respect to its foreign policy, because, should it come out for any one of these three schools, it would thereby offend the other two. So that more harmony was achieved by being vague than by being concrete in the enunciation of foreign policy.
Last September the Prime Minister took what I considered at the time a more heartening attitude. I did think the speech he made at Geneva was a courageous utterance. I am sure it must have been an almost terrifying performance to Geneva in later years to hear someone say what he actually thought aboift international affairs. At any rate, I did think the Prime Minister on that occasion said some things which very much needed saying. In this regard I am depending solely upon the reports of the press at that time. The week after the speech was made I went to the Department of External Affairs to secure a copy, but at that time they did not have one. If any copies are available, I hope to get one. As I say, therefore, I am taking my quotations from the press of that time. Some of the sentences used by the Prime Minister were these:
"The means of solving the problems of Europe were best known," he said, "to the nations of Europe themselves, and were likely at this juncture to be more effective if applied by direct negotiation."
I thought it was quite time that someone made that statement at Geneva and I was happy to realize it had been made by the Prime Minister of Canada. In my opinion we have been thinking, far too long, of European problems as something which it was our duty to solve. The nations of Europe should set about solving their own problems; at any rate, they should not expect people who live as far away as we do from the seat of their continuous trouble to have the unabated interest in their problems that they themselves have. I felt that that was a telling sentence.
I agree entirely with this longer statement:
Canadians-
I think he could have said North Americans with equal truth.
Canadians viewing Europe from their own country were struck with the violent nature of the propaganda and recriminations hurled incessantly across frontiers, the endeavours to draw all countries into one or the other ex-
Foreign Policy-Miss Macphail

tremist camp, in the feverish race for rearmament, the hurrying to and fro of diplomats, the ceaseless weaving and unravelling of understandings and alliances and the consequent fear of peoples.
After discussing our neighbours and our lack of neighbours he went on to say, and this is a position which I have taken for some time:
It would be unreasonable to expect a North American state to have the same international outlook and the same conception of interest or duty as an European state facing widely different conditions.
Again he made this statement:
Perhaps it would be helpful all round if we would recognize-
I call his attention to this particularly to-night.
that differences in policy where they exist do not represent a superior or an inferior outlook, but in the main correspond to the difference in circumstances that we face.
That, I think, needed saying at Geneva. Mr. M. H. Halton-I believe this appeared in the Toronto Daily Star-commenting on the Prime Minister's speech had this to say. There was a good deal of comment in the lobbies at Geneva over the speech and he quotes one of the British delegation as follows:
An excellent speech." said one member of the British delegation here. "Talk all you like about the ideal of imposing peace but it won't be done. Mr. King faced realities. We know for good or ill Canada won't and can't be expected to bind herself in advance to enter a war which is none of her doing."
British opinion on the whole has two sides. They appreciate Mr. King's following Britain's lead in saying this is no time for league reform, but naturally they can t be happy at what is almost unanimously interpreted here as an isolationist tendency. The nearest of all to a unanimous view is the opinion that what Mr. King said needed saying, if it actually represented the majority opinion of Canadians.
In my opinion what the Prime Minister said at Geneva did and does represent the majority opinion of Canadians. I do not feel as happy about his speech to-night as I did over the reports of his speech delivered at Geneva.
W hen the war was over and the League of Nations was being born, I felt that there was hope that the league would be a real league; that all nations would belong to it; that the ideals which were enunciated at that time would dominate the league. Since then, while I still believe in the ideals of the league, I have come to feel that the great powers use the league for their own purposes; when they wish to make much of it they do and when 
they wish to, they slight it. That is the cause of the failure of the league, together with the injustices embodied in the treaty of Versailles.
In Canada, in the last two or three years particularly, there seems to have been a confusion-it appears to me so-which brought the imperialists and the collectivists so close together that I can scarcely distinguish between them. They wanted the same action, although they wanted it for different reasons. They both seemed to favour economic sanctions and might possibly both have favoured military sanctions. At any rate I did not find myself in recent months in agreement with either school. It grieves me to say that, because in the early days I was so enthusiastic a collectivist, and had such high hopes for the league, that if I say I have to a great degree lost confidence in its ability to render the service I expected it to render I feel in a way disloyal, not that I have changed my opinion of the ideal of the league.
Some day we shall come to the task of forming a better league, and it will take into account some things which were not sufficiently stressed before. One will be the principle of graduated responsibility. We were wrong in supposing that all parts of the world would be equally interested in a given crisis. Always the people who live closest to the place where the crisis is will be much more interested than those who live further away. That has swung me-and I say it quite frankly; I am not going to try to confuse my position in a multitude of words and sentences, I am not good anyway at hiding my thought, but I want 'to make my position exceedingly clear-that has swung me and I think a great many other Canadians to what I call a North American point of view. If the house likes to call it an isolationist position let it be so. One thing about Canada which we can be sure will never change is its geographical position. We cannot be sure it will not change in other respects. That geographical factor will in the long run determine Canada's foreign policy. Canada is not across the channel from Europe, so that, although we may try to deceive ourselves into believing that we think as we would if we were across the channel from Europe, actually our thinking is governed by the fact that the Atlantic lies between us and Europe. Therefore, without apology and without feeling any less loyal than anyone else in this house, feeling loyal and entirely Canadian, I say my position is a Canadian position, a North American position, and at the moment an isolationist position. Isolation, however.- is only a stop-

Foreign Policy-Miss Macphail
gap. not a final solution. But there are many in this house who, if they would admit it, feel that what we now want to do is to cut ourselves adrift from the problems of Europe, and from being dragged into war as the solution of European problems by Great Britain. I have not and do not care to assert that I have that confidence in the ruling caste of Great Britain which the Prime Minister has just now stated that he feels. I have very little confidence in the ruling caste of Great Britain; I have no faith that they would keep us at all times in a position which is good for us. I believe the ruling caste of Great Britain will sacrifice the masses of Britain and will sacrifice Canada to their own interests. If saying that is disloyal, then I am disloyal.
Before the estimates for national defence are debated the Canadian parliament should be very sure of the reason for increasing them. Are we getting ready for an overseas conflict? The Prime Minister may not think we are, but what does our military caste, small as it is, think? How closely are they in touch with the military groups in Great Britain? We need to know the answer to these questions. Are we getting ready to defend Canada against possible enemies, I do not know who they are, but whoever they are? The kind of defence we should have depends upon the answer. If it is to defend Canada, we would need coast defences and an efficient air force. If Canada is preparing for war abroad a mobile unit to be sent swiftly overseas would more likely be required. The parliament and the people of Canada have a right to know for what purpose we are to spend the monej'.
Canada is very fortunate; our defence is three oceans; the Atlantic, the Arctic and the Pacific, and the United States to the south, that more than anything else. Nor do I think it is disloyal to recognize that. A glance at the map is proof. It would be foolish to pretend that we are in the same position as New Zealand or Australia or South Africa or Great Britain. When we are judging the efficiency of Canada's defence forces, it must be in relation to our position; we must think not in terms of other parts of the British commonwealth, but in Canadian terms, terms of what is good for Canada. That is loyalty in its highest terms. Surely loyalty has something to do with Canada. It is true that when we take an oath of allegiance we never mention Canada; we take no oath of allegiance to the people of Canada or of faithfulness to their best interests. But surely loyalty must touch the land of our birth, the land which is ours, and the land which I love above all
others. It would be the sheerest hypocrisy for me to say that I love Great Britain as dearly as I do Canada. I do not; I love Canada more than any country in the world.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: So do we all.


Miss MACPHAIL:: A lot of people do not say so. What I am saying is that we do not need to explain our loyalty. If we are doing what we think is best for Canada, that is the best thing we can do in the circumstances; we cannot expect that we shall all agree.
We hear many glowing words of praise for Sweden and Denmark. Well, possibly Sweden and Denmark are in the position in which they are to-day by reason of many things, but largely because they have kept themselves from wars for a long time. They were closer to the conflict of 1914-1918 than we were; yet they were able to maintain neutrality. Again they are sitting on top of the volcano; whether they can maintain neutrality on this occasion I do not know, but I know they still have the determination to try to. Canada would be well advised to get ready for neutrality. If we wait until the last moment to make our decision we shall not decide for neutrality, because there will be the pull of the military caste, the pull of sentimental imperial ties, there will be many things influencing us against neutrality. If, then, we are even going to consider it we should consider it now, and we should consider the price. I think the United States are acting wisely in this regard. They are preparing for neutrality. I do not know whether they can remain neutral when war comes, but I know they are getting ready to remain neutral, and that is something. That will keep them out at least a couple of weeks longer than would otherwise be possible. In Canada we ought now to be doing everything possible in preparation to maintain a neutral position. Unless we do so we shall be drawn in by forces of which we as a parliament know nothing, about which possibly the government will not know too much and of which the people of Canada have never heard.
Canada is developing a virile national spirit. I do not mean a nationalism which seeks expression for endeavouring to annex other countries, for instance, Newfoundland, the West Indies and Bermuda. I mean a nationalism which is proud of Canada, which is self-respecting, which is determined that Canada will make decisions for herself and that she will not now, as has been the case too often in the past, be unduly influenced by considerations of Great Britain, shall I say. Canada is growing up. and particularly

Foreign Policy-Miss Macphail
among our younger people there is a virile Canadianism. They are not so much [DOT] attached to any part of Europe, or indeed to the British commonwealth of nations, as are those of older years. This is something we have to reckon with at some time, and we might as well admit it now.
As Canada grows up, she should take part in neighbourhood conferences. I do not remember his exact words, but in speaking at Geneva I believe the Prime Minister expressed faith in regional pacts, saying that he thought they came closer to reality in linking obligations with definite contingency and direct interest. Early last December there was a neighbourhood conference of the American republics at Buenos Aires. I see no reason why Canada should not have attended that conference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I give my hon. friend the reason?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yes, indeed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We were not invited.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Did you make it clear that you did not want to be invited?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; we just were not invited, that is all.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am not so sure. If Canada made it known that she wanted to be invited she would be invited.


Ernest Lapointe: That is not the way it is done.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I would not be surprised if she made it known that she did not want to be invited, though perhaps not so clearly as that. But this was a conference of the Americas, North and South, called to consider the protection of the Americas. A good neighbour takes part in neighbourhood gatherings; that was a -neighbourhood gathering. and I can see nothing illogical nor, indeed, disloyal in Canada's participation in any such conference. We ought to get over our adolescent stage and become accustomed to the idea that we are an adult nation. That means that we should be able to go to Buenos Aires and take part in a conference without incurring any sort of condemnation either here or in any other part of the British commonwealth of nations.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely
they will know now that they should invite us.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Surely the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) does not think I am quite so innocent. He cannot fool me so easily.
I come now to the last part of this resolution :
That the Canadian government should make every effort to discover and remove the causes of international friction and social injustice.
There is no way in which we can help to bring about the ideal expressed in the last part of the resolution better than by removing social injustice in Canada. If in this country we could create an ideal state which would furnish opportunities for all, we would make in that way the greatest contribution to world peace that could be made by us. To-night the Prime Minister made reference to troubles without and within nations. So far as I know, any trouble within Canada, or within most other nations, is trouble related to social injustice, trouble in connection with some having too much and others having too little. Inasmuch as Canada, together with all other nations, seeks to extend opportunities to all, peace will be strengthened.
I think now, even as early as this, we ought to say very plainly to Great Britain that Canada is not in the same frame of mind as she was in 1914; that Canada is unlikely to plunge into a European war without very careful thought, and if everyone thought as I do she would not plunge in at all. Of course it is impossible for anyone to say what the people of Canada will think once the propaganda gets going. I have seen people swayed almost overnight from a very sound position through propaganda, and one cannot say what might happen again. But I believe parliament, through its various groups, ought to express an opinion on this matter, in order that people not only in Canada but also in other parts of the British commonwealth will know something of the different schools of thought in this country.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: In rising to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I feel the mover (Mr. Woods-worth) has rendered a distinct service in having this question discussed. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has clarified the situation to a remarkable extent by the statement he has made to-night. The danger of war and the increased preparations for war since this house last met are marked. It seems a remarkable thing that less than twenty years ago we completed one of the greatest wars in

Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas
the history of mankind; that around a hundred thousand cenotaphs people pledged that never again would there be war, and that to-day Europe should be an armed camp. It has been estimated that in Europe at the present time there are fifty per cent more men under arms than there were in 1913. Practically every nation in Europe is increasing its armaments at an amazing rate, Great Britain herself having being compelled within the last few years to resort to an extensive armament program.
It might be well to stop and ask ourselves the reason for this remarkable change since 1918 and 1919, When we really believed we had started to build "the parliament of man and the federation of the world." It can be seen quite clearly that during the past five or six years one crisis after another has arisen in international affairs, each a little harder to avoid than the one before, and in each case a compromise becoming a little more difficult to arrange, with the area within which peace was possible gradually becoming smaller. First, it was the Japanese aggression in Manchuria, which for a time looked as though it would cause a war in the Pacific. A compromise was arranged, but only by allowing Japan to retain the part of Manchuria it had occupied. Eighteen months ago another crisis arose, when Italy began to appropriate Ethiopia. Again there was every indication of a war in the Mediterranean, and again war was averted only by a compromise under which the aggressor was allowed to retain his booty.
At the present time we are in the throes of another international crisis. Evidence has been brought forward again and again to show that outside powers are actually giving military assistance to rebels in their endeavour to overthrow a properly constituted and properly elected government. In this case international war is being averted only because we are compromising. The civil war is being allowed to continue.
In view of the gathering clouds all over the world I maintain that a real service is being performed to-night by this discussion and by the fact that the Prime Minister has seen fit to make so clear a statement.
The possible foreign policies which might be adopted may be divided roughly into three classifications. I am not going to go back over the ground already covered except to say that most of us would fall into one of the three classifications. I imagine that these will cut across party lines and racial and religious differences. There are those who follow a more or less imperialistic policy which would commit Canada to war in the event of Great Britain or the League of
amt-17
Nations becoming involved in a war. It would mean that in the event of Great Britain or the British commonwealth of nations becoming involved, Canada would be obligated to send a military contingent across the Atlantic. I think I can agree with the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) when she says that such a course would not find favour with a large section of the Canadian people. I do not think I am alone in being delighted with the statement which the Prime Minister made at Geneva to the effect that only the parliament of Canada could declare war for Canada. I do not propose to take up time in reading his speech as he has already quoted from it. For the information of those who have been unable to obtain copies of this speech, may I say that I secured mine from the League of Nations Society. Copies can be obtained there for ten cents, and they are worth at least half that amount, if not all.
The Prime Minister's statement showed very clearly that Canada was not prepared to adopt the imperialistic position. We were not prepared to accept the position that Great Britain, the League of Nations or anyone else might precipitate Canada into a major conflict. When one considers the defence estimates which have been brought down, one wonders whether the government has decided to veer away from that original stand. I do not think it can be stated too often that Canada needs a foreign policy far more than she needs a defence policy. The Prime Minister stated to-night that these defence estimates were purely for defence purposes. They are increased over the estimates of last year, so that must mean that the need for defence has increased since that time. If the need for defence has increased since last year, we as members of parliament ought to know what potential aggressors have become more aggressive than they were last year, and against whom we are increasing our defences. Far more than we need to talk of a defence policy do we need to know what our foreign policy is and igainst whom we are required to increase our defences.
The second classification referred to by the Prime Minister is based upon the isolationist point of view. There are those who believe that we should refrain absolutely from making any international commitments because of the danger of such entanglements bringing us into a war. Those who are truly isolationists would refuse to utilize any type of peace machinery which would involve the use of force in any shape or form. The best example of this is the United States.



Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas


Mr. MARTIN:: What about the resolution?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) asks about the resolution. I believe he knows-I am certain the more intelligent members of the house do- that there is a decided difference between neutrality and isolation. I shall come to that in just a moment. Isolation must be based upon one of two things, either regional pacts or very strong armaments. Italy, Germany and Japan have resorted to the former, while the United States has resorted to the latter. While I have a great deal of admiration for the hon. member for Grey-Bruce who stands very bluntly for a policy of isolation, I am convinced that in the long run it could never have any great value. Hon. members refer to geography, but geography is a thing of the past. Only a short time ago Captain Mollison crossed the Atlantic in nineteen hours. Space is being obliterated. In a major world conflict a policy of isolation would be well nigh impossible, particularly for an exporting nation like Canada. Only twenty years ago the United States, a country more self-supporting than Canada, found it absolutely impossible to remain out of a world war even at a time when space was a more important factor than it is to-day. There may come a time when a policy of isolation will be forced upon us, but I am absolutely convinced that the isolationist point of view is hopeless as far as the building up of an effective world peace is concerned.
The time has come when we must either work collectively to build a world peace or be inundated in a world war. One of my complaints about the foreign policy outlined tonight by the Prime Minister is the fact that it is moving steadily and relentlessly towards a policy of isolation. For a long time I have suspected that hon. gentlemen opposite were pro-American in their trade policy, but it is becoming increasingly evident that they are also pro-American in their foreign policy.
The third classification would take in those who believe that we ought to have a system of collective action based upon collective security, with the proviso that Canada, owing to her geographical position, should be relieved of responsibility with respect to military sanctions. Such a policy would involve the acceptance of three principles. First, there would be the surrender of national sovereignty by which a nation gives up its right to decide in matters of international affairs concerning itself, but refers such matters to some international court. Also a nation would have to be willing to forego recourse to war as an instrument of national policy in settling differences.

The second principle involved in a system of collective action would be the setting up of the necessary machinery for the peaceful revision of treaties and for discussions with a view to removing the causes of war. Most of us recognize that any league organized merely for the maintenance of the status quo must inevitably fail. Machinery must be provided from time to time to revise treaties, such as the treaty of Versailles, which no statesman of any standing would seek now to defend. There must be a revision from time to time of territorial agreements. There must be recognition of such problems as the pressure of population, the need for markets and the necessity for colonies. There must be consideration of all those factors that bring nations into conflict one with another.
The third principle involved in the idea of collective action based upon collective security would be the use of force either by economic sanctions or, in the last resort, by military sanctions with a view to restricting those aggressor nations which might, in violation of their pledge, resort to force as an instrument of national policy. Canada, of course-this was put on Hansard last year and I shall not read it again-ever since 1920 has had the proviso that because of her geographical position she would not make any commitment with respect to military sanctions. But in days gone by she has made definite commitments as to economic sanctions, and I am convinced that if the nations of the world collectively were to apply economic sanctions the need for military sanctions would never arise. There has been published just recently the Memoirs of General deBono, who commanded the forces of II Duce in Ethiopia, and the preface was written by Mussolini himself. DeBono makes the amazing statement that, had the Italians been deprived of their resources of oil at the time economic sanctions were being discussed by the League of Nations, II Duce would have been compelled to give up his expedition in Ethiopia within three months.
Into which of these classifications does the foreign policy outlined by the government to-night fall? Personally I feel that the government is moving steadily, although perhaps not altogether conscious of it, towards an armed isolationist position. That is made evident by two things: first of all, by the attitude which was taken by the government in the Ethiopia affair, and there is no reason to go back over that, for it was dealt with in this house last year, when this government in conjunction with other governments failed

to bring the full force of economic, diplomatic and financial boycott to bear on an aggressor nation.
In a statement made to this house last year, when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were up, the Prime Minister said that " collective bluffing cannot guarantee collective security." I submit that neither can collective security be guaranteed by collective duplicity, or by collective cowardice, or by collective evasion of our responsibilities, and that is exactly what took place. While peace was preserved in the Mediterranean, it was preserved at the expense of a primitive people, who, possessing only obsolete weapons, were wiped out and conquered by a country which, in violation of its pledged word, had resorted to physical force.
The second indication of the movement of the government toward isolation was contained, not only in the speech by the Prime Minister to-night, but in the speech he made at Geneva. I have already said that the Prime Minister made an excellent speech in the first part of his remarks on that occasion; but in the second part, after having said that nobody except parliament could declare war for Canada, he went on to say that Canada was not prepared to commit itself to economic sanctions-it had never been asked to commit itself to military sanctions-and that we must think of the league in terms of cooperation rather than coercion. He used those terms again to-night. He said that we must have " mediation and conciliation " in the league, all of which I suggest are very fine, high-sounding phrases, but the Prime Minister overlooks entirely the fact that we are dealing with nations not all of whom are equally interested in peace. There are in Europe to-day nations which are avowed potential aggressors. One cannot talk about conciliation with a mad dog. One cannot talk about mediation with a megalomaniac who says that the idea of peace is abhorrent to him. One cannot talk about conciliation with a dictator who says:	"We extend to you an
olive branch which springs from eight million bayonets." A league such as is envisaged and talked about by the Prime Minister would be an international debating society that would be as effective as a ladies' aid meeting. To take the teeth out of the league, to take from the league all capacity to enforce its decisions, is to make the League of Nations null and void.
The Prime Minister, speaking on his estimates last year, said: "We are not prepared to see the league become an international
31111-17i
Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas
war office." I do not think any person here would suggest that it should become an international war office, but it might become an international department of justice, not only judging as between nations but also having the power which a department of justice must have to ensure that its decisions shall be carried out; and that is something which the League of Nations as pictured by the Prime Minister to-night certainly does not have. In fact, I find it somewhat difficult to bring into any degree of consistency the Prime Minister's speech at Geneva and the statement he made to-night with reference to the rickety house. He said: We might build a new house, but there is always the danger of a man setting fire to it; because of that danger we must take some action against that man. Agreed, but one cannot take action against that man individually; one must take action against him by acting collectively and passing laws against the crime of arson, and by having police to apprehend the criminal and make him obey the laws of the community.
The Prime Minister spoke of angels of light and of darkness being constantly in conflict. I imagine that the medical men would think perhaps of microbes and bacteria. But we combat these things collectively, not individually, and if the forces in the world that make for war, if the aggressive forces in the world to-day are to be met, they must be met collectively by the peaceful nations of the world.
The Prime Minister spoke to-night of the need for unity between democracies, but certainly there can be no unity between democracies if Canada announces she is not prepared to pay the price of maintaining a peace system. The Prime Minister also spoke of the absence of certain countries from the meeting of the League of Nations held at Geneva last September because of the element of force in the covenant. I grant you that the United States stayed out of the league because of the military commitments contained in the covenant, but I do not think it is correct to say that Japan or Italy or Germany stayed out because of those commitments. They came in when those commitments were there. Rather let it be said that they went out of the league because they were branded as international criminals who had been condemned at the bar of international justice. To suggest that if we take the teeth out of the League of Nations they may all get together in good fellow-

Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas
ship is like suggesting that if we rescinded all the laws in Canada, we and the criminals could fraternize and have no more hard feelings against each other.
I submit that the attitude of the government with respect to Ethiopia, the speech which the Prime Minister made last September at Geneva and the statement he made in the house to-night, indicate not a nation that is willing to enter into the responsibility of building a peace front, but a nation that is slowly and inevitably moving toward armed isolation. When the Prime Minister made his speech at Geneva, it was not very surprising that the papers of London and Paris, particularly papers that were pro-fascist, rejoiced in his statement. One of them said, "Canada leads the way out from Geneva." Another said, "Nothing but rags and tatters is left of collective security." Still another said, "The only policy left is isolation, and toward it the dominion is moving with the steady, relentless inevitability of an icecap."
In closing, I wish to submit three things that, I believe, should be incorporated in a peace policy for Canada: First, collaboration in building a collective system to cooperate with the other peace loving nations in the world with a view to building peace machinery. I am convinced that mere "mediation and conciliation," which the Prime Minister has outlined as a proposed new basis, is not enough. We must be prepared to enter into a system for building collective security arising out of collective action, and involving, if necessary, collective economic sanctions against a nation that has become an aggressor.
Second, we should insist that in such a collective system Canada shall not be deemed to be committed to military action in view of her geographical location, which makes the sending of an expeditionary force a very difficult matter, and also in view of the mixed races in Canada, which makes any wholehearted entrance into a foreign war a very dubious undertaking. It is unnecessary to say that in this country we have our friends of the French race; we have other races that have contributed to and made rich our culture right across Canada. Every day I receive letters from people who came from the older civilizations to Canada in many cases to escape from the ruthlessness of militarism, and who shrink at the very idea of being conscripted and sent back again to participate in European quarrels which were not of their making. Because of that, we in Canada should make it clearly understood that military commitments are impossible in such a collective system as far as we are concerned. We should also

make it understood that because of distances, and because a blockade would make the sending of soldiers across the Atlantic a costly and risky business, Canada's contribution would be very expensive in proportion to the small amount of service that could be rendered. Further, except in matters of defence we have no potential enemies and should be asked to contribute only to economic sanctions, leaving to those located in affected areas the task of supplying, where necessary, military force.
The third thing I wish to suggest is that, as a lead toward building such a collective system, we in Canada should take steps to place the export of nickel under a national commission with a view to preventing potentially aggressive nations from securing large quantities of war material. I do not wish to infringe upon the resolution on this matter which is coming up later, but I have in my hand a statement of the exports of nickel from Canada from 1929 to the present time. It is amazing that most countries which have been the aggressor nations in the past five years have increased their imports of nickel from this country at an immense rate. The normal increase in nickel imports in most cases works out at an average of about 12 to 14 per cent per annum. I imagine that would approximate fairly closely to the expansion in the industrial and commercial life of the respective nations. But in the case of the nations which have been aggressive over the last two or three years that increase has been 300 and 400 per cent; they have actually trebled and quadrupled their imports of nickel from the Dominion of Canada. I submit that this is a serious problem. It is very little use to talk about mediation and conciliation, about building a new league on cooperation rather than coercion, when we are allowing millions of tons of nickel to go out of our country. It does not take a very fertile imagination to conceive the possibility that there are young boys living in Canada to-night, even some men who are in this chamber to-night, whose bodies will be tom to pieces by the very nickel we are now exporting.
We could begin in Canada to render a real service to the cause of peace, and the building of a really effective system of collective action, by taking steps now to restrict the sale of nickel to those nations which are using it largely for armament purposes. It would not be necessary, as the Prime Minister suggested, that we have a complete nationalization of the industry. In Saskatchewan they have a liquor commission, because the people believe that the liquor industry is such that it should not be left to the desire for profit and the greed

Foreign Policy-Mr. Massey
of the private individual to exploit, with the result that no brewery is allowed to sell liquor directly to the consumer; it must be sold through the commission, in bond. The same thing could be done with reference to nickel. I ask the government to consider very seriously the feasibility this year of setting up such a commission whereby exporters and foreign importers could get nickel only through such a commission. This might mean some economic loss. The Financial Post made the statement that for the first nine months of 1936 the International Nickel company showed a profit of $23,000,000. Such an amount of profit might not be possible if a commission such as I have suggested were constituted. But I submit through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of this house that the making of a profit of $23,000,000 by the International Nickel company or any other company is relatively unimportant as compared with the task of helping to build a system of peace, and demonstrating to the nations of the world that as far as we in Canada are concerned we are prepared to pay the price of peace. I should like to see our people and our government say to the world at large:	The
nickel in Canada is not ours. We did not put it in the earth. It is a heritage and a trust, and we are prepared to say to the nations of the world: "So long as you want that nickel for the enhancement of human happiness rather than the destruction of human life we are prepared to sell it to you, but when you want nickel, as some nations professedly -do, to destroy human bodies, to wipe out cities and to annihilate civilization, then not one ton of nickel is going to leave the shores of Canada for such purposes."
I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite to give this matter serious consideration. In the last war soldiers were shot down by their own bullets; German boys at Verdun died on German wire manufactured in Germany and sent to France through Switzerland. Surely we do not want to see any war take place in which Canadian nickel, sold to some potential aggressor, will, in the years to come, be used to destroy the bodies of Canadian soldiers. I therefore ask that we consider seriously in the course of this debate the possibility of entering into a collective system to build up peace machinery for the world. We ask that Canada, in view of her position and her geographic location, shall be freed from military commitments, and that as a sign of our good faith we shall take steps even now to begin to restrict the sale of nickel, as far as possible, to purely commercial purposes.


Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: I am sure that hon. members realize the importance and possibly far-reaching effect of this debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has brought to the attention of the house a matter in which he is vitally interested, in which indeed the people of this country are vitally interested. It so happens, as a result of circumstances over which we have little or no control, that there are wars and rumours of war, and many feel that there is danger of nation rising against nation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not discuss the ghastly folly of war; he took that for granted, and so do I. Nor did he discuss the un-Christian character of war; that too he took for granted, and so do I. But he was concerned about policies; he was concerned about the policy that we in Canada should have to help to prevent war. He felt that Canada should have an effective voice in what concerns her. That was his language. The alleged war scare has burned deeply into his mind, and so he asks, What can, what must, what shall Canada do in case of war; and, further, what should Canada do now in these days of international unrest?
Obviously the answers to these questions must be predicated upon some knowledge of the position which Canada holds to-day as a nation among the family of nations. Let it be stated here and at once that whatever place Canada holds to-day as a nation among the family of nations was dearly bought for her, bought for her at the ghastly yet noble price paid by the Canadian corps of 1914-1918, those men who willingly gave of their best, indeed their very lives, to form a corps that General Currie so aptly called "the finest fighting force in the allied army." No nation could be ignored that had been able to maintain such a force. Canada's place as a nation was therefore bought for her in those days of war and its accompanying horror, a place which we thought we sealed and sealed proudly the day we became a signatory to the covenant of the League of Nations. Thus we had a right to a voice in world affairs. No longer could Canada be regarded as an unimportant little nation on the Norih American continent, composed of a handf ll of people living north of the forty-ninth parallel of latitude. So to-day we find ourselves, it seems to me, in a unique position; for our voice should be stronger and should carry far more weight than we ever thought it could.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Massey
We have heard references in this debate to the great size of the United States; we have heard references to-day to the comparative size of Canada. But since the United States apparently elects to speak only in whispers on the backstairs of Europe, Canada finds herself-if she would find' herself- in a position to express not only her own views but those of the whole new world. And from that point of view she would be heard with respect in a world court. Yes, we could have a powerful voice in world affairs; but what is the voice of Canada? If we are absolutely frank with ourselves we are compelled' to admit that to-day there is no single voice in Canada but there is a cacophony arising from within our borders. And here we are at once in the paradoxical and absurd position of having had bought for us, at a tremendous price, the right to sit in a world court and, by our own enterprise and industry in commerce, a certain strength lent to that voice; yet we are not able to determine what sound that voice should make. In fact we seem to be getting further and further away from that determination every day.
I am not an alarmist nor am I an extremist, but I do survey the present situation with extreme gravity. The possibility-and please note that I do not say the probability -of war in Europe has brought us face to face with the necessity of solving what is our greatest national problem, and of solving that problem with dispatch. Our greatest national problem is not that of unemployment; it is not the problem of agriculture; it is not the problem of youth or of any such questions which one might mention. It is the sum of these problems. And just as the whole is greater than any of its parts, so is our greatest problem greater than any one of the individual problems it embraces. The problem is the determination of a national policy for Canada. What sort of Canada do we want? Have we any great national determination as far as that is concerned? Do we want a united Canada or do we want a Canada at all? These questions must be answered if the Dominion of Canada is to develop as a nation among the family of nations. We have no national voice to-day. To travel from Halifax to Victoria is to find a virtual kaleidoscope of opinion.
To-night we have heard various schools of thought set out by those who have spoken. Perhaps I, too, may be permitted to suggest four schools of thought. It seems to me that opinion in Canada to-day may be divided into four groups. First, there is the opinion held by those who want a Canada, but a Canada essentially isofated from Europe, a

Canada only for Canadians, a Canada quite prepared to let the empire and Europe mess about to their hearts' content. A second group consists of the adherents of that opinion which says: We do not want a Canada at all; no doubt the fathers of confederation did what they did in sincerity and as they thought was best for their country; but times have changed since 1867; Canada is virtually five separate states, the maritimes in the east, Quebec, Ontario, the three prairie provinces, and British Columbia in the far west; let us thank the fathers of confederation for what they attempted, and now let each part go its own way. The third group, and by no means a small one, consists of those who do not know what they want. Unfortunately this group may be the most vocal. This group talks about a dominion somewhat loosely tied together, which has some sort of defence'but not too much, in which certain powers are taken away from the central government and given to the provincial governments. Yet at the same time they say there is too much government in Canada; they talk about no aid to the empire in case of conflict but are perfectly willing to take all and give nothing; in short they talk this way and the other, but really do not know what they want. In the fourth group are those who want a Dominion of Canada in fact as well as in name, a dominion which is an integral and important part of the British commonwealth of nations, ready and willing to join with that commonwealth to help enforce peace and to make peace heroic, a Dominion of Canada which is not only a British dominion but a nation of the world, a Dominion of Canada that will give support to the British commonwealth of nations in doing the job of work which there is for that commonwealth to do and to which the Prime Minister referred tonight so ably and so well. I am going to discuss these four groups not separately, but collectively in the light of what I have in essence already said, that is that Canada is at the cross-roads.
In the first place let us consider the isolationist. The isolationist as I understand him is he who demands that Canada have a complete national economy of her own; that the question of her participation in any war be not only hers to determine but that it be made clear to the nations of the world that Canada is free to be neutral in any war. I think there may be a confounding of terms in that connection. Neutrality is one thing, non-participation is another. Complete neutrality is one thing, passive belligerency is another. Would a declaration of Canadian neutrality in time of war be regarded by any

Foreign Policy-Mr. Massey
warring nation, an enemy of Great Britain, as binding, so long as this dominion remains part of the empire? Even if there were no active participation, would an invasion of Canada in time of war by an enemy of Great Britain be regarded as a breach of neutrality? Let those who argue for isolation for Canada, or neutrality in case of war, remember that there is no such thing as passive belligerency. There is either complete neutrality or a state of war. And thus the only way for Canada to be regarded as a neutral country in a war in which the empire is involved is to sever her ties with the empire. This means we are no longer British. It means we are no longer able to claim all that that means and has meant, not merely from a purely sentimental point of view of traditional attachment to family or race, but from the prestige and protection which have always been such a vital part of our national position. Let the isolationist be prepared to justify all that it means for a Canadian citizen to sacrifice his British citizenship, to surrender the prestige and protection that go with it, to give up any claim on the services of an extraordinarily efficient and extensive diplomatic, naval and military organization.
In the second place, let those who argue for isolation and in the same breath plead the cause of peace, the glory of the united states of the world, remember that a united British commonwealth brings together at one fell swoop one-fifth of the people of the world, brings them together in a common cause. And what a mighty force for good is here as long as that force is for right and not for might; a force that espouses the causes of peace and justice! Therefore, let the isolationist be prepared to argue that the cause of peace is aided by the disintegration of the British Empire, and that the breaking away of the dominion from the British commonwealth of nations and the breaking up of that commonwealth, constitute a step forward rather than backward in the interests of world unity.
In the third place, is the isolationist prepared not only to admit, as Dean Corbett of McGill law school put it in an excellent article which appeared recently; that "neutrality can be bought only at the price or our common nationality," but to" skate over apparently without qualms, "the moral objection to retaining, in the quality of a British subject, a claim on these services while repudiating by neutrality a reasonable share in the burdens of political association?" Assume for the sake of discussion that the isolationist and his supporters say that this moral obligation business is merely, in Kipling's language, "the flaccid tissues of long
dead issues, offensive to God and man," is tawdry, maudlin and mawkish sentiment and tradition; that British citizenship has become but a catch phrase and means nothing to Canada any more; that it is just Canada for Canadians we want, and nothing else. Where does that lead us? Canada as a nation divorced from the British commonwealth of nations becomes at once a puny, faraway nation with about as much chance of being heard in a world court or in the market places of the world as any one of the dozen or more tiny states of Europe. Let an isolated Canada, a Canada divorced from the empire, be prepared to withdraw from any institution which is non-British-Canadian-for indeed any participation which we have had to date in international affairs has been as a nation within the British commonwealth of nations. The trade treaties we have made over the years- we will assume they are a benefit to Canada- must be disregarded and torn up as they were made with a British Canada. In essence, therefore, the isolationist demands that we sacrifice our external trade and bring to bear our full national powers on our internal trade.
In the fourth place let me again quote Dean Corbett:
The only hope for isolation would seem to lie in the achievement of that complete selfsufficiency which is the Arcadia of certain ardent materialists and quack economists.
What does that mean? It means that we return at once to the primitive state in which our forefathers left us; that we tear down our industrial structure; that we once more put our hands only to the plough and the distaff, crawl into a smug parochial nationalism, and say to the land-hungry nations of the world, "Please, please, leave us alone." How long would rich, fertile Canada be left alone? Oh, but the isolationist says, "There is the United States; she will protect us." Hon. members will realize that a mother protects her daughter with no expectation of reward, but cousins do not take care of cousins on the same basis. There would be no protection without a price. Are we prepared to pay that price?
Lastly, is the isolationist prepared to assure us that the application of his policy rids us once and for all of the war menace? Divorce this dominion from the balance wheel of empire; remove from our provinces or groups of provinces our point of common allegiance, the throne of England, and just how long would Canada remain a union of nine provinces? Would the maritimes be apt to rush to the aid of British Columbia in the event of some land-starved power becoming actively

Foreign Policy-Mr. Massey
greedy? Or would British Columbia be inclined to rush to the aid of the maritimes in similar circumstances? Divided states in what is now the Dominion of Canada I feel would be the inevitable result of secession.


Mr. FINN:: What would Ontario do?


Denton Massey: What would Ontario do but watch the crows fly by in either direction? As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, divided states within what is now the Dominion of Canada would be the inevitable result, I feel, of the application of a policy of isolation. Then, as divided states, what easy prey we would be to those nations to the right of us and to the left of us who, not unlike the guns of Balaclava, are volleying and thundering, or at least rumbling ominously for those who have ears to hear.
Let us go back to the point from which we started. Canada can have no voice in world affairs until we have determined the sort of Canada we want, or if we want a Canada at all. We have reached the cross-roads, Mr. Speaker, and now we mu9t decide which way we want to go. I suggest that hon. members listen again to the words of Benjamin Franklin. This time he might be speaking to us, when he says, " We must all hang together or we will hang separately." Hon. members might well listen again to the voice of a great leader of another day, the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who challenged us when he said that " the twentieth century belongs to Canada." If it is a united Canada we want-and thank God I think it is-a Canada, a dominion within the British commonwealth of nations, let us tear away our thoughts and efforts from the divisions caused by crassly selfish, provincial economies and societies, and turn our common effort into one great, dominion wide, united, unselfish effort. If it is peace we want-and who does not want peace; I take second place to no hon. member in this house in a desire for peace-then let us out of this strange cacophony that now arises from within our borders tune the voice of Canada. And may we remember that it is not governments, federal, provincial or municipal, that will tune the voice of Canada to a single dulcet note. It is a public opinion, and public opinion that faces facts fearlessly rather than flirts with fiction, yes, and which faces not only facts but the ideals, the illusions and the real unrealities, that builds nations. We cannot; we must not; in the name of our fathers, the pioneers who broke the soil in this

country, we dare not throw the future away for selfish, sectional parochialism. Let us give the fullest and the 'best of all that we hold dear to make of the phrase " Dominion of Canada " not just a picturesque imagery but a quick, real, virile, glorious reality, a Canada bound together by gold chains of national understanding, national unity, national courage, national faith and national hope. It is then, and only then, that the voice of Canada can be heard in world affairs.
Some years ago, Mr. Speaker, in the southern part of Saskatchewan, at the end of an excellent growing summer, when the wheat was high and the heads full, a three-year old child wandered from her home, and was last seen heading toward the wheat. She was not missed for some hours. Her mother realized the danger when news that the child was missing was brought to her, and at once summoned the child's father who started, with all the help available, frantically to seek his little girl. All day long he and those on the farm searched without avail. Others came and gave help, with no result. Night came. The people of the whole countryside with characteristic willingness and spontaneity joined in the search. Throughout the night they looked, using all the lanterns and other means of lighting they could find, but still without avail. The dawn of the next day found them weary and hungry, but still they carried on as the child was still missing. Nightfall came, and at last one called all the others together from every part of the farm and said, "Why do we not form a great human chain and march across these fields hand in hand? Someone is sure to find her." And they found her! It was not long before a foot touched a silent, still little body. The father was called to the spot, and as he picked up the lifeless body of his child, he looked up to heaven and cried, "Great God, why didn't we join hands before?"
Across this dominion, Mr. Speaker, from the maritimes through Quebec and Ontario, across the prairies into British Columbia, may we not have to say some day, "My God, why did we not join hands before?" The challenge to national unity is sounding now. Pray God we may answer it!
On motion of Mr. Elliott (Kindersley) the debate was adjourned.


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

Trade with Germany
Tuesday, January 26, 1937