1937-02-19

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
21 a use of Commons
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 19, 1937.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Joseph Neilson Blacklock.-Mr. Golding (for Mr. Plaxton).
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Francis Hector Walker.-Mr. Beaubier, (for Mr. Hyndman).
Bill No. 26, for the relief of William Edward Connor.-Mr. Leader, (for Mr. Jacobs).
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Annie Nemchek Cohen.-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre, for Mr. Jacobs).
Bill No. 28, for the relief of James Gordon Ross.-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre, for Mr. Jacobs).
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Florence Anna Iverson Salberg.-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre, for Mr. Jacobs).


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): In response to questions on various occasions from the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and other hon. members, I am now in a position to state that I expect to be able to bring down the budget on Thursday next, February 25.
It is the hope and expectation of the government that the new trade agreement with Great Britain will be signed before that time, and if it is, the trade agreement will form part of the budget.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning that the house go into committee of supply, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. MacNeil.
['I was going to point out to the hon. member just what the leader of the opposition has said. Not one of these units has been disbanded by the government. They are disbanded at the request of school boards not desirous of having the service. I can assure the hon. members that in the next year the same service will\nQuestions', 'be provided as has been provided in the last several years. There will be no diminution of service unless desired by the school board concerned.\nMr. Chairman, as there seems to be some disposition to discuss the item further, I would ask that it stand, and would move that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Dunning the house adjourned at 10.24 p.m.\nMonday, February 22, 1937']
Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, continuing my remarks of last evening, let me declare that I personally long for peace. The social credit movement is a movement designed to obtain peace. Many ardent social crediters are so strongly imbued with the doctrines of peace that they feel that my stand in support of defence is contrary to the ideals of social credit. It is largely because I see in social credit the means of so reorganizing the economic systems of men that peace can become a permanent reality on the earth that I have espoused so fervently the cause of social credit. We are earnestly striving toward a great and glorious ideal; but we must not forget, while looking to the future, that the present has its urgent needs. One of our most urgent needs for the immediate present is more adequate means of defence.
I deplore the misdeeds of the past that have forced us into this situation. In so far as the present government is neglecting its duty in the matter of economic and social reform, I cannot and will not condone its errors. But now that we are in this exigency we must, I feel, comport ourselves wisely.
I appeal to the present government with all the earnestness of which I am capable that they set about reforming the present system. The disgraceful suffering, as inexcusable as it is distressing, which obtains throughout this land should not be allowed to continue. If one year from now I do not see distinct evidence of redress, and if at that time the present government is not showing signs of adopting policies more modern than the outgrown and discredited devices which thus far they appear to have depended upon, then I must say they will have made it extremely difficult, if not intolerable, for me to continue to support them. I believe they want to do the right thing, but they are tiying to do the right thing in the wrong way.
For this year, however, because I consider it to be in the interests of Canada to have greater defence, and because I feel it my duty as a member of the parliament of Canada

1040	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
to help the government in its efforts toward defence, I intend to support the government and to oppose the amendment.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, on Monday last in order that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) might present to the house the defence estimates for the coming year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) moved that the house go into committee of supply. That motion was met by an amendment moved by the member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). Although hon. members are already familiar with the terms of the amendment, its true significance should once more be pointed out. The amendment of the hon. member is in the following words:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for the purpose of national armament in contrast with the inadequate provision for the social security of all sections of the Canadian people."
In the form in which it has been moved, the amendment expresses want of confidence in the government. From an examination of its wording, it would appear that hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation had had some difficulty among themselves in agreeing upon something they would all be able to support, something which would appear to condemn the expenditures on defence but which at a later time, should the occasion render it advisable, would enable them to shelter themselves under the statement that they had not in fact opposed the defence estimates as such.
Let me again draw attention to the wording of the amendment:
This house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for purposes of national armament in contrast with the inadequate provision for the social security of all sections of the Canadian people.
Note the words "views with grave concern" the increase in the estimates. Mr. Speaker, we all view with grave concern increases in expenditures for purposes of defence, but that is only a reflection of the concern which world conditions have created in the minds of people in all countries throughout the world. It is not singular that this house should feel concerned at the necessity at this time of adding more by way of defence. When one realizes what the conditions in Europe have been during the last four or five years; when one views the present situation in Spain; when one sees the nations of

Europe doing their utmost to prevent what is now a terrible civil war becoming part of a great international conflict, there is reason for concern. But that concern is something which all of us feel quite as much as the hon. members who have moved and seconded the amendment.
Note, however, that the concern the amendment expresses is not with the increase in the estimates. I desire particularly to draw the attention of hon. members to that fact. There is nothing in the amendment which says that hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation oppose the estimates to be presented to the house. The concern is over the contrast between the amount to be voted for defence and that to be voted, as they say, for purposes of social security.
May I make one observation in regard to social security. I should be inclined to believe that the security of one's country would rank as the first among all social securities. If through invasion, or aggression in some other form, anything should happen to Canada, I am afraid that what else we may have in the way of social security would, at least for the time being, go pretty well by the board. It is an entirely erroneous conception of the meaning of words to say that social security should be confined only to certain social services some hon. members may have in mind and which could not be carried on at all unless there were social security for the country as a whole.
Let me now speak more specifically about the contrast. I wonder if hon. members responsible for the amendment have ever made a comparison between what is spent in other countries for purposes of social security and for defence and the corresponding sets of expenditures in Canada. If they have, they will have found that in comparison with what Canada is spending for social security, she is spending relatively much less for purposes of defence than is the case with any other country of importance in the world.
Hon. members are most unfair when they draw comparisons between expenditures voted for purposes of defence by this house, and the amount that is being voted for social services by this house. I say "by this house" because of the money of the taxpayers of this country they are taking account only of what is being voted by this house. But hon. members know very well that while there are certain obligations which rest upon the federal treasury, there are also some which rest upon the provinces and upon the municipalities. They have carefully avoided making any mention of what comes out of the taxes of the

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
people of Canada for social services in the provinces and in the municipalities. They touch as respects social services, only upon what comes out of the people's pockets through amounts voted by this chamber.
They have not been fair in a further particular. While ignoring altogether amounts paid out on social services by provinces and municipalities in addition to expenditures from the federal treasury, they have not pointed out that the burden of defence for the whole of Canada must be borne by the federal treasury alone. That portion of the public expenditure is not divided between the provinces, the municipalities and the dominion; it is an exclusive charge upon the Dominion of Canada. That is a very important fact to be kept in mind, because it was one of the considerations in the minds of those who framed the constitution of our country when they assigned certain social services to the provinces and to the municipalities, largely freeing the dominion from payments on that account, but charging the dominion exclusively with the obligation of expenditures for the purpose of defence.
May I point out that the amounts being asked for to meet the defence needs of Canada are not merely for the protection of our shores and harbours; they are for the protection of all of Canada, of all the provinces and of all the municipalities. With respect to what may happen in a time of actual or apprehended danger of war, this federal government is expected to have responsibility for the defence of the entire dominion. The provinces are not being looked to to make any special expenditure to protect their harbours, their bridges or their highways; that is all part of the federal obligation in time of war, in time of possible invasion or emergency. There is no specified obligation upon the municipalities with regard to protecting their water mains, their sewers, their gas mains and the like; all this obligation so far as it arises out of a condition of war falls upon the federal treasury. With warfare what it is likely to be in the future, with possible air and submarine raids and all else that is to be feared, the protection of our great municipalities against the dropping of bombs or the sowing of mines which might disrupt the whole life of a municipality, becomes one of the most serious obligations under the heading of present day defence.
The amendment in other particulars is unfair. Is it a fact that relatively little is being spent by the federal government for purposes of social security? I have had prepared by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Finance a comparison of the estimates of expenditures for social services and national defence
3im-66i
during the last five years. During that period much was expended for social services, to the neglect of what should have been expended for the purpose of keeping the defences of our country up to the standard to which they should have been kept. We get a much better view of the entire picture by taking a period of five years than by confining the comparison to any one. I shall, however give as well the average yearly expenditures
The estimate of expenditures by the dominion government on social services for the five year period, 1932-33 to 1936-37, totals $681,000,000. The average yearly expenditure amounts to $136,200,000. The estimate of expenditures by all provincial governments on public welfare and education for the five year period 1932 to 1936 amounts to $506,000,000 with the yearly average amounting to $101,200,000. The estimate of expenditures by municipalities on public welfare and by school boards for the five year period 1931 to 1935 totals $612,000,000, with a yearly average of $122,400,000. The total expenditure for five years on social services by the three governing entities mentioned amounted to $1,799,000,000 or a yearly average of $359,800,000. Let us now consider the total expenditures by Canada for national defence purposes.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Are we to assume that these figures include expenditures in the dried-out areas for relief and so on?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I will give my hon. friend the details if he wishes them. The total expenditure by Canada for defence services during the five year period, the fiscal years 1932-33 to 1936-37, amounted to $76,000,000, or a yearly average of $15,200,000. In other words the total expenditures in Canada for social security purposes amounted to $1,799,000,000 odd as against $76,000,000 odd for defence purposes during the past five year period, or a yearly average of $359,000,000 odd as against $15,000,000 odd. I submit that that is the only fair comparison to make when one is estimating what is being spent on social services in comparison with defence. All of these amounts came out of the pockets of the Canadian taxpayers.
May I point out that the provinces would not have been able to carry on their social services but for the grants and subsidies which have been paid to them out of the federal treasury and the money lent to them by the federal government. That is what enabled the municipalities to carry on their social services. I wish also to repeat that while the federal treasury has been drawn upon for
(042	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
loans and grants and subsidies to the provinces to enable them to carry on their social services and for much in addition in the way of special contributions for relief, the dominion
has not been able to look to the provinces or to the municipalities for any contribution to help it in its work of defence.
The figures in tabular form are as follows:
Comparison of Estimates of Expenditures for "Social Services" and National Defence (Prepared by Dominion Bureau of Statistics and Department of Finance)
Total for _	five years
Estimate of expenditure by Dominion government on social services
for five-year period, fiscal years 1932-33 to 1936-37	 $681,000,000
Estimate of expenditure by all provincial governments on public
welfare and education for five-year period 1932-36	 506 000 000
Estimate of expenditure by municipalities on public welfare and by
school boards for live-year period 1931-35	 612.000 000
Total	$1,799,000,000
Total expenditure of Canada for National Defence services for	___ '
five-year period fiscal years 1932-33 to 1936-37	 $76,000,000
Average for one year

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) seemed to be anxious to have details. I shall give him some. The expenditures by the dominion government during the last five years on account of unemployment relief, which is a social service-I want hon. members to keep in mind that during the same period the dominion spent only S76.000.000 on defence- amounted to $254,871,231. For special public works and undertakings for the relief of unemployment, the dominion government expended $38,253,127. For old age pensions the total sxpenditure during the five years period amounted to $78,033,081. During the last five years more money was spent out of the federal treasury to provide old age pensions than was spent for the purposes of the defence of Canada. A total of $620,251 was spent on technical education while $750,000 was spent in the administration of the Employment Offices Coordination Act. A total of $2,381,922 was spent in the administration of the Annuities Act, the Conciliation and Labour Act, the Fair Wages and Inspection Act, the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, and the Limitation of Hours of Work Act. On national health we spent $3,752,895 and a total of $468,950 was paid out by way of grants to private institutions for social purposes. In the administration of the Employment and Social Insurance Act a total of $93,862 was expended. In the administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act a total of $1,532,266 was expended. A total of $22,691 has been expended in connection with the Dominion Housing Act. In connection with the social services I have enumerated there has been a total expenditure of $380,780,276 during the last five years.
In addition to these outlays which will be quickly recognized as for social services there have been other outlays assumed by this

government which were also in the nature of social service contributions. I might begin by directing attention to the fact that after the great war the dominion assumed the whole obligation of expenditures arising out of the war with respect to the treatment and after-care of returned soldiers, the total of the European war pensions and other like outlays. The question was never raised as to whether or not the provinces should carry a part of that load. The load was assumed at once and in its entirety by the federal government notwithstanding that theretofore the provinces had been regarded as the appropriate authorities to assume responsibility on account of social services. Here are some of the additional figures: Treatment and after-care of returned soldiers, $51,450,929.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is the Prime Minister putting that in with social services?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am putting it in as an additional outlay on account of social' services. If the after-care of a returned soldier is not a social service, I would- like to know what is.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that the after-care of a returned soldier is a social service?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I most certainly say so, and I not only say that, but I say it is one of the very first of the social services that ought to be performed. It is a social service which has been undertaken by this federal government. The provinces or the municipalities have not had a corresponding obligation.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Would the Prime Minister not call it a war obligation rather than a social service?

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A war obligation? Most of our social services to-day have arisen out of war obligations.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Thank you. That is very good.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And the fact that our social services have become so vastly increased on account of war is an added reason why this parliament, which is responsible for defence, should do its utmost to prevent another war arising with the additional social service obligation certain to grow out of it. The fact that we know what war costs a nation in life and limb, and health, is the strongest of reasons why a nation should do everything it can to prevent anything of the kind occurring again. That is the whole purpose of our defence estimates, to assist in preventing aggression on the part of other nations.
Here is the next item: European war pensions, $210,105,583. I say that every dollar that has been spent out of the federal treasury as a war pension is money which has gone to serve the needs of those whose needs have arisen out of the services which they have rendered to the state.
Then there are these items: The writing down of soldier and general land settlement loans, $3,223,413; payments re 1930 wheat crop, $22,456,645; payments re loss on 1930 oats pool under guarantee, $174,383; wheat bonus, 1931-32 and 1932-33, $12,719,900; or a sum in addition to the total I gave a moment ago of $300,130,853.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the Prime Minister include interest on war debts?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I have not included interest on war debts but I think it ought to be included. That is another obligation which falls on this federal treasury which does not fall on the provinces, which does not fall on the municipalities, but which nevertheless makes it more difficult for the federal treasury to meet what it otherwise might be in a position to meet on many services. The justice of the situation demands that we view what are the obligations which this government has to meet. There is no escaping any of these obligations. Before we can begin to vote a dollar for other purposes, obligations of the character I have just mentioned, European war pensions and the like, have to be met.
The figures I have given make a total of expenditures by the dominion government
during the last five years on account of social services amounting to $680,911,129. In addition to that, this dominion has made loans for relief purposes to the provinces, and the net amount outstanding on February 1 of this year was $102,150,000. Those loans have all helped the provinces to meet obligations in the nature of social services of one kind or another. I place on Hansard in tabular form the figures I have just given:
Estimate of Expenditures by Dominion Government during the last five fiscal years on account of Social Services (Fiscal years 1932-33 to 1936-37)
Unemployment relief	$254,871,231
Special public works and undertakings for relief of unemployment	 38,253,127
Old age pensions	 78,033,081
Technical education	 620,251
Employment offices, Co-ordination Act	 750,000
Labour, including administration of:	annuities, conciliation and
labour, fair wages and inspection. industrial disputes investigation, employment offices, limitation of hours of work, etc., acts..	2,381,922
National Health	 3,752,895
Grants to various private institutions for social purposes.. 468,950
Employment and Social Insurance
Act	 93,862
Farmers Creditors' Arrangement Act (administrative costs)..	..	1,532,266
Dominion Housing Act	 22,691

Outlays re additional social services:
Treatment and after-care returned soldiers	$ 51,450,929
European war pensions. 210,105,583
Write-down of soldiers hnd general land settlement loans.	..	3,223,413
Payments re 1930 wheat crop....	22,456,645
Payments re loss on 1930 Oats
Pool under guarantee.... 174,383
Wheat bonus, 1931-32 and 1932-33	 12,719.900

Total	$680,911,129
Loans to provinces for relief purposes, net amount outstanding February 1, 1937	$102,150,000
Let me now give some of the social services that the provinces have been carrying on, and carrying on in part out of loans and grants which have been made to them from the federal treasury. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics
1044	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
estimate of expenditure by all provincial governments for public welfare and education for the five-year period 1932-1936 is as follows:
Estimate of Expenditure by all Provincial
Governments
(The Statistics for 1935 and 1936 are estimated)
Total for Five Years, 1932-1936
Public Health	[DOT] $ 11,866,067
Including boards of health, clinics, laboratories, grants to health associations, research and disease control.
Public Institutions		83,753,112
Including mental institutions, tuberculosis control, children's homes, homes for aged, incurables and rescue homes, reformatories, industrial farms, grants to blind institutions.
General Hospitals	 1,385,007
Government controlled (exclusive of mental hospitals).
General Hospitals	 23,606,773
(Exclusive of mental) Grants and assistance to.
Child Welfare and Maternal Assistance	 6.277,069
Old Age Pensions	 19,884,503
(Less dominion government and municipal contributions).
Mothers' and Deserted Wives'
Allowances	 [DOT] [DOT]	20,769,300
(Including municipal contributions).
Charities, Miscellaneous	 2.362.860
Labour	 4,970,445
Including employment bureaux, workmen's compensation, inspection of factories, boilers, public buildings, hotels and boarding houses, other labour regulations.
Interest, sinking fund and collection charges on public charities
funds (Quebec only)	 9,161,252
Unemployment Relief	 173,743,777
(Less dominion government and municipal contributions and deductions from government employees' salaries).
Total Public Welfare .	.. $357,780 165
If I were to add education, which is a social service, the additional amount would be:
Education-Including grants to primary, secondary and technical schools, universities, colleges, normal and training schools, inspection. examinations, free school texts, libraries, deaf and dumb education, and other miscellaneous	$148,564,113
Or a grand total for public welfare and education for the provinces of $506,344,278.
Let me now give some figures relating to the municipalities. Naturally they are only a partial amount, but are such figures as the bureau of statistics has been able to secure. I would ask the house to allow these tables to appear in Hansard in tabular form so that they may be more readily understood: 
Dominion Bureau of Statistics estimate of expenditure of municipalities throughout Canada on public welfare for the five-year period 1931-
1935, also expenditure by school boards five years 1931-1935:
: Five Years 1931-1935
Health-Including sanitation and
hygiene	$ 36,631,467
Charities and recreations-Including grants and aids to benevolent institutions, hospitals, poor relief and social service	 118,235,836
Total welfare	$154,867,303
School board current expenditure 2457,726,057
Total welfare and schools	$612,593,360
'Health and charities arrived at by taking the total expenditure for years 1931, 1932 and 1933. and an average of these three years for 1934 and 1935.
2Sehool expenditure arrived at by taking the total expenditure for years 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934, and an average of these four years for 1935.
I have given these figures to the house, Mr. Speaker, because in estimating what we are spending in Canada for defence, and comparing that expenditure with what is being spent in Canada for social services, it is necessary' to take in all that has been spent on each account; and the social service account includes, as I have indicated, moneys paid out by the provinces, moneys paid out by the municipalities, and moneys paid out by this federal government.
Anyone who wishes to be just and fair to the taxpayers of the country, to the country itself and to municipal administrations, the governments of the provinces, and the federal government ought to quote every one of the figures which I have quoted here to-day.
In the light of that comparison it would seem there was little to concern ourselves about as respects the inadequacy of amounts for social services in contrast with outlays for defence. Yet this is what the amendment asks the house to declare:
This house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for purposes of national armament in contrast with the inadequate provision for the social security of all sections of the Canadian people.
It is clear from its wording that the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver North, necessitates taking into account the social security of all sections of the Canadian people, which means of course what is being looked after by the provinces and the municipalities as well as by the dominion. In the light of the figures which have been given here to-day, there is not a member of the group responsible

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
for this amendment who ought to think for one moment of supporting it; they all ought to ask to have it withdrawn.
Comparisons or contrasts of the kind are however beside the question. Either money is needed for purposes of defence or it is not. What we propose to spend on defence is not to be justified by comparison with anything else, it is to be justified with respect to the needs of defence alone. It could be justified in all these other ways if one wished to do so, but my point is that any criticism of the government in respect to the defence estimates must be made on the score of what we are spending for defence in the light of the world situation as we know it and of Canada's position as we know it in reference to dangers that may arise. I should like to ask hon. members of the group opposite if any one of them to-day will rise in his seat and say that in the light of the world situation, as he understands it, he thinks we are spending too much for defence in Canada at this time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is the position we take. I do not need to reiterate it. I think it is simple nonsense to be spending as much as we are.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, if that is the position my hon. friend takes, he has not had the courage to put it in his amendment. That is just the criticism I make of the amendment. I know very well what is going to happen as time slips along. Let the dangers increase to some extent, and what will hon. members say who support this amendment? "Oh, we never opposed the amount of money that the government was proposing to spend for defence."


James Shaver Woodsworth: You will see, when we come to it.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "All we did was to say that the contrast between what was being spent for defence and what was being
spent for social services was a matter of concern."


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: We are concerned about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me now come to what we are proposing to spend for purposes of defence, and why the amount is what it is. And just here may I say that governments are necessarily controlled, in the matters which they submit to parliament, by the actual conditions with which their countries may be faced at any particular time. When
a government brings in its estimates it does not bring in just what it pleases or what pleases it most. It has regard to conditions as they exist, and must consider what is necessary, and what it believes the people of the country believe to be necessary properly to meet those conditions. If there were no dangers in the world at the present time, if there were no threat of international war, if there were no impending calamity on a scale such as everyone, who is reflecting on the world situation, realizes that there is, certainly it would be an extraordinary thing for the government to bring in increases in defence estimates. But when countries are facing an altogether new situation, a government which has responsibility for defence must assume that responsibility in the light of existing conditions.
To understand why the defence estimates contain the increases they do, it is necessary to take account not merely of what has happened within the last year or two, but to view the world situation as it has developed in the years since the war. Quickly reviewing conditions, as they are known to all, we can see the reason why, for a considerable period of time, defepce estimates were kept at a very low figure, and also why, at the present time, estimates have had to be increased not only by Canada but by countries all over the world that are seeking to maintain their liberties and freedom and free institutions.
After the war, when the treaty of Versailles had been negotiated and signed, and there was brought into being the League of Nations, the world was war weary. There was not a nation which had not had enough of war -as sentiment was reflected in the minds of most of its people-for all time. The world looked for some other means of settling differences which might arise and saw in the League of Nations an institution that seemed to give promise of relieving nations from the necessity of competitive arming in the future. Here, they thought, was an institution that, by bringing into its membership all the nations of the world, would be in a position through the collective security it would ensure to avoid the necessity of any one nation arming against another. The vision was so compelling that it seemed to create the very conditions that were needed for its fulfilment. People did not stop to ask themselves very seriously whether this means of security upon which they were relying, which the league was to bring into being, would actually meet the situation; they were satisfied to accept it. The peoples of the different countries were ready to abandon old methods of settling disputes and to adopt the new and
1046	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
better ones symbolized in the league. It was a popular gospel to preach, this gospel of the league of nations and all that it stood for, and political parties rivalled each other in their support of the league. Up to a certain point they had very good reason for the ground they took. But as years went by new situations developed. I suppose that the League of Nations as the instrument of collective security was at the zenith of its influence around the year 1926, when, in addition to all that the league represented, the world witnessed the United States join with France in bringing into being the Kellogg-Briand pact, or the Pact of Paris, as it is better known, under the provisions of which the nations that were parties to that instrument agreed from that time on to renounce war as an instrument of national policy. I remember very well the scene in Paris at the time that the pact was signed, because I had the honour of signing it on behalf of Canada. It was a beautiful day, above the foreign office in Paris were flying the flags of the nations of the world. In front of the building were hundreds if not thousands of men, women and children for the most part still dressed in black, rejoicing in this new promise of salvation from aggression, but still having very vividly in their minds the ravages of the war not so many years before. Great were the expectations in those years of the new instruments framed for the purpose of maintaining peace.
Well, how have the hopes once entertained of the League of Nations been realized? The League of Nations first of all was based on the idea of universality of membership. It was brought into being oy the United States, one of the greatest powers in the world, and a power, considered largely disinterested. Other countries felt that, with the United States one of the members, collective security among the league members was going to be great indeed. Unfortunately, the United States subsequently did not see its way to becoming a member of the institution which owed its origin to the inspiration of that country. That was the first great disappointment. That was the first great gap in universal membership. As time went on, nations began to withdraw from the league. Japan, one of the great powers, withdrew, and shortly afterwards Germany, another great power, did the same. Brazil withdrew from the league. At the last meeting of the assembly, Italy was not represented. Thus, at the last assembly of the great powers that were in the war, Japan, Germany and Italy were not at the league.
Now, that is a very different kind of league from anything which was thought of, or talked about, during the years in which so much em-

phasis was put upon the security which all nations were going to derive from the League of Nations. I shall a little later on have something to say about the position of the league and what is involved in membership at the present time. It is I think an open question whether, instead of being a security, it may not in the present situation be something of a liability to be under the obligations which the covenant of the league imposes on its members with its membership restricted in the manner in which it is. That is a factor which must be taken into account at the present time.
There was another disappointment. The war ended, new democracies it was believed would come into being, and the league was to further that end. Instead of democracies the world has seen growing up in Russia, in Germany and in Italy as well as in other European countries dictatorships of the most powerful character. Instead of the people controlling their institutions and parliaments we have seen in the last few years parliaments swept out of existence. The league's whole strength lay in the fact that it was the people who were going to have the say: the people were going to have the say in Germany, in Italy and elsewhere. Well, we have seen the suppression of parliaments in some of these countries.
Then there was disarmament. That was another of the disappointments. Disarmament was foremost among the objectives of the league. It cannot be said that many nations did not strive to effect that great end. It has, however, thus far failed of accomplishment, and competitive arming is taking its place.
The league was going to bring about a condition wherein peace would be maintained by the furtherance of conciliation and arbitration and by treaties. There were to be all b;r>ds of agreements between the different countries, that belonged to the league. Peace was to be secured by contract, process of law, judicial settlement, a world order based upon contractual relationship; and a world that liked to believe in the sanctity of contracts saw in this extension of treaty obligations another great hope for the maintenance of peace. What is the position to-day with regard to treaties and contracts between nations? We have seen how far the treaty of Versailles has been respected. We have seen how Locarno has been violated. We have but to look at the pronouncements made from day to day by certain nations to discover that they put no faith at all in contracts and will not if it suits their purpose regard themselves as bound by any agreement or obligation. Some nations avowedly are placing their confidence

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
in might not in right; in force not in reason. That is a very different situation from that with which the world was faced a little while ago. These circumstances have changed the whole position of security so far as the nations of the world are concerned.
The league was in existence at the time of aggression against a league member in Manchuria, and the league was found to be a helpless institution in preventing that aggression. The league was in existence at the time of the Chaco war in South America, and the league did not intervene there though nations which were members of the league were involved. More persons were killed in that war than in the Ethiopian war. The league has been seen to be essentially a European institution. The league was in existence when Italy invaded Ethiopia and an effort was made by the application of sanctions to enforce what the league had felt would be the most effective means of ending aggression and maintaining peace. But what was discovered at that time? It was discovered that economic sanctions if they were to be effective at all would lead inevitably to military sanctions, and that military sanctions meant war. That is a very different condition from what most people had thought was likely to be the case when they were advocating membership in the League of Nations.
The result of all this has been that the attitude of nations generally has changed very materially towards the league viewed as an>
instrument for maintaining peace. Collective security under some of the league's provisions is none other than a reliance upon force. I am not saying that the League of Nations cannot fulfil a useful purpose and that it is not absolutely necessary; I believe it is. But the league in some of its provisions is based too much on a war mentality. The league, as its covenant is drafted, puts far too much reliance upon	what force	may	beexpected to accomplish. At any rate that is so to my way of thinking. There may be	others who hold	a different	view.	Ibelieve that the league as an instrument to further peace by peaceful means, by constructive peace policies, by reliance upon conciliation, investigation and the power of public opinion by the formulation of world opinion and methods of that kind can be of	very great service	to mankind	and	canbe	made a universal	league and	a league
which will be effective in bringing injustices to light and having them ultimately remedied. But a league which in the light of the developments of the last few years continues to place its reliance on force is going to be a very different institution from that which most of
us have conceived the League of Nations to be. And those who are going to put their faith in a league which relies upon force as its means of effecting collective security will have to consider anew what force they are going to be prepared to contribute from the country to which they themselves belong. The change in the position of the league, and in the possibility of its being able to serve the ends it was intended to serve, is another factor which has greatly affected world conditions.
But there is something else which has had a far-reaching effect and it is this. The old struggles, which were in the minds of people in the days when the league was formed, were struggles between nations; the league was formed to prevent one nation flying at the throat of another. But what is the nature of the struggle that is going on in Europe at the present time? What we see is a new kind of struggle, a conflict spreading throughout the world, a class struggle which sweeps right across the frontiers of nations without regard to boundaries-a class struggle on a scale scarcely contemplated by the mind of man. We see violent conflicts of classes and social systems, forms of social and political organization; the peoples beginning to fight among themselves-fighting for their social philosophies with a zeal akin to that of the days of the old religious wars. In other words, it is no longer a matter of nation protecting itself against nation; it has come to be a question of conflicting ideologies, to use an expression that covers the ground better than any other, and as to which of the contending forces is to prevail. All this has been accompanied by new and increasingly terrible weapons and methods of warfare, the wider range of aircraft and submarine and the use of deadly bombs and poisonous germs.
On different occasions I have quoted a passage which I should like to quote again because of its evident application to the present world situation. It is a quotation from one who was not a jingo, but a great scientist, a great humanitarian, one of the benefactors of mankind, one who knew a great deal more about human beings and human nature than most men of his own or any other day- the great scientist Louis Pasteur. In 1888 when Pasteur was being honoured by his country in the opening of the great institute which bears his name he was so overcome by the reception accorded him by the statesmen and scholars of France that he was unable to read from the manuscript he had prepared. He handed it to his son who read from its pages the following memorable words:
1048	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
Two contrary laws seem to be wrestling with each other nowadays; the one, a law of blood and of death, ever imagining new means of destruction, and forcing nations to be constantly ready for the battlefield, the other, a law of peace, work and health, ever evolving new means for delivering man from the scourges which beset him. The one seeks violent conquests, the other the relief of humanity. The latter places one human life above any victory; while the former would sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives to the ambition of one. Which of these two laws shall ultimately prevail God alone knows.
Now that is a statement of actual truth never more clearly demonstrated than in our own day. It is a truth we witnessed at the time of the great war, that we are witnessing again to a degree that no one hitherto could have dreamed of. We see in the world forces that are working for destruction and for death. We see forces that are working for peace, health and work. What I want to say to my hon. friends who seem to claim a monopoly of belonging to those forces that are working for peace, health and work is this, that you cannot go on with that work unless you protect yourself from the other forces. That is something to be kept in mind. When some of us to protect ourselves and our country against the forces of blood and of death ask parliament to vote money for purposes of defence, that we may continue to further the law of peace and work and health we are told that we are preparing for and promoting war. We are doing nothing of the kind. We are trying to make the national position secure to enable the law of peace, work and health to prevail and progress. This we believe is only possible as we keep at bay those forces that are making for death and destruction. No one can deny that there is coming over the face of Europe, if not of other parts of the world as well, something in the nature of an alignment of forces which are wrestling with each other, forces which do not confine themselves to any one country and which are operating in ways that are exceedingly dangerous. All that is changing the situation from what it was a few years ago with respect to the need of defence in different countries.
But more than that. We have at the present time and have had since July of last year a great civil war waging in Spain, one of the great countries of Europe. We have seen how difficult it is for other nations to keep their own nationals out of that war. That is something to be considered and to be reckoned with. The fact that in these many months we have seen coming from all parts of Europe men who are prepared to throw their lives into that ghastly furnace, fighting on one side or the other makes pretty clear

what we may expect if war ever gets beyond the boundaries of that country to a greater extent than it has at the present time. It has required all the ingenuity and skill that the statesmen of Britain and other countries in Europe could command to confine that conflict within the boundaries of that single unfortunate country. Who will say that those of us who are sitting here may not before the end of this present parliament witness some terrible expansion of that conflict, unless it is totally ended within that period of time. If the conflict spreads, if a conflict of that character becomes international, is it likely that any part of the world is going to escape its terrors? Facing such a possibility, not to speak of others scarcely less evident, can a government which has the responsibility of looking after the defence of its own country, ignore altogether what is necessary for the protection of its coasts, its harbours, its great cities, its people wherever they are, in contingencies that may arise.
These are things which the present administration have had to consider. The situation would be appalling and hopeless if there were not other factors which help greatly to relieve it. It would not be fair to leave the house or the country with the impression that the existing situation menacing as it may be is one that cannot be met. It is a condition that has been continuous more or less for the past five or six years. Europe has been in a very unsettled state. But some way or another, by the working together of men of good will, the nations have been able to maintain peace to a very considerable extent, and we hope and pray that they may be able to continue so to do. And there are many reasons to believe that perhaps they will. I do not suppose that Germany wants to go to war, I do not suppose she is ready to go to war at the present time. I imagine Italy has had enough of war for a while. I imagine Russia knows what it would mean to have to carry on a war in any country other than her own. So far as Japan is concerned there is evidence that the power of the people there who desire peace is very strong. We know whatever the ambitions of their rulers may be that throughout the world the peoples as a whole are anxious to preserve peace. On the whole there has been some improvement, a less tense strain in the international situation, a balancing of forces. a growing recognition on the part of every government of the uncertainties of success and the penalties of failure, a growing readiness too to seek to remove the causes of conflict, the sources of friction and to realize that in the end war settles nothing even for the victor. But one thing is certain, and that

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
is that this competitive arming cannot continue indefinitely without some terrible crash coming. If what hon. members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group say is true, that competitive arming means war, then war on a colossal scale is inevitable, and it is surely time that we begin to see that our country should be in a position to protect itself against possible contingencies arising out of such a situation.
Do they say, holding the convictions they do. that we should sit by and do nothing to defend our shores, our harbours, our shipping terminals, our great centres against contingencies of a kind that may arise?
Let me read what one gentleman who is not an alarmist and who has had a very strong faith in the League of Nations feels about the world situation to-day. I quote from Mr. John W. Dafoe, president and editor of the Winnipeg Free Press. I imagine Mr. Dafoe has been as strong a supporter of the league as any man in Canada and that he is as little given to exaggeration as any student of international affairs. Speaking in Toronto only a few days ago Mr. Dafoe said:
It is not possible to be optimistic. If the piling up of armaments, the regimentation of people and the constant interchange of threats between nations must continue, war is inevitable, given time, and perhaps it will come sooner rather than later. Why is the world in its present condition? Because we have reverted to the pre-war conception of relationships between nations.	The post-war idea of the
keeping of peace being an obligation upon all nations has been submerged. It may return of course but for the time being that great idea has vanished from the world and we are back to a conception that excludes all considerations of morality in international relationships.
There is one Canadian speaking out of his knowledge of conditions and careful study over many years. Let me read-and it is the only other quotation I shall give in this connection-what another public man of great experience in world affairs has been saying about the situation as he sees it. Mr. Lloyd George gave an interview before he left the West Indies in which he stated his view of the present situation and where it was likely to lead. This was on February 5:
The world is going mad. At the present moment we are spending $1,500,000,000 . on armaments. Ten years ago the entire world spent $3,500,000,000 for armaments, mow it is spending $12,500,000,000. They have almost quadrupled it in the past ten years and it is still going up. You must have followed what is happening in Europe to-day, nations are arming again. Within ten years the world armaments have trebled and are on the way to be quadrupled all within ten years. It is going on at an accelerating pace, Europe is thoroughly scared, they are frightened of war, all the
prayers for peace which you hear everywhere are drowned by the ring of the anvil, countless anvils hammering out the most terrible machinery of war that has ever been invented.
I give these quotations not to alarm the country but to bring home to hon. members some appreciation of the obligation that rests on the government of this country at this time. I ask any hon. member of this house, no matter from what part of the country he comes, if you were in the position of responsibility that I am in to-day, would you do nothing? Would you stand here and tell your fellow countrymen that in the light of statements such as these and in the light of the situation as we all know it, there was no need to do anything in preparation for what may take place later on, I ask this, particularly after having heard the statement made by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) as to the present position of Canada's defences. I must say that I regret very much that the Minister of National Defence found it necessary to tell the house the condition in which the defence forces of this country find themselves at the present time. It does not strengthen our country to	have	the	weak spots in
its armour known all over the world. But apparently something of the kind was necessary to persuade hon. members generally that there was need for replacement of obsolete armaments and equipment, that there was need for making good necessary stores and inadequate supplies, that there was need for something being done to cope with new methods of warfare from the air as well as on land and sea.
Let me answer one question at once. We are asked: What good is the little you are doing, in the teeth of a threatening world situation such as you have described? Why waste the money? If we were without friends, if we were not part of a world seeking to preserve its liberties, I would say it would be quite useless to do anything. But fortunately there are many countries that still love liberty; fortunately there are still many democracies in the world, and I believe we can rely upon many other countries doing their part, if we are prepared to do ours, in meeting the dangers of any situation which may affect this part of the world.
May I point out that undoubtedly Canada is the most secure of all countries. Fortunately, geographically we are better situated than most countries. Fortunately, by nature perhaps we are richer in resources than any other country of comparable size. Fortunately, we have no neighbours to the north, and to the south of us we have the best of
1050	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
neighbours. Fortunately we are separated by vast oceans from Europe and Asia. Fortunately, there are no countries which could be described as our enemies, or which can be said to be arming directly against us. All of these circumstances are fortunate indeed. Then, fortunately, above all else, we are a part of a great commonwealth of nations which has stood for freedom, and which is in a position to defend its freedom. It is because we are so fortunate that we are able to keep our defence expenditures down to a very small point. That is what I want hon. menv bers to realize.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: We do realize it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
member may, but I am afraid many about her do not, because we have been told that even these comparatively small expenditures are unnecessary. I want to bring home to the house the fact that the government would not be justified in asking parliament for such a small amount by way of increase, were it not for all the other factors which time in and time out have been mentioned here as reasons why we should do nothing.
By all means, let us make the most of our friendship with the United States. By all means, let us make the most of our friendship and kinship with Great Britain and with every other part of the British empire. By all means let us continue to be friends with every other nation, because in that direction, more perhaps than in any other, security lies. But let us realize that unless we do something to help ourselves these countries cannot be expected to help at a time of world crisis, or great peril. It is not contended that that danger is great for us. There is a danger but so far as Canada is concerned, it is, as I have already pointed out, an incidental contingency. Relatively -our danger is small. Another great war, however, might lead to exposure to dangers, which might be great indeed.
I was explaining why the increases have to be made at this particular time. They are necessary because of the changed conditions I have described and the consequent dangers which beset all countries. But there are more immediate reasons, and they are these: During the last few years we have not been spending on defence the amount which normally we ought to have been spending. We have neglected our defence forces. I am not going to criticize my predecessors in office because of the extent to which economies were effected in the Department of National Defence. I am prepared to write those economies down to the depression. The fact is,

through years of depression, while there were large expenditures in some directions there were economies in others. It was perhaps natural that the Department of National Defence should have been considered a department in which economies could be effected. Let us not forget, however, that the depression has operated in two ways:	It occasioned
economies in defence so far as Canada was concerned, but it operated in other ways to make nations excessively restless. The depression has been responsible for much of the feeling which to-day is asserting itself in violence of one form or another. The fact that we tried to meet the depression as we did has only added to our immediate necessities as respects defence.
When the present government assumed office we naturally at once made a survey of all departments of government. The Minister of National Defence reported to his colleagues the condition as he found it in the department of defence. As he said the other day, discovering the condition he did as respects the lack of defence equipment and supplies, he would have been guilty of treason had he not in an emphatic manner reported upon it to his colleagues and in particular to myself as Prime Minister. Had the Minister of National Defence been able to carry out his wishes and what he believed to be his duty, most of the present estimates would have been submitted last year instead of this year, because even at that time the world was facing a critical situation and the need for precautions was apparent. But there was a special reason why it seemed unwise to present increased estimates for national defence at that time. I think hon. members can surmise the reason.
When we assumed office the Italo-Ethiopian war was already in progress and we found the League of Nations had already asked that economic sanctions against Italy be imposed by its several members. Almost the first obligation which fell upon the new administration was that of imposing economic sanctions against Italy because of Canada's membership in the league. Then we were faced with the report that Canada was urging that oil sanctions should be added to the others. Those of us who had responsibility realized what the consequence of the imposition of oil sanctions might have been. We were questioned about it at the time, but since then more than one public man with knowledge of the situation has made it pretty clear that, had oil sanctions been imposed at the time by the league, the world might have seen the whole of Europe in flames last year. With

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
the European situation as it stood at the time, as a government we felt it would be unwise to arouse discussion in this house on matters of defence, especially when there was the possibility that our action would have been entirely misunderstood by other countries as well as our own. We urged the Minister of National Defence not to press for moneys to make good the depletions and deficiencies in defence to the extent he deemed necessary until the European situation, as it related to the war between Italy and Ethiopia, had somewhat cleared. The understanding was that we would come to parliament with a full statement of the situation at a time when such a statement was not likely to add to the difficulties of those who were dealing with affairs in Europe.
We wished moreover for further opportunity to see that the expenditures requested were absolutely essential, and that whatever it might be necessary to have done would be effective. I have listened to much of what has been said about the Department of National Defence. I know it is a popular pastime to make fun of the brass hats, as they are termed, and to ridicule those who wear gold braid, as it it termed. May I say however-and I say this as the Prime Minister of Canada-that the defence forces of Canada are part of the public service. Persons in those branches of government are not free to defend themselves on the floors of parliament. They are not supposed even to defend themselves in the press of the country, and I think it is most unchivalrous for members of parliament to belittle men who have served their country at the risk of their lives in the past, and who, in the face of a world situation such as we have to-day, are prepared, if necessary, to offer their lives in its 'service again.
I observed that the group opposite seemed to be greatly amused when one member read from a regulation stating the size of ties that were to toe worn in relation to the size of collars and how they were to be made up. I have noticed among men who have had a military training, that one finds at their homes, both in and out of doors, evidences of order and system, which frequently are not to be found in other homes. The continuous attention paid to little things and the discipline necessary to cause a man to pay attention to such things often goes a long way towards ensuring that in a moment of action one who may be called upon to place a gun in position, will do so with accuracy; or one whose duty it is to direct a beam of light will do so with exactness and precision. Hon. members may ridicule these little things but they are a part of the training and discipline
which help to make men efficient in times of need.
Knowing that there would be the criticism that officers of the Department of National Defence were seeking to increase their own importance and to enlarge unduly the scope of the defence forces, after prorogation last year I suggested to my colleagues with the approval of the Minister of National Defence that we should have a special committee of the cabinet to take up with the Minister and the officials of his department the whole question of the defence estimates, and that we form from among members of the cabinet a Canadian defence committee. I did that for the reason I have mentioned, but even more for the reason that having regard to the world situation, I thought it important that members of the cabinet should have the fullest possible information with respect to the general defence services. I asked the Minister of National Defence to give to every member of the cabinet a secret memorandum setting forth in detail what was being proposed, what needs were likely to be served, and at what cost they would be met, in order that the defence committee of the cabinet might be in a position to take up with the heads of the branches of the defence department any points of criticism that might occur to any of them after the information had been placed before and considered by the cabinet as a whole.
I shall read the minute of His Excellency in Council of August 20, 1936, which established the defence committee:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 19th August, 1936, from the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, submitting that he is of the opinion that a subcommittee of council should be constituted to consider problems respecting defence.
The Prime Minister therefore recommends that a subcommittee of council, to be known as the "Canadian Defence Committee" and to consist of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, the Honourables the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Defence, be appointed, the Right Honourable the Prime Minister to be chairman of the said committee.
The Prime Minister further recommends that the said committee shall have power to call before it any official or employee of the government and any officer of the naval, military or air force of Canada, whose duty it shall be to afford the committee every assistance and all information in connection with any subject in regard to which the committee may desire to be informed.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendations and submit the same for approval.
After it was formed, the committee had three important meetings with officers of the defence department in addition to other conferences. Before this committee of the cabinet
1052	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
the chief of the naval forces, the chief of the air forces and the chief of the militia appeared with other members of the staff. A considerable part of a day was spent going over item by item every recommendation that was made. The estimates were then further considered by the cabinet as a whole.
Let me now say a word as to the extent of the increases in the estimates being submitted. In the light of all that I have said, what are we asking this house to do? What items account for the increases? First of all, we are asking parliament to enable us to replace two destroyers which had become obsolete with two destroyers which will be up to date and effective. For a good many years past we have had four destroyers, two of which had been obtained on loan from the British government. Those two had become obsolete and we had to ask ourselves whether we would approach the British government at a time when they were being hard pressed themselves, and ask them in the name of Canada to lend us two more destroyers or whether we would ask them if they could spare us out of their number two destroyers at a reasonable figure. Is there any hon. member who thinks that we should have allowed the two destroyers which had become obsolete not to be replaced? Is there any hon. member who thinks that we should have sought to borrow two destroyers instead of purchasing them? Is there any member of the group opposite who have been criticizing the estimates who will say that we ought to have left these two obsolete destroyers unreplaced in the little service that we provide for our coasts?
We are asking this house to enable us to purchase four mine sweepers, which will be built in Canada. A few years ago we had four mine sweepers regularly in commission. One is still in existence but is ready for scrapping, one was sunk and the other two have been out of commission for some time. We are simply replacing what we had as a part of the regular service a few years ago. I am told that during the war there were 125 mine sweepers between Halifax and Sydney to protect that portion of the shores of Canada. I ask my hon. friends opposite who are criticizing these estimates if they will say that we should not purchase four mine sweepers, when we have only one in Canada to-day? They do not reply. Why then do they criticize these estimates, why do they bring in a vote of want of confidence in the administration because we ask for the small increases we are asking for in order to begin

to undertake some sort of defence around our coasts? We propose to have these mine sweepers constructed in Canada. During the war twelve were constructed in this country so that we will be able to do the work ourselves. That covers the naval equipment with the exception of one training ship. We were told that a training ship was essential and we are providing for this ship which also will be constructed in Canada.
Come next to the air forces. I think everyone recognizes that an air force will be a very necessary form of protection from now on. Part of the necessity for this expenditure is due to the change in the nature of present day warfare. Air forces did not exist before the last war and submarines came into general use during that war. Air fighting has become the most significant feature of modem warfare. Well do we know how air forces are being developed in other countries of the world. When the Liberal administration was in office some years ago we felt that everyone would recognize of what great advantage extensive air navigation would be in a country the size of Canada. We thought that we ought to encourage civil aviation and at the same time develop an air force for defence purposes. We made a beginning in that direction, indeed we went quite a way. No exception was taken and this parliament voted the money necessary for the air forces. The expenditures for air defence purposes reached a point just about equal to that which is now being proposed. When my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition came into office in 1930 and encountered years of depression his government thought it advisable to cut down the air force. We criticized him at the time very strongly for that; the Liberal party in Canada, the Liberal members of this House of Commons, criticized the then government for cutting down the air force. All we are doing at the present time is continuing our policy as it was then by restoring the air force to a point where it will be effective and of some real service.
How were the expenditures cut down? In 1930-31, the year we went out of office, the total expenditure for defence purposes was $21,700,-
000.	When my right hon. friend came into office he had by 1932-33 cut that $21,700,000 to $12,600,000. An increase of five million dollars in the present estimates which are required for the air force is accounted for by the extent to which the air force was depleted during the time we were out of office. The entire air force appropriation may be considered as replacement. Does anyone say we should not spend that five million dollars

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
to bring back the air force to where it was at that time? Will anyone in the group opposite who have been criticizing the government say that? I do not hear anyone say so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will be fair enough to allow us to speak when we have the opportunity when the estimates are under discussion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has had the opportunity to speak, and he has spoken many times. I am asking him a question now, which I am asking any of those opposite who have been criticizing the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would say to the Prime Minister that I do not propose to answer under these circumstances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all I want. I want to make it clear to the country as well as to the house that while hon. gentlemen opposite are taking refuge behind the amendment which has been brought into this house-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. gentleman must not interrupt without permission.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I ask that no rhetorical question be put to us across the floor when we have no opportunity of replying. We shall speak when we have a proper opportunity.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will not ask any rhetorical questions but I shall make this positive assertion. There is not a member of the group that has moved this amendment who has stood up in his place and said that he would not support what the government is proposing to do, although supporting an amendment which purports to criticize what the government is doing.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: I am prepared to do that when the Prime Minister is through.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now I come to further expenditures, the expenditures for militia purposes. The Minister of National Defence made very clear wherein the provision that is being made for the militia is required. It was pointed out that so far as the equipment which exists at the present time is concerned, much of it is obsolete. It is totally inadequate, and so far as the supplies of munitions are concerned they too are wholly inadequate. Does any hon. member take the view that we should not make good supplies which are deficient? Will anyone say
that at a time like this we should expect members of the militia to be prepared to defend our coasts, our harbours, terminals, to support the naval and air forces and not give them the necessary ammunition, not provide them with the necessary guns, not- provide them with the anti-aircraft, and other essential equipment? The Minister of National Defence has made perfectly clear what equipment and armaments are necessary if we are to make our militia effective at all.
The view that the government has taken is that we need certain defence forces and needing these forces we should see to it that they are made efficient.
Just to give an idea how Canada stands as compared with other countries in outlays on defence, let me give the amount that was spent per capita on defence by the leading countries of the world for the year 1935-36:
Mexico, $1.12.
Peru, $1.30.
Brazil, $1.31.
Canada, $1.41.
New Zealand, $2.38.
Venezuela, $2.39.
Denmark, $2.50.
Norway, $3.31.
Argentina, $3.72.
Chile, $4.01.
Finland. $4.12.
Japan, $4.30.
Australia, $4.37.
South Africa, $4.53.
Belgium, $4.59.
Sweden. $4.95.
United States, $7.11.
Switzerland, $7.56.
Italy, $8.11-not including extraordinary expenses for the Ethiopian war.
Russia, $9.77.
Great Britain, $14.14.
France, $16.79.
I	think, Mr. Speaker, in the light of those figures, that the small amount we are asking by way of provision for defence should not be taken exception to by any hon. member of the house.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said that he hoped some statement would be made of the government's foreign policy. He thought it was important that such a statement should be made in dealing with these estimates. May I say to my hon. friend that I think the government's foreign policy has been put before the house pretty clearly this session and last session. Last session I made a very clear and extensive statement, and this session I have spoken several times on foreign policy.
My hon. friend says that foreign policy and defence are necessarily bound together. I think he makes a mistake in assuming that foreign policy has to do mostly with war.
1054	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
Foreign policy has to do with maintaining peace, and I have indicated over and over again that so far as this government is concerned, its policy is to follow after the things that make for peace with all the nations of the world, and to do the utmost that it possibly can towards that end. Our whole fiscal policy is based on that view. It is a part of our foreign policy, part of our relations with other countries. We believe that getting rid of trade restrictions, quotas, and other barriers, doing what we can to break down economic nationalism, helps to make for peace. Having regard to the extent of its trade, this government has gone further, I believe, than any other government in existence to-day towards promoting trade with other countries by reducing tariff barriers and getting rid of trade restrictions of one kind and another. When we did away with the embargo against Russia, we were making it clear that we did not wish to maintain an attitude of unfriendliness towards a single country. My hon. friend knows what are the relations between this country and the United States, the relations between this country and France and our relations with Japan, and how they have been promoted in a friendly way. All of that is part of our foreign policy. Interested persons outside this house have not had much difficulty in discovering what are the essential features of Canada's foreign policy. There have been many articles and many debates of late, in which features of our policy have been very fully discussed. Let me quote as a sample from an article which appeared in the University of Toronto Quarterly of last month; it is written by Mr. Escott Reid. It deals with Canada's foreign policy. I cite it because it gives in a concise form certain phases of that policy. Mr. Reid has based what he has written very largely upon what has been said in this House of Commons and which should be as familiar to my hon. friend as it is to any writer beyond these walls. He says:
Mr. King's foreign policy, as declared from his statements and actions since his reassuming office on October 23, 1935, can be summarized as follows:
1.	The guiding principle in the formulation of Canada's foreign policy should be the maintenance of the unity of Canada as a nation.
2.	Canada's foreign policy is, in the main, not a matter of Canada's relations to the league, but of Canada's relations to the United Kingdom and the United States.
3.	Canada should, as a general rule, occupy a back seat at Geneva or elsewhere when European or Asiatic problems are being discussed.

4.	Canada is under no obligation to participate in the military sanctions of the league or in the defence of any other part of the commonwealth.
5.	Canada is under no obligation to participate in the economic sanctions of the league.
6.	Before the Canadian government agrees in future to participate in military or economic sanctions or in war, the approval of the parliament or people of Canada will be secured.
7.	Canada is willing to participate in international inquiries into international economic grievances.
That, I think, is a very good statement of some of the features of Canada's foreign policy. Possibly it stresses too much what has to do with possible wars and participation in war, and it does not emphasize enough, in my opinion, what has been done in the way of trade policies and removal of causes of friction between this and other countries. But it does point out certain features that have a direct bearing on these estimates.
Take, for example, the very first statement, that "the guiding principle in the formulation of Canada's foreign policy should be the maintenance of the unity of Canada as a nation." That bears immediately upon these very estimates. If this government, faced with the situation that I have described, had done nothing with respect to Canadian defences, does my hon. friend imagine, does anyone imagine that we would have had unity in this country? We should have had from all over Canada very strong demands that the government pay attention to the world situation and see to it that Canada's defences were properly taken care of. On the other hand, if we had taken extreme measures, if we had become jingoistic in our attitude and had asked this parliament for huge appropriations for purposes of defence, we should have met with decided protests the other way. What we have sought to do is to bring down estimates which would commend themselves generally as reasonable to the Canadian people from one end of this country to the other. In that I believe we have succeeded. Not only the people of Canada generally, but the people of each province of Canada are, I believe, behind us in what we are doing at this time. We have sought before all else, as I have said, to maintain the unity of our country in what we have been proposing. If we have not proposed more, if we have not proposed less, it is because of that guiding - principle, we have sought to keep the country united.
I should like to put on record one statement which I regard as important in this discussion of defence, related as it is to foreign policy. It comes from a source which I believe should be considered at all times by hon. members

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
of this house. It is from the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, through the executive of that body. Before I read it, may I say further to my bon. friend that while it is true our own foreign policy does not include any consideration of objects to be attained beyond Canada in the way of territories to be acquired, or resources to be obtained, or colonies to be restored, the foreign policies of other countries in some of these particulars have a bearing upon the estimates which are now before this house. The statement I am about to read will indicate wherein a consideration of such matters by the government has been deemed necessary by those who served their country in the great war. This communication was sent to me on January 30 of this year by General Alex. Ross, the Dominion president. General Ross' letter states:
At a meeting of the Dominion Executive Council of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, held in Ottawa this week, consideration was given to the question of national defence, and as a result a resolution was adopted which I think may be taken to correctly represent the views of our membership as a whole on this very important question. A copy of the resolution is enclosed herewith.
This is the view of the Canadian Legion:
The Dominion Executive Council of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League being of the opinion that, in view of the international situation, it is desirable to define the position ofc the Canadian Legion of the B.E.S.L. on matters of national defence, resolves as follows:
(1)	That the Canadian Legion believes that the first essential toward the promotion of world peace is universal disarmament to a point consistent with preservation of order within national territorial limits, and the efficient policing of the seas.
(2)	But in view of the fact that efforts made since the war towards procuring universal disarmament have, thus far. been unsuccessful, and that as a result the nations of the world are now rearming to a greater degree than ever before and, in view of the fact that certain of the great powers do not adhere to the League of Nations, and that others, on occasion, have flaunted its decisions, the Canadian Legion believes that the time has now come when the people of Canada should give consideration to the problem of national defence.
(3)	That in view of the fact that since the passage of the Statute of Westminster Canada is now an independent nation within the commonwealth of the British Empire, it is necessary that Canada should assume the responsibilities of nationhood, and that we should not rely upon the United Kingdom for our defence by sea or land.
(4)	That we, therefore, believe that it is essential that Canada should, forthwith, develop a defence policy which, in the first place, would be designed to enable us to effectively defend our neutrality in case of war and protect our trade and commerce, and ultimately enable us to defend our eastern and western coasts from aggression by enemy forces.
(5)	That in so declaring we definitely exclude a policy of arming for purposes of aggression; that we regard our frontier with the United States as one which does not require protection, but we feel that if Canada is to retain her place as an independent nation in the world, she must be able to defend herself from threats of aggression from overseas, which in the present state of world polities cannot be regarded as idle.
(G) That accordingly, we endorse the proposals of the government to increase our national defences and trust that such defences may be developed along the lines suggested, to make our coast secure from attack by sea, land and air, and to preserve our position as an independent nation which does not seek to interfere with the rights of any other nation but only to develop its national life in a world where peace should prevail.
That declaration, of the legion sets forth in, I think, as concrete language as could be expressed, very much the views of the present administration. I endorse every paragraph in that communication.
I have spoken longer than I intended, but there are one or two matters to which I should like to refer before I conclude as they have been touched on in the course of the debate.
The first is the suggestion that we need not defend ourselves because we have the Monroe doctrine to rely upon and also because we have Great Britain, to protect us.
So far as the Monroe doctrine is concerned, that doctrine itself in its application has been undergoing of late a certain amount of change. The visit of President Roosevelt to the South American republics made it clear that in so far as the Monroe doctrine was to apply to them, they in turn were to be prepared to consult with the United States upon what should be done to help to maintain peace on this continent. Far from interpreting the doctrine as obliging the United States to undertake the policing of the whole of the western hemisphere, its meaning has come to be that where the United States undertakes an obligation of the kind she expects to do so in consultation with the other countries that may be affected, and consultation, I take it means something in the way of cooperation as well. But as far as the Monroe doctrine is concerned, may I ask this house whether, having regard to our relations with the United States and our desire to maintain the friendliest possible relations with that country, we are prepared to surrender to that country the whole of our obligation in the matter of protection against foreign aggression? Is it likely that we shall be able to maintain friendly relations with the United States if we do nothing to defend our own coasts but simply take the attitude that we shall look

1056	COMMONS
National Defence

Mr. Mackenzie King
to them for our defence? Similarly with regard to England. Are members of this government who are to represent Canada at the imperial conference to be asked to assert Canada's equality of status with all the nations of the British commonwealth and at the same time to tell the British government that we are relying upon Great Britain to protect our coasts, and will do nothing to help ourselves because we have their protection? In a word, so far as looking to either the United States or Great Britain for the defence of our coasts or of any part of the dominion, while naturally we are glad to know that we can count on that additional safeguard in any great emergency, to suggest that we should depend upon it entirely and do absolutely nothing for ourselves is simply to be lacking in self-respect as a nation; it is simply sponging. I submit that sponging by a nation is, in the eyes of other nations, exactly the same as it is in the case of individuals. An individual who is prepared to look to his neighbours to guard his own home and is not prepared to do anything himself for its defence lacks that kind of manliness and self-respect whieh entitles him to be classed as a citizen of his country. While we may congratulate ourselves that we are fortunate in our proximity to the United States, while we may be glad of the Monroe doctrine, while it is our good fortune to have both the United States and Great Britain as close friends ready to come and help us should we ever be the victims of aggression, let us realize that if we are to look to them for help all the more we must be prepared to lend a hand ourselves, and that certainly in the defence of our own country.
With respect to neutrality, if we are to look to the United States for assistance, that is all the more reason why we must be prepared to see that the United States at least is not embarrassed by reason of any failure on our part to safeguard our own neutrality. I will not go into the question of neutrality this afternoon beyond observing that any nation that does not wish to become a belligerent in a war must at least be able to see that the waters adjacent to its own coasts are so patrolled by its own vessels that no belligerent can come and operate from that base against some other country with which it may be at war. As was ably pointed out the other evening, a ship coming from overseas from some country at war and entering our waters might immediately involve us in conflict. Unless we are in a position to safeguard our own commerce within our harbours and rivers we cannot expect to be able to maintain neutrality even if we have decided so to do.

I have spoken already of the support of the league and I will not discuss that point further at the moment, though I hope at some other time to have an opportunity to make an additional reference to it. Let me conclude with a word in reference to the imperial conference and imperial defence. I have already, I believe, made clear that so far as participation in any war is concerned the position of the present government, and indeed of all governments in Canada, is that there will be no participation by Canada in a war overseas except by the consent of our own parliament. As long as that is understood, hon. members should have sufficient confidence in themselves to believe that the right course will be followed with respect to any possible participation by Canada in foreign wars.
A good deal has been said in the course of this discussion about the danger of attending imperial conferences and of what may take place at such conferences. May I point out, first of all, that an imperial conference is only a conference; it is not a cabinet. An imperial conference is not a body that exists for the purpose of making policies for the empire and with authority to make such policies and to carry them out. An imperial conference is simply a meeting of representatives of different parts of the empire for the purpose of conferring together on matters of great common concern. Undoubtedly at conferences efforts may be made to introduce imperial policies and gain acceptance for them; but every government is responsible for the atti-' tude that it takes at an imperial conference and I wish to say, here and now, that the attitude which this present administration will take at the forthcoming imperial conference is that which it has taken at every other conference, namely, that it is not in a position to bind Canada to anything. We shall be glad to get and to give as much information as we can on matters of common concern, on matters of trade, of defence, on constitutional problems and the like; but we shall be as free to take our own action with regard to these matters as we are at the present time. Unless its government permits it, there is nothing that an imperial conference can do which can in any way bind this country without the knowledge and consent of its parliament. Therefore I do not think that there need be much fear concerning what will take place by way of commitments at the conference.
Resolutions have been adopted at previous imperial conferences. I should like to read those concerning defence which were adopted

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
at the conferences of 1923 and 1926 so that the house may see how far they committed this country to anything which this parliament would be likely to take exception. At the imperial conference of 1923 a resolution was passed-and was reaffirmed in 1926-to the effect that, while it was for the parliaments of the different parts of the empire to decide the nature and extent of defence,
The primary responsibility of each portion of the empire was for its own local defence.
This was based upon a finding of the chiefs of staff subcommittee of the committee of imperial defence in 1923 as follows:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom is mainly responsible for the security of communications between the several parts of the commonwealth.
And:
Each of the several dominions is responsible for protecting its territory and coastal trade against aggression, until support comes from the outside.
Is there in that resolution anything to which hon. members would take exception? The imperial conference of 1926 laid down the following formula :
It was frankly recognized that in this sphere (i.e. foreign policy), as in the sphere of defence, the larger share of responsibility rests now, and must for some time rest, with His Majesty's government in Great Britain. Nevertheless all the dominions engage to some extent, and some to considerable extent, in the conduct of foreign relationships, particularly those with foreign countries on their borders. ... the governing consideration underlying all discussions of this problem must be that neither Great Britain nor the dominions could be committed to the acceptance of active obligations, except with the definite assent of their own governments.
Can any exception be taken to these resolutions? I will guarantee that there shall be no resolution that will go further than either of these with respect to any demand on Canada at the forthcoming imperial conference.
Much has been said about a recent speech made by Sir Samuel Hoare. Does a speech made by a member of the parliament of the old country bind this parliament? It is a mighty fortunate thing for the old country that some of the speeches made here do not bind government there. That is equally true of all parliaments no matter where speeches happen to be made. Fortunately the British community of nations is one in which we are all free to say pretty much what we like, but none of us is bound by what the other fellow says. An imperial conference in London is no different from a dominion-provincial conference here in what it involves in the way of commitments by governments participating. We have had some speeches by members
31111-67}
of this parliament, in relation to what might take place at a dominion conference, which have not altogether pleased some of the provincial governments and provincial premiers. But they have not found themselves in any way bound by what was said. They have taken exception to what was said if they wished so to do. and they have acquiesced if they so wished. That is exactly the position this government will be in when it meets with other governments at the forthcoming imperial conference. However, it is quite clear that the concern and doubts of some hon, members have reached the ears of members of the government in the old country and that its members have seen there were those in this parliament who fear that in some way Canada is being committed at the present time with respect to what is being done for purposes of defence in Great Britain, or may be committed later on. Ministers of the crown have lost no time in making very clear that, as far as the defence of the different countries of the British Empire is concerned, it is for each part of the empire to decide for itself what it is going to do.
The first of these ministerial statements is one made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain. It leaves no room for doubt. Mr. Chamberlain, speaking in the British house of Commons on February 17, after referring to the fact that the United Kingdom was dependent for supplies upon overseas countries, which laid an especial responsibility upon the British forces, especially the navy, to preserve freedom of communications, said:
It is perfectly true we are dependent largely for supplies of essential materials upon the dominions and in that sense therefore the dispersal of the dominions over the world does lay this special duty upon the navy.
As far as the dominions are concerned it is not the intention to call upon the dominions to make any contributions to a common fund. The dominions as a matter of fact have spent a great deal of money upon perfecting or improving their own defences and that is their contribution to the common fund but there is no other form of contribution of which I am aware under discussion at the present time.
Even that statement was too much for the hon. member for Vancouver East	(Mr. Maclnnis). Speaking yesterday in the house he quoted this statement, and said: " So you see after all there is a common fund."
The hon. member quoted Mr. Chamberlain's statement:
So far as the dominions are concerned, it is not the intention to call upon the dominions to make any contribution to a common fund. The dominions, as a matter of fact, have spent a great deal of money-
1058	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King
Some hon. Members:	Time.
Mr. Maclnnis: May I finish reading this?
Mr. Mackenzie King:	Yes, let the hon.
member finish.
Mr. Maclnnis: I shall continue:
The dominions, as a matter of fact, have spent a great deal of money upon perfecting or improving their own defences, and that is their contribution to the common fund, but there is no other form of contribution, of which I am aware, under discussion at the present time.
And then the hon. member said:
So, you see there is a common fund to which the dominions contribute.
Now what did Mr. Chamberlain mean when he spoke about a common fund? He meant common security. At last the hon. member has discovered that after all there is a common security, towards which we may perhaps be contributing something. I ask hon. members whether they think it is inadvisable to contribute to common security, to a common fund in the nature of security against aggression, against invasion, by making some effort to maintain peace and this in the present instance by defending our own coasts, in our own country, and nothing more.
But Mr. Chamberlain's statement, possibly because it referred to a common fund, was apparently not regarded as sufficient on the part of British statesmen to relieve the fears of some hon. members, because the next day another minister spoke, this time Sir Thomas Inskip, minister for defence coordination. Sir Thomas only yesterday made the following statement in the House of Commons, which is equally emphatic. I read from the Associated Press report in the evening papers of yesterday:
So far as the dominions have opinions on our foreign policy let them be expressed by them, not by persons in this house. We shall this year enjoy the full measure of a conference with dominions' representatives. Let us not embroil them in our commitments.
The defence coordination minister also repeated previous assertions ths t the dominions will not be asked to share the bill.
"We ask this country to pay for the colonies and dependencies in those parts of the empire for which we are responsible, on which we depend for much of our raw materials," Sir Thomas Inskip declared.
"The dominions, of course, are conscious of the value of their associations with this country and they are making their own preparations at their own expense for their own defence."
As if that were not enough the Prime Minister of England also felt that he should make clear the position that in no way was Canada, or any other dominion, in connection with what it is doing for defence, necessarily committing itself to expenditures for some scheme

of imperial defence. The Canadian Press report in last night's Ottawa papers contained the following:
Geoffrey Mander. Liberal, asked for a statement concerning proposals that the government lay before the imperial conference suggestions that a greater share in the cost of imperial defence be borne by the dominions.
Mr. Baldwin:	"While welcoming the opportunity afforded by the imperial conference for discussion of defence and other problems, I may remind the hon. gentleman that the defence expenditure of the dominions is entirely a matter for His Majesty's governments in their respective dominions."
Could anything be clearer than that? That statement by the Prime Minister of Great Britain should remove all possibility of doubt as to defence commitments not sanctioned by our own parliament.
In the course of this debate it has been necessary at different times from this side of the house to repeat that what we are doing we are doing for Canada and for Canada alone. That has been necessary for the reason that an impression had been created that what we were doing had relation to some expeditionary force which would be sent overseas. When we say that what we are doing we are doing for Canada alone, we mean that what we are doing is for the defence of our country within the territorial waters of the coasts of our country, and within Canada itself for the defence of Canada. But I hope it will not be thought that because we have laid emphasis on the fact that what we are doing we are doing for Canada, we are not thereby making some contribution towards the defence of the British commonwealth of nations as a whole, or that we are not making some contribution towards the defence of all English-speaking communities, that we are not making some contribution towards the defence of all democracies, that we are not making some contribution towards the defence of all those countries that may some day necessarily associate themselves together for the purpose of preserving their liberties and freedom against an aggressor, come from wherever he may. I say that while we are doing what we are doing for Canada we believe that in this way we can make the most effective contribution towards the security of all countries that may have like institutions, like ideals, and principles of freedom similar to our own.
May I say this word in conclusion. We have heard in this debate that we ought to look to the United States, that we ought to become members of some pan-American conference, that we ought to take up with new friends, that we ought to seek our security in

National Defence-Mr. Douglas
the league, that we ought not to incur expenditures for defence because there are others upon whom we may lean, that we ought to borrow our ships, that it is unnecessary to look after ourselves. A nation is not unlike an individual. A nation has many attributes that the individual has. A nation has character. A nation has duties and responsibilities. A nation has moral as well as other obligations. And a nation which is going to be worthy of the name will seek to discharge all its obligations and its duties in a way befitting a nation among the nations of the world.
I have in my hand a little volume of Shakespeare's Hamlet, a play the key to which will be found in the following words:
The time is out of joint; 0, cursed spite, That ever I was born to set it right!
That is the frame of mind that a good many people are in to-day. The time is out of joint, and, each, for himself, has to decide whether he is going to help shoulder the burden, help put things right, or do as Hamlet did, because the burden of the obligation is a great one, fail either to bear it or to throw it off and so confess his soul unequal to the performance of the great deed laid upon it.
I say to those who fail to realize the stature to which Canada has thus far advanced, and what is expected of her as a nation, that they will do well to heed and to apply to our country the words of profound wisdom addressed by Polonius to his son Laertes, as Laertes set out upon his own:
My blessing with thee!
And these few precepts in thy memory Look thou character- Give thy thoughts no tongue,
Nor any unproportion'd thought his act.
Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar; Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,
Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel, But do not dull thy palm with entertainment Of each new-hatch'd unfledged comrade. Beware
Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in, Bear't, that the opposed may beware of thee. Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice. Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment....
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) and my deskmate, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I
wish first of all to deal with some of the statements made by previous speakers in the debate.
At the outset may I say a word about the amendment. A number of hon. members have endeavoured to interpret it in such a way as to give them a reasonable excuse for voting against it, on the ground that to vote for the amendment is to vote for socialism and to endorse the philosophy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The first person to advance that point of view was the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), and others have taken refuge in the same interpretation. Well, if giving people jobs; if taking care of them when they are out of work, through no fault of their own; if looking after the aged, widows and orphans and giving medical and hospital assistance to people who cannot pay for it, are associated in the mind of the Minister of National Defence with the principles of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, I have no objection. But that is not what is intended by the amendment. It states two things clearly, first that this group is opposed to increased expenditure for military purposes.
Let me say here to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that while we did not choose to sit like a group of school children saying Yes, Yes, Yes, while he asked rhetorical questions, I speak for my colleagues and myself when I say most categorically that we are opposed to the increases in the defence estimates. Second, the amendment states that not only are we opposed to the estimates, but we oppose them especially in view of the lack of economic security to be found throughout the dominion. We are saying that we believe bread is more important than bullets, that homes are more important than aeroplanes, that giving people the means to attain physical well-being is more important than building up a military clique within the dominion. When the Minister of National Defence seeks to interpret our stand as one asking for an endorsation of socialism, may I say to him that there are many people across Canada who have taken exactly the same stand as we have, and who could not by any manner of means be called socialists.
The Prime Minister read a press report of Mr. Lloyd George's interview at Jamaica, but may I point out that he did not read all of it. He may have had reasons of his own for not doing so. I shall be pleased to read the rest of it, which runs as follows:
The veteran British Liberal leader was bitter about the huge sums the mother country was spending on rearmament while we have found
National Defence-Mr. Douglas

it very difficult to get a few millions for the relief of suffering in the distressed areas. For a very small proportion of that sum of money we could have had unbelievable empire development, but, no, the whole of the money is to go to the dogs of war.
That is the part of Mr. Lloyd George's statement which the Prime Minister did not see fit to read. May I point out that there are other people in Canada who feel as we do in the matter. The city council of Montreal could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered a socialist body. Yet I have before me, from the Montreal Gazette of Wednesday, February 3, a report of the following resolution:
Whereas our country, in the last few years, has gone through an unprecedented crisis and unemployment is still in the acute stage;
Whereas this council, on numerous occasions, has declared itself favourable to the carrying out of public works in preference to the granting of direct relief;
Whereas the precarious state of public treasuries has often been used as an argument against our requests in this connection;
Whereas it is now intended to increase considerably the appropriations for national defence;
Whereas there is no indication that Canada will soon be called upon to defend its territory;
Whereas this council is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate to apply the millions which it is proposed to spend for armaments to the carrying out of works which, while improving and beautifying the municipalities where they would be carried out, would give employment to a large number of persons and would reduce proportionately the list of assisted unemployed;
Moved by Alderman Bray, seconded by Aider-man L'Archeveque,
That this council declare itself strongly opposed to the proposed increase in the appropriations for national defence purposes and request the federal authorities to consider the possibility of spending in public works the sums specified in the dominion budget now under consideration for the purpose of armaments.
May I refer to another public body which, I am sure, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), were he here, would not describe as a socialist group. The city council of Kitchener, Ontario, with only one dissenting voice passed the following resolution:
Whereas our country, in the last few years, has gone through an unprecedented crisis and unemployment is still in the acute stage;
Whereas this council, on numerous occasions, has declared itself favourable to the carrying out of federally-directed public works in preference to the present granting of demoralizing direct relief:
Whereas the precarious state of public treasuries has often been used as an argument against our requests in this connection;
Whereas it is now intended to increase considerably the appropriations for national defence;
lint. Douglas.]
Whereas this council is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate to apply the millions which it is proposed to spend for armaments to the carrying out of works, which, while improving and beautifying the municipalities where they would be carried out, would give employment and wages to a large number of persons and would reduce proportionately the list of assisted unemployed;
Whereas our federal representative was admittedly originally elected because of his anticonscription and anti-war representations:
Whereas a large section of the people of our community have conscientious and religious objections to war, and the preparation thereof;
Be it therefore resolved to petition the federal government by forwarding the above preamble and the following motion to the federal authorities and leaders of the three political groups: -
"That this council declare itself opposed to the proposed increase in the appropriations for national defence purposes, and request the federal authorities to consider the advisability of spending in public works the sums specified in the dominion budget now under consideration for the purpose of armaments."
This resolution, in company with other resolutions from returned soldier bodies and church organizations, and letters which, as the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Factor) said the other evening, have been pouring into him and no doubt to many other hon. members in this chamber, points conclusively to the fact that this point of view is not confined to any political party or to any political philosophy, that it is a point of view held by many thousands of people across the dominion.
I should like to turn now to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his speech the other evening. As an exponent of international affairs, the hon. gentleman is a splendid Minister of Agriculture. The picture he drew of our navy giving protection to our shipping out to the three mile limit seemed almost ironical. The minister did not say whether he was going to build piers there in order to enable these ships to transfer their cargoes. However, he did say that the root causes of war were twofold, namely, the restriction of trade and the congestion of population. I think many hon. members will agree with me when I say there are other factors, such as the race for markets and raw materials and the struggle for economic control. The minister's suggested solution was unique. He said that we must be prepared either to distribute our foodstuffs or to bring people to this country to enjoy them. I should like to suggest to him that right at this moment we have over a million people in Canada who would like to enjoy some of our foodstuffs but who have not the purchasing power to buy them.
He said that the group in this corner of the chamber had refused to have anything to do with immigration, the one thing that

National Defence-Mr. Douglas
would solve the problem of war. This group has not opposed immigration. What we have opposed is the idea of bringing men and women out to this country when we already have over a million people who are not able to get along without government assistance. The minister told us that western Canada was able to support 30,000,000 people while it had only 3,000,000 at the present time. Is it proposed that these 30,000,000 people will all produce more wheat and cattle which we cannot sell? Is it proposed that they are to dwell in the drought areas and be assisted by the federal and provincial governments?
The Canada Year Book shows that since 1931 a total of 150,000 people have left the prairies, and that since 1921, leaving out the natural increase, more people have left Canada than have migrated to Canada. When immigration is suggested to this house as a solution for the problem of war, it seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture is talking very much like the president of a certain railway company.
I should like to say just a word with reference to the speech made by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), and other odds and ends. He chided the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) with not being exactly honest, in that he had failed to call the party of which he is the leader the socialist party. The minister said we were flying false colours. He ought to know that the term "socialism," like the term "Christianity," covers a great variety of points of view. The term "socialism" covers many fields of economic doctrine and the term "Cooperative Commonwealth Federation" denotes a particular form of socialism as distinct from Marxian socialism or guild socialism, from Fabian socialism or syndicalist socialism. When the minister suggests that we ought to call ourselves the socialist party, he should go to the Presbyterian church and the Anglican church and suggest that they call themselves the Christian church.
I am not very old but I can remember that another party came to this house fifteen years ago. It seems to me that that party had a false name as they called themselves the Progressive party. Many felt that it should have been called the Liberal party since that is where it ended. Instead of being a progressive party, it turned out to be a retrogressive party.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Which showed it was
truly Liberal.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to say a few words with reference to the speech of the Minister of National Defence. I am always a little suspicious when an eloquent debater like the minister has to resort to poetry. To me that would indicate he was running out of facts. On page 897 of Hansard the minister is reported as having said that the mover of the amendment (Mr. MacNeil) was purely academic in talking about the nationalization of industry in the event of war, but then on page 904 the minister is reported as saying that his department has spent eight or nine months in surveying this whole field. These two statements are rather inconsistent. If this matter were purely academic, I hardly think his department would waste time on it. If his department is spending time on it, then, it must be a live issue.
What has his department done with reference to this all-important question? The minister says that they have made a survey. The government seems to be constantly confusing diagnosis with cure, and the means with the end. They are like the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) who thinks that when he has made a survey of the unemployed he has cured unemployment. The minister thinks that when he has made a survey of the possibilities of nationalizing industry, the problem has been dealt with. He believes that if you appoint a committee, a commission or a board of inquiry, then the problem can be shelved. This problem has not yet been dealt with. The minister has made no statement as to what he proposes to do with respect to this matter of preventing the making of millions in profits out of a country engaged in war. He says that a survey has been made, but he has not suggested any legislation. He has given no indication that legislation will be introduced or what the nature of that legislation will be. He reminds me of that character in Dickens, Mr. Micaw-ber, who kept thinking that something would eventually turn up.
The time for dealing with this important question of taking the profit out of war is the present. I need hardly remind hon. members that great financial concerns on the North American continent made fortunes during the last war while men were laying down their lives for a mere pittance. I have Engel-brecht and Hanighen's Merchants of Death before me. On page 179 appears a list of the average annual profits made by certain corporations in the four years before the war and in the four years during the war. I shall give only one or two instances. The average annual profits of the United States Steel

National Defence-Mr. Douglas
Corporation in the period prior to the war was $105,331,000, and during the war, $239,-
653,000.	The average annual profits of du Ponts before the war was $6,092,000, and during the war, $58,076,000. Bethlehem Steel made $6,840,000 a year before the war and $49,427,000 a year during the war. We find that the Canadian Car and Foundry made an average of $1,335,000 a year before the war and $2,201,000 a year during the war. General Motors made $6,954,000 annually before the war and $21,700,000 annually during the war. I have 'before me statistics in connection with certain British and European firms, but I do not think it is necessary for me to give them as hon. members know just what went on during the last war. I should like to refer to a statement made on April 1, 1935, by the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, as reported on page 2307 of Hansard of that date.
He said:
I would like, however, to say with regard to disarmament, that I do not think it is sufficient for this country simply to say that it supports the League of Nations in its policy of disarmament. I think we ought to name a concrete policy in that regard. Having observed what has taken place in investigations in the United States, where beyond all question it has been shown that there are those who are prepared to traffic in the manufacture and sale of munitions and armaments for the sake of gain, that there are large interests that are even selling simultaneously to countries that are at enmity with each other, it behooves this country, and I believe all nations, to begin immediately to investigate the whole business of armament manufacture and sale. I should like to see a beginning made in this country of a thorough investigation into the whole business of the manufacture and sale and distribution of munitions of war and armaments, and that step put forward as part of a policy to govern British countries, a policy that we would hope might be followed in all parts of the British Empire.
That was the statement made by the present Prime Minister. Recognizing the need for further investigation and action along this line he suggested that this should be the policy not only of Canada but of all parts of the British Empire. I hope the Prime Minister will not forget his own statement when he goes to the imperial conference at London this year for, while the Minister of National Defence and his department are making surveys, profits are being made even now out of preparations for war.
I have before me two very significant tables. The first one shows the amounts of nickel exported prior to the last war. I take these figures from the report of the Royal Ontario Nickel Commission, 1917:
Shipments of Metallic Nickel for ten years before the war
(in pounds)
To Great To
Date	Shipments	Britain	Germany1908	
11,965,948	1.916,492	4,826,4391909	
19,668.665	2,299,410	7,168,0971910	
24,138,588	2,841,184	8,182,5251911	
26,714.205	4.366,640	7,957,4691912	
33.624,982	7,258,813	8,519,2221913	
33,876,214.. 8.399,827	10,869,2601914*	
20,468,602	5,740,685	4,949,750
* January to July inclusive.
I shall not read the figures for the other countries, but the increase in shipments is in about the same proportion. What I am interested in reading to the house is a statement of the exports of nickel for the last few years as given by the external trade branch of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I would like the house to notice that the proportionate increase in shipments of nickel from 1908 to 1913 coincides very closely with the increase in shipments of nickel from 1933 to the present time. The figures are as follows:
Dominion Bureau of Statistics - External Trade Branch Exports of Nickel and Products from Canada, by Countries (Calendar Years, 1929-1936)
Calendar Years
Country	1929	1930	1931	1932	1933	1934	1935	1936
Total Exports	 325,535,684 320,505,324 314,181,565 37,283.964 322.795,968 328,913,230 336,285,,482 344,594,296
Exports to-
United Kingdom. 2,784,045	5.887.593	4,305,081	1,272,127	6,648.908	10,087,351	12,572,741	14,115,970Germany	
172,863	197,713	412,961	76,973	242,939	257,129	16.233	436,551Italy	
365,870	186,695	252,622	121,811	113,527	323,004	1,392,787	1,077,582Japan	
172,696	79,323	75,228	130,064	268,076	799,909	665,907	1,223,677
I have read these figures to the house, Mr. Speaker, first of all to show that since 1933, coinciding with the tremendous preparations for war in every part of the world, there has been a proportionate increase in shipments of nickel to those countries which are most likely to be the aggressor nations. As to whether

or not profits are being made, it has already been suggested in this debate that for the first nine months of 1936 the profits of the International Nickel Company were $23,000,000; profits are being made out of this country's shipments of copper and shipments of nitrate for high explosives. If any move is

National Defence-Mr. Douglas
going to be made by the Department of National Defence to take the profit out of war, this is the time to be doing it. The minister says that a survey is being made. A few nights ago I moved in the house a motion asking the government in the event of war to bring down the necessary legislation to conscript automatically all the industrial, financial and natural resources of the nation to meet the event of war. The government took no steps to accept that resolution; it was talked out. If the government is perfectly sincere, it has a great deal more to do than merely make a survey. It ought to take steps now to see to it that in the event of war we shall go out and not conscript men only but the materials with which to equip the men who go out to do their duty.
May I now state the three reasons why I cannot vote for the increase in armaments. First, I do not feel that the government has shown that we are in any way more menaced this year than we were last year. This group has not said that it is not in favour of defence, but we are opposed to an increase in the defence estimates because it has not yet been demonstrated that the danger has become any greater now than it was twelve months or twenty-four months ago.
Against whom are we arming? What potential aggressor is more aggressive to-day? Oh, I know that bogeymen have been trotted out in this chamber. It has been suggested that it might be Italy, it might be Germany, it might be Japan. I cannot suppose that the government has any real fear of the intentions of these nations, for I noticed in the figures I have just read that Canada is shipping nickel to them. Knowing that we control the major part of the world's nickel supplies, I cannot believe that we would ship to them material which we feared would be returned to us in the form of high explosives. Surely those who talked about the Italians bombing this House of Commons did not imagine that the government of the day would allow us to send them the nickel with which to make those bombs, or did they?
The second reason why I cannot support these increased expenditures is that I am convinced they will not be used purely for national defence but will inevitably lead us to participation in war. I know this has been categorically denied by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence. I am sure that they are sincere. But may I point out that, no matter how sincere governments may be, there are understandings and obligations which are very difficult to avoid when a country once starts on a program of armaments. On April 1, 1935, at
page 2307 of Hansard, I find the following statement:	,
It is quite easy to say that we would stay out of the war, that we would not send men to fight in Europe, but after the experience I had of the pressure which was exerted at the time of the Chanak incident,.. .1 have very grave doubts as to what might happen in Canada if war were to break out again in any part of the world.
That is the statement of the present Prime Minister of Canada, then the leader of the opposition. He then doubted if in the event of a world war Canada could stay out. I wonder whether he has changed his mind today? Those who have read the memoirs of Viscount Grey of Fallodon, who was Sir Edward Grey, foreign secretary of Great Britain, at the outbreak of the war, will remember that he says that, unknown to the cabinet, understandings had been made between the British and French naval staffs, with the result that Mr. Asquith seriously thought of resigning because commitments had been made without the knowledge either of the cabinet or of parliament. The Prime Minister says that Canada will pursue at the imperial conference the same policy it has pursued in days gone by. I hope that is true. I am sure that hon. members on this side of the house were very glad to hear that statement. But the fact remains that the statements of Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and the minister for co-ordination of defence show that a great rearmament prr gram is going on in Great Britain. To me it seems no accident that coincident with the increased armament program in other parts of the British Empire there is an increased expenditure for armaments in Canada. It seems to me we are preparing a program that will fit neatly into the great jigsaw of imperial defence.
The third reason why I cannot support these increased estimates is that I feel they are the price the Canadian people are being called upon to pay for the weakness and spinelessness of those who have been responsible for Canada's foreign policy, particularly during the past eighteen months. A great deal has been said about bogeymen in Europe and the rearmament that is going on. Why is it going on? Because every country to-day has lost confidence in collective action based upon collective security. Why? Because the whole ideal of collective security has been sabotaged. It started when Japan was allowed with impunity to ravish Man-chukuo. At that time Sir John Simon, British foreign secretary, made an impassioned defence of Japan's action at the Assembly of the League of Nations. In 1935 Italy embarked on a similar program in Ethiopia.
National Defence-Mr. Hansell

The Minister of Justice tells the house that the reason why Canada would not support oil sanctions was that she was afraid this might lead to war; that seems to me a flight from reality. As a matter of fact we had imposed other sanctions, and if sanctions lead to war why did we impose the first sanctions? If we were afraid of war why did we impose any sanctions? Why did we impose some and not others? The Prime Minister says that all he intended doing was to clear up a misunderstanding that Canada was leading in the demand for oil sanctions. That was not the impression which went around the world. I remember the shock to world opinion which resulted from that action. People who believed in collective security were stunned by the statement which came from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who was acting Prime Minister at the time. And now, when we see the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister shedding crocodile tears over the demise of the League of Nations, I feel that the situation is ironic indeed. At that time the interpretation hy most people in Canada, and the world at large, was that Canada would not participate in oil sanctions, and no attempt was made to give a contrary impression until this parliament met and it was too late then to remedy this situation. It seems to ^ me that both this government and the British National government are in the position of Frankenstein; they are seeking to defend themselves from a monster of their own creation. We have created this situation and now we are proceeding to ask the Canadian people to pay with their money for the folly and the weaknesses of the foreign policy of this government and the British National government. In the same speech to which I have referred, on April 1, 1935, the present Prime Minister used these words:
Our country, small as it is, might well lay down a definite policy in that regard as expressing Canada's attitude toward any country which, upon the facts being disclosed, was found to be guilty of attempting to destroy what otherwise might be collective security. If that example were followed by other parts of the British empire, as I believe it would be, it would soon be followed by other parts of the world.
That is a fine statement. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is prepared to reaffirm it to-day? I wonder whether he still believes that? Certainly the foreign policy of the present government has not shown it; and if, as one of the London papers has said, nothing but rags and tatters is left of collective security, much of the responsibility can be attributed to the action of the present government in the Ethiopian affair, plus the

speech which was made by the Prime Minister at the League of Nations last September, when he announced to the world that Canada would not participate in economic sanctions.
I object to increased armaments. If they were a contribution to some collective security system, it would be an entirely different matter. What this house is being asked to do is to pay for the weak and vacillating attitude that has been taken by the government in connection with international affairs. I, for one, will never give either my voice or my vote to send young men out to lay down their lives because of the incompetency and, in many cases, the stupidity of those who have directed the foreign policy of this country.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: I had it in mind to give a somewhat extensive speech on the subject of this amendment, but .time is passing, a good deal has already been said about the matter, and, I may add, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has in part expressed my sentiments concerning it. Only a few minutes remain between now and recess, and I think what I have to say can be said in that time. I wish to say simply a word. As the previous speaker has said, the intention of the amendment is to express the sentiment of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, that they are opposed to the house going into committee and passing estimates for defence.
Mr. COL'DWELL:	Increased estimates.


Ernest George Hansell: Increased estimates for
defence-very well. I must say I have little confidence in the present government's economic administration. I do not believe that they can bring us economic security while we remain within the confines of the present financial system. But even though that is my attitude, there are certain facts that I cannot disregard in a world of unrest such as this. We can say what we like about it, but Canada is an integral part of the British Empire; the British Empire might become involved in any international struggle, and once the British Empire is involved, whether we like to think so or not, Canada itself becomes involved. I cannot, therefore, bring myself to believe that we should not make provision for a moderate defence program. While, therefore, I do not agree with the government in their policy with respect to economics, I cannot vote for the amendment.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

National Defence-Miss Macphail
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I was sorry not to be able to be in the house during the past week; it was my bad luck but certainly not my responsibility. I would have been very much interested to hear all the speeches made on this question of increased armaments. I was not able even to read all the speeches in Hansard, but I was able to follow the reports in the daily press; which is possibly not the best medium, but at any rate is better than nothing. I would particularly like to have heard the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). I would like to have heard his justification for the increase in the estimates, and I would like to have heard him quoting poetry. Of course I can read it, but poetry never is quite so enjoyable when read. I would like to have known from his speech just when it was that Canada arrived at the present very dangerous position. When did he come to the conclusion, and what brought him to that conclusion, that this country and this government, which had no money for many things which it seemed necessary to find money for, suddenly had thirteen and a half million dollars with which apparently they could find nothing better to do than submit increased military estimates? I fear I really shall have to read his speeches to find out what it was that brought him to that conclusion.
Then too, I wanted so much to know against whom we are arming. It is only sixteen months or so since we had a general election, and although I read the press diligently I do not recall any speeches by the Minister of National Defence at that time, or indeed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), telling Canada of her great danger, of the bombs that were to drop on the elevators in western Canada. About eighteen or twenty months ago people were wishing that would happen; it would have been one way of getting rid of the wheat. Someone says, "Drop them on the grain exchange," but the worst thing about bombs is that they are often dropped in the wrong places. Some member was greatly worried about one dropping on the House of Commons. I am sure the country listening to this debate would not think it such a calamity, certainly not this week when I was home in bed. If the Prime Minister during the election campaign had made such eloquent speeches as the one he made this afternoon-because it was an eloquent speech; I did not like it, but it was eloquent-if he had made such eloquent
speeches on this subject from coast to coast throughout Canada, these coasts which now stand in such need of defence, would there have been the same deadening monotony of Liberals in the house as there is now? I doubt it. Therefore I wish he had made the speeches. The speech he made to-day was a very different one from those he made during the campaign on the same subject or similar ones. I am not clear as to how many cruisers we are to have. We are to have four mine sweepers, but if we spelled "mine sweeper" differently, changing the "e" in "mine" to "d," it might not be bad to have half a dozen.
It is said that all this increase of expenditure is to be for the defence of Canada. My first fear is that if we increase our military estimates, if we increase our fighting forces, they will not be used for the defence of Canada but will make us much more liable to be drawn at the heels of Great Britain into a European or world war. There are very good reasons for thinking that. I admire the dexterity with which the Prime Minister explained away Sir Samuel Hoare's speech, but I believe even the right hon. gentleman would admit that it was to him an embarrassing speech and took quite a lot of explaining. We have had in Canada in the last year a good many imperialists, most of them from Great Britain but some of them Canadians, making throughout the country speeches which lead me to believe that there is a very real danger that an increase in military estimates will make it more likely that we shall be drawn into a European war. Then, too, I noticed the Prime Minister's anxiety that he should not turn up at the imperial conference with empty hands. He does not appear to be going to. And apparently he is not the only person going to the coronation, which brings me to my second worry. We are going to send to the coronation and to the imperial conference-it is hard to distinguish one from the other-334 officers and men of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Mr. DUNNING:: No, no.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Well, I am quoting from the paper, with a picture of Assistant Commissioner S. T. Wood.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: That is incorrect. The total for the mounted police is thirty-four.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Well, that is another indication that we should not rely too much on the papers. But 364 officers and men from the military forces-are those figures correct?

National Defence-Miss Macphail


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The total is 334-air force, militia and mounted police.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Well, 334 officers-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; all ranks.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I was going to say "and men" if the hon. member had waited a moment. It is surprising that there are some men going; that is better than all officers. Three hundred and thirty-four officers and men-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And two nursing sisters.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Then I am sure the men and officers will be well taken care of. It is a large number of people to go, and I suppose there will also be a number from the House of Commons and from the cabinet, and it may be from the opposition as well. If all these people then are going over to the imperial conference and the coronation, one is not unduly pessimistic or alarmist if one thinks, as I do, that when they return there will be an agitation, a further agitation shall we say, for an increase in military estimates, and that the increase which we have this year will be but the beginning.
We have been reading statements made by Sir Samuel Hoare, and I notice it took about four different statements in the British House of Commons to make it clear that he did not mean what he said. That of course is not quite so remarkable; we get used to that. At any rate there was quite a lot of explaining.
I think too there has been some talk, if my reading this week has been correct, about subversive elements in Canada, and that one needs a bit of an army to take care of these elements. If there is anything which will cause revolt in the minds of the Canadian people it is that this great number of people are going overseas, at government expense, for the coronation and the ceremonies connected therewith, and millions being spent for defence. I have-and so has every hon. member-letters coming to my desk day after day telling about awful conditions in my constituency, conditions that on many occasions are found in the families of the men who fought in the last war.
Just before I came to Ottawa I called at the home of a veteran in my constituency, a man who had won military honours, but who is now totally incapacitated and will never work again. He has six children, and was living in a house not fit for anyone to live in. In connection with the house was a miserable little yard, around which was a

picket fence with only one picket here and there. It was a place in which no one should live, much less anyone who served in the last war and won decorations. I am sure that man will be extremely interested to hear that these 334-or whatever the number is- officers, men and nursing sisters are going to the coronation. I am sure he will be extremely interested to learn that Canada is to be saved by an expenditure of $13,500,000 to keep the mines swept-if you sweep mines- off the St. Lawrence waterways, and to keep bombs from dropping on elevators. The veteran gets no pension or allowance.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is a man whom I have always respected and admired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Yet only the other day he pulled the old boner about the defence of women and children. I know only one worse, and that is the one about the protection of widows and orphans. He talked about the need to protect the women and children. Well, let me tell the house about families in Ottawa who might need some defence-and it won't be accomplished with mine sweepers on the St. Lawrence river, either. There are 390 families on relief in Ottawa, each living in one room; there are 6S7 families on relief in Ottawa, each living in two rooms. Just think of the agony of a woman with an unemployed husband trying to raise a family in one room and at the same time remain sane! It actually makes me feel ill, when I listen to the oratory to which we have been treated in this week in view of such conditions at our very door.
In Canada we still have a million people on relief. We hear a great deal of talk about Canada as the plum for which all nations are looking-all ready to pick it off. It is a plum, all right, with a million people still on relief.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A sour plum.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I believe the Montreal Gazette - would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a socialist paper, and yet only on Tuesday of this week, February 16, I found this heading in the middle of the front page: " Shattered health and morale found among city's unemployed." The article goes on to contradict the claim that " Low economic standards " do not involve " low health standards." It would take a good deal of reading to place the whole article before the house, but briefly they have done research work in 173 cases and have found that out of that number, in 97 cases unemployment was. the major problem. The article states:

National Defence-Miss Macphail
Included in the total were 112 "out-of-works" -83 heads of families and 29 single men and women... Out of this comparatively representative group, social workers found 50 cases of "serious and more or less permanent illness." Ten families so lacked clothing that children could not attend school and adults were prevented from going to clinics to get necessary treatment.
This is in the city of Montreal; of course mine sweepers on the St. Lawrence might help!
Many families were living in houses condemned by the board of health, and in 11 eases overcrowding was reported as "acute."
That is only one paragraph. There is no common sense in talking about military defence for women and children who are living under conditions such as that. I would not want the Minister of Justice to think that men die more bravely than women. The history of the world, right from the beginning, shows that women die bravely and very many times under conditions which could have been improved to such a degree as to avoid death. We have such conditions throughout Canada.
In my opinion the $13,500,000 we are going to spend to increase our defence could be better spent. I suppose we would not have got even the little bit for the blind this year, but the government would not have nerve enough to bring down $13,500,000 for increased defence, and not do something for the blind. We still have throughout Canada people who are totally incapacitated. On the same day to which I referred previously I called to see a young man who has been completely bedridden since his eleventh year. He is brave; he is intelligent and he is poverty stricken. There is nothing I can do except help him personally. Every hon. member knows of cases of that kind. But we have not the money to help people who are totally incapacitated, because we are so busy defending the women and children by increasing defence expenditure.
Then, the expenditure is useless. Thirteen and a half million dollars extra to defend Canada

why, if all the people in Canada stood along each coast and had all those finely decorated fellows with their thirteen-inch ties- and I will come to that in a minute-and their brass hats and the bagpipes-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I admit the bagpipes would do more than anything else to drive an enemy away.


Mr. REID:: I object very strenuously to the last statement.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Mr. Speaker, I did not say who was playing the bagpipes. But I do say that if all the armed forces of Canada stood along our coasts, despite the increased military expenditures we would not be able to defend this country against any enemy who wished to attack us. When we have eleven million people in a country the size of this, we must rely upon good will-and upon good will I do rely. So, that is one person who has answered the Prime Minister's question.
Then the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was upset about the thirteen-inch tie. I was not in the house at the time so I do not knowr who first referred to it, but I do know that the Prime Minister stated that the homes in which the thirteen-inch ties were worn were tidier than other homes. Or was it as tidy? What about the farmers? I do not think any of them know how long their ties are; in fact not all of them have ties. Yet they are the people who produce the wealth of Canada. What about the men who come out of our mines all covered with grime; what about the people who work in our industrial plants-do they know the length of their ties? Are they less important or less loyal because of that? Did we rely upon the thirteen-inch tie boys between 1914 and 1918? I do not think so. What about the mothers of this country who are forced to remake threadbare clothing in order that their children may be clothed, who must wash and iron and scrimp and scrape in order to raise their families in tidy homes? Do they wear ties thirteen inches long? The Prime Minister was hurt that these men could not come into the house to defend themselves. Any hon. member who wants to make a speech in defence of thirteen-inch ties will have an opportunity to do so when I am finished. I have heard the leaders of both the old parties spend many hours talking about men who could not come into the house to defend themselves. Did not the leader of the silent party talk for two hours the other night about Mr. John Vallance, who cannot come into the house to defend himself?
I have always been glad I am not a member of either of the old parties because I could not vote for other than what I believe. The Prime Minister quoted some beautiful lines-"to thine own self be true." That is what I have tried to do in this house and 1 will continue to do it in connection with this vote. I believe, if party discipline were removed, the Prime Minister would be surprised at the number of his followers who would vote: for this amendment and against an increase in the military estimates.

National Defence-Mr. Woodsworth
In my opinion the premise of all the speeches made in defence of this increase is absolutely false. Preparedness does not bring peace. Preparedness brings only preparedness and more preparedness. Everybody keeps prepared until finally the thing they have been preparing for comes, and that is not peace; it is war.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There are some hon. members on the opposite side of the house who seem to think that an argument can be made by banging on their desks and boohing. On previous occasions the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself has made appeals that order should be maintained in the house, and I trust that decorum will be maintained to-night.
In this debate we have had the fullest discussion of foreign policy that has taken place in this house in the fifteen years I have been a member. On the whole I think the debate has been carried on in a very good spirit.
May I say to the Prime Minister that our group has never made any pretensions to having a monopoly of any virtue, but we do claim to have equal rights in this house with other members. We contend that we should be able to state our convictions without having our motives impugned. I take it that we are all good Canadians in this house and although we may differ, and differ very radically, as to what the policy of this country should be, it is our responsibility to state our convictions as clearly and as strongly as we can.
I regret the nature of the very lengthy statement which the Prime Minister made in the earlier part of his address as it seems to me that he was guilty of a greater unfairness than could possibly be suggested in the wording of our resolution. I was glad to hear him practically identify social security with social services, although it seems to me that he carried the idea of social services to a rather extreme length. Certain Frenchspeaking members tried to make out that social security had some 'hidden connection with communism or something else which they considered might be of a dangerous nature. Surely we are all familiar enough with the phrases that have become so common in this country, m the United States and throughout the world as not to link up social security or social services with a particular kind of political philosophy.

The Prime Minister put in education as part of the social services and he included also the care of the unemployed and of the returned men. I think we must recognize that a very considerable part of the unemployment in this countiy was due to the after-effects of the war, and undoubtedly the disabilities of the returned men were directly due to the war. The amounts under these headings ought to be in the other column. The same thing could be said with regard to the enormous interest which we pay upon our public debt, the greater part of which was incurred because of the war. All these things should be in the war column.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that there are no estimates for war. These estimates are for defence against aggression; they are not for aggression.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It was in so-called defence that the last war was fought. Everybody knows that sometimes attack is the best means of defence. We have been told by leading British statesmen that to-day the Rhine is the frontier of Great Britain. That is the way it is going to work out when another war comes.
We have had the unusual spectacle all through this debate of the great Conservative party being unrepresented in the discussion. I suppose they have the right to choose the time when they will put forward the representations of their party, but it is peculiar that on such an important matter as this they have remained silent. It is not very often that that is the case, and perhaps that gives point to this observation. Further, it is worth consideration that if certain members on the Liberal side carry out their professed intention, the government will get through its estimates only with the help of the Conservatives who are usually regarded as the imperialist party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have listened to the debates and we shall see how things work out. It is strange that in this matter the Conservatives should be so close to at least one section of the government. The Prime Minister's adroitness in making compromises may still be his undoing. Instead of pleasing everybody, he may succeed in satisfying no one.
This is undoubtedly a move in the direction of assuming our share in the defence of the empire. I suppose as such it will be for the moment satisfactory to the authorities at Westminster. At the same time, put in the

National Defence-Mr. Woodsworth
form of the defence of our own Canadian shores, it may win the support of some of the people in Canada who hardly realize the serious implications of these estimates.
It is only a couple of weeks ago that the government rejected my neutrality motion. The Prime Minister said: We cannot decide in advance. Yet now we find that he is advocating a purely defence policy, with armaments sufficient only to protect our neutrality. I asked that we should remain neutral whoever the belligerents might be, and the Prime Minister only two weeks ago said that that would never do. But now he has come to the point of view that these are merely defence estimates, and that we must not do anything more than protect our neutrality. I hope this may be one of the gains of the debate.
But we are still left very much in the dark. If war should break out in Europe, will the Prime Minister state that he would not go to the help of the motherland? I think not. If he stands, therefore, for the solidarity of the empire, Canada's policy cannot remain a purely defence policy.
The Prime Minister despairs of the league as an alternative to national armaments. But let me ask, Why did the league fail? Why have we the world crisis to-day? In England they are not quite so fond of endorsing the policy of the government in power. I should like to read a very severe criticism of the Baldwin government which appeared recently in the London News Chronicle, which I believe is the London organ of Liberal opinion:
Under a system of collective security of which Great Britain was the most powerful political member, the combined forces of peace-loving members of the league could have stayed the challenge of an aggressor.
When the challenge came the British government broke away in an act of dramatic cowardice which brought upon Britain the contempt of the whole world and left heT almost without a friend, stripped both of her political and moral prestige and weakened in her military security.
That is why we must rearm now-and we should never cease to drive it home.
That is the voice of a considerable section of the Liberals in Great Britain. In this country the Liberals simply follow the lead of Mr. Baldwin, and are prepared to arm just as the British government is preparing to arm.
With regard to the situation in. Great Britain may I read a sentence or two from the January number of Current History:
Re-elected in 1935 upon a pacifist, strongly pro-league mandate, the cabinet was essentially interested in rearmament and the maintenance of British imperialistic interests. In one of
the most amazing statements ever made by a democratic statesman, Mr. Baldwin described the dilemma in November:
"Supposing I had gone to the country and said that Germany was rearming and that we must rearm, does anybody think that this pacific democracy would have rallied to that cry at that moment? I cannot think of anything that would have made the loss of the election, from my point of view, more certain."
An extraordinary confession! Mr. Baldwin kept silent in order to be elected, and then proceeded to put into operation a program which he knew had not been and would not be endorsed by the electorate. I am not accusing our Prime Minister of having done that, but I think my friend the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) is quite right when she asserted that had this been the issue in the last election the Liberals would not have been returned to power. And now that they are returned, they take advantage of their large majority to put over a military program of this kind.
Canada to-day is becoming defence conscious, thanks to the publicity campaign carried on by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). To-morrow Canada will become war conscious. Let me read a Canadian Press dispatch from Montreal which appeared in our papers of February 18:
McGill University has received a communication from Colonel L. R. Lafleche, Deputy Minister of National Defence, asking that medical students be given instruction in methods of treatment of persons suffering from poison gas, Doctor A. Grant Fleming, dean of the faculty of medicine, said last night.
The letter, containing an outline of modern methods of treatment, was referred to the medical faculty, Doctor Fleming said, and would be given due consideration.
We are now preparing bombs to drop on defenceless men, women and children, and undoubtedly we may well prepare to have bombs dropped upon us. It seems as if in absolute helplessness we just sit and watch a war come upon us. As I listened to this debate I could not but think of the situation that existed immediately prior to the last war. I looked up the Life and Letters of Sir Wilfrid Laurier by Oscar Douglas Skelton. Let me read a paragraph or so which seems to be so true of the situation to-day:
The mad rivalries of European empires and the struggles of oppressed and oppressing nationalities were bringing the world nearer the verge of war. Statesmanship appeared to be bankrupt; save for the feeble farce of the Hague and rare individual missions and mediations, the nations appeared unable to find or unwilling to seek any solution, other than the futile-
Listen:
-futile attempt of each to make itself stronger than every other by shifting alliance and mounting armament.
1070	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Woodsworth
Again:
For some years a vigorous press and organization campaign in the English-speaking provinces had endeavoured to convince Canadians that in leaving Britain to assume the whole burden of the empire's naval defence they were acting an ignoble part-
The very argument that we hear to-day with regard to defence in general-that if we failed to prepare we would be acting an ignoble part:
-inconsistent with either imperialist or nationalist ideals. Feeling in favour of action was growing, and now the crisis precipitated the vague sentiment. There had been little counter-propaganda. Here and there a nationalist critic had questioned the myth of British protection, or repeated Cartwright's epigram that "all that Canada owed England was Christian forgiveness," or insisted that the navy was an agency wholly of British policy. Still more rare had been the more fundamental criticism of the whole policy of armed rivalry; there was little first-hand knowledge in Canada of foreign affairs, or at least of the rivalries of European states which appropriated that title, and little likelihood that the cure would come before the disease. Sir Wilfrid had denounced the vortex of militarism.
The other day when I heard that prominent Liberals were laying a wreath on the monument of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I thought they might far better have tried to understand his position and follow his lead. Sir Wilfrid Laurier had denounced the vortex of militarism. Sir William Mulock in 1906 had declared :
This Canada of ours is the only country in the world worth living in that is not burdened with great military debts. Keep it on those lines... .Remember that this is the last spot of refuge on God's green earth where men can come and not pay tribute for the sins of their ancestors.
Already we are paying tribute for the sins of our ancestors, and if these estimates should go through we shall pile up a still greater debt and create a situation in which our children cannot inherit what we have inherited.
Let me quote a few words from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in which he spoke of the blandishments that one met with in going to London. I wish that Sir Wilfrid's protege and successor could keep those words in mind as he goes to the imperial conference:
In this campaign, which no one could appreciate until he had been in the thick of it, social pressure is the subtlest and most effective force. In 1897 and 1902 it was Mr. Chamberlain's personal insistence that was strongest, but in 1907 and after, society pressure was the chief force. It is hard to stand up against the flattery of a gracious duchess. Weak men's heads are turned in an evening, and there are few who can resist long. We were dined and wined by royalty and aristocracy and plutocracy, and always the talk was of Empire, Empire, Empire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I have been through a couple of rounds and came out all right. I hope to be able to do so again.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The estimates do
not seem to show that.
Our resolution has been characterized as a double-barrelled one. We are further told that unless we prepare to defend ourselves we are exhibiting a lack of self-respect; we are sponging on somebody else. We are told that we must fulfil our honourable obligations. I ask, what of our obligations to our own people here in Canada? We have a million people on relief; are we fulfilling our obligations to them? I think even the government cannot claim that. The best they can do is to invoke the British North America Act and hide behind constitutional difficulties. We have some 50,000 unemployed soldiers. Are we performing our obligations to them? I cannot think that we are. We have poor housing conditions. We have enormous debts that are crushing the lives out of a great many of our western farmers and making impossible recovery in many sections of this country. We can do nothing for these classes; yet no expenditure is too great and nothing is too good for those who wish to prepare for war.
A few days ago I received a very interesting copy of the Halifax Herald of January 28, in which there is a front page editorial dealing with the program of President Roosevelt. This is a quotation from the address of the president:
I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meagre that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.
I see millions whose daily lives in city and on farm continue under conditions labelled indecent by a so-called polite society half a century ago.
I see millions denied education, recreation and the opportunity to better their lot and the lot of their children.
I see millions lacking the means to buy products of farm and factory and by their poverty denying work and productiveness to many other millions.
I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.
And he added:
It is not in despair that I paint you that picture. I paint it for you in hope-because the nation, seeing and understanding the injustice of it, proposes to paint it out.
The editorial comments:
What the president of the United States has said about his country applies with equal force to this country. Canada, with its population of around eleven million people, is in no better case proportionately than the neighbouring republic.

National Defence-Mr. Woodsworth
And what the president of the United States has demanded in social justice and social security for the people of his own country, is what is being demanded for the Canadian people.
I wish that this government, calling itself by the name of Liberal, would follow a lead of that kind instead of falling back on age-old methods which have in the past proved so futile.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Would the hon. member say how much was voted at Washington for national defence?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not discussing what was voted.


Vincent Dupuis: Oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: They voted large sums. But let me say that side 'by side with those large sums they have also spent an enormous amount on social security-which this government does not propose to do.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: Yet they have unemployment in enormous numbers.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The other day the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr.. Crerar) referred to the position which I had taken during the great war, and that was one reason why I felt I could hardly let this debate close without stating my personal position. The minister himself, as he reminded us, was taken into the Union government, and that government brought conscription to this country. At that time the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was director genera! of war services in charge of the registration scheme. I myself at that time was the director of the bureau of social research for the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, all of which at that time happened to be Liberal. When the registration scheme was proposed, I felt that I could no longer remain silent, and I wrote this letter to the Winnipeg Free Press, under date of December 28, 1916:
Yesterday morning there came to me a circular letter asking my help in making the national service registration scheme a success. As I am opposed to that scheme, it would seem my duty as a citizen to state that opposition and the grounds on which it is based. For this end I would ask the courtesy of your columns in presenting the following considerations:
1.	The citizens of Canada have been given no opportunity of expressing themselves with regard to the far-reaching principle involved in this matter.
2.	Since "life is more than meat and the body more than raiment," conscription of material possessions should, in all justice, precede an attempt to force men to risk their lives and the welfare of their families.
3.	It is not at all clear who is to decide whether or not a man's present work is of national importance. It is stated that the brewery workers in England are exempt. What guarantee have we that Canadian decisions will be any more sound, and who are the members of the board that decides the question of such importance to the individual?
4.	How is registration or subsequent conscription, physical or moral, to be enforced? Is intimidation to be used? Is blacklisting to be employed? What other method? Is this measure to be equally enforced across the country? For example, in Quebec, or among the Mennonites in the west?
This registration is no mere census. It seems to look in the direction of a measure of conscription. As some of us cannot consciously engage in military service, we are bound to resist what-if the war continues-will inevitably lead to forced service.
I have no shame in reading to-day that
statement opposing conscription, even though the reading of it was called forth by the Minister of Mines and Resources, who at that time held a responsible position in the Union government which put over conscription. My letter cost me my position. I was driven into the wilderness. I was not active in politics at that time, and up to that time had not been. Sir Wilfrid Laurier also at that time went into the wilderness.
The Minister of National Defence the other day quoted scripture in support of the government's policy. I do not belong to any church to-day, but it makes me fairly sick to hear anyone quoting the New Testament in support of war or preparation for war. I felt so strongly upon this matter while the war was on that in 1918 I sent in my resignation from the ministry of the then Methodist church. I propose to read a paragraph or two from that document. It is not easy for me to do so, but it may show what war will mean to Canada when the next war comes:
The war has gone on now for four years. As far back as 1906, I had been led to realize something of the horror and futility and wickedness of war. When the proposals were being made for Canada to assist in the naval defence of the empire, I spoke and wrote against such a policy. Since the sudden outbreak of the war, there has been little opportunity to protest against our nation and empire participating in the war. However, as the war progressed, 1 have protested against the curtailment of our liberties which is going on under the pressure of military necessity and the passions of war.
According to my understanding of economics and sociology, the war is the inevitable outcome of the existing social organization with its undemocratic forms of government and competitive system of industry. For me, it is ignorance, or a closed mind, or camouflage, or hypocrisy, to solemnly assert that a murder in Servia or the invasion of Belgium or the glaring injustices and horrible outrages are the cause of the war.

1072	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Woodsworth
Nor, through the war, do I see any way out of our difficulties. The devil of militarism cannot be driven out by the power of militarism without the successful nations themselves becoming militarized. Permanent peace can come only through the development of good will. There is no redemptive power in physical force.
This brings me to the Christian point of view. For me, the teachings and spirit of Jesus are absolutely irreconcilable with the advocacy of war. Christianity may be an impossible idealism, but so long as I hold it, ever so unworthily, I must refuse, as far as may be, to participate in or to influence others to participate in war. When the policy of the state-whether that state be nominally Christian or not-conflicts with my conception of .*ight and wrong, then I must obey God rather than man. As a minister, I must proclaim the truth as it is revealed to me. I am not a pro-German; I am not lacking, I think, in patriotism; I trust that I am not a "slacker" or a coward. I had thought that as a Christian minister I was a messenger of the Prince of Peace.
That was written twenty years ago and I have no reason to feel ashamed of the stand
I took at that time, though it led me into strange paths.
More than ever before I am convinced of the futility of war; more than ever I am convinced that armaments are no insurance against war. In the present crisis it seems to me we need men of vision and faith who will strike out along altogether different lines. Unfortunately as a nation, we to-day are proposing to travel the same old road over which the nations have travelled for centuries past and which has led inevitably to disaster.
This is an important occasion in the history of Canada. It may be, as the Prime Minister suggests, that we are simply advancing a little bit further along the line of the policy adopted by his party. It may be that our armaments are not great compared with those of Europe, but I submit that we are at the crossroads and definitely choosing the road of military preparedness. I had hoped that we had learned the lessons of the last war and would undertake to strike out along new lines, getting at the causes of war and putting our faith in fair play and good will. We can do this in Canada much more readily than can most of the nations in war-ridden Europe. I believe that Canada has a wonderful chance along new lines.
The other day in our papers I read the brave words of one of the elder statesmen of Japan, Mr. Yukio Ozaki. In the midst of the frenzy and fanaticism and militarism that prevail in that country Mr. Ozaki dared to give words of warning to his people; he dared to advocate a policy of peace. Personally, I regard it as one of the great privileges of my life that two or three years ago I had the

honour of being received by Mr. Ozaki in his own home at Karuizawa. He was at one time Minister of Justice, a member of parliament, and is an ex-mayor of Tokyo. Speaking at Karuizawa a few days before I met him, he said:
We must find a new way to peace. We must search a road to justice. The world must prepare to have a world court of justice which can settle the conflicts when they arise, but by other ways than using force. The victory of the strongest won by not appealing to justice is only for the barbarous and the primitive.
We denounce some of these other nations as barbarous and primitive and we say that the world has gone mad. And it has. But why should we say that the only thing for us to do is to go mad also. That is an absurd position.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, this house can laugh if it pleases. If it sees anything funny either in the interruption or in what I have been saying, it is perfectly welcome to scoff. Unfortunately-or fortunately perhaps-I have had to endure some scoffing in my time and I can take a little more, but I want to say to my fellow members, many of whom I have known for years, it does seem to me, irrespective of the way this vote goes, that we as Canadians should understand that Europe is going down, and down, and down, because it has relied on force.
A few days ago I moved a resolution that we should maintain neutrality, not because I was indifferent to the affairs of Europe but because I thought that if we could cut ourselves free we should have time to develop other policies on this continent and avoid the disaster which must overtake Europe if she pursues the policy of force. I know there are people in Europe who are just as much for peace as are any of us in this house. I know there are people in England, many of them, who voted for the peace ballot, who are just as sincere and earnest in the pursuit of peaceful methods as are any of us. I mentioned one of my friends in Japan, and there are those even in Germany and Italy, and in other countries where fascist dictatorship exists, who are still hoping for better days and still trying to witness to the faith that is in them.
I could wish that our country, so blessed in resources, so blessed in its geographical position, instead of following the lead of Europe, would rather decide that we shall work out our destiny in our own way by other and more civilized methods than the world has yet known. If at the close of this debate the

National Defence-Mr. Woodsworth
estimates are adopted as they stand, I shall not be utterly discouraged, because I am confident that despite passion and party prejudice there are many in this country who are earnestly looking for some other and better way. Whatever is true of this house, I know that throughout the country there are tens of thousands of our young men and young women-many of them children of the men who fought at the front in the last war-who cherish the great hope a way may be found so that they will not be asked to sacrifice their lives as their fathers did, but rather may be able to live out a nobler and fuller life and take their part as patriotic citizens in building up in this dominion a civilization based upon peace.


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired
with the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.

Supply-Defence-M emorials


Mr. LANDERYOU:: I was paired with the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Miscellaneous.-To provide for expenses in connection with the Book of Remembrance to be placed on the altar of the memorial chamber in the Houses of Parliament, $8,000.
Mr. BENNETT:: Perhaps the minister
would tell us how far advanced the work is.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, the contract for the completion of the Book of Remembrance was let about five years ago, and it was then thought the book would be completed this year. Unfortunately, however, the work is of such an artistic nature it has taken longer than it was thought it would. It will now take in the neighbourhood of two more years to complete the book; that will be in 1939.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What will the book have
cost, when it is completed?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
original contract was for $35,000. To that must be added this year's vote and probably a vote of a similar amount next year, making a total of $51,000.


Mr. COLDWELL:: lit is rather ironical
that we should consider this vote immediately after voting the increased estimates for the Department of National Defence. Where is the work being done?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In the
city of Ottawa. Mr. Purves is the artist, and an honorary committee works in conjunction with him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Battlefields memorials, $51,340.
Mr. MacNEIL:: What work is still under
way, in connection with memorials?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The work on memorials is practically completed. Before the completion of the Vimy memorial seven others had been erected, Vimy being the last of all the Canadian battlefields memorials overseas. That is one of the reasons for the reduction in the vote this year.
	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might be well to place on record where they are..


Charles Grant MacNeil: What proportion of this vote will be expended on other memorials either here or abroad?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This vote will be spent abroad entirely.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Principally at Vimy?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The total cost of the Vimy memorial was approximately $1,302,806.84, it being by far the largest of all battlefield memorials.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Could we have the details of this expenditure?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They are as follows:
Non-recurring charges:
Auditors' expenses, $150.
Studio Maida Vale, rates, taxes, et cetera,

Studio caretaker-salary, $300.
Repairs and maintenance studio, Maida Vale, $750.
Completion of rest house, Vimy, $4,500.
Completion of carving, tarring roads, surfacing road to rest house, et cetera, $2,165.
Chains and bronze pickets across access road to Vimy memorial, $665.
Erection tool and store shed at pump house, $165.
Fencing, pathway, et cetera, at rest house,

Decorating and painting rest house-furnishings for rest room, et cetera, $1,000.
Office, Arras:	rent, postage, tables, phone,
fuel, light, et cetera, $1,000.
Insurance, Arras: accident, social and transport, $335.
Transport-oil, gas, repairs, et cetera, $1,665.
Mechanic-wages, $1,335.
Crating, packing and shipping materials and files to Canada, incidentals, et cetera, $5,000.
Pay and allowances, engineer in charge, $6,315.
Contingency, provide loss on exchange, $3,000.
Salaries civilian employees, $2,200.
Miscellaneous-legal expenses, et cetera, including sundry payments to be made at N.D.H.Q., $5,000.
Publication-Vimy unveiling, et cetera, $3,000. Recurring charges:
Civilian personnel at Vimy-wages, $3,000.
Social and accident insurance, Vimy personnel, $200.
Lighting of tunnels and floodlights, $665.
Operation of rest house, telephone, stationery, cleansing materials, et cetera, $400.
Repairing fences, legal fees for prosecution, $665.
Maintenance of Vimy per arrangement with Imperial War Graves Commission (estimated), $1,665.
Maintenance of seven battlefield memorial sites in France and Belgium, other than Vimy, $5,000.


Mr. STIRLING:: Would the minister give tihe names of the other memorials?

Supply-Defence-Memorials


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Passchendaele, St. J-ulien, Hill 62, Vimy Ridge, D-ury, Bourl-on Wood, Le Quesnel and Cour-eelette.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are all these memorials being maintained by the Canadian government?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: An
arrangement was made some time ago whereby the smaller sites are to be maintained by the Imperial War Gravies Commission. It was thought that bemuse of the special significance of Vimy and the fact that tihe land adjacent to the memo-rial to the extent of about 250 acres had been given to Canada by France, the memorial should be maintained by Canada. It is being maintained by our engineer working in conjunction with the war graves commission.


Charles Grant MacNeil: The minister gave certain items for transport and resit house. Am I to understand that facilities are being maintained for the people who visit these memorials?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	A	rest
house will be erected at Vimy.


Charles Grant MacNeil: How long is it intended to maintain these facilities?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	It	willnot be	a rest house in the sense of	being a
place in which to stay.


Mr. MacINNIS:: What is the item for legal fees for prosecution?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	(Vancouver):	It	will
be a small expenditure, perhaps about $150 to cover legal fees in connection with possible trespassing upon the areas adjacent to the memorials.


Mr. LAWSON:: Is there any estimate as to the annual cost for the maintenance of this 250 acre park site at Vimy?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is under the supervision of a Canadian engineer, Major Sim-on, who is stationed there in charge of the maintenance of the structure and more particularly of the surrounding ground. It has been generally agreed that any horticultural work required would best be carried out by the Imperial War Graves Commission, similar to that which they are doing so well at the other Canadian war memorials in France and Belgium. Owing to the existence of -the organization of the Imperial War Graves Commission in connection with the maintenance of cemeteries, it has been found that they can do the work of caring for the grounds, grass, flowers, etcetera, at these memorials far better and cheaper than it can be done by any other method. There is
cooperation between our own engineer on the ground and the commission. The final arrangements have not yet been completed, but for this year we are continuing Major Simson in active supervision of the site at Vimy.


Mr. MASSEY:: What steps are being taken to make sure that the grounds are being maintained constantly in good order? I was in England until the first of October and some friends of mine there who had visited the memorial on a Sunday in September reported to me that the grounds appeared in a quite dilapidated condition as a result of lunch boxes and papers being scattered all around and children running over the memorial without regard to its significance.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
matter was brought to our attention and explicit instructions were given by -cable that more care should be taken to see that the grounds are kept in proper order. That is one of the reasons why we desire at the present time to continue our own direct control in cooperation with the war graves commission.
Mr. MAS'SEY: There are many people in Canada who will never be able to visit and see the Vimy memorial because of its great distance from Canada. At Christmas time I endeavoured to find a replica of the memorial, but I was told- at several shops that no replicas were available and that it was not proposed that any would be available. Is that as a result of a decision by the government?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That has never been brought to the attention of the government. I shall be very glad to look into the matter. I am informed the French government have taken certain steps in that direction.


Denton Massey: I suggest to the minister that it might be valuable to have that matter looked into with a view to acting upon it.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will any portion of this vote be expended by the war graves commission in Canada to mark the graves of Canadians who have died subsequently to the war and who have been buried in plots set aside for that purpose in this country?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think that would come under the next vote.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the minister give the committee the total amount spent on memorials both outside and inside Canada?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the question refer to Canada as well as to overseas?

Supply-Defence-M emorials


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister give us the total amount outside Canada and the total amount inside Canada in two separate items?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have not the information for those inside Canada, but I can give the other information.


Mr. CHURCH:: May I ask if the minister is going to do anything about memorials in the Niagara district, where two million tourists come in every year? The province of Ontario has been ignored in almost every one of these items. Surely the government of this country can fix up the memorials of the war of 1812. I have referred to this matter in two or three sessions. There are many of these historic spots in the Niagara district, near the mouth of the Niagara river, and up the river to Chippawa and Fort Erie. At Ridgeway the province fixed up some memorial, but there are these old ruins in the Niagara district, at Fort Mississauga, at the mouth of the Niagara river, and all along up the river. The place where Laura Secord was born should be marked just as much as the battlefields in Quebec or other places. What is the idea of fixing up some battlefields with memorials and leaving other provinces with no money spent on them at all? Something ought to be done in the Niagara district. The minister said last year that he would visit the district and look into the matter.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This
question belongs to another department; it does not affect mine. In reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), the memorials raised in Canada were raised chiefly by private sources. The total cost prior to November 30. 1936, for the overseas war memorial was $2,379,172.81, and to that must be added probably $100,000 to bring the cost up to date.


Denton Massey: May I ask the minister if anything has been done to recognize the services of Walter Allward, the sculptor and architect of the Vimy memorial, other than the payment of the usual expenses and his fee? I think we in Canada recognize that we have in Walter Allward one of the outstanding sculptors of the day and perhaps of all time. While Walter Allward belongs to Canada, he is also acclaimed to-day by the world as one of its great sculptors and artists. He may be regarded now as a world architect. I was wondering whether the government had under consideration any recognition of his services.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I desire to agree entirely with the observations of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) in reference to the wonderful work done by Walter Allward. I had the privilege of paying a tribute to him where his great monument stands on Vimy Ridge, and my hon. friend was there at the time. I feel that if any Canadian deserves recognition for his wonderful work Mr. Allward certainly does.


Thomas Langton Church: The minister did not understand the question I asked. The property I referred to is dominion government property at the mouth of the Niagara river, where the minister's troops train in the summer. It is in this department, not in the Parks branch. We have not a national park in the province of Ontario. There are two or three small parks, like the one at Pelee island. In the Niagara district there are several memorials that should be fixed up. It is all federal property. Fort George, Fort Mississauga and all these other places are on dominion government grounds; some of them are military burying grounds, and the condition of some of them is a disgrace to the people of this country. At Lundy's Lane some American soldiers are buried. I think part of that property has been taken over and is under the control of the dominion government. Ontario is being neglected almost entirely in these estimates, and yet Ontario pays 42 per cent of the taxes. What have the people on the other side of the line done? The president of the United States fixed up Fort Niagara and all the way to Lewiston, and preserved the memorials. Surely this matter can be looked into, and surely something should be done more than to put a few old slabs on trees. Had it not been for the volunteers in York and other places we might have become part of the United States.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thought my hon. friend was referring to historic sites, but he is referring to our camp grounds at Niagara-on-the-Lake. I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would 'the minister give a summary of the expenses in connection with the unveiling of the Vimy memorial, and say whether any special grant was made to the Canadian Legion who had in hand the arrangements?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No
request of any kind for financial assistance was received from the legion. There may be certain assistance rendered with reference to the pictures that were taken, but these have not yet been completed.

Sv/pply-Defence-M emorials


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is a summary available of the expenses incurred by the dominion government in connection with the unveiling?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes. The details are as follows: Canadian government, official representation, $10,750; Canadian Battlefields Memorials Commission representation, $2,787.88; transportation, motor cars, accommodation, speaker's tribune, traffic control and other safety devices, loud speakers and broadcasting expenses in connection with official guests from the British isles and the continent, miscellaneous accounts, Department of External Affairs, $17,505.08; hospitality, dinner to French and English officials at Paris. $1,350.66; transportation for guard of honour, $547.56; chaplains' expenses, $2,500; invitation cards and other incidental expenses, $3,086.18; pipe band, drummers, buglers and officers, $14,321.55; military band, $8,100.21; dominion government motion picture bureau, $8,374.66. The total expenditure has been $69,323.78.
Mr. MacNICOL; How many chaplains were there at a cost of $2,500?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There were four chaplains, three of whom officiated sit tihe unveiling ceremonies at Vimy, and the fourth officiated at the service at the grave of Earl Haig in Scotland.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Did they receive the $2,500 between them in addition to expenses? Did they all come from Canada or were some from overseas?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They all proceeded from Canada, and this was the total amount received by them all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Including expenses?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
paid their own expenses out of the amount received. This is the total amount involved in sending them to France and England.


Mr. LENNARD:: Was there any religious ceremony in connection with the unveiling of the memorial?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Officially no, but it partook very largely of the nature of a dedicatory service.


James Earl Lawson: What are the names of the four chaplains?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The three clergymen who officiated at Vimy were Honorary Lieutenant Colonel Reverend Cecil C. Owen, of Vancouver; Honorary Lieutenant Colonel Reverend George Oliver Fallis, of Toronto; Auxiliary Bishop of Montreal, the
Right Reverend A. E. Deschamps, and the clergyman who officiated in Scotland was *the Reverend John Kelman, also I think of Toronto.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister tell us how the moving picture that he referred [DOT]to will be handled?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that the arrangements have been made by the official government motion picture bureau. They are making at the present time final sound tests with reference to the production of the official picture. I understand that arrangements have been made in conjunction with the Canadian Legion for the distribution of the picture throughout Canada. There have been, as my hon. friend will realize, some difficulties which have delayed getting it ready.


Major James William Coldwell: Is the picture to be handled so 'that it will not be exploited commercially? Has the government given consideration to that point?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Such
arrangements have not been made so far as I know by the government. I believe the Canadian Legion may make their own private arrangements in that regard. I do not think there will be any possibility of exploitation.


Major James William Coldwell: As I understand it, they are government pictures, for 'the records?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes;
they are official records that were taken by the official motion picture bureau.


Major James William Coldwell: A question on another matter. If there was no religious ceremony, why are the chaplains especially mentioned?


Denton Massey: The whole ceremony was religious.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It depends upon what my hon. friend calls a religious ceremony. To my mind it was one of the most deeply religious ceremonies I have ever attended, although it might not be officially designated as such. My hon. friend will recognize certain circumstances which rendered it difficult to make it a joint religious ceremony.


Major James William Coldwell: I was using the term the minister used.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I draw attention to the fact that the department is in possession of almost priceless films which were taken during the last war and constitute, in my opinion, an important memorial of that war. May I ask

Supply-Defence-War Claims
how these films were made available to motion picture producers in such a way as to exploit them commercially?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If that was done at all, I have no knowledge of it; it must have been done before I came into the department. I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Mr. POULIOT:: They may have gone away, like other papers.


Grote Stirling: I do not know to what the hon. member is referring when he uses that term. It will be in the memory of a good many hon. members that a film was prepared most carefully with the assistance of the motion picture bureau and was handed over to the legion for distribution throughout Canada; that film went from Halifax to Vancouver, and was so shown.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Is the department still in possession of the films that were taken on the battlefields in the last war?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understand that they are being looked after by the government motion picture bureau, under the Department of Trade and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Adjustment of war claims-Department of National Defence, $64,411.
Charles Grant MacNeil: I now ask my question with regard to the marking of graves of Canadian ex-service men who have died since the war and have been buried in plots set aside for those who served.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The matter was last dealt with by order in council P.C. 3310 of October 22, 1935, under which authority was given to the Canadian agency of the Imperial War Graves Commission to-
. . . provide and erect headstones on the graves in Canada of each member of His Majesty's naval and military forces whose death occurred or shall occur during a period 1st September, 1921 to 31st August, 1935, both dates inclusive, under such circumstances and from such causes as would have brought the case within the scope of the Imperial War Graves Commission had such death occurred on or prior to August 31, 1921.
The cost of such headstones completed and erected on suitable foundations not to exceed fifty dollars each. The expenditure to be chargeable to the adjustment of war claims vote.
That deaths in Canada from war causes have occurred and are continuing at a fairly uniform rate. During 1933-34, approximately 315, and during 1934-35, approximately 335 headstones were erected on such graves.
That provisions of previous orders in council did not include any sums for maintenance of the graves so marked.
tMr. MacNeil.]
That in most cases this is provided locally, but in a certain number of instances some expense under this heading is unavoidable; and
That the maintenance of these graves can be undertaken by the Canadian agency of the Imperial War Graves Commission without exceeding the maximum amount at present authorized for the erection of headstones.
In these circumstances the minister on the advice of the deputy minister of National Defence recommends that the provisions of the orders in council mentioned be continued for the further period of three years, namely from first September, 1935, to 31st August, 1938, both dates inclusive, and that sums as may prove necessary may be allocated to maintenance provided that the total maintenance in any financial year shall not exceed the average of fifty dollars per grave as aforesaid.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Did I understand that the order in council indicates whether or not these graves must be in selected plots, or whether the grave of any soldier who dies of war disabilities may be located elsewhere?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My information is that they are supposed to be in recognized military plots, but special consideration is given to cases where that is not possible.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to suggest
to the minister an improvement with regard to the presentation of his estimates which might apply not only to his department but to every other. We are now considering item 271, adjustment of war claims, $64,411. If there were another column giving the number of the similar vote that is detailed in the auditor general's report for 1935-36, it would help hon. members to understand the item. I have the auditor general's report of that year, but I cannot find without a lot of difficulty the similar item two years back. The second column, of course, gives the vote for last year only. The report for that year will not be available until next year, and if we had the reference to the similar vote of two years ago we could understand the item. That applies to every department. It seems to me little more than a farce to come here to consider an item of $64,000 with nothing before it to indicate what we are talking about unless we ask the minister to take up a goodly length of time in telling us what it is all about. If we had the number in the auditor general's report of two years ago, the last one available, we could look at the item and discuss it intelligently.


Mr. LOCKHART:: As regards headstones,
mentioned a few minutes ago, what would be the procedure that might be taken to obtain assistance not exceeding fifty dollars on behalf of those who are not buried in certified military plots? There are odd cases where

Supply-Defence-Radio Services
the burials are in private graves, and I am led to believe that in a few cases there was not sufficient money to provide a proper headstone. What would be the procedure to obtain assistance for the marking of such graves?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend will realize, of course, that this is limited to those who died of war disabilities. In all cases where special hardships occur, if the case is reported to headquarters here, immediate action is taken or certainly should be taken to give consideration to the matter.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: Funds are
available?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister indicate what portion of the $68,971 voted last year was actually expended, and what have been the expenditures for several years, say the last ten years?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 1926-27,
$148,942; 1927-28, $134,741; 1928-20, $113,553; 1929-30, $88,963; 1930-31, $106,076; 1931-32, $91,323; 1932-33, $54,731; 1933-34, $56,135; 1934-35, $48,310; 1935-36, $13,864-rather, the last amount should be $54,843-the amount of $13,864 having lapsed that year.


Grote Stirling: There was $14,000 not spent.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes,
about $14,000 lapsed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio services-for the maintenance and operation of the Northwest Territories radio system, $318,900.
Grote Stirling: Will the minister give a general description of the item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This vote is for the maintenance and operation of the Northwest Territories and Yukon radio system with stations at the following points: Borden, Dawson, Mayo, Edmonton, Fort Smith, Fort Resolution, Fort Simpson, Fort Norman, Aklavik, Herschel, Fort McMurray, Cameron Bay, Fort Rae, Chipewyan, Goldfields, Outpost Island and North Battleford. The estimate includes items for maintenance of all present stations and the improvement of the system by the provision of the following items which are considered most essential and the minimum permissable for the efficient operation of the system: (1) additional equipment to provide ground communication for aircraft at Mayo, Yukon Territory, Dawson, Aklavik, Northwest Territories and Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories; (2) repairs and replacements for existing stations, to keep
same at high standard of operating efficiency. Building repairs are always expensive owing to rapid deterioration and fuel costs are very high, wood costing up to $18 a cord and gasoline from 50 cents to $125 a gallon landed at stations; (3) new buildings at Fort Resolution, Chipewyan, Goldfields, Fort Rae, and repairs to other buildings.


Grote Stirling: Does the public make use of these facilities?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; they are used extensively.


Grote Stirling: Is a charge made?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A charge is made for commercial messages.


Thomas Langton Church: Is there censorship over the military branch of the radio department? Has anyone any right to exercise censorship in the northwest?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am informed that there is no censorship at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was the revenue from all these stations last year?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
following list gives the traffic, paid and franked during the last four years:
Net receipts
(paid traffic) (franked traffic)
1932-	33	
$20,716	$11,9421933-	34	
22,961	24,5821934-	35	
28,284	32,2961935-	36	
23,905	38,296


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is government traffic?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Mrs. BLACK:: Under what department is the radio at White Horse operated? Does the Canadian government pay the operators or does the United States pay them? I understand that the station is particularly beneficial to United States aeroplanes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
station was not established at the expense of the Department of National Defence. Its personnel assists largely in connection with Meterological reports.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Has the radio commission anything to do with this branch of the radio service?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is the wireless system under the National Defence department?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is
operated by signallers who are expert technicians, probably as good as any in the world. In this regard I believe they are the most
1080	COMMONS
Sup-ply-Defence-Radio Services
expert in the world to-day, having had wonderful training in lonely places up north. They are rendering possibly the finest service in the department.


Donald Elmer Black: I would add my tribute; we have had these men with us for a number of years.


Mr. BARBER:: What is the reason for the increase?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is a decrease at headquarters, of $4,900 and at Borden, of $3,850; Cameron Bay, $6,450; Fort McMunray, $6,700; Ohipewyan, $7,600; Fort Rae, $5,150, and Goldfields, $12,S50. The increases are:
Dawson, $5,850.
Mayo, $2,100.
Edmonton, $20,650.
Fort Smith, $9,900.
Fort Resolution, $10,350.
Fort Simpson, $550.
Fort Norman, $3,050.
Aklavik and Hersehel, $1,000.
Outpost Island, $1,350.
North Battleford, $14,900.


Harry James Barber: Why North Battleford?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Because that is in communication by radio with Goldfields.


Harry James Barber: Is that $20,000 at Edmonton for new equipment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mostly for new equipment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What was the deficit in the radio branch for 1936-37?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: 
John Ritchie MacNicol: No attempt is made to operate it on a paying basis?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Is there any revenue?
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver:) Yes. Last year, 1935-36, the revenue was $23,905 as compared with franked service amounting to $38,296.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Militia services-
Cadet services, $140,000.
John Ritchie MacNicol: For what reason has the minister cut down the appropriation for cadet services? I may be wrong, but my recollection is that last year the house applauded the increase in the appropriation. I, for one, am strongly in accord with the purpose of this vote. During the last half-dozen or more years there has been an agitation in the country in opposition to cadet training. In my time I have had something to do with cadet training, and my observation has always been that youth benefited very materially by such training. During the last few years someone has occasionally got on the school board with apparently sufficient influence to break up the system of cadet training, and this has always struck me as a retrograde step. A short time ago I attended a meeting of sea cadets under the control of the department and was greatly impressed with the way in which these young men conducted themselves, their civility, and the manner in which they responded to discipline. All along the line I was very much pleased with the results obtained from the money spent by the department, in that respect at any rate, in the training of sea cadets. Here the minister is going back on that, cutting the vote from $150,000 to $140,000. I Should like to have seen him increase it so that more young men could have the benefit of cadet training, particularly in these times when so many are standing on the street corners learning nothing, whereas if there were facilities to brain them as they should be trained the country would benefit all along the line. I would ask the minister how it is he has cut this vote by $10,000.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am very glad indeed to answer. The service rendered has not been interfered with in the least. Last year it was found that on the basis on which the grants were made the amounts voted were not all expended. The same service can be given this year for the same number of cadets for a less amount of money. At the end of the school year, August 31, 1936, the number of cadets enrolled was 82,727 as compared with 82,373 at the close of the previous year. In other words, there was actually an increase of nearly 400 in the number of cadets, although several units were closed. As my bon. friend knows, this is based upon a grant of one dollar for senior cadets only, between the ages of fifteen and eighteen. No allowances are made in respect of junior cadets, that is boys between twelve and fifteen. They are, of course, given as

Supply-Defence-Cadets
much assistance as possible, but no grant is intended for the instructors in connection with junior cadets. The grant is one dollar a cadet for those who qualify at the end of the year and pass the examination for fitness, and the instructors get t)he grant according to the number trained and qualified.


Mr. TOLMIE:: How many of these are in British Columbia?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I shall give the number for all the provinces for the last two years. These are for the school year ending August 31:
1935	1936
Nova Scotia	
1,973	1,789Prince Edward Island.. ..	836	860New Brunswick	
2,309	2,130Quebec	
49,216	50,193Ontario	
21.861	22,029Manitoba	
1,914	1,607Saskatchewan	
1,290	1,243Alberta	
1,315	1,118British Columbia	
1,659	1,758


Thomas Langton Church: This cadet item is reduced by $10,000. I do not see why this item is selected for a cut almost every year. One only has to look at what is happening in the cities and towns of Canada to-day where these cadet services have been practically abolished. If you are going to have ia skeleton militia you must have some complementary organization, namely the cadet services. The cadets are not a military organization as has been contended by some pacifists in this country. The pacifists are doing the country a disservice. The first duty of a citizen is to protect the country. The pacifists are willing to take an oath of allegiance to His Majesty the King, and they pray for the king; they are something like the Christian Scientists who refuse to use the means the Lord has given. I am opposed to any reduction in this item. I have been a member of the board of education in Toronto and I have seen the excellent results of this training. It teaches manliness, courtesy, respect for authority, and many qualities needed for success in life. The board of education branch of the London county council started out on a pacifist career a few years ago, but now they have gone back to the former condition. They refused to allow the Royal Air Force to have anything to do with the cadet services but they found as a result that education was not advanced at all.
In the big cities of this country where many parents are on relief and have no money the children are running the streets. An investigation has been going on for three weeks regarding the Guelph reformatory, where there are one hundred and fifteen children sixteen years of age and one hundred and seventy aged seventeen. The evidence of some of the
teachers was that had these children had cadet training, many of them would not have been roaming the streets, travelling around in motor cars and so on. Cadet training is necessary for and complementary to the work of the board of education. The London county council in England are putting back cadet training, not for war purposes but because of its physical benefits. It was started in Canada away back in the lacrosse days when the cadets played lacrosse and other outdoor games. That has all been abolished and now they are out on the streets smoking cigarettes. The reports of the Ontario government and the police department show that, where they have not cadet training, a large number of these young people from fourteen to eighteen years of age get into trouble. The relation of cause and effect is to be seen in this. The cadet services were a blessing to the school boards of Ontario, and to the poorer boys who were not able to join in sporting events because they had no money. I know some families who have been in Toronto many years and never had anyone in trouble. I got three letters to-day from families in my constituency having boys fifteen, sixteen and seventeen years of age in this institution at Guelph, and one told me that if they had had the cadet service and some physical training they would not have got into trouble. The Y.M.C.A. do the work to some extent, but the boys have to pay fees there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not the government that stops the cadet training; it is the municipalities.


Thomas Langton Church: It is a mistake. The school boards are starved enough these days. The provinces have been allowed by this parliament to take the income tax; over $2,600,000 has been taken from Toronto and $800,000 given back, and it will be necessary to collect the difference by adding to the real estate taxes. This country which has been spending nearly $400,000,000 surely can spend a few dollars to give the school boards throughout the country a little grant towards these services which I say are necessary and which many leaders in public life say teach qualities which make for success in life.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government cannot force the schools to undertake cadet training.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was going to point out to the hon. member just what the leader of the opposition has said. Not one of these units has been disbanded by the government. They are disbanded at the request of school boards not desirous of having the service. I can assure the hon. members that in the next year the same service will
Questions

be provided as has been provided in the last several years. There will be no diminution of service unless desired by the school board concerned.
Mr. Chairman, as there seems to be some disposition to discuss the item further, I would ask that it stand, and would move that the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Dunning the house adjourned at 10.24 p.m.
Monday, February 22, 1937