1937-02-16

RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski) presented the first report of the standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report made by the Bank of Canada on the financial position of the province of Manitoba.-Mr. Dunning.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the house is to be free to continue the debate on the defence estimates on Thursday, it will be necessary to suspend the rule under which the Speaker leaves the chair without question put. I move, therefore, with the consent of the house:
That the provision of standing order 28 respecting the committee of supply be suspended for the sittings of Thursday, 18th February, and Friday, 19th February, 1937.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have already had occasion to intimate to this house that the government has been giving a great deal of thought to the desirability of appointing a commission to study certain aspects of the relationship between the dominion and the provinces. The aspects to which I refer are primarily financial. They include the allocation of sources of revenue, and the financial capacity of the provinces to discharge their responsibilities.
The problem we have had in mind has become acute in the case of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The depression, intensified by drought, has drastically reduced the income of the people of these two provinces and consequently the revenue-raising capacity of their governments, while at the same time it has given rise to steadily mounting relief costs and fixed charges. These two provinces have thus far met their obligations, but we have been advised that it is impossible for them to continue to meet their present burdens with the sources of income available to them. Representations to this effect were made at the financial conference held in Ottawa in December, and the matter was again discussed by the premiers of the respective provinces with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in January.
As an outcome of the discussions between the premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and the Minister of Finance, the Bank of Canada was invited by all concerned to make an independent study of the financial position of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and was asked to present its views at the earliest possible date. The bank's report on Manitoba is now in the hands of the government. The report has been tabled to-day. It expresses the view that Manitoba has imposed taxation on a scale at least as high as that of any other province in Canada, and has restricted expenditures as far as it was possible to go without curtailing the services to an extent which would not have been in the public interest. Certain additional expenditures are now believed to be essential, but the bank is not prepared to say that it is practical to secure the necessary funds by means of further taxation, and there is no nearby prospect of securing revenues to cover the provincial share of relief costs. The report on Saskatchewan
Do minion-Provincial R elations

is not yet available, but it is probable that it will disclose difficulties at least as serious as those of Manitoba.
In giving consideration to the situation, as a whole, we have thought it unwise to consider the ability to borrow as the only test which should be applied. If provincial governments find it difficult to discharge the responsibilities which have been placed upon them, and, at the same time, in spite of genuine efforts at economy, to make both ends meet, there will eventually be an end to their ability to finance deficits by additional borrowing. The difficulties of the prairie provinces have been greatly intensified by drought, and the earning power of their people has been affected accordingly. But other sections of the country are not free from problems of a similar character, although they may not be so acute. We have, in short, ample indication of certain fundamental strains and weaknesses arising out of our present allocation of financial powers and governmental responsibilities, and if no attempt is made to remove them, the ill effects will not be confined to the sections where they now appear.
In these circumstances, we propose to appoint a royal commission of inquiry to investigate the whole system of taxation in the dominion; to study the division of financial powers and financial responsibilities between the dominion and the provinces; and to make recommendations as to what should be done to secure a more equitable and practical division of the burden to enable all governments to function more effectively-and, I may add, more independently-within the spheres of their respective jurisdictions.
The commission will be faced with a great volume of work, and will require some time to formulate its recommendations. Its appointment, therefore, cannot represent an immediate solution of the pressing financial problems of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. If these provinces are to continue to discharge their present responsibilities, some immediate financial assistance is necessary. In the circumstances, we believe that the dominion government would be justified in extending temporary aid to them pending the report of the royal commission. A recommendation to that effect will be made to the house when the supplementary estimates are brought down.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: It is obvious that this is not the moment for a discussion of the intima-ation given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), but as a citizen of Alberta I protest with all my might against this

discrimination. I protest that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) permitted that province to default and did not advance it the necessary money shortly after the present provincial administration came into office, whereas he now accords Manitoba and Saskatchewan that assistance which will save them from the course which it was necessary for the province of Alberta to follow.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	I assume, Mr. Speaker, the
rules will not permit me to reply.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Reply as much as you like; it is the fact.


Mr. DUNNING:: The charge of discrimination just uttered by the leader of the opposition is a complete surprise to me. The condition to which he refers and which is the occasion of his protest was the condition of one year ago. I shall not now discuss the merits of the situation which then existed; they were discussed in this house under the conditions which then prevailed. May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that another year has passed and that year has seen more widespread drought than western Canada has ever experienced, more especially in the two provinces to which reference was made by the Prime Minister to-day. Further, may I say that the provinces concerned have made and are making every effort to discharge all their responsibilities. On no occasion has there been any effort to coerce the dominion government. There has been at all times a frank and straightforward presentation of their problems. Secondly, the provinces requested the Bank of Canada to look into and verify their statements of their financial position. That report is in the hands of the government at the present time and was tabled to-day. It is not a report containing recommendations but a report dealing with the facts of the situation. It is with that situation that we are attempting to deal to-day. No mention was made in the statement of the Prime Minister regarding Alberta; no approach has been made by the province of Alberta along similar lines. I can say, however, that the province of Alberta has been treated by this government absolutely without discrimination in so far as financial assistance is concerned since this government came into power; and I can go further and say that the government has no intention whatsoever of discriminating against any province in this dominion and is prepared to sit down with any province and discuss its problems and bring forward such solutions as the circumstances may appear to warrant.

National Defence-Mr. Thorson
I am having to speak thus extemporaneously because it was a great surprise to me that the leader of the opposition should make such an accusation of discrimination under circumstances which are well known to all members of the house and throughout the country.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: According to the Prime Minister, the commission to be appointed is to study the present allocation of the powers of the provinces and the dominion especially as they relate to taxation and generally to financial problems. I should like to ask him whether it is not possible to include in the duties of the commission a study of the responsibility for unemployment and other matters of the kind which are perhaps equally important, if not more so, and which have to a certain extent at least led to the present difficulties of the western provinces. Is it not possible that the scope of the commission might be extended?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe that on a reading of the statement I have made my hon. friend will find that the scope of the commission with respect to all financial matters is very wide and, I imagine, will be found to embrace to a certain extent at least what he has in mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assume that a copy of the order in council appointing the commission will be laid on the table when the commission is appointed.



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. F. JOHNSTON (Lake Centre):: I wish to direct a question to t'he Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) with regard to the percentage of reduction in debts by the board of review now operating in the province of Saskatchewan. It has been reported that under the present board the percentage of reduction is 43-9 as against 27-8 under the previous board. My question is this: will farmers whose cases were reviewed by the previous board be permitted to resubmit them and have them reviewed by the present board?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): There is no provision in the law which would enable such a rehearing as my hon. friend requests. As he and other interested members are aware, the privy council has recently held the particular statute
in question to be valid. Until that decision was reached no detailed consideration had been given to the possibility of amendments, and I cannot indicate at this stage whether amendments will or will not be proposed this session.



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

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday February 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning that the house go into committee of supply, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. MacNeil.
["I wish to take this opportunity to correct the\n[Mr. Fraser.l\nfalse impression given to this house by the remarks yesterday of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). I do not say that he intentionally misinterpreted my remarks of February 4, but misinterpret them he surely did.\nOn page 882 of Hansard the hon. member is reported as saying:\nI cannot for instance accept the suggestions made in this house recently by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), when he said on the fourth instant that we should have the world's best fleet in our waters; the world's best army in our land, and the world's best air fleet in our own country. I hope I am not doing him an injustice when I quote his remarks apart from the context.\nNow. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the hon. member 'has done, because from there on is the gross misinterpretation of what I said. He goes on to say that:\nIf we are to have the world's finest navy in our waters we shall require one that surpasses the British navy, which has now a naval tonnage of 1,161,000, with something like 200,000 additional tonnage under construction, and a personnel of something like 90,000 seamen. If we were to have the world's finest army we should need an army greater than Germany's or the Soviet Union's 1,300,000 under arms. And if we were to have the world's greatest air force we should have to have a fleet greater than that of the Soviet Union or that of Germany, in excess of 4,000 aircraft.\nAt this point I wish to give three possible meanings of that. First of all, Great Britain has the world's best fleet and in that fleet she has one boat which is better than the others. Now, if we were to have that best ship, or possibly some similar to it, we could be said to have the best navy. Second, if Canada has the best navy according to the size of her territory, her population and her wealth, we could be said to have the world's best navy. Third, if we had the greatest number of ships and each one of these the largest possible, and if we had a greater number of sailors than any other nation in the world, then we could be said to have the best navy in the world.\nThis last is absolutely absurd because we have not the wealth to have such equipment, nor have we the men to use for the purpose of manning such a fleet. Yet this last is the interpretation the hon. member has put upon my words. The whole content of my address was strictly self defence, and on no consideration would I permit Canada to participate in foreign wars. I never said or inferred that we should have a greater military force than Great Britain, Germany, or any other country. I was not speaking of quantity at all, but the hon. member for Vancouver North stressed quantity, yes, magnified it many times. I was speaking of quality. I have in mind a\n\nNational Defence-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)\nlittle incident which many hon. members of this very house will recall in regard to the Ross rifle. These rifles were of a decidedly inferior quality and our Canadian soldiers were compelled to throw them away and pick up the Lee-Enfield rifles, although they left themselves liable to court martial by so doing.\nA repetition of such things as that should not be permitted. We should have the best. As I stated in my last speech, and as I state again, the United States war experience illustrates why no foreign power could invade Canada, provided we took ordinary common sense precaution to prevent it. Is there any hon. member sitting in this house who does not desire to have our homes, our wives and our families protected from the ravaging of a raiding horde?\nMr. Speaker, I cannot lower myself to such depths of .degradation as to expect any other country to defend us when we will not do anything to help ourselves.\nThe hon. member for Vancouver North said, as reported at page 884 of Hansard, the second column:\nIf we are attacked it will be because of our relationship with Great Britain or of our proximity to the United States. If either of these powers get us into trouble we have no choice but to rely on them for defence. . . .\nSurely the hon. member does not believe that we should get protection from Great Britain or the United States, giving as our excuse that we are merely neighbours and should be protected for that reason, or telling Great Britain that she should protect us because of our relationship with the British Empire, and at the same time do absolutely nothing to help ourselves. I cannot believe that of any hon. member. I am reminded of that old poem:\nBreathes there the man, with soul so dead,\nWho never to himself hath said,\nThis is my own, my native land!\nAVhose heart hath ne'er within him burned,\nAs home his footsteps he hath turned,\nFrom wandering on a foreign strand?\nIf sueli there breathe, go, mark him well!\nI propose, Mr. Speaker, to vote for this amendment, but I must make my stand clear once again. I am not voting against a proper self-defence program, but I am voting against the method the government proposes to use for raising the money for this defence program, that is by borrowing from financial institutions and burdening our people for years to come with an increased load of taxation which they cannot bear.\nOn motion of Mr. Leader the debate was adjourned."]
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk):: It is the right of every hon. member to criticize any policy that is submitted to this house for its consideration, and that right becomes a duty when the member believes the policy to be contrary to the welfare of Canada. It is for that reason that I take part in this debate.
My mind rebels against the possibility of Canada participating in another war if such participation can be avoided. Our first duty must be the maintenance of peace. We must safeguard as far as possible our own people from the appalling consequences of war. The welfare of Canada must be our supreme concern. I will not go so far as to say that there are no possible circumstances under which Canada should go to war. Some great fundamental principle might demand it, and I have no doubt that if such a contingency should arise, Canada would courageously face the call of duty. But Canada must herself decide whether she will participate in war. She must also decide for herself whether she should prepare for war. It is that question which in my humble opinion is involved in this debate.
I assert, as the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) has frequently done, the right of this parliament to decide whether and to what extent Canada shall participate if war is declared. I assert her right not to participate if that is her desire. I go even further and assert Canada's right to declare her neutrality if she wishes to do so; for I believe that every question of peace and war in which Canada may be involved is for the Canadian people to decide and for no one else. However, it is not my intention at this time to enter upon a debate on this constitutional point.
Before we embark upon a policy that may lead to Canadian participation in war let us think of the possible consequences in terms of human life and the effect upon
National Defence-Mr. Thorson

the individuals for whose welfare we are for the time being responsible. Have we forgotten the terrible cost of the last war and the absolute futility of that war? What does the record tell us? Here it is: ten million men killed, twenty million others wounded or disabled, nine million orphans, five million widows, ten million homeless refugees, and $186,000,000,000 wasted. That is only a rough story of the cost in human life and money of the great war, a war that settled absolutely nothing.
Canada played a noble part in that war, but at what an appalling cost, not only to those who were engaged in it but to posterity as well. I have here a statement of the cost to Canada of the last war. It is difficult to obtain exact figures and the figures which I shall cite are subject to some adjustments, but they are, I believe, substantially correct. The statement is as follows:
Sums directly paid out for war purposes, demobilization and adjustment of war claims from
the commencement of the war
to March 31, 1936	$1,697,352,212
Sums paid out as interest on the war debt for the same period,
approximately	 1,600,000,000
Sums paid out for war pensions,
approximately	 685,000,000
Cost of administration of soldiers' civil reestablishment,
approximately	 228,797,650
Cost of administration of soldier
land settlement,	approximately	25,403,704
Losses on soldier land settlement,
approximately	 75,000,000
Cost of care of patients and medical examination of pensioners	 45,474,988

This makes the immense total of over $4,357,000,000. This vast sum includes the major item of direct monetary costs incurred by the nation at large. It does not include the direct or indirect losses occasioned to private individuals by reason of the war or the dislocations caused by the war, nor does it take into account the enormous loss of human life-60,000 young men-or the human suffering that has been the lot of those who participated in the last war, and their dependents.
This vast sum of approximately $4,500,000,000 has been paid by the Canadian people for the last war, an average of approximately $200,000,000 per annum for the past twenty-two years. What could that great sum have accomplished for the Canadian people if it had been devoted to the cause of peace and the social and economic welfare of our people? Is it any wonder that men should hesitate about embarking upon another war and be fearful of any policies that may tend in that direction?

Moreover, that war has not yet been paid for. An enormous annual cost for the last war still remains upon our shoulders to be paid this year, next year and annually almost in perpetuity. For the year ending March 31, 1936, the cost to Canada of the last war may roughly be estimated as follows:
Sums directly paid for war purposes, demobilization and adjustment of war claims	$	54,843
Share of interest payments attributable to our war debt, approximately	 100,000,000
Sums paid	out	for war	pensions..	41,521,577Cost of administration of soldiers' civil reestablishment, approximately. .	
10,000,000Cost of administration of soldier land settlement, approximately..	750,000Cost of the care of patients and medical examination of pensioners	
2,863,991

This represents the immense total of over $155,000,000. If that sum could have been used for purposes of peace instead of having had to be applied in payment of the obligations imposed by the war, what could it mean in increased opportunities for the Canadian people, particularly for that great body of the youth of Canada on whose door the knock of opportunity has not been heard?
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I approach this subject from the point of view of the welfare of the Canadian people. I am not at all concerned with what other countries may think of Canada. My first duty is to Canada, my own country, and to my fellow Canadians; to save this country, if at all possible, from participation in another war the consequences of which will be even more destructive than those of the last war.
What are the reasons advanced for this new policy? We are entitled to examine them closely and to accept or reject them. It has been sought to justify the increases in the naval, militia and air force estimates on the ground that they are necessary for national self defence purposes, and that the mone3's voted will be used exclusively for such purposes. These purposes are said to be threefold : to combat subversive elements in our midst; to protect our trade routes, and to repel foreign invasion. Let our thinking be clear before we embark upon a policy that may perhaps, even contrary to the wishes of those who initiate it, march by rapid stages from one of purely national self defence to a very different one of participation in a war, contrary to the best interests of our country. It is our duty to examine this question from the viewpoint of the welfare of Canada and Canadians; for, if this is the beginning of a policy of preparation for war, and if we are

National Defence-Mr. Thorson
commencing to engage in a race of armaments, the time for a protest against such a policy is now, before the policy gets under way and beyond our control.
I have heard it stated that this increased vote is necessary to enable us to combat subversive elements in our midst. Obviously the naval vote is not intended for such a purpose. Is our air force or our militia to be increased for this purpose? Is it our intention to combat those whose political views differ from those we hold ourselves, with an increased air force or an increased army? It is only necessary to ask the question to demonstrate its absurdity.
Are we. then, proposing to defend our trade routes? May I remind this house that Canada sells her wheat to ninety-nine different countries throughout the world, and that her other exports also go to a large number of countries. Are we going to defend all our trade routes? Obviously Canada cannot attempt any such project. Our external trade is of vital importance to us, it is true, but we would pay too great a price for it if we had to embark upon a naval program adequate to its protection. If we do not intend to protect all our trade routes, which are we to abandon and which should we protect? I again remind this house that during the last fiscal year fifty-three per cent of our export trade went to foreign countries and forty-seven per cent to the United Kingdom and other British countries. Our trade is international and with all the world. The argument that this vote is necessary for the protection of our external trade must in my opinion be dismissed as untenable.
One other alleged justification for this increased vote remains. We are told that we must be prepared to resist foreign invasion. Against whom must we prepare? Is it against Japan? Are we to militarize our Pacific coast? Is it against Germany? Do we intend to militarize the St. Lawrence and our Atlantic coast? What plans have we for these purposes? We are entitled to know such plans, if indeed any exist. Why should Canada not take advantage of her favourable geographical position? We must face facts, and admit that no nation can successfully invade Canada unless the United States is a consenting party to such an invasion. Does any person think for a moment that the United States would permit Canada to be invaded, either by Japan from the west or by any European nation from the east? Their own self-interest in this country would preclude any such possibility. Canada is safe from foreign invasion so long as the United States remains a friendly
country. There is only one country that could annex Canada, and that country is the United States. Against that great country Canada could not successfully defend herself, but from that country I can see no danger of invasion and no necessity for national self defence. These are facts. Why should Canada not take advantage of them? Other countries rely upon their surrounding circumstances, upon their geographical position or upon such balances of power as may exist or can be created, whichever is of the greatest advantage to them. Is it right for other countries to do this and wrong for Canada to follow a similar course? I may be told that this is an unworthy attitude for Canada to take, but where the welfare of Canada and of the Canadian people is involved, I care not what others may think of our attitude. We do not need to demonstrate Canadian courage to the rest of the world. Sixty thousand Canadians-and I am proud that my own brother was one of them-did so with their lives during the last war. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it has always been easy for man to show his heroism on the field of battle; throughout all the ages man has been instinctively courageous when the hour of his trial has come. Often it is more difficult to stand for peace than to yield to the call of war.
I do not believe that these increases are necessary for purely national self-defence purposes, and I am afraid that something more than purely national self defence is or may be involved in this new policy. I sincerely hope that my fears are groundless, but I believe it to be my duty to sound a strong note of warning.
Is there any other justification for increased armaments for Canada? Are we under any obligations to other countries to arm ourselves? If the history of the League of Nations during the past few years had been different, my answer might be in the affirmative. After the great war was over the League of Nations was created. It was to be a great organization of all the nations of tlhe world for the purpose of preserving the peace of the world. Frequently it has been said that the League of Nations has failed. I do not altogether agree with that point of view; for there have been many events that have happened since the league was constituted, which would have thrown the world into war if there had been no league. It is not the League of Nations that has failed; rather is it true that the great powers have failed the league and been false to the hopes of humanity. All the great powers must share the blame-the United States for their refusal to enter the league; France, perhaps most of
National Defence-Mr. Thorson


Mr. P. J. ROWE (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, the main purpose of the amendment before the house is to prevent consideration of the estimates of the Department of National Defence. Necessarily it involves as a main consideration the question as to what Canada's policy should be from the standpoint of armaments and military force. It is from this point of view that I desire to discuss it.
To-day there cannot possibly be any question as to the ramifications of international armament firms and the support they have received from international bankers. Neither can it be challenged that more and more each month the world is furnished with disclosures which, to put it mildly indeed, would astound even those who in the past have considered that a war must necessarily be part of our modern civilization. On numerous occasions in the house I have argued this point, and placed on record much evidence which still remains unchallenged. The evidence shows that preparation for war never takes the slightest notice of the welfare of the people who supposedly are to be saved when armed conflict occurs. It is well known that informed opinion throughout the world to-day deprecates war with all its sufferings and with the wanton destruction of human and material wealth that it inevitably entails. It has also been amply shown that war preparations are definitely linked up with the monetary and financial system, and that the minds of the people are prepared in advance by the press which seemingly at every opportunity and on
every occasion is willing and anxious to support the policy of increased armaments. The result of this publicity is evidenced on all sides throughout the world in the ever-mounting expenditures made for the purposes of armaments in this wild race in which the world is now engaged and which may easily result in the destruction of our civilization through another armed conflict of nations.
Even soldiers seem to be kept in the dark as to what they are fighting for. It is only after years, it is only after a level-headed survey of the true conditions, that they express their utter disgust and most severe condemnation of war and all its implications. I should like to quote General Smedley Butler, who is reported in Common Sense Magazine for November, 1935. General Butler had distinguished service in the American army for a period of thirty-five years and is the author of numerous books on military affairs. He said:
In the past two years large national guard forces have seen active service in 20 strikes in as many different states, from the Pacific coast to New England, from Minnesota to Georgia. They have used gas, bullets and tanks -the most lethal weapons of modern war- against striking workers. Casualty lists have been impressive. In one instance they erected barbed wire concentration camps in Georgia to "coordinate" striking workers with all the efficiency of the fascist repressive technique.
I spent thirty-three years as a member of our country's most agile military force-the marine corps. I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business, for Wall street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service.
Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen central American republics for the benefit of Wall street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras "right" for American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped to see to it that Standard oil went its way unmolested.
During those years I had ... a swell racket. I was rewarded with honours, medals, promotions. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given A1 Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. We marines operated on three continents. The war racket operates at full swing in our own country to-day. Make no mistake. We no longer fulfill by our example as a nation the role of leader in disarmament
928	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr, Rowe (Athabaska)
and peace-maker to mankind. Our present war preparations and military expenditures forever nullify the Kellogg peace pact to which we subscribed.
Training regulations No. 10-5 of the war department contain the official "doctrine of war," for the United States. . . . Section V, paragraph 6. says "the object to be attained by (military) training is to enable the army to wage offensive warfare," . . . Let us remember that the military ideal of our country has never been defensive warfare. Since the revolution, only the United Kingdom has beaten our record for square miles of territory acquired by military conquest. . . . Our whole history shows we have never fought a defensive war. Our armed forces have up to date plans for offensive warfare against almost every country on the globe-all in the sacred name of "national defence." Should some affront be given to our national honour by Japan, say, there is a plan ready to be put in operation against the Japanese. . . . And the same for almost any nation you might care to name. The war department and the government, under the present law, is at the mercy of the rulers of industry and finance. . . . We support armed forces that have all the evils of the old time European prussianized military systems.
The correction of these evils is our immediate duty. We must deny to our armed forces the functions of diplomats, politicians and agents provocateurs. .	.	. There must be no more
reactionary and destructive intelligence work. The true domestic enemies of our nation

hunger, injustice and exploitation-should concern the military intelligence-not the subversive shadows of their own creation. . . . Nations should consider whether, after all, their best defence might not be to divert to social welfare the effort, energy, and money spent preparing for offensive war.
When conditions develop to the point where the further existence of the money machine is imperilled, a gigantic international abattoir is set up and into it are poured millions of the finest of the world's youth to be slaughtered for the benefit of the money machine and nothing else. Ambassador Page cabled to President Wilson from London on March 5, 1917, saying, among other things-
If we should go to war with Germany, all the money would be kept in our country, trade would be continued and enlarged until the war ends, and after the war Europe would continue to buy food, and would buy from us also an enormous supply of things to re-equip her peace industries. We should thus reap the profit of an uninterrupted, perhaps and enlarging trade, over a number of years, and we should hold their securities in payment. . . . Perhaps our going to war is the only way in which our present preeminent position can be maintained and a panic averted.
Let us see what followed: A month and a day after receiving this cablegram, President Wilson declared war on Germany. This is unchallengeable evidence that financial considerations and not human considerations were at the very root of the American entrance
rMr. P. J. Rowe.]
into the European conflict. Remember the declaration of President Wilson a few days before his death, when he said:
Is there a man or woman, nay is there a child, in this audience, who does not know that the seeds of war are sown in hot, successful commercial rivalry?
The American senate, in a report on corporate earnings and government revenues, being senate document 256, sixty-fifth congress, second session, shows very definitely that Mr. Page's recommendations bore their fruits. From this report I quote some of the profits which have been admitted, and it must be remembered that these figures were supplied by the firms involved. There are some illuminating figures in this report. Twenty-two meat packing firms reported profits of 100 per cent or more. Sixteen cotton yarn manufacturers reported profits of 100 per cent or more. Thirty-nine garment manufacturers reported profits of 100 per cent or more. Fifteen steel plants and rolling mills reported profits of more than 100 per cent. Bituminous coal producers in the Appalachian field reported as follows: 135 firms had profits of over 100 per cent but under 500 per cent; 21 had profits of over 500 per cent but under 1,000 per cent, and 14 firms reported profits of over 1,000 per cent. Every day while the great war lasted 20,000 men and boys were killed, wounded or taken prisoner. Of the 66,000,000 mobilized, roughly 10,000,000 were killed at the front. The Swedish society for the study of the social consequences of the war reports that, including deaths among noncombatants and deaths resulting from epidemics arising out of the war, we have the appalling total of 40,000,000 dead as a direct result of the war. The total cost, estimated at $337,000,000,000, would require to meet it a payment of $20,000 an hour from the birth of Christ until the end of the world war. If the cablegram of Ambassador Page had been blazoned on the front pages of the world press I doubt very much whether the American people would have considered it their patriotic duty to embark upon a mission of mass murder, particularly had they then known that their effective participation on the battlefields of Europe would have resulted in the creation of 21,000 new millionaires in the United States as a direct result of war-time activities-we had six or seven hundred new millionaires in Canada as well-with no less than $58,000,000 of new profits for the du Ponts, about whom we have heard something in this house within the last few days; one of our civil servants is very closely connected with the du Ponts. The Central Leather Company increased its annual divi-

National Defence-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)
dends 1,100 per cent; the General Chemical Company, 1,400 per cent; International Nickel, 1,700 per cent. It is inconceivable that American soldiers went to war for that.
I cannot conceive that hon. members can be asked to consider increasing expenditures for armaments and defence without being specifically informed of the dangers that threaten us in the immediate future. It is my opinion that if this country is to be asked to embark with all other nations of the world in a mad armaments race, the first duty of this government is to furnish the house and the people with a complete and detailed report of the reasons why we are to arm, against whom we are to arm, and for what purposes these armaments are to be used. It is folly to assume that the increased expenditures this year can afford defensive protection to this country, and it is reasonable to assume that this year's estimates are merely the thin end of a wedge that will be driven even deeper into our national finances if we once allow it to enter. Surely the people of this land are entitled to full knowledge on questions such as these: What guarantee can the government give that there will be no war profiteering? What assurance is there that at this very moment our natural resources are not being turned into implements of war?
An hon MEMBER: They are.


Percy John Rowe: What firms in Canada are at present engaged in the manufacture of armaments, munitions and war supplies for Great Britian or any other countries? What profits are actually being reaped by Canadian concerns through the provision of such materials? And-perhaps more serious than all else-what guarantee have we that our youth will not be expected to face the very arms and be targets for the very munitions that are now being exported from this country?
I cannot conceive a better description of the causes of war than that recently furnished me in a letter from Mr. John Hargrave, an author of repute, whose book Summertime Ends, published by Bobbs Merrill Company, New York, is most illuminating. Mr.' Hargrave has made an extensive study of world economic systems and has inquired deeply into the causes of war. I quote from his letter:
War is the inevitable result of a faulty financial system of distribution in which the "home market" of every country fails to be fully effective, and in which, therefore, the scramble for export markets abroad becomes imperative.
It is essential that each great producing country should make its own "home market" effective by the issue and use of its own debt-31111-59
free consumer-credit. This is the only way in which it is possible to eliminate the root cause of war.
When we are dealing with a matter of this kind, surely it is incumbent upon us as the representatives of the people to give consideration to causes rather than to effects. I suggest that the spectre of all the wars in history will rise up-on the day of judgment-and point an accusing finger at the leaders of mankind, because it is only to cover their own stupidity and folly and refusal to think that the common people are led to the shambles. It has gone on for centuries; it is about time to put a stop to it. I challenge anyone to find .that there is any other cause of modern wars than the one that I have just stated in my quotation from Mr. Hargrave s letter. May I further suggest that this statement is an accurate analysis of the root causes of war. May I say also that it is futile for this country to embark upon a policy of armaments and defence without thoroughly investigating the economic causes of war, and having found them, proceeding immediately to remove them.
Perhaps it is well to have in mind the words of the Minister of Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), speaking at Ottawa on February 7, 1936. In stating the two cardinal principles of defence, the minister said:
First we must have the defence forces sufficient to control subversive elements from within, and sufficient also to repel attacks from without.
We have heard a great deal about subversive elements from within. Unfortunately many members of the government have not very well described what these elements are. Does the government fear that the people of this country, with its more than a million on relief, will rebel against the continued policy of scarcity? Does the government believe tha,t our youth will become tired of walking our streets and roaming through our provinces in futile search for work? Does the government believe the taxpayers of this land are becoming so overburdened with taxes that the almighty dollars of interest will have to be extracted from their pockets with the aid of bayonets? I repeat that the Canadian people, who in the ultimate must pay with their blood and dollars for armaments, are entitled to receive from this government without further delay a clear statement of the intentions of the government; and particularly, if there are such great dangers within our borders, let the government point its finger at these so-called subversive elements.
I for one believe that Canadians aio a peaceful people. I believe indeed tint they are

930	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Rowe (Athabaska)
too peaceful. I have long since expected that they would cry very loudly against the continuance of economic conditions so contrary to their welfare and so definitely opposed to the policies possible in this enlightened age.
I very well recall the many discussions in this house relating to old age pensions, pensions for the blind, veterans' assistance and other measures of social welfare. Inevitably during these debates the house was informed that these things were very nice and very desirable, but there has always been a nigger in the woodpile; always there has been no money available for such services. Just the other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) rebuked the hon. member for Ros-thern (Mr. Tucker) because he had the temerity to advocate some slight departure from the rules of orthodox finance. The cry of inflation is regularly raised in this chamber. For my part I would much prefer the methods advocated by the hon. member for Rosthern than again to see the national debt increased by loans, as will be inevitable if we embark upon this wild armaments program.
To hon. members representing the province of Quebec-and I include ministers of the crown from that province-I would say that if I am at all a judge of public opinion the French-Canadians in this country are a peace-loving race who strenuously object to any warlike activities on the part of this country. I willingly concede the high patriotism of French Canada, but it is a patriotism devoted to their homes and our national institutions and one that is very little concerned with entanglements beyond our borders.
In closing I express my intention of supporting the motion because in my opinion this house lacks the complete information necessary before embarking on a policy of armaments; because the financial position of the country cannot permit of this added burden under our present orthodox financial methods, and primarily because I consider that the essential problems in Canada must first be solved, and that the duty of this government is to achieve for all complete economic security before launching on the production of nonessentials. I am forcibly reminded of the many promises made by the present government's supporters during the last election campaign. I recall the statement of the Prime Minister on the night of the election, to the effect that "the battle in the next parliament will be between the power of the people and the power of money." The amendments to the Bank of Canada Act last year gave the first victory to the power of money. This

year, let our actions in parliament be such as to give victory to the power of the people.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette) :: This debate centres around the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) which reads:
That all the words after the word "that" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"This house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for purposes of national armament in contrast with the inadequate provision for the social security of all section of the Canadian people."
As the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) said, this is a double-barrelled motion in that it contains two major propositions, one as to defence, and the other as to social security. I may say at the outset that I cannot support the amendment and I will give reasons therefor.
In the debate which has taken place yesterday and to-day a good deal has been said with regard to expeditionary forces which Canada might raise to take part in a European war. I listened very carefully, as most hon. members did, to the speech made by the Minister of National Defence, and nowhere throughout that whole speech was there any word with reference to offence; wholly and solely was that speech intended to convey what was the purpose of Canada in the realm of defence. There is no one, I am sure, in this house or throughout the dominion who is anxious for an increase in armament expenditures. All of us hate the idea that there should be any increase in these expenditures from which we are suffering so much in our economic structure. But, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Selkirk states that there is bound to be controversy in regard to these estimates, he is of course entirely correct. I do not think, however, that he is speaking for the Liberal opinion throughout the western part of our country, and I know he is not speaking for a great many of the young men who may ultimately have to take part in war. I have in my hands a resolution passed by the Junior Liberals Resolutions Committee of Manitoba, a study group of eighty within the province, who have gathered and correlated most of the opinions expressed by the young men in the Liberal ranks in the province. They passed a resolution to this effect:
Therefore be it resolved, that Canada work for immediate Teform of the league; first, by reorganization of the world court, so that it will command the confidence of all nations, large or small, in its settlement of disputes; second, by the guarantee of collective aid, if

National Defence-Mr. Glen
attacked, to those members of the league who have faithfully carried out their league obligations; and third, by the establishment of a coordinated international, land, air and sea force, to which Canada should pledge a proportionate contribution, for the enforcement of international law,
That Canada's land, air and sea forces be increased and modernized, until adequate for coastal defence, and suitable for a contribution to an international police force,
That if Canada is involved in a conflict all wealth and all industry be conscripted,
That generally, Canada's foreign policy be based on complete support of the league, and that no conflict be engaged in, save for the purpose of enforcing the authority of the league and supporting a system of collective security,
And finally, if after such steps have been taken, it is indisputably clear that there is insufficient armed force at the disposal of the league to effectively enforce its decisions then Canada should reconsider or postpone its league policy, and if continued bad faith is displayed by the great powers in the league, then Canada should withdraw her support and take whatever measures are necessary for her own security.
I read that resolution for the purpose of demonstrating that throughout this country to-day all men and. all women of this dominion are concerned with what is the foreign policy of Canada, and I think I can start out with this axiomatic remark, that our foreign policy, to be a sound policy, must defend the existence and promote the welfare of Canada. If Canada were not so placed geographically that a war in Europe might seem-and I emphasize the word "seem" -remote to Canada, the answer to our foreign policy might very easily be arrived at. But situated and placed as we are, there are those who urge that Canada adopt a policy of isolation. Well, Mr. Speaker, those who advocate such a policy must choose between two kinds of policy-armed isolation and a deliberate detachment from other countries, or a defenceless Pacific isolation until some foreign power likes to put an end to it. Canada must sooner or later face the question of its relationship and obligations to other countries, particularly those included in the present British commonwealth. When we heard the news that arrived from Great Britain the^ other day, the appalling news that two billion dollars were to be obtained by loan in order to increase the armaments of Great Britain, we stood back in amazement and wondered what madness was here that such a thing should be necessary in Great Britain.
I do not think anyone will disagree with me when I say that the government of Britain when they undertook to make that loan did so not because of any false fears but because of the realization that nothing but stark necessity was making them enter the world's money market to borrow money for armament
31111-59J
purposes. It was not the policy of Mr. Baldwin's government, for he was elected on a peace policy; and you will remember, Mr. Speaker, the outraged convictions of many people in Britain when the Baldwin government proposed to depart from that policy. They found that public opinion was stronger even than the government, and they had to withdraw from the position they had taken in connection with the Laval-Hoare agreement. That is evidence to me, sir, that there is a real fear in the minds of those who are competent to judge that war may be upon us in 1937.
I was reading at the beginning of the year an article by Mr. A. G. Gardiner, an internationally known publicist. In this article he was pointing to the fateful year of 1937 and indicating those who might again create war in this world. He referred particularly, of course, to Hitler and Mussolini as the two men who seemed to have the say-so as to whether there shall or shall not be war. He discussed many things that were happening in both these countries, and I should like to preface my remarks, before going on to deal with these estimates, with the reasons why the government of this country should take stock of her forces in order to meet any potential attack on the pant of a foreign country. Mr. Gardiner pointed out-I might say in passing that he is no friend of the government of the day in Britain; as a matter of fact he is a man of peace so outstanding that he is internationally known-that Goering had said that the German people must have guns, and not butter. That is a striking phrase, but I think it is emblematic of the policies that obtain in Germany to-day; they are more concerned with guns than they are with the food of the people. He also pointed out that there were fifteen million families in Germany to-day who are being mobilized against famine; that there were regulations against the hoarding of gold, and that the nation was compelled to take what it could get to eat in the way of food, and not what it wanted. He also referred to the desperate need of money in Germany. When I read that, it was so striking that I had to memorize it, and I was really glad to think that I was in Canada and not in Germany; for only recently they passed a law in Germany inflicting the death penalty by beheading upon those who smuggled money or securities abroad or maintained funds abroad without reporting them to the Reichsbank. I am sure hon. members will agree that it is a mighty good thing to be living in Canada to-day, despite all its adversities.
To add to these horrors there is now being consummated, and it is becoming more and

National Defence-Mr. Glen
More apparent, a union between Hitler and Mussolini. They are supreme; they _ may do anything. The sanctity of the bond is not in their vocabulary. Hon. gentlemen will remember that when the gentleman's agreement was made between Britain and Italy, at the very moment that Lord Lothian's committee was sitting and endeavouring to complete its regulations regarding the non-intervention pact so far as Spain was concerned, the port of Malaga was being taken with the assistance of fifteen thousand Italian troops. Those troops could not leave Italy without the knowledge, if not the consent, of Mussolini. These are the men, Mr. Speaker, whom we may have to fight against. The nations that they represent apparently have no voice in the foreign policies of their governments. Only the sweet will of both these strutting braggarts rules the world of peace. What does that mean so far as Canada is concerned? It has brought vividly before this country what may happen in the year 1937 unless precautions are taken.
I assume from what I have heard of the arguments in this debate that the main thing that is troubling people to-day is the question of the implications respecting empire defence in the increased estimates of the Minister of National Defence. If I may take the word of the Minister of National Defence in the speech he made in this house yesterday, he clearly stated and reiterated that there was no meaning to be attached to any such implications, that the policy of the government was not for offence but for defence, and that the government did not propose to form any expeditionary force for a European war.
The last war created a nationalism which has been rampant over the whole face of the world. Instead of nations living together harmoniously and trading with one another they are to-day living in fear that they may be fighting each other to-morrow, simply because of the caprice of any one of these dictators. Everyone knows that the rape of Abyssinia took place not because there was any conflict between Italy and Abyssinia, but simply because Mussolini had to still the flames of revolt throughout his whole country, and couldl only do so by giving to his people a promise of gain and of glory. Canada is not immune from attack by either of these two gentlemen. If the internal affairs of either Italy or Germany compel them again to enter the field of war, do you think for one moment that they have not in their minds this vast domain of Canada, where eleven millions of people occupy half a continent, and where foodstuffs are so abundant that we are able to feed' many nations of the world? Naturally they would look to Canada, and if

it should happen that either of these countries were in conflict with Britain, what do you think would be the first object of either of them, if not to stifle the trade routes from Canada to Britain, and if possible starve Britain?
Some would say, and have said in the course of this debate, that we propose to take care of the trade routes by which food is carried from Canada to Britain. There could be nothing more ridiculous. The very paucity of the estimates and the magnitude of such a task is surely the answer. It could not possibly be. Nevertheless both Italy and Germany may and undoubtedly will recognize that the stifling or cutting off of the trade routes from Canada to Britain would be equivalent to a victory over Britain. There is no need for Italy or Germany to land one soldier on the shores of Britain if they can stifle the trade routes leading thereto, and that certainly would be one of the first things they would attempt to do.
Some would say they might come to Canada.
I do not think that is too far-fetched a statement to make. It is in the minds of all that in 1933 General Balbo came with his air squadron to Canada and to Chicago, and surely it is not beyond our imagination to conceive that the machinery of war and the lessons gained in war have been so emphasized and assimilated-and war technique so improved beyond recognition-that to-day there is a real fear that we might be invaded by either of those two countries. It is said that the distance is too great. Let me recall that when Mussolini was organizing his suicide squadrons-and some gentleman asked the other day how the invaders proposed to get back if they ever did come to this country-those who made up the personnel of the suicide squadrons pledged themselves for particular purposes with no idea that they would ever return. If an aerial squadron came to Canada it could destroy our eastern ports; Montreal could be reduced to ashes, and the elevators containing grain intended for overseas might be destroyed. I do not think it is too far-fetched to suggest that as a possibility that might occur during a war. Navies alone are not needed; navies of the air are needed, and these foreign governments are addressing themselves to that feature of warfare more than to any other.
Then it is said that if Canada should be invaded we could depend upon the United States to protect us, that the Monroe doctrine would apply. I wonder if hon. members who refer to the Monroe doctrine realize its implications. It is not statutory; it was contained in the presidential address of President Monroe delivered as far back as the second

National Defence-Mr. Glen
day of December, 1823. I need not read it all, but I shall read what is material as far as any assistance by the United States in the defence of Canada is concerned. This is the important part:
We owe it, therefore, to candour, and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers, to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.	.
It will be noted that the reference is to the extension of their system. But President Monroe went further:
With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered and shall not interfere-
At that time I assume Canada was a colony of a European power:
-but with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling in any other manner their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition towards the United States.
Then further:
In the war between those new governments and Spain we declared our neutrality at the time of their recognition, and to this we have adhered, and shall continue to adhere, provided no change shall occur which, in the judgment of the competent authorities of this government, shall make a corresponding change on the part of the United States indispensable to their security.
What I have just read, Mr. Speaker, means this: If Italy or Germany were to declare war on Great Britain, is it in the mind of anyone that they would not treat Canada as a belligerent? If one of these countries takes up the burden of war again we may be assured that these birds of prey are not likely to issue any formal declaration of war. It will come at a moment's notice. The president of the United States and his congress would take some time in preparing a mandate, and if they issued any such document they would become a belligerent as against this other nation with which they had no quarrel. The difficulty is easily seen, and it is not too much to say that the United States is not bound automatically by the Monroe doctrine. I think it is fair to say that any support given by the United States would be given because their own interests in connection with trade or the lives of their citizens demanded it of them. In the meantime the damage would have been done.
When the Minister of National Defence was making his statement the other day he reiterated the fact that there was no thought in his mind of any of this appropriation being used other than in the defence of Canada. In the eloquent terms with which 'he expressed his point of view he was only expressing the view of the government, and I am quite sure he did not exceed the instructions of the cabinet. When I look at the cabinet, Mr. Speaker, I see men. who speak my language and who are affiliated with me politically. If it were not so I cannot conceive of the Prime Minister coming into this house and saying on several occasions, with all the emphasis at his command, that on no occasion has there been any commitment or any undertaking given to any government on the face of the earth with regard to these estimates, and that the only meaning to be drawn from the increased vote now asked of this house is that it is to be used simply and solely for purposes of defence. And in addition, Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister have stated what I think is generally accepted throughout the dominion, that in no case shall Canada enter into a war which involves the sending of an expeditionary force out of the country until the consent of parliament has been obtained. I believe that is the policy of the government of the day, and I think it was also the policy of the previous government.
That does not necessarily mean, however, that this country will not defend itself against aggression, and as I understood the speech of the Minister of National Defence the purpose of these increased estimates is that we may have the equipment necessary in order to protect our shores. I am prepared absolutely to accept the statement of policy that has been made on behalf of the government. I know they will carry out that policy, and I am going just a little further. The Prime Minister has taken many political steps during his career. He will be the leader of the delegation which will leave Canada in May to attend the coronation, and following the coronation there will be an imperial conference at which all the nations of the commonwealth will be represented. The Prime Minister has already established a precedent; when he negotiated an economic treaty with the United States he was the first statesman in the whole world to make a breach in the tariff and economic walls surrounding the nationalist countries of the world. He did make a breach, and that breach has been widening ever since. Men are beginning to realize that the peace of the world

National Defence-Mr. Glen
depends to a large extent upon economic interpenetration and trade between countries rather than upon force of arms.
I am going to suggest to the Prime Minister that when he goes to the imperial conference he take with him the viewpoint expressed in this debate, and declare in unmistakable terms in every address he makes that Canada is nauseated with war and that we are anxious that the League of Nations should again function in order to bring about peace in the world. Canada's influence may not be as great as that of some of the larger nations. Numerically we are not strong, but I do not think anyone will deny that potentially, in our citizens and our resources, no country is superior to us. I suggest therefore that at the imperial conference the Prime Minister again take the initiative within that commonwealth league of nations upon which the hope of the peace of the world still rests, and that he there and then communicate to those countries comprising the British commonwealth of nations the fact that Canada does not want war. We ask him therefore to say to the British nations "Let us, if we can, canvass the situation again."
In an address delivered a few days ago the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said that the league was not dead. I believe I am voicing the views of most hon. members and a vast majority of the people throughout the country when I say that in the league lies the hope of peace. It behooves Canada to exhaust every effort towards making it the commanding influence compelling peace in the world.


Mr. J. ALPHIDA CRETE (St. Mau-rice-Lafleche) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker,
since the question of national defence means so much to all Canadians, may I be allowed first to remind the house that the stand I am taking is purely from a Canadian point of view. I love my country well enough to wish for its happiness and security; I love it well enough not to lay it open to trouble and agitation; I love it well enough to desire that it be respected by other powers, and I love it well enough not to base my political views on personal ambitions or patronage contingencies. I am not opposed to the principle of national defence, but such principle may surely be considered from different angles, and it is in that spirit that I intend to discuss the present estimates in order to see whether they properly answer their purpose.
Responsible as we are towards our respective constituents, I think that it is our duty to give our best consideration to the defence

estimates. What we have to consider to-day is not the annual vote of $15,000,000, but a substantially increased appropriation which is about twice what the government saw fit to ask for last year. Since that time I admit that our economic prospects have become brighter, but the public debt is nevertheless very large, and our very financial condition has to be accounted with in relation to the estimates that we are discussing, when you consider that our debt is largely due to the military venture of 1914-1918. These circumstances as a whole have led me to ponder and to ponder seriously over the situation, considering the opinion of my constituents who, in that regard, hold the same views as in the last election when they voted, at least in my province, on the strength of the oft-repeated statements of the leaders and candidates of the different parties. Today, the people are getting excited over this question and watch the stand that each one is going to take in view of their promises. When I heard, last night, one of my compatriots end his speech by saying: "I would be a traitor to my race if I thought that we were not taking the means of protecting ourselves," I wondered whether his attitude, prompted, I am sure, by the purest of patriotism, fully agreed with the feelings of our Canadian people in the province of Quebec.
In spite of the civic virtues which such statement entails I am afraid that it will not be greatly appreciated by his compatriots, even in this chamber.
Here are the humble observations that I for one venture to offer to the hon. members of this house. Mr. Speaker, the first question that comes to our mind in this: Why such an increase in the estimates of the Department of National Defence? For what purposes do we start building armaments? We may assume two things: We are building arms either for the empire, or for Canada. For the empire? We may have thought so for a time. I need not remind the house of the numerous formal visits of certain emissaries from Great Britain and of their untimely statements, so much so that the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) himself had to correct them, from a Canadian point of view, in order to reassure public opinion. Even in Canada, some representative people repeated these appeals and echoed them to the four corners of our dominion. But to talk about arming for the empire, Mr. Speaker, would preclude us from speaking about national defence, because, after all, Canada must not be synonymous with the empire, and everybody knows that the empire does not mean Canada.

National Defence-Mr. Crete
However, to-day, we are told that we are dealing with a. plan of national defence, that is to say, if we take the proper meaning of the words, a plan exclusively for the defence of Canada. Besides, I think that it is actually the intention of the present government who positively say so in tl^eir statements. Therefore, we are not arming for the empire, but for Canada, and for Canada alone.
But even for Canada I do not think it is advisable in the present circumstances to increase our defence budget by 15 millions. It seems to me that neither our geographical position, nor our political status, nor our financial condition justifies such an additional expenditure.
Canada, being, geographically speaking, an extension of the United States toward the north, has in the south a conventional open boundary 3,000 miles long. Let us suppose for an instant, in order to illustrate my point, that we be attacked from that side. All the Canadians fit to wear a uniform, all the conscripts, would not be able to cover efficiently one-third of the 45th parallel. And how would we build up our reserves? Are we going to put up a Chinese wall, a Maginot line? Even if we did succeed in fortifying the great lakes district well enough to make it safe against any invasion, the frontier would nevertheless remain open on a distance of 2,500 miles.
An attack from the Japanese, in the west, on the Pacific coast, would never be tolerated by our neighbours who have common interests with Canada on that coast and who will always keep the road open to Alaska. Everywhere else, we may depend on the assistance of the 'United States because of the Monroe doctrine, which was further emphasized in the positive statement which the president of the United States made while in Quebec, last summer.
Let us now consider the problems connected with our political status, and the conclusions are the same. For instance, if you look over the history of the last century you will see that there was no important conflict on Canadian territory since 1814. Of course, I know very well that war breaks out suddenly, but everybody knows that an armed conflict can be but the outcome of difficulties which have been made worse by years of serious economic misunderstanding or unsatisfied racial ambitions. But we in Canada, who are in peace with all the nations of the world and are cited as an example even in the League of Nations, how could we understand the uneasiness and the agitation of our warmongers.
A cursory examination of possible causes of war all over our planet at this time shows
that those governing ideas which are shaking the old world-communism, fascism, lust for conquest-do not represent for us any real war threat. I shall deal later with the danger arising out of communism. No country could pick a quarrel with us in order to secure colonies, for we have none. It will be recalled that, at Versailles, it was not deemed necessary to allot us the smallest share of colonial spoils: that is another benefit we have reaped from our participation in the last war! Thus, the latest warnings of the German dictator are not meant for us. We have no colonies and we will not go to war in order to secure any. Considering the present population of Canada, our natural resources and our industrial wealth are, on the whole, sufficient for our needs; we even find it possible to export outside the empire our most plentiful products. In that field, the Prime Minister has clearly understood the importance which the lowering of tariff walls may take for the preservation of international peace. If, in some unusual instances, we had to lower these walls to still lower levels, we did that, as will be recalled, to avoid a disastrous war and to comply with the terms of a covenant.
In my opinion, our financial position is another serious objection to such a substantial increase in the appropriations with which we are dealing. Let us not forget that our per capita debt amounts to .$272. Let us consider, also, what burden the organization of an efficient national defence would mean for the taxpayers in this country. With such a vast territory, with our scattered population, what could we do with $15,000,000? Why, hundreds of millions would be required, and even then the efficiency of our defence would be doubtful.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the organization of our defence upon an efficient basis is beset with numerous difficulties most of which are physically insuperable. I even venture to think that the officers of the Department of National Defence realized that, since the plan which is now submitted to us is not what can properly be called a national defence plan. Indeed, as we look over the estimates, we notice that quite a few items which show an increase over last year, are for the purchase of offensive arms.
As a matter of fact, we notice the greatest increase under the head of military aviation. Yet, we all know that in time of war aircraft are primarily used as weapons of attack. However, I do not question their usefulness as a means of defence, And in the proposed purchases which we are called upon to approve,

National Defence-Mr. Crete
X notice 24 bombing planes and 12 fighting planes not to mention 27 training planes! Light infantry, as it were!
Another important part of the estimates which we are requested to vote is to be used for the purchase of two destroyers which Great Britain will soon deliver to us. They are to replace H.M.S. Champlain and H.M.S. Vancouver which, I am told, used to spend a few months each winter in southern waters, that is in the West Indies. If those two destroyers are absolutely necessary for our defence, I am far from feeling safe when they are there. I am even informed that immediately after they reach Canada in March, they will be sent on their cruise and will not return-God help us-before May next!
A little further, I notice that the Quebec fortifications have not been overlooked, $15,000 being appropriated for rebuilding the walls! Perhaps such an appropriation is timely but to those who are familiar with Quebec city, this item is more calculated to perpetuate our past military glory than to ensure our safety in case of war.
As regards our strategic points, Halifax and Vancouver, where there is a remote chance that we might be attacked, I notice that the money to be spent in their defence form but a small percentage of the $15,000,000; there, as in Quebec, the work is more in the nature of a useless precautionary measure. For all these reasons, it seems impossible to conclude that this plan will be efficient. Let no one claim that such is an anti-Canadian view. However brutal and regrettable it may be, reality is still reality; we are physically incapable of defending ourselves adequately, whatever defence plans we may resort to.
It might be said after all that these expenditures would provide employment and give their daily bread to thousands of unemployed. But I suppose no mention is made of the two destroyers that will reach our shores next month from England where they have been built; it is quite evident that no reference is made to the 102 new planes to be built shortly by large Canadian and foreign plants without any noticeable increase in their regular staff. What is left? A few undertakings requiring the hiring of experts which will be contracted for by individuals who also will not employ any additional workers.
Mr. Speaker, my criticism in certain quarters may seem harsh, but in view of the future, I wish it to be constructive, and I candidly believe that war material is not building material.
Should collective inaction and passiveness be inferred from the above considerations, Mr. Speaker? Should we be satisfied with
[Mr. Cr**- 1
our lot without hoping for a stronger Canada, respected by her neighbours and all foreign powers? Such is not my point of view. I believe in certain methods of ensuring our security, and I trust this house will permit me to suggest them briefly. Whether we like it or not, we are inhabiting the North American* continent; all of us wish and aim to be Canadians to the core, but we must take into account our geographical position, that is to say, in the wide sense of the term, we must be Canadians living in America, I am not saying under the American flag, and far less under European flags. I believe in the Pan-American co-operation towards peace, and when I look at the results of our happy relations with our neighbours to the south, I still find greater advantages in this co-operation. The trade agreement alone entered into last year by the government constitutes an evidence in support of my statement, which is becoming more startling every day.
Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of preventing all trouble within our borders; every subversive movement, communistic or otherwise, should be eradicated at all costs; a limited budget tending to reduce the strength of our constabulary would certainly be unsound economy, an uncalled for parsimony. But it is with great satisfaction that I find a vote of $6,000,000 for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am not in a position to state whether or not the amount is sufficient, but at any rate it is far from being excessive. However I cannot explain the purchase of 102 new airplanes, even if the atmosphere smacks of communism. It is our right and duty to patrol our coasts through close watch, but I do not think that the sight of our cruisers will prevent smugglers from operating in our coastal waters.
I believe the duty of the present hour to be the putting into effect of a well-understood national economy rather than a risky defence policy. We must help in restoring our economic life in its various aspects, lest we forget that death is the great provider of armament factories. Again I ask, Mr. Speaker, if an adequate formula for national defence could not be found in the quest for economic stability. In fact experience tells us that a prosperous nation does not seek to overthrow the government nor does it engage in class warfare. A contented nation does not envy its neighbour's fate and wishes harm to nobody. Even if we could suppress all causes of domestic agitation, I claim that possibilities of conflicts would be so much reduced and would become less imminent.
On this point, we cannot also ignore the opinions of our young men. Without any concerted movement, students from Toronto

National Defence-Mr. Lacombe
and from Quebec do not think differently on the question of armaments. Read their papers; you will find in them the same feelings and the same conclusions. Our young men are not in favour of militia expenditures, as they know they will be the ones to pay in the last resort.
Building airplanes, increasing war material and voting estimates to that effect is certainly not the policy we need at the present time. Let us arm ourselves if we wish; however slightly it may be, the fact remains nevertheless that we are plunging into the armaments race when previously everything ran so smoothly. Look at the old world having to bear the burden of past wars, rent by internecine strife and troubled by the outlook of a precarious future; see it look hopelessly for an era of security and real peace. A most terrifying situation that has been going on for years, while the Canadian people were cheerfully marching to the conquest of its destiny under a sun whose light had no blood-stained appearance. Everybody admired and1 envied our peaceful atmosphere, and rightly so.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I cannot leave what I might call the imperialistic clasp to throw myself in the arms of socialism, so in the first place I shall vote against the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver North, leaving the question of deciding as to my vote when the various items of National Defence estimates are considered.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains):: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed
to speak in my mother tongue, I should like to say a few words on this very important matter now being debated in this house. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson), who spoke a few moments ago, deserves sincere congratulation upon having made such a splendid speech. Personally, as a true Canadian, I will fight unflinchingly against the participation by Canada in imperial extraterritorial or European wars. If I should come to the conclusion, after hearing the explanations by the government for the increase in the estimates for national defence, that these are to be used for extra-territorial wars, I shall vote against the item. Why? Because in my humble opinion the great task of the government is to review our tremendous taxation, to pay our national debt largely due to the war and to give more general support to the great industry of agriculture. Let us keep our young men on our Canadian soil. Let us give employment to Canadian citizens. Let us develop our natural resources and bring about more happiness and prosperity to the people of Canada.
The amendment suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) is not only a condemnation of the proposed increase in national defence, but a motion of non-confidence in the general political program of the government. Consequently I shall not give my approbation to the amendment, but I reserve my freedom of speech and my freedom to vote as I desire on the question of the increased cost of national defence.
(Translation): Mr. Speaker, I find in the House of Commons' votes and1 proceedings of Feruary 16, 193(7, page 141, the following amendment:-
The order being read for the house to resolve itself again into committee of supply;
Mr. Dunning moved, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair.
Mr. MacNeil, seconded by Mr. Coldwell, moved in amendment thereto: that all the words after the word "That" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefore:
"this house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for purposes of national armament-
And the hon. member did not stop there.
-in contrast with the inadequate provision for the social security of all sections of the Canadian people."
Mr. Speaker, I frankly admit that I will not follow the hon. member on the ground that is covered by the last part of his motion of non confidence.
I belong to a generation which has had to suffer so much from the war that I cannot shirk what I consider my duty in taking part in the present debate. Conscripted in 1917, I am not unmindful of all the offences, the injustice and the abominations which youth had to go through during these tragic days.
Going back twenty years I can still see these young men ostracised, pursued, surrounded, taken away from their homes and thrown into barracks. Even when the war was over the government at that time endeavoured to fine or imprison the young men who had refused to abide by the odious conscription act. In fact, incarceration was the penalty meted out to those from whom the government had been unable to get the price of blood. Shameful retaliation of an inauspicious period which undoubtedly no member of this house would wish to go through again.
The last great world war caused the ruin of individuals, families and even nations. Our ill-considered participation in that conflict led Canada to the verge of destruction. To take part in another war abroad would mean Canada's complete downfall.
938	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Lacombe
I need not recall the history of our unfortunate venture in the last war. I shall also abstain from recalling the extravagant expenditure which it entailed, the thousands of millions in taxes which it cost us and is still costing us, as well as the enormous number of lives that we lost through it. Therefore I state that I am positively opposed to our participation in conflicts abroad. In that regard I shall be unflinching and relentless even if I have to oppose any government. Should a catastrophe occur in central Europe or elsewhere let us not be mad enough again to meddle with it.
You cannot deny the fact that the people were deeply concerned when they heard of the government's intention to increase the national defence estimates. Nobody could blame a Canadian worthy of the name for having at heart the preservation of his home, of his heritage, and of his country. Has he not a right, because of this conviction and this very pride which is a credit to him, to demand from the government a clear and definite statement showing the necessity for such heavy sacrifices. After all it is the Canadian taxpayer who will pay. There is nothing more distressing than doubt and insecurity especially in connection with an issue as serious as the one which we are presently discussing in this chamber. That is why I cannot just now decide as to the advisability of this government measure, though the right hon. the Prime Minister, when he spoke in this house on January 25 last, seems to have stated in plain, definite, firm and clear terms, the exact condition as regards the defence of our territory and nothing else but our territory. In order that there be no mistake, I am going to quote the very words of the right hon. the Prime Minister as they were reported in Hansard of January 25, 1&S7.
My hon. friend referred to the estimates. He stated some were claiming they were evidence of preparation for another European war. The hon. member asked, Were these estimates for that purpose, or were they for the defence of Canada, or what were they for? I am not going to anticipate what the Minister of Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) may have to say when the estimates of his department are before this house for discussion. But I do wish to say at once that, as far as the estimates presented to parliament at this session are concerned, any increase placed there has been only and solely because of what the government believes to be necessary for the defence of Canada, and for Canada alone. The estimates have not been framed with any thought of participation in European wars. They have not been framed as a result of any combined effort or consultation with the British authorities, beyond what would obviously be in the interests of all in the matter of gaining the benefit of expert opinion where expert opinion was obviously desirable. So far as 
policy is concerned, I wish to make it perfectly clear, that no request of any kind has come from the British government to our government with respect to a single item that appears in the estimates as they have been brought down. Whatever is there is there as a result of what this government feel is necessary in Canada to-day, Canada being part of the world as the world is to-day.
May I repeat that whatever has been done or is being proposed with respect to necessary increases and expenditure to bring Canada's defence to a more efficient standard than at present has been done with consideration for the needs of Canada and of Canada alone.
Mr. Speaker, I have spent twenty years of my public life in criticizing, nay, in cursing compulsory military service. How many times have I not denounced Canada's participation in the last war? How many times have I not inveighed against the unaccountable attitude and the lamentable error of public men of that time, as also against their excessive imperialism and their lack of Canadianism? My opinion and my stand have not changed a whit since that time.
On October 7, 1935, when the candidates came up for nomination at the last general election, I stated that I was utterly opposed to Canada's participation in any extra-territorial conflict. During that unforgettable political meeting, held in St. Martin, in that fine electoral district of Laval-Two Mountains which I have the honour to represent in parliament, a man in the audience asked me what would be my stand upon Canada's participation in foreign wars. My answer was "I will vote against it."
The men and women electors of Laval-Two Mountains have endorsed in no uncertain way my opposition to Canada's participation in any war. In fact, even in my constituency of Laval-Two Mountains so shamelessly gerrymandered in the sordid hope of ensuring the election of my opponent, I was returned with an overwhelming majority. Yet, nothing was overlooked in the attempt to defeat me; they resorted to political literature, to ample election funds, to promises, and even to the distribution of spurious ballots. Therefore, I need not go to my constituents in order to know that they are unalterably opposed to Canada's participation in any foreign war. I will respect the verdict of the electors of my constituency. In so doing, I shall be discharging but a noble duty toward my country. If I were to do otherwise I should be betraying the interests of the people and making myself unworthy of their confidence. Are not Canada's war wounds still far from being healed? The experience of the past ought to be a lesson for our country. The task of recovering

National Defence-Mr. Lacombe
from the unprecedented sacrifices which she has already made is such a heavy burden that the consequences of some other mad venture should not be added to it. If any government, whatever its political creed, wishes to consummate the ruin of Canada, it will encounter the patriotic resistance of a people to whom experience has taught a lesson.
As far as I am concerned, I am not going, in this year of their glorious centennial, to disparage, through my actions, the noble sacrifice of the patriots who brought fame to my constituency. As a descendant of the heroic conquerors of our political liberties, I will never cease to honour their glorious memory. If the patriots of St. Eustache, of St. Denis, of St. Charles, of Upper and Lower Canada had to consider the defence of our territory, and of our territory alone, what stand would they take under the present circumstances? Would they refuse to protect our homes, our families, our traditions, our institutions and the liberties that they have gradually wrested from the shameful oligarchy of their era? But I ask what constitutes our country, our land, our nation if it is not the sum total of the liberties conquered so dearly, if it is not also every man, woman and child of Canada living on the land and by the land of this country. I humbly believe that the answer to this question is the solution of the problem with which we are faced. It is from whence the light will come. I would vainly look for that light in a troubled, nervous, and gloomy world, where I can only find suspicion, doubt and war clouds, and where I hear nothing but machine guns firing, big guns roaring and the deafening noise of armaments. We will find the answer that will shed light on the whole issue only in a peaceful Canada that is faithful to her institutions, her laws, her liberties, her creeds, her constitution.
Should we consent to these national defence increases for the preservation of this peace, the safeguard of our institutions, the stability of constituted authority, the protection of our Canadian people, the defence of our territory, and of our territory alone? Before committing myself to these proposals, I shall wait for the clear, accurate and definite statement of the government whose sacred duty it is to place such unequivocally and without any ambiguity before parliament and the people of Canada. Who could deny it? There are subversive elements now rampant in Canada. An undisguised outcry is heard from certain quarters. It is not very reassuring as to order and peace in this country. Here is a dangerous
enemy 1 This is the one we have to subdue and render powerless if we do not care to find ourselves one day in the turmoil of social revolution and disorder. We need more than inoperative laws to crush down these dangerous agitators, these trouble-makers. A penalty is necessary. I easily believe that the government is determined to preserve peace, order and good government in Canada. It is a sacred duty on their part to organize the protection of their nationals and of our institutions. No authority has the right to evade the primary responsibility of suppressing any attempt made by unruly elements to undermine constituted authority. There comes a time when persuasion is of no avail in the checking of the unlawful movements of certain extremists whose object seems to be to smash, demolish and destroy everything. The sentiment of the law-abiding and peaceful population has been aroused. Important municipalities have increased their constabulary. In the United States, the recent strike at the General Motors plants necessitated the calling out of the National Guard. During the deplorable floods that occurred in the great neighbouring republic, the American army rendered valuable services. But this was on American territory and for the sole benefit of the republic as well as to the exclusive advantage of its population. Should these happenings justify our national defence increases? I will answer that at the proper time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I might add that an important section of the Canadian population will strongly object to these national defence increases, unless a considerable part of these estimates are designed to provide work for the Canadian citizens. It is far better to give the people an opportunity to work than to maintain the depressing policy of direct relief. Under the late administration, direct relief has drained more than $600,000,000 from the national treasury. Lastly, after considering all the reasons brought forward in this house for or against the defence increases, I shall cast my vote in the best interests of my country.
Before taking my seat, I wish to say to the imperialists and the imperialistically inclined: Mind your own business. Canada is now a nation enjoying freedom in her internal as well as her external affairs. The Canadian people will not heed your advice or counsel. Greater and more enduring than the strength of armaments, the doctrine that finds its expression in the great commandment of charity should be the ideal of nations. The more nations drift away from this doctrine, the more they will sink into the quicksands
040	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Landeryou
where shall perish all civilizations born of hatred, rivalry and antagonism between races and generations.
Another word before concluding, and I should like every representative of the people to know its significance. Down with Canada's participation in foreign warsl Let us remain unalterably attached to our soil, and develop our unbounded natural resources. Let us reduce the war taxes that still burden our people so heavily, and wipe out our national debt. Let us keep our young men at home and give them work to ennoble their lives. Let us vote money for agriculture that has helped to feed the allies during the last war. Let us again make use of our farmers whose courage has never faltered. Thus a peaceful happy and prosperous Canada will constitute an appeasing example to the other nations and her influence will shine on the rest of the world. By way of final statement, may I say that I will oppose any increase in the national defence estimates until such time as I am convinced that they will never be used towards Canada's participation in foreign wars.


Mr. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):: I agree with the Minister of Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) and others who declare that Canada must be prepared to defend herself, that she must have national security. However, national security cannot be secured simply by the building of armaments. We must establish economic security in Canada, for in my opinion we cannot have national security without first achieving economic security. It would appear that the improvement in world conditions is mainly due to the enormous expenditures, estimated at over fifteen billions of dollars, on armaments. It is indeed strange that a world rich in real and potential production should be passing through such a depression, during which millions of people are unemployed, millions more living on the borderline of starvation, and various social and economic institutions being undermined simply because there is no money. In Canada we have a million unemployed. Our factories are slowed down; our expenditures on education and health facilities are being restricted, and many of our municipal and provincial governments are practically bankrupt. We have no money for this; we have no money for that. The world over-


Mr. FINN:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member, where does he get these facts?


John Charles Landeryou: Which facts is the hon. member referring to?


Robert Emmett Finn: The facts that the hon. gentleman just related to the house.


John Charles Landeryou: These facts have been stated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). He said that approximately fifteen billion dollars have been expended by various governments on war preparations.


Robert Emmett Finn: Then I would invite my hon. friend to asik the leader of the opposition if he concurs in the statements of the hon. member.


John Charles Landeryou: I believe the leader of the opposition will confirm the statement I made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; I think that was what was reported, and I got it from a credible source.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is the reporter?


John Charles Landeryou: Where does the money come from to send men into the bowels of the earth to take out the minerals which are sent into the great smelters and from there to huge factories to be turned into instruments of destruction? I am looking forward to the day when the labouring population of the world will refuse to' go into the mines or the forests or the smelters or the factories to turn out instruments of destruction or, as they are sometimes called, armaments of defence. I am looking forward1 to the day when billions of dollars will be put to work to facilitate production, from our natural resources, of all the things that civilized men and women to-day require-automobiles, electrical equipment, pleasure ships, et cetera, rather than destroyers, bombers, machine guns and anti-aircraft guns. We hear the statement often repeated that Great Britain and Canada are strongholds of democracy. I believe that Canadians have as much liberty as any people on earth, but we have not yet achieved complete democracy. The democracy we have in Canada to-day is being steadily undermined by self-seeking autocrats.
I am supporting the amendment because in my opinion we should not provide for the building of battleships and the construction of guns until we have at least adequately provided for war veterans and their families and have taken more definite steps to provide for the millions of unemployed and underpaid workers. I am opposed, to borrowing money for war purposes. The people of Canada are tired of the debt pyramiding which has taken place in the past, and which has brought about chaotic conditions in our economic life. The government must finance the building up of armaments without creating further debts in this country.

National Defence-Mr. Jean


Robert Emmett Finn: What battleships are being proposed to be built in Canada or for Canada?


John Charles Landeryou: My hon. friend knows that they intend to build some ships in Great Britain.


Robert Emmett Finn: What have we to do with that?


Mr. JOSEPH JEAN (Mercier) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I think that the importance of this debate has been exaggerated. The militia estimates on which it is based are not in themselves very alarming. Ten or fifteen millions added to our national defence appropriations will not be sufficient for us to save the British Empire, nor even Canada if she were attacked, and the increase in these estimates is not likely to draw our country into a war.
This question of reorganizing our national defence has been arousing public opinion throughout the country, and, in fairness to those who have felt compelled to protest against the policy of the government in this matter, I think that we must at least consider their criticisms and dispel their legitimate fears. The horrors of 1914-18 are still so vivid in the mind of every Canadian and the mortgage placed on our country is still so heavy that we cannot see without fear any tendency toward militarism, slight as it might be. Consequently I do not blame those who availed themselves of the opportunity to warn us against the renewal of such a tragedy as the last war and its effects. I do not question their good faith nor their patriotism and I like to believe that their criticism is not intended to conceal mean and petty political tactics, but on the other hand I might say to them who sincerely fear these defence increases that they also must believe in our sincerity of purpose and that our love for our country is as real as theirs.
I represent in this house one of the largest electoral districts of our dominion. The voters have clearly placed their confidence in me at the last election. The population of that constituency is essentially Canadian and unequivocally devoted to the interest of the country. I would betray their confidence, I would be unworthy of their trust if I were to take on this question, or on any other issue for that matter, a stand not clearly and simply Canadian. But I would also fail in my duty to my constituents if, for the sake of a few more votes at the next election, I were not to do the proper thing and what I consider to be in the best interests of my country, or if I were not to follow unhesitatingly the dictates of my conscience in the matter of responsibilities.
After all, is there anything very alarming in these militia estimates? The only justifiable fear that has been voiced so far, at least if I may judge by the representations made to me and by what I have read in the papers, is that we might be drawn, directly or indirectly, into future wars on the battlefields of Europe, as some would say, or in wars outside this continent, as others would put it, and that our foreign policy might be dictated to us by London or by a foreign nation.
Mr. Speaker, I will go further in expressing that fear. In so far as I am concerned, I do not want to see Canadians drawn into any war, domestic or foreign, of any nature whatsoever. War is a tragedy which does not benefit the belligerents and which should be looked upon with loathing and shame by anyone who prides himself on being civilized. But there is a vast difference between that and declaring that we must give up all preventive measures and any national defence organization.
I will not admit, either, that the defence policy as presented to us by the government necessarily implies in any way our future participation in a foreign war. Whether we are equipped for war or not, should the people of Canada decide, in a moment of aberration, to take part in a foreign war, or should our territory be invaded, Canadians would be forced, as they have been in the past, to give their blood and their money in order to enforce such a decision or to repel the aggressor.
Moreover, should Canada participate in any foreign war, an event which I neither anticipate nor desire, it is not the army we are now equipping which would take the greatest part in that war, since that army is organized for defence purposes, and solely for defending Canada. Consequently, we are not asked today to decide if Canada will take part in a war or not. If such were the case, I would not hesitate to answer in the negative. The only problem facing us as a result of these increases is whether or not Canada should have her own national defence organization.
If someone were to move a resolution for the abolition of the department of National Defence in Canada or of any form of armament, I would be sorry for my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), but I would not be shocked. But if you want to act as an independent nation, if we are to believe-and it is a legitimate pride-'that we are a nation, then we must assume all the inevitable responsibilities. There is no instance in the history of the world or in our own time of a single country which has not provided1 in some way for her

National Defence-Mr. Jean
national defence. I do not think either that we can find a doctrine which makes for complete disarmament of a nation, on account of her being opposed to war. Even those who have started revolutions for the purpose of wiping militarism forever of this world, are to-day armed up to the teeth and are always challenging other nations to draw them in new conflicts.
Lenin himself, in the first days of the Russian revolution, published this manifesto to his country, on November 2, 1917:
We have put an end not only to war but to militarism. We will give the Russian people an opportunity to know the happiness of a peaceful people having given up war and having no regular army.
If we consider the tremendous army which Russia now has, twenty years after that prediction was made, it is obvious that such pacifist and nihilist theories are nothing but empty words used to deceive the people and to make them forget the realities which they must constantly face.
I shall be very careful, Mr. Speaker, not to resort to such theories which bring about results quite different from those that are expected. I have no fear on behalf of Canada, should we organize a modest national army, even though no enemy might threaten us for the time being. On the contrary, I am convinced that such a small army would be a powerful factor of internal peace and one of the best means of developing among our people that spirit of national unity which we all wish to promote in our country. But that objective will only be reached on one condition, and I wish to give at once a warning to those who will be in command of our army, as well as to the Canadian people. The so-called national defence will be truly national only inasmuch as the various elements of our population and the two great races who live in this country are allotted a real and at least an equal share in it.
It is useless to conceal the fact that one of the obstacles to national unity in this country is the unequal division of responsibilities and advantages between the various races. If the province of Quebec looks distrustfully upon the increase in the defence estimates, the reason is not that the French-Canadians are less patriotic than others or that they refuse to assume their share of responsibility as regards the defence of our territory and of our liberties, but they demand the recognition of their efforts, of their sacrifices and of their almost age-long struggle to maintain the integrity of their country, and to ensure its development.
Therefore, if we admit that Canada, as a nation, should have her small army, let all

races without discrimination be invited to join its ranks, and especially the French-Canadians who have no other country but Canada which they pioneered. I firmly believe that as long as there remains a parcel of Canadian land to defend, a liberty to safeguard, and an institution to protect in this country, the French-Canadians will make it a point of glory and a duty to fight to the end.
As to the question of deciding whether our army should be equipped in such and such a way, whether we should have a navy, aircraft or war gas, I admit candidly that I am unfamiliar with these proposals. I also do not know whether 10, 15 or 20 million dollars would be excessive or insufficient to complete the organization of a modest national army, and on this point, like several other bon. members, I am reserving the right, when the estimates are taken up, to obtain the necessary information on which to base my opinion.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see where the increase in the defence estimates amount, in principle, to a declaration of war or to some kind of commitment to participate in foreign wars, which I would strongly oppose, should I be given such an opportunity. But the question is simply to decide whether Canada is to have her exclusively national army and if this army is to be equipped with modem weapons as found in every modern army.
Inasmuch as there is nothing else in view- and we have the positive assurance of the Minister of National Defence that such is the case-I am ready to support, in principle, the policy of the government, knowing that I am fulfilling a sacred duty to my country.
Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT Temis-couata) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I have before me Le Soleil of March 4, 1935, which reports an important speech made in Quebec by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) at a dinner tendered to our very good friend the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) in March 1935. On that occasion the hon. minister spoke as follows:
I shall repeat to-day what I have always said in my public speeches as well as in my private conversations, and this is intended especially for the young men who are anxious about reforms and changes: Urge reforms, ask for them but do so from within the ranks of the Liberal party which alone can carry them out, and not from without, that is in these new groups which cannot but divide the Liberal forces.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to put on record this statement which is quite in conformity with the Liberal principles as we all understand1 them. The discussion which has taken place to-day shows clearly that in

National Defence-Mr. Pouliot
our party we still enjoy the freedom of speech which was so dear to the old Liberals and which nobody can take away from us so long as the Liberal party will be worthy of its name.
The question that we are now discussing is a very important one and deserves our best attention. As usual, I would like to deal with it in a cool and moderate way.


Mr. MARTIN:: Hear, hear.


Mr. POULIOT:: There is one thing which has not been mentioned and which is very important, at least for the purpose of disposing of it, and that is what is commonly called red tape. If there ever was a department where red tape is in vogue it is in the Department of National Defence. I have before me an historical document of the utmost importance, namely, the 92 resolutions of 1834. The 45th resolution ends thus:
. . . listening rather to the governors and their advisers than to the people and their representatives, and shielding with their protection those who consumed the taxes rather than those who paid them.
In other words, in this year of grace 1937, which is the anniversary year of 1837 when the Canadians had to rise in revolt-and your ancestors were among them, Mr. Speaker,- to protect themselves against bureaucracy, this same bureaucracy is now more powerful in Ottawa than it was then. Since a century we have gone backwards. It is time to bring bureaucracy to order.
I always made a distinction, Mr. Speaker, between a real soldier and an actor. A real soldier is one who fought on the battlefields, but an actor is one who kept hiding twenty miles back of the front lines, or in England, or in Canada.
Such a man, Mr. Speaker, has no right to call himself a soldier; he is a common actor and perhaps he can deceive someone . . . I remember having seen and heard Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree, one of the greatest actors of England, in the part of Cardinal Wolsejr. His presence was imposing, his dress compelled respect, and he had a wonderful appearance, but nevertheless he had never been a prince of the church; he was only an actor. Mr. Speaker, we can apply the same comparison to all those who wear a military uniform and who have never gone to war. Once again it is not the cowl that makes the monk.
There is one thing that surprises me most and it is the statement that has been made in Montreal the day before yesterday by an honorary lieutenant-colonel. I have here a clipping from the Montreal Gazette, and I
see in the second section of that newspaper that Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel Ward C. Pitfield stated that the members who ridicule these furbelows were crazy. Well, sir, this individual who sold almost $50,000 worth of paints to the Tory administration in 1932 has a good war record. He did fine service at the front, and earned there his rank of captain, but he bought his title of honorary lieutenant-colonel. To-day he is surprised when we reproach him with making a show-off of a title which- he bought. Personally, I am wondering why he should put more value on what he bought than on what he actually earned. That reminds me of the man who got his head shaved and who thought that it was far more stylish to wear a red wig, and also that other man who had all the good teeth that Providence had given him, pulled out, to have false teeth instead. Mr. Pitfield prefers the artificial to the genuine thing. He would rather hare what he bought than what he earned and to me that is extraordinary.
I shall ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it six o'clock, and I shall resume later.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock we were talking about red tape. What is it? We find a lot of it in one of our most interesting publications, The Canada Gazette. I have in my hand several numbers of that valuable publication, and I am very much surprised to find that half of them are used in printing notices for the Department of National Defence. We have no army; yet we hear so much about it in this official publication.
I now hold in my hand the last number, and find in it a great deal about the staff of the Department of National Defence. It always speaks about promotions-prosperity in the Woods building. Promotions and other matters take up three pages and a half, in small text. Then there are general orders. They are easy to see, with titles in big, black letters. Then there is organization, disbandment, localization of units, and a lot of letters. These always come from H.Q.-headquarters-and refer to orders in council. Then there is more about promotion.
The number issued prior to the last one was just as interesting. In it we find a lot about the Department of National Defence, when it speaks about cavalry, infantry and

National Dejence-Mr. Pouliot
everything else. It is most interesting to read1 that, sir, and most important for the state to have all these promotions. Then, turning to the issue of January 30, we find some more stuff. Oh, yes, we find general orders again. These people in the Department of National Defence cannot learn warfare. They must 'be trying out their penmanship all the time. Everybody in that department, from the chief of staff to the last appointed stenographer, must also fee a typist. We hear a lot about that-most foolish; most stupid-and it continues like that.
This we call red tape. What is red tape? Red tape consists of a lot of formalities carried out just to show the importance of the one who performs them. Red tape is useless, but it is made use of for a purpose. It is carried out to show that the man who executes the formalities is the only man who could) do this so well. In the civil service my experience has been that the simplest things, the easiest to understand, are made the most difficult in order to show the ability and the wonderful genius of an ass. Hon. members laugh, but that is the case. Let us take the fellow who is stupid, and who cannot do anything well. He says, "I will make myself important." Then he assumes a solemn air, and attempts to convince his minister that he is the only being on earth who can do a certain thing. Sometimes he is believed; sometimes the officials do not see the ears of the ass. There is a lot of that, but I shall not insist upon it.
This is red tape. It is useless. I am sure the hon. members who moved and1 seconded the amendment know more about it than I do because they were in the army for a long time. It is perhaps because of that experience they have expressed themselves so eloquently in the matter of national defence. There are good men in that department. I know some who are very able, and I respect them because I am not a socialist or a communist. I am not against the army; the army is a very good thing; it is a necessity. But it should be an army, not a joke. Distinction should be made between the good and the bad.
Let us see the doubtful ones. Gentlemen, I happened to glance at the November issue of Seaports, from Surrey, England, and in it I saw the picture of a jovial beef-eater, Major B. D. C. Treat of Surrey, England, who arrived on the Antonia on October 4. It states, " He will spend some 'time in the Department of National Defence in Ottawa." I wonder how many notices he has drafted to be printed in the Canada Gazette. He has not stayed here long, but there is reference to him in Hansard, and I am not going to

read all that I have before me. What surprised me was that the Department of National Defence knew very little about his military experience. I asked the following question:
What was he doing in England before coming here?
And the answer:
From February 16, 1933, to December 31, 1935, officially listed as major instructor in gunnery, coast artillery school, Shoeburyness, England; otherwise unknown.
Then, the next question:
Previous to his coming here did he visit other parts of the British Empire, and if so, (a) in what capacity, and (b) where?
And the answer is:
Not known-but it is presumed that he did not.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) is a serious man, and a friend of mine. I am very much surprised that he did not get more information about the illustrious Major B. D. C. Treat who came from Surrey, England, to share his knowledge with the bloated colonials. But there is more to it than that. After having looked at Seaports, that wonderful weekly, I glanced through the telephone directory of the dominion government, and saw the numerous branches listed under the Department of National Defence. I had a hearty laugh, inside me of course, because I was alone at the time. Then it occurred to me that I would ask for information about people in the department who were real soldiers, and those who were just acting. At first the apparent length of the question surprised a few members, and I had to explain about the book which had given me cause to be a little curious about the matter, and to put my nose in the Department of National Defence; I hold it now. Sir, listen bo this: This is a resume of sessional paper 160 reference No. 41, babied on February 10.
It reads:
War Records of N. D. Department Staff
A questionnaire by J. F. Pouliot (Liberal, Temiscouata), as to the actual war experience and place of birth of the staff of the Department of National Defence was answered in a return tabled in the House of Commons yesterday by Secretary of State Rinfret.
Mr. Pouliot divided his classifications into those thirty-seven years and over, who served in an actual theatre of war, twenty miles behind the lines, in England or in Canada.
I wanted to be fair to those who were too young to enlist at the time of the war. I wanted to be fair to the younger men employed in the Department of National Defence. I did not want to be hard on them.

National Defence-Mr. Pouliot
The article continues:
He learned there are 95 officers and 215 other ranks in the department 37 years of age or older, and 34 officers and 377 men younger than 37. Then, dealing with those 37 and over, he found there were 68 officers and 119 men who had served in the line in an actual theatre of war; 4 officers and 9 men who had been stationed farther than twenty miles behind the fighting line; 9 officers and 18 men who had been stationed in England; 14 officers and 60 men who did not leave Canada on active service overseas.
Of the total departmental staff, 92 officers and 345 men were born in Canada; 37 officers and 246 men were born outside Canada.
At the time the return was tabled, one had gone home, which made it one less.
Could we not have Canadians filling, not only the humble posts but the more eminent positions in the Department of National Defence? I am proud of my fellow citizens and I believe that an English or Frenchspeaking Canadian is just as good as an Englishman from the old country. I am very much surprised to find that after so many years since the British officers and men left this country Canada has taken a step backwards. We find that one-half of the staff of the Department of National Defence is made up of men who are not Canadians. These figures have nothing to do with the non-commissioned officers as another return to be tabled later will cover those men. I wonder whether among those who stayed twenty miles behind the fighting line or those who, while serving in the Canadian army, stayed in England or Canada, there are not some who did so in order that they might avoid going to the front ? I shall have more to say about this later on. I want to know if there are cowards in the Canadian army, if there are in the department men who have done their best to stay away from the front.
There are not only those in the Department of National Defence who have not had practical experience in war; there are others who are on parade as honorary colonels and honorary lieutenant-colonels. The list of these officers is tremendous, and many of them are honorary colonels of three regiments which have been disbanded. One man has been praised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) just as though he were dead. This gentleman is a general and has been knighted, and I wonder whether he is praised because of his title. I am very much surprised that the 87th regiment of Calgary is not a disbanded regiment. I have many more particulars I could read, but I shall not do so at this time.
This strikes me as being a great joke at the expense of the people and at the ex-31111-60
pense of our dead. These men take advantage of their wealth in order to parade in a uniform which they were too cowardly to wear during the war. I do not blame anyone for not enlisting; every man is free either to join the army or not to join, but when a man wears a uniform he should have more behind it than the fact that his bank roll is fat. A man has no right to parade like an actor in the uniform of an honorary officer. I am not being personal about this matter as my remarks apply to every one of these honorary colonels and honorary lieutenant-colonels, whose names appear on this official return of the House of Commons. It would be just as easy to have a drum-major twirl his stick in front of a regiment as to have it led by an honorary lieutenant-colonel. At one time there was a crank who used to cover his chest with tin in the belief that he was an emperor. The same thing applies to these honorary colonels and lieutenant-colonels-they are just covered with tin.
There is another marvellous matter to which I should like to refer. The previous government decided that those who fought in the armies of the countries allied with His Majesty during the war were entitled to preference over Canadian citizens when being considered for civil service positions. I asked if the government had any information as to whether those countries which were allied with His Majesty during the war gave the same privilege to Canadian citizens in connection with their civil service. Was the answer yes or no? It was worse than that; it was "no information." When the previous government was in power, the Secretary of State of that time (Mr. Cahan) submitted to the house legislation which gave preference to those who were not our fellow-citizens simply because they had fought in the armies of countries allied with His Majesty. That was pretty hard to accept.
I now come to something delightful, something which is like an oasis in the desert. If there is one decoration which is not the cover of a can, it is the efficiency medal. Is that not delightful-efficiency? It is an American word, signifying one who is efficient, who is able, who has in his hand the key of success. One who is efficient is worthy of confidence, of approval, of respect. So let me quote from our esteemed contemporary, the Ottawa Journal. It announces in its issue of July 11, 1936, "Military awards in Ottawa and district." Mr. Speaker, be careful I Mr. Clerk -I cannot address him, but he must be careful ; so must the assistant clerk, lest they fall from their chairs. Listen, and be careful 1

National Defence-Mr. Pouliot
The efficiency decoration is bestowed by this government on various men. And who is the most efficient -man in Canada?
The Eight Honourable E. B. Bennett is among the many Canadians receiving military decorations in a list made public on Friday by officials of the Department of National Defence.
Mr. Bennett is honorary colonel of the Calgary Highlanders and has been awarded the Canadian efficiency decoration.
There is efficiency! I never knew that before, and I am surprised that the right hon. gentleman does not wear his medal and does not carry with him all his degrees of LL.D. honoris causa.
What is a medal? The great Napoleon has said, "C'est avec des hochets qu'on mene les hommes"-a great saying of a great emperor who had a deep knowledge of the human heart. I shall never forgive the Minister of National Defence for having pinned that efficiency decoration on the lapel of the leader of the opposition. But time 'flies; let us speak about efficiency. There are also other efficient people. Last year I drew the attention of this house to the fact that if Colonel Steel had been returned to the Department of National Defence and granted the pension to which he was entitled, he would have had one-half of what he now receives. I complain about that.
Now, with regard to economy. Would it not be better to return General McNaughton to the Department of National Defence at a pension of $4,800 a year and replace him at the head of the National Research Council by a really efficient Canadian and a very eminent man who has been a benefactor to the race of mankind; I refer to Doctor Banting, the discoverer of insulin. McNaughton receives $15,000. His salary should be reduced to one cent. But if Banting were appointed to that position, I would be ready to vote $25,000, $50,000, even $100,000, to permit him to continue his scientific experiments in the interests of humanity. We are not stingy; we are ready to vote money provided that it serves the purpose for which it is voted. I am ready to vote money to rebuild the Moose Jaw armoury which was burned the day before last. It is a useful expenditure. But the objects for which we are to vote must be disclosed to us.
In my opinion this motion is premature, although it serves a good purpose. I find it premature because I want to get some more information about the wide distribution of medals and titles and the real efficiency of the officers and men of the department before deciding whether I shall vote for or against

the next estimates. I want information. But I will tell the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) that his motion has been useful. It has been the occasion of a free exchange of views with regard to the very important matter of national defence. I do not know what I might have done had his motion not been twofold, but as it is, I shall not vote for the program of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation until its leader answers the fifty-five questions that I put to him in February, 1933.
I have only five minutes more, and I shall try to use them as well as I can. We have been told that communism is a menace to this country. I do not know that we are entitled to go as far -as that. It may become a menace if we continue to give absurd salaries to some members of the civil service who do nothing, when others who wo-rk are not well enough paid. Take, for instance, McNaughton's salary of $15,000 as head of the National Research Council; it is a provocation to those who suffer hunger; so is the salary of MacBrien, and so are other salaries which are in excess of $10,000. There should be a reduction in that regard, with the exception perhaps of the chief justice. I do -not know of any civil servant who is worth more than $10,000. Not only that, but some others have recourse to tricks in order to increase their salaries. They do not have a flat salary of $15,000, they have apparently $10,000 -or $11,000 -or $12,000, and they have also some other gratuities or bonuses. That is a shame.
I do not wish to see the federal government carrying on the fight against communism. Why? Because it is the duty of the provinces to do so. It is the obligation of the provinces to maintain order within their borders. Therefore I am much concerned about the intrusion of the dominion government in provincial business, and the more so because to-day I have heard the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) express some opportune views regarding the distribution of taxes in order that the federal government, the provinces -and the municipalities should remain within their prescribed limits and be independent of each other.
Great dangers result from distributing -money too freely. Our votes would not be so high if Fullerton had not received $30,000, and if Hector Charlesworth had not been granted $6,000 purely as a gratuity, which he did not deserve. Either those two men were competent or they were not. If they were competent they should be in office now; they should not have been put out-, and if they were -incompetent they were not entitled to

National Defence-Mr. Factor
any award at the expense of the taxpayers. This matter is very serious, as we all know, and for my part I am ready to do anything that is essential for the defence of the country. But if there is an increase in the estimates, I do hope that when any member recommends an honest citizen of his constituency who desires voluntarily to enlist to defend the country, the doors of the Department of National Defence will not be closed against him and that he will have an opportunity to serve his country, especially when there are people from outside receiving fair salaries and bonuses while our own people are on relief. This should stop at once. The Department of National Defence, before being reorganized, should be ventilated; the windows should be opened and the cobwebs brushed away, and there should be a general clean-up in the department to show that bureaucracy is about to die. There are enough good soldiers in the Department of National Defence; let them use their guns to kill bureaucracy and they will serve the country very well.


Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Spadina):: I
hope the hon. member who preceded me will pardon me if I do not follow him along the same line. I do not possess his fluency of speech or his sense of humour, nor am I industrious enough to make such an analytical research in the National Defence department as he has done. But may I say in a word that perhaps the officers of our Department of National Defence compare very favourably with the officers of departments of national defence of other countries.
In the last few days I have received hundreds, yes, literally hundreds of communications from my own constituency opposing the increase in the estimates of the Department of National Defence. Let me give a sample of the literature which I have received from my own constituents. This morning I received postal cards a sample of which reads:
As a citizen in your constituency I urge you to oppose any increase in military expenditures.
I may say for the information of the house that I have tried carefully to peruse the names signed on these cards, and I can assure hon. members that the great majority of the communications come, not from communists or wild-eyed radicals but from responsible citizens. The majority of them come, not from men of foreign origin but from men of good Anglo-Saxon stock. I have also received a number of letters from ministers of the gospel, professors of the university of Toronto, students, women's organizations, and presidents of home and school clubs, all
opposing the increase in the expenditures of the Department of National Defence, looking upon it as a preparation for war, as an entiy of Canada into a race for armaments of war. This is all very disturbing and confusing.
Possibly because of the influence exerted by a depression psychology it is the easiest thing in the world at the present time to foment the public mind into a frenzy to look upon problems not in their true perspective but from an extreme standpoint, and I assume that if I were following the line of least resistance I would stand here and utter a strong indictment against the government and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). If I wanted to curry political popularity in my own constituency, and particularly in certain sections of my constituency, I would strongly condemn the government. Furthermore, if I were of opinion that the increase of a few million dollars in the estimates of the department meant the entry of our country into a race for armaments, meant the imitation of some of the European countries in their mad race toward war; if for a moment I thought that the increase in the estimates meant the precipitation of our country into a European war, I would not hesitate, party allegiance or not, party loyalty or not, to rise in my place in the house and condemn the government for increasing the estimates.
But let Us analyze the increase for a moment and see what it does mean. I strongly deprecate the great confusion that has been created in this debate. I deprecate this full-dress debate because it has led merely to a confusion in the public mind. For instance, this afternoon we heard some admirable speeches condemning war. Let me ask this house: Is there an hon. member who will not agree wholeheartedly that war is cruel, brutal and futile, that war destroys not only the vanquished but the victor as well? Is there an hon. member who will not agree that an enormous economic loss amounting to billions of dollars was incurred in the last war and that there was also enormous loss of life among our own Canadians, the flower of our manhood being destroyed, sacrificed on the altar of war?
I believe the opinion is unanimous that Canada should not be entangled in any kind of war. I hate to visualize the next war. Let me read a short paragraph from an address delivered in Toronto by General Pouderoux, a famous French soldier. He says:
The social consequences of a new war would be absolutely catastrophic. They would bring belligerent nations right back to savagery without any accompanying profit to neutral nations,

National Defence-Mr. Factor
who in turn would have to defend themselves against an infection of world wide corruption, similar to any other contagious epidemic.
In this world of shattered nations, demoralized and deprived of all their resources, the peoples of the earth would fall into utter misery and utter barbarism. Their place in history would be like that of the mutilated veterans and beggars in our own nation. They would have to live off the neutral countries who could not very well refuse to keep them from actual annihilation.
Any political regime which contributed to the outbreak of war itself or was not sufficiently energetic in opposing it would not be able to stand against popular movements born of discouragement, indignation, terror or the profound distress of the civilian population. In any future war involving, as it would, non-combatants as well as combatants, governments would have to reckon with the probability of violent and sudden popular disorders. An iron rule imposed by the sheer gravity of events, and by the difficulty of distributing food supplies, would have to be hastily set up in the general chaos of terror and misery.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Does the hon. gentleman tell the house that General Pouderoux favours armaments as preventing the thing he depicts?


Samuel Factor: No; General Pouderoux
does not favour any armaments or any war, nor does any member of this house favour armaments and war. There is not one member of the government, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) down, who favours armaments and war.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then why the increase in the estimate?


Samuel Factor: Nor does anyone favour
the present condition of the world. We are living in a crazy world, a world in which established things and institutions are being upset. I certainly do not favour armaments of war, any more than I favour the dictatorships of Hitler or Mussolini or Stalin. I do not favour armaments of war because armaments of war lead to war. If I thought for a moment that the Prime Minister of this country and the Minister of National Defence are foisting upon this country a policy of armaments of war, I should be the first to rise in my place and oppose that policy. But, knowing as I do the contributions that our Prime Minister made to the promotion and development of industrial peace, knowing the contribution that he has made to the improvement of social and economic conditions, knowing as I do the experience that our Minister of National Defence had in war, I say to hon. members that these two hon. gentlemen are the last persons on earth to foist a policy of armaments of war on this dominion.

I am as much an idealist as the hon. member who interrupted me. But I am sorry to say that we are not living in an idealistic world at present. I deplore, as I said, the dictatorships in Europe; I deplore as well the fact that in our own country race hatreds are being created and fomented. I deplore the general instability of the present time. But we must face facts. We live in a realistic world. I d;o not for a moment consider the increase of $13,000,000 in the estimates for national defence a preparation for war. Let me ask hon. members; let me ask the mover or the seconder of this amendment-and I am not doubting their sincerity-are they prepared to advocate the total abolition of the Department of National Defence? Would they be prepared to say that this country under present world conditions should not vote a single dollar for national defence? Certainly not. Let me ask them then. If we are to have some policy of national defence, why not have an adequate policy? We must remember that we are not living in the horse and buggy days of twenty-five or thirty years ago. Business, agriculture, science have progressed; in every sphere of business activity we seek to use the most modern methods. So my argument is that if a policy of national defence is necessary, in all common sense let us have an up to date policy. Let us have equipment which is modern and fit to cope with eventualities which we may have to face. Modernizing our present equipment is the purpose of this increase. I cannot see why it is called' an increase or an expansion of our national defence; it is simply for the purpose of modernizing our defence equipment and bringing it up to date. Its purpose is to provide modern aircraft equipment and some naval equipment. If world conditions improve, and if in a year or two from now we can attain to that idealistic state of peace among all men, the $6,000,000 worth of equipment for our aerial defence can easily be converted to peace-time purposes. The hundred' or so aircraft can easily be converted to peaceful uses, providing for an effective transcontinental air service across Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: They will be out of date then; new ones will have to be 'built.


Samuel Factor: Well, if we have to build new ones we shall build them. The major portion of this $6,000,000 is for the construction of modern aerial defences. Let us have at least sufficiently equipped defences, and for this I have to take the word of our own minister and of those qualified to know, that

National Defence-Mr. Gardiner
the amount voted will bring into being a small, compact but effective machine which will be able to defend Canada-yes perhaps, if necessary, to cooperate with other countries of the world in time of peril and of need. I deplore the necessity of even talking about ammunition and anti-aircraft guns and war equipment, I should like to see the old prophetic dream realized, that men should beat their swords into ploughshares and1 their spears into pruning hooks. Unfortunately at the present time we are not living in such idealistic days. Would any hon. member tell me that if we wiped out entirely our vote for national defence, this would in any way promote international peace, would in any way encourage these mad dogs in Europe to pursue policies of peace? If we scrapped every bit of equipment contemplated in the present estimates, would this in any way give a lead towards international peace? If I thought it would I should be the first to say so. We have to go through this period of transition. As mentioned by other speakers, in this world at the present time it is not merely nation conflicting with nation, there are two ideas clashing. As far as I am concerned, as a Canadian I stand ready to defend those democratic and free institutions which are so near and dear to my heart against dictatorships. I am ready to maintain in the British Empire at least those institutions which make no distinction between class and class, between race and race, between religion and religion, those institutions which do not oppress minorities, which do not de-class people because of their religion or their race. I am ready to defend those institutions because it is only through them and only by readiness to defend them that we can hope to attain that ideal which Tennyson envisioned, in which-

the war drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle flags were furl'd
In the parliament of man, the federation of the world.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: Mr. Speaker, when this debate commenced yesterday, it was not my intention to address the house, since I thought in all probability the debate would be concluded before it became necessary for me to be absent from the house for a number of days. In order that there may be no mistake as to my views with regard to this question, however, I think it necessary for me to say a few words at this time.
One reason why I consider it necessary to speak on this matter is the fact that I am Minister of Agriculture in the government of Canada and as such I am at least supposed
to be representative of that great mass of people living on the farms of Canada who are looked upon as the most peace-loving people in the country, though personally I may not be as peace-loving as some. In the second place, Mr. Speaker, I am the only member of the government living in that great expanse of territory which stretches from the city of Winnipeg to the city of Vancouver.
I do not pretend to be able to speak for the people who live in that section of the dominion on this or any other particular question for any particular length of time. I know that public opinion in Canada with regard to most questions changes more or less from day to day, certainly from week to week' and sometimes very greatly from month to month and from year to year. On a question such as that of war and peace there is perhaps a more rapid change of opinion than with regard to any other question which might be discussed. It would be absolutely impossible for me to tell the house at this time what would be the attitude of the people of Canada if another war were declared. All the circumstances surrounding the declaration of war would have to be known at the time that decision was reached, and in discussing this matter at this time we can consider, only in an academic way, the attitude which might be taken by the people under any condition of war. After all probably that would not get us very much further than some general conclusions with regard to war and peace.
I agree with the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Factor), who has just spoken, when he says that this is not an occasion upon which to discuss war or the attitude of different members of the house as to the question of peace. We all believe in peace. We would all like to promote peace and to see the world continuously engaged in the pursuits of peace. But most of us know, either from experience or from the reading of history, that it always has been very difficult to maintain the world in a state of peace for any considerable length of time. Perhaps there was no other period in world history when, considered as a whole, the world was so completely at peace as it was during the hundred years between 1815 and 1915. It is true that we had wars in that period, of time, but their influences upon the human race were more or less restricted. At the beginning of that period, however, we had one of the great world1 wars and at the end of the period we had the last great war. If I were seeking for a reason for the lack of great world wars in the period I have mentioned, I might find it in the fact that the North American continent was being opened up largely during that century. Peoples were
950	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Gardiner
able to find an outlet from the more thickly settled portions of the world, where difficulties always arise because of the trouble people have in obtaining the food, clothing and shelter they require in order to maintain themselves.
We are approaching another period of difficulty, and one of my reasons for desiring to speak on this question, coming as I do from western Canada, is a thought that was placed upon Hansard yesterday. Anyone who is a student of composition or of speech knows that the proper place to put the thing you want to put over is in the last paragraph of the composition or the speech. You want to get into that paragraph something that will strike the eye and compel the attention of anyone who reads. On page 891 of Hansard I find these words, spoken by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who comes from the very centre of the area of which I have been speaking:
I am convinced, therefore, that if we in Canada are to progress we must stand clear of this mad race for armaments which can lead only to war. On the other hand, if this house decides that we are going to prepare for war, then I submit that those who believe we should prepare, should bring down proposals which are in line with that preparedness. I would not support them, but I maintain that the next war will be a chemical war, a war of scientists, and under the conditions which are likely to exist, our government, if it is going to prepare for war at all, should do it as economically and as efficiently as possible. Call in the best scientists you have in the country, chemists and others, and let them prepare the most horrible gases they can think of. Let them assemble the most terrible germs of the type the nations will use, and let them prepare adequately for the real war that they foreshadow-
Who foreshadows it?
-in the future. And as for our young men, as my colleague from Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) has said, we should care for their physique and health for, after all, in any form of defence we need well-nurtured, well-developed bodies. As far as I am concerned, however, I oppose such war preparations. I oppose war because I do not believe in war, and I conscientiously object to it. But there is another thing that I believe, and it is this: when people talk about the inevitability of war, at any rate let them not say that participation in war is a Christian duty.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if talking about the inevitability of war, the dreadfulness of war and the destruction caused by war will have anything to do with the promotion of war, I do not know any paragraph that could do more in that direction than the paragraph I have just read. No one in this house has said that there is going to be another war or that Canada will be in it. Certainly that has not been said by the Minister of National

Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) or by the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) in any speech he has delivered during this or the previous session with regard to this question. Certainly no other minister of the government and certainly no hon. member on this side of the house has declared he is convinced there is going to be a war, that Canada is going to be in it, or that it is necessary to prepare for it. Why this statement:
I am convinced, therefore, that if we in Canada are to progress we must stand clear of this mad race for armaments which can lead only to war.
Then the hon. member proceeds to say that if the government is going to prepare for a modern war, certain methods ought to be followed. No person in the house has suggested anything about preparing for war. But in considering a question as important as this, I think we ought to know something about the causes of war throughout the ages. Every hon. member must agree with me when I say that if we look back over the pages of history we shall find that the one inevitable cause of war in the past has been that some people have not had sufficient room in which to maintain homes and families in ordinary comfortable circumstances. Whenever they have found themselves in that position they have sought to find new territories in which to settle their families. Sometimes they have found others in possession, and have attempted to drive them off, with war as the result.
What I want to say in that connection is this: We happen to be a people living in one of the most sparsely settled countries in the world. We are a people confronted with conditions similar to those which prevailed in Europe at the beginning of the last century, over a hundred years ago. We are a people who have had the experience of settlement in the last century throughout the United States, Canada and the South American continent. Yet if anybody goes into western Canada today, or in fact into any part of Canada and talks about taking some of the people from the overcrowded countries of Europe, even though those people be from British countries, bringing them over here and settling them on some of the sparsely settled lands in western or eastern Canada, the first people to complain are the group to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar belongs.
In that connection I want to say that if we are going to settle ware, if we are going to stop wars, we must grapple with them at their source, and deal with great world problems which are the fundamental causes of ware. In other words, there will have to be

National Defence

Mr. Gardiner
some movement in the population of the world. The history of mankind has shown that when any race of man, black, yellow, white or brown, is confronted with the alternative of starvation or fighting, it fights. I have no doubt that will continue to be a characteristic of the human race for a long time -to come. In other words, if we are going to prevent wars we must think of a solution for problems not only within Canada but throughout the world. We cannot adopt a "Canada First" policy; it cannot be one which is confined to narrow ideals with respect to the trade of Canada alone. It must be a policy which takes in the world, and eventually we shall reach a point where people will think of conditions from a world point of view rather than from the narrow nationalistic standpoint.
There is -another phase of the matter about which I think we should say something. In some years out in western Canada we produce as high as 500.000,000 bushels of wheat. In an average year we produce enough wheat to feed 30.000,000 people. Yet in that part of the country we have only between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 people, and not all those are employed in production. I should like to suggest: It is all very well to say that we have food piled up, and that we do not know what to do with it. After all we can consume only so much wheat in a diet. Even if they made wheat their sole article of diet those two or three million people could eat only so much of it. Whether we like it or not, we could pile that wheat as high as an elevator, go and siit on it all night when the temperature is forty degrees below zero and, although we did not need to be hungry, we would be frozen stiff in the morning, and would be just as long dead as if we had been hungry.
There are two sides to the question. The people in western Canada cannot live on wheat alone. Last summer for the first time I visited the central part of Great Britain, that densely settled strip of country between Liverpool and London, and I realized that those people cannot produce even a percentage of what they must eat. I sat in a -room with a young man who had served in the last war. He began by asking me questions about conditions in Europe, and wound up by asking me why I had gone to London in the first instance, instead of coming to Manchester. " Well," I said, " I went there because I thought there were more people in London, and because the centre of government was there." His answer was this: "Do you know you are sitting in the centre of an area which, within a radius of fifty miles, contains more people than -are to be found within a fiftymile radius of any point in the city of London." I said, "I did not know that; I have not studied your geography." " Well," he said, "that is a fact." I calculated in my mind, knowing from what I had heard in London, that there are about eleven million people in London -and the district immediately surrounding, and it would seem there is an equal number in Manchester and its immediate surroundings; we must add the great numbers of people in between those districts, and arrive at the teeming millions to be found in that great industrial area. Then we might transfer ourselves to France, where the fighting was done, stand on the monument at Vimy Ridge and look down upon the thousands upon thousands of people in the cities across the plain on which men fought in time of war. We might go up into Scotland and look at the area between Edinburgh and Glasgow; in fact we might go throughout the world and see the great masses of population in the industrial districts, or at the foot of the Himalayas and at the foot of the Alps. We could then come back to this house and talk about maintaining peace merely by saying we are going to keep Canada to ourselves, not only by occupation of it but in matters of trade and everything else. When our friends from the west sitting in small groups want to solve -our difficulties they will go -over to Europe, pick up some system of quotas, some system of price setting, some system of production of foodstuffs established there in order that men and women may be fed in time of war; they will transfer them into this peaceful country, and in that way try to settle all our problems.
We get too much of this kind of thing in western Canada; we hear it in all parts of Canada. We hear the kind of argument and kind of thought expressed1 in the last paragraph of the hon. member's speech. I want to say that this kind of argument in western Canada should cease. We should build the future -of that country-yes, upon that doctrine of Christian love mentioned, if you like, in the last phrase of the speech, *a doctrine which would make room in this old world for the people in some sections of it who are now pressed into such small areas that they cannot exist. That is one of our difficulties.
It has been indicated to us that some things have already been arranged to take care of the future for us. We are told that we need not worry, because the United States is alongside our borders. We are told that we have a great mother country which has always been friendly; that we need not worry, because if she finds herself in trouble we may make up
952	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Gardiner
our minds as to what we want to do. I am one who believes, with Cartier, that the last gun fired in Canada in defence of British institutions in Canada will be fired by a French-Canadian. He asks, "why?" and then he answers his own question by saying, "because they have enjoyed peace, progress and prosperity under British rule in such eminent degree that no change of allegiance could benefit them." That is the reason why people remain loyal to their countries without any coercion. That is the reason why we have a great empire. That is the reason why we are all proud of our empire. That is the reason why we Shall be in this empire as long as there is a British Empire to belong to. But this does not mean that there always will be a British Empire if we sit back and say that we are going to depend upon someone else to look after our welfare. Empires are not maintained in that way; institutions of government are not maintained in that way and the ideals in which people believe are not maintained in that way. Ideals, institutions of government and empires worth saving are saved by men and women standing up for the ideals in which they believe and maintaining those institutions along with other people and in cooperation with them.
In so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned, our future will be in the British Empire. Let us examine our position for a moment to see under what circumstances we would be possessed of the greater independence. Where would we find ourselves with our millions of bushels of wheat in the central prairies, with our cattle on the plains from one end of the country to the other, with our minerals being mined in our mines from one end of the dominion to the other and with our forests turning out lumber products required in all countries of the world; where would we find ourselves with no defences at all in our ports, no mine sweepers on the St. Lawrence or on the Pacific coast, no protection whatever? If Great Britain were at war and we were in a situation of that kind and did not go into the war and we desired to sell her our food, our minerals and our lumber, her ships would have to come to our ports, not ships to carry freight, but her ships to protect that freight; they would have to come to Quebec or perhaps to Montreal, and the first ship that sailed into either of those harbours or into the gulf of St. Lawrence would put this country into war whether we liked it, or not. Either that or every bushel of grain we had in Canada, every beeve we had in Canada and every munition we had in Canada, our minerals and our lumber, would be shut in behind closed doors at the mouth of the St. Lawrence, or at our other ports.
	'
I doubt very much whether we shall be able to do all that the minister thinks we ought to do with the few mine sweepers he proposes; I doubt very much whether we shall be able to do all that he thinks we ought to do with the few destroyers we shall have; I doubt very much whether we shall be able to do all that he thinks we ought to do with the few aeroplanes we shall have, but at least it is doing something. We are at least telling the world that we shall deliver our freight to the three mile limit. If it is delivered to the three mile line, then no one can say that they must come in after it. If they do not have to come in after it, we shall be in a far more independent position to say whether or not we are going to declare war. For that reason I say that in so far as we as a government are backing up the minister in the position he has taken up to date, we are merely putting ourselves into a position of independence within the British Empire where we can at least talk on an equal footing.
No,	it will not be	an	equal footing,because after all, even when we spend what it is suggested we should spend this year, we are spending only one dollar per capita for every	ten dollars they	are	spending.	Weare certainly not on the same	footing.Let us proceed a little further. Let us suppose that everybody did stand back and when it was all over, this empire, of which we think so much, was no more. We would have but one choice, if we had provided ourselves with sufficient forces to keep ourselves outside the war, and provided no one would	attack us when	the	war was	over,
for the time being we could declare ourselves to bo an independent nation. But is there any one in this house who believes that would bring our defence costs below what we are considering to-day? Supposing we found ourselves in that position? Every port in the dominion would be open then as it is open now.
One of my hon. friends-I think it was the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson)- said this afternoon that we did not need to worry as the United States would not permit anyone to establish himself on the northern half of the North American continent, even though we were in a position where they could come in because of what might have happened to Great Britain. I suggest that that brings us dangerously near to the position in which Belgium found herself at the outbreak of the last war. We would not be allowed, it is true, to leave open the ports on the northern half of this continent; we would not be allowed, it is true, to leave open the ports along the Pacific because they would

National Defence-Mr. Boulanger
be an inlet to this continent. We, as an independent nation, would protect those ports in so far as it was possible to protect them. In order to do that we would have to go a great deal further than we have to go to-day as an associate in the empire to which we belong.
If we found ourselves in that position, what good would it do us to say that we had a great friendly neighbour to the south? The very fact that they were friendly and the very fact that we had neglected our own house would compel them to insist in self defence that we protect that long coast line which has remained unguarded for over a hundred years because of the peace that has existed between us. They would be compelled to take that action in order to prevent other nations which might be dangerous to them securing a footing in this country. That would not lessen our burden, that would not lessen our costs; that would not put us in any better position as a country; that would not make us more independent. Our position then would not be as enviable as the position we are in to-day.
I think I have said sufficient to indicate to the house that I am going to support the estimates which have been brought down by the Minister of Defence (Mr. Mackenzie, Vancouver). If the government of Canada has done anything at all in this matter of which we might complain, I think it has waited just a little too long. I do not intend to be too critical in saying that as we have been going through some very difficult times. Before I rose to speak this evening I was looking through an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen this morning and which pointed out the costs of that very difficult period. These costs were reckoned in dollars, which are perhaps too material to be the only factor considered, but there is also the human suffering. This suffering perhaps has not been as great as the human suffering during the war, but there has been intense suffering on the part of women and children and most of the men who went to war did so to preserve their women and children from suffering.
We have had suffering since the war. There are difficulties in peace time as well as in time of war; we have experienced many of them in the last few years. But it seems to me that Canada can best hold her head up among the nations of the world, as a great independent nation within the British commonwealth of nations, as a great peaceful neighbour of the United States, as one of the largest food producers in the world, by going on to produce food, by striving to maintain her people in as great security as she possibly can, and by seeing to it that we can deliver our food and other products out at least to the line for which we are responsible. Our function as a people is for the time being that of a great producer of food. And I may say this in conclusion: Food is needed in time of peace almost as much as in time of war. In war you cannot get along without it, and in peace time you cannot exist without it very long. We in Canada have that food in trust. We can satisfy that trust only in one of two ways, either by distributing our production as freely as possible to the peoples of the world and getting in return at least a little more than the cost of production, or by bringing people here to enjoy it with us. Our opportunity to produce food was not given to us for our benefit alone; it was given to us for the benefit of all the world. Mr. Speaker, I shall oppose the amendment.
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Belle-chasse) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I have followed with a great deal of attention the present discussion since the beginning, and I have come to a conclusion that must have been arrived at by everybody. There are more points on which we all agree than there are on which opinions differ. For instance, nobody wants war, as we are all hoping for peace. The whole population is against war preparedness and opposed to Canada's participation in any foreign war. Every citizen is against the race for armaments and1 deplores the loss of human lives and the property damage that has befallen Canada as a result of the last war. Nobody would like to see that occur again; there is unanimity on this point. Public opinion is in favour of Canada having an army and a navy of her own proportionate to her resources. I do not think there is a single person who would like to do away entirely with the defence estimates. So there only remains one point on which the hon. members of this house do not agree; it is the question of determining whether we should include in the defence estimates the same expenditures as last year or spend a little more.


Mr. DENIS:: That is all.


Mr. BOULANGER:: If I were not a poor countryman who can hardly visualize what millions really are, I would say that we are discussing for nothing, or merely to find out if we should spend $13,000,000 in defence estimates instead of $12,999,999.99.
In fact, we are discussing a question of degree, as to what limit we should go in these defence expenditures, or the amount we can reasonably afford for national defence.
954	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Boulanger
I am not an expert on military tactics nor on questions of national defence; but at the last election, the people of Canada have entrusted the government to men who are supposed, to be better informed than I or the other laymen. The Canadian people placed confidence in them for the administration of public affairs and I shall do so also until I am satisfied that such confidence was misplaced. Our present administrators have proven in the past that they were good Canadians, or citizens who. had but one thought: that of serving their country. So long as it is not clearly shown that their attitude has changed altogether overnight, I will trust them and continue to give them my support in questions of public administration, of national defence, and1 when the question of determining what is needed for the efficient protection and defence of our national1 territory comes up.
I claim that the government, on this national defence issue, is absolutely in the same position as a farmer, merchant or manufacturer who has gone through the depression and who during that period, did his utmost to keep his farm; his business or his manufacture. During the depression, they had to curtail all expenses, effect every possible economy, allow their equipment to depreciate, their stock to be exhausted', and forego all necessary repairs to their farms or buildings. Now that the hard times are over, the farmer, the merchant and the manufacturer will make the necessary expenditures for repairs and maintenance that they were prevented from making owing to depression.
The hon. the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) told us last night that during the depression his department was forced to effect similar costly reductions and retrenchments in the expenses that we all had to make dtiring that period, and that as a result of such economy, our army and navy were in a deplorable condition; also that the time had come to spend vast sums of money in order to re-equip them and place them on a basis of efficiency. The hon. Minister of Defence is only doing what all the owners, manufacturers and farmers will do as soon as the return of prosperity will permit. It is quite obvious that if we were to overlook completely our national defence, do away with our army and navy and the defence estimates, this would entail a debate, as a question of principle would be involved. But I fail to see in this discussion any principle involved, as everybody agrees on the subject of preserving our national defence and in stating that Canada should provide for her own

defence within our means and as necessity warrants.
Since it has become necessary to maintain a Canadian army and navy and to do something towards the defence of Canada, we must act like businessmen, like prudent and good administrators. If we do not spend enough to keep our army and navy in a state of efficiency, the expenditures for that purpose, however slight they might be, will be useless. If we want these amounts to be effective, if we want this country "to have value for its money," according to the commercial dictum, we must spend whatever sum is necessary.	,
Reference has been made during the debate to the so-called peregrinating imperialists; they have been blamed for all sorts of things, and reproached with having lacked discretion and having come here to meddle with affairs in which they were not concerned. There is only one thing for which they have not been blamed-'and perhaps they should have been -it is machiavellism. I am under the impression that these individuals came expressly to Canada for the purpose of meddling with affairs in which they were not concerned. May be they said that Canadians were so sensitive that the best way to have them do what they wanted was to ask exactly for the opposite. Probably their method of reasoning was as follows: If we tell the Canadians that they should organize their defence, that they should do such and such thing for the navy, for the air force, and for the army, it is the best way to prevent them from doing so. Possibly they have been guided by the old principles, so dear to the heart of Englishmen of another era and that present-day Englishmen still follow, that the colonies, or call them dominions-to them it amounts to the same thing-offer a potential supply of raw materials, men and money for the metropolis. And what confirms me in that impression is the account given by the Canadian Press of a speech delivered on February 5 of this year by Sir Samuel Hoare, in which I find the following significant sentence:
Speaking at a dinner of the Bradford chamber of commerce, Sir Samuel stated the sister states of the empire would find any system of isolated local defence extravagant and inefficient.
This conveys to me the impression that possibly the metropolis is not anxious to see the dominions or the colonies set up their own national defence system. And it seems to me as though the metropolis would probably prefer to see Canada contribute men and money to the mother country in order to assist her in her future wars.

National Defence-Mr. Boulanger
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the best way to destroy that impression which may be in the minds of these gentlemen in the mother country, and to dismiss completely their idea that Canada is just a potential supply of materials, men, and money, would be to set up our own defence, within our territory, and according to Canada's needs and resources. Once our defence is thus organized, should we be asked later for men or some contribution, we shall be in a position to tell the mother country: Deal with your war in Europe as you see fit; we shall look after our own country, our own defence; we shall keep our men and our financial resources for the protection of our own nation; we shall preserve all our national resources solely for the defence of Canada and we will not participate in any scheme of national defence other than by making our own Canadian territory secure.
Mr. Speaker, in the course of this discussion, two small European countries have been mentioned whose position would be similar to that of Canada, namely Switzerland and Sweden. However, there is an enormous difference between the position of our dominion and that of these two countries. Instead of being situated in Europe, Canada, thank God, is in America. But these two other countries are about of equal strength and power with our dominion. Like Canada they are peace loving nations; they have been at peace for over a century; however, just like Canada at the present time, they do their utmost, according to their means, to set up their national defence.
I have read in the Ottawa papers a report of an interview of Mr. Gordon Murray, of the Manchester Guardian, with the social-democrat prime minister of Sweden, Mr. Hansson, for they have a social-democratic government there at the present time. In connection with national defence here is what Mr. Hansson, the prime minister of Sweden, a nation at peace for over one hundred years, stated. The following words are those of Mr. Murray who interviewed the Swedish prime minister:
I remember that Sweden, the land of over a century of peace, was at that moment active with rearmament. At one period in 1936 the Social Democratic party had endeavoured to make a step forward in strengthening the defences, conditional upon a further instalment of social reform. Hr. Albin Hansson spoke freely on this subject, though he gave permission only for what follows to be published: "The question of Swedish defence has now been accepted as a national matter, and on the necessity for its increase all parties are agreed. It was remarkable that at the general elections rearming was not a matter of party controversy.
Its need was generally realized. Though the Social Democrats had declared that rearming should be conditional upon an increase in old age pensions, I made it clear that if the people wished for rearming it would be undertaken in any case. So last session the Riksdag passed a great rearming program, and from 1936 Sweden is preparing itself. Like all small countries, we are strongly in favour of the League of Nations and greatly desire its reform. But that is not preventing us from now facing the necessity to rearm."
Has not Your Excellency to encounter any pacifist opposition?
"My party of Social Democrats," the premier answered, "has long had a highly pacifist tradition. But our pacifist is not of the type which is prepared to receive a punch without replying."
Let us see now what was done in Switzerland with regard to rearmament. I find in La Croix, a Paris newspaper, a statement concerning Switzerland's rearmament expenditure. The report first explains that there lies a vulnerable section where the Rhine flows out of Switzerland to enter Germany, and further says:
Berne realized this so well that it decided recently to issue a national defence loan with a view to fortifying their line along the Rhine, which means the whole of their northern frontier. This expenditure is estimated to cost about 200.600,000 Swiss francs, or a little less than a billion in our money.
In order not to frighten the taxpayers, the Swiss government-that is the federal council, whose president, who has just been reelected for the fifth time, is a Catholic from Tessin, Mr. Motta, a man known for his lofty moral attainments, his ardent patriotism, and his administrative ability-decided to issue a first share of the loan to the extent of 80,000,000 Swiss francs. Do you know how this first issue was covered? In the face of an eventual menace the reaction of the national feeling was such that the incredible amount of 330 millions was subscribed in a short time, or 130 millions over what was estimated necessary for the construction of the Swiss "Maginot line." This fact of which our newspapers made but little mention,, is nevertheless a most significant sign of the uneasiness of our friends in view of the European situation, as well as a wonderful evidence of their strict determination to defend tenaciously their traditional neutrality and the integrity of their land.
But there is something better yet. One would be tempted to believe that the Swiss banks, with an ample supply of funds that escaped from those countries where the financial policy frightens the large money interests, have subscribed the greatest part of this first share of the loan. That would be a mistake. A district bank manager, who is particularly well posted to know how this first share of the issue was covered, assured me that the great majority of lenders were small property owners who brought in either 1,000, or 500 francs, and most of them as little as 100 francs.
And now those who oppose this increase in the national defence estimates are asking:
956	COMMONS
National Defence-Mr. Boulanger
Why should we do it? Against whom do we arm? Who are our enemies? Of course, it is something that it is impossible to foresee. We are arming not against somebody in particular, but rather against anybody. It is impossible to foresee what we shall do with this army that we wish to make more efficient and more mobile. What we can say to our fellow-citizens is that we want an army which is really useful and which we can use in case of emergency. Against whom do we arm? Many of us have an accident insurance policy for which we have been paying premiums since 15, 20, 25 or 30 years. We have not yet been hit by a motor car, and still we keep on paying the premiums. It is impossible to say on which date, at which time and by which car we may be hit some day.
Mr. Speaker, mention has also been made of the protection which we may find among our American neighbours. It was urged that on account of that protection we ought perhaps to spend one or two millions less than the amount asked for by the government for the purpose of modernizing our military and naval forces, in order that they may be more mobile and more efficient. But, strange to say, those who wish to put us under the protection of American imperialism are the very people who most strongly and most constantly denounce British imperialism. They are the same people who charged the former prime minister of the province of Quebec with having sold away the natural resources of that province to the Americans, whereas he simply wanted to attract industries to our country. They are the same people who charged Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1911, with betraying his country and seeking to make Canada an adjunct of the United States, simply because Sir Wilfrid Laurier wished to establish trade relations with our American neighbours. They are the same people who, in the last election, and more particularly last year censured the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his colleagues, saying that they were betraying their country, their fellow citizens and the best interests of Canada, simply because the present government signed a trade agreement with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying in my part of the country which is perhaps not very refined, but you will pardon me if I quote it. It says: "Whether you are bitten by a male dog or by a female dog, you are bitten just the same." As regards imperialism,
I think that American imperialism is not any better, nor any brighter, nor any more desirable than British imperialism.
Of course, Canada is not in a position to maintain a navy or an army powerful enough

to defend our land against the great nations of the world, at the present time. It is admitted that we must co-operate with someone else, that somebody must help us; but if we want others to assist us, we should at least show some good will, prove that we intend to defend ourselves, that we are ready to do all we can in that regard according to our means, and that is exactly what we want.
Of course, if the increase of a few million dollars for the purpose of modernizing our army and making it efficient meant a declaration of war, or should we thereby be involved into a conflict, I would be the first ito vote against it. But, I would 'however be consistent enough, I hope, having thus recorded my opposition to the increase in tlhe military estimates, not to give my support to the government immediately after. I do not presume to speak on behalf of the province of Quebec. I am but a humble representative of a rural constituency, witih no great fund of experience, but I may nevertheless state, on behalf of that province, that she still remembers what happened in 1911, and is not ready to repeat the error she made at that time and which she has regretted ever since. We know what happened that year. The province of Quebec put the Conservative party in power by voting against the Laurier naval policy. The following year, could those valorous champions, those bold opponents of the Laurier naval policy, those great defenders of the nation, prevent the government of the time from voting a debasing tribute of 35 million dollars to the British navy? Soon afteT, war broke out, and then came conscription. Have men like Mr. Bourassa, Mr. LaVergne, Mr. Lavallee, who had been returned as a Nationalist member for my constituency, and Mr. D. O. Lesperanee, been able to prevent that war? Did they prevent conscription? Did they prevent Canada from disgracing herself to the point of voting a tribute of 35 million dollars to England? No, they never did that.
And if, this year, the province of Quebec were to do the same thing, she would probably be repeating the mistake of 1911, but I do not think this will happen for, along with the rest of the country, she has entrusted the administration of her affairs to men who had and still enjoy her confidence. We are not experts in such matters but the government can avail themselves of the information which experts are in a position to give them. Let us trust the government without haggling over a million dollars more or less for our national defence, for the protection of our homes, and for the safety of Canadian men, women and children.

National Defence-Mr. Boulanger
Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the defence of Canada, a thing with which we Frenchspeaking Canadians are familiar. For three hundred years, ever since our ancestors landed in America we have been defending our territory. We began in 1690, under Frontenac and d'Iberville, to fight in defence of our country. And I a>m wondering whait we might gain, what advantage we, the oldest Canadians, the sons of those pioneers who lived three hundred years ago, would derive in giving to understand through the length and breadth of Canada that we are no longer desirous of defending ourselves, that we no longer wish to protect ourselves, that we are no longer willing to do anything to ensure the integrity of our national territory.
We began in 1690 to defend our country. We did it again under Montcalm in 1759. And on September 13, 1759, when Quebec fell, while the French regular soldiers were running away, Canadian militiamen engaged Wolfe's army in skirmishes, fighting in the Canadian fashion among the bushes of the Sainte Genevieve hillside. Again in 1775, French speaking Canadians, occupying the Pres-de-Ville barricade, under Dumas and Chabot, and the Sault-au-Matelot barricade under Dambourges, prevented the Americans from taking Quebec, thereby saving Canada for the Canadians.
That gave me an opportunity, a few years ago, of proudly reminding one of my good friends from Vancouver that if the British flag was still waving over the citadel at Quebec, French speaking Canadians were to be thanked for that, and that it was as a result of the defence which those same French-Canadians put up on December 31, 1775, that the Domine salvum fac regem was still being sung in the Quebec basilica. And what our ancestors achieved in 1690, in 1759, in 1775, they did again in 1814, when the "voltigeurs canadiens" under Colonel de Sala-berry, hurled back American invaders at Chateauguay. These are historical facts, these traditions are our own, and I am wondering why we, the descendants of those gallant men, should disown our history, renounce our traditions, and for the sake of two or three million dollars more or less, convey to the people all over the country the impression that we are no longer willing to follow the example of our ancestors and stand up against invaders, that we are prepared to lie down as meek victims, and that we rely upon American or British imperialism, upon outsiders or neighbours for our own protection.
Let me revert to the subject of American imperialism; does anyone believe that the
American navy and army would defend us out of pure kindness? Does anyone believe that the United States would not demand some kind of compensation for thus protecting and defending Canada? As I was saying, American imperialism is on a par with British imperialism, and if we were to hitch Canada's wagon to the star of American imperialism, the time would possibly come when we might have to help in the expansion of American imperialism in south or central America, and to join in those expeditions, of an economic and financial rather than a military character, described by General Smedley-Butler, whom one of our fellow members quoted this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, I was reading in a magazine an article in which Ralph Connor, an outstanding Canadian writer, tells about a trip which he made last summer in New Zealand, the country of the Maoris. I hope our right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) will listen to what I am about to read; it will probably recall to his mind a speech which he delivered in 1932, during the Ottawa conference. Ralph Connor tells about the struggle between the Maoris and the British, a struggle which did not come to an end until 70 or 75 years ago. He describes the siege of the last stronghold of the Maoris by the British army. The Maoris had entrenched themselves in a kind of camp called "pah" in their language. Here is Ralph Connor's description of that last battle:
The British general, realizing that he was engaged, not in warfare, but in slow murder, tried again and again to bring the enemy to surrender, offering them fair and honourable terms, but the Maori warriors with their wahinis (wives) at their side to load their muskets, utterly refused to surrender. In reply to a final appeal a Maori chief leaping upon a parapet hurled this challenge at the enemy: "This is the land of the Maoris. For their lands and their homes they will fight on forever! forever!! forever!!!"
"Send your women away then," said the British officer, hating his job.
Immediately a tall and splendidly moulded wahini leaped upon the parapet, and standing beside her man echoed his defy: "For our lands, for our homes, we will fight forever! forever!! forever!!!"
"Why did you not surrender?" asked the British general of a wounded Maori, when the destruction of the pah was completed. " Did you not see how overwhelming our forces were?"
The Maori warrior answered proudly: "That is nothing. This is our land, these are our villages. Men who dare not defend their homes are not fit to live."
Mr. Speaker, it will perhaps be claimed that the Maoris are uncivilized, but they gave vent to feelings that all civilized people ought

National Defence-Mr. Parent
to entertain. Those are feelings which I share and which I have most humbly expressed in this house in order to justify the vote I am obviously going to cast against the nonconfidence motion that has been introduced.


Mr. CHARLES PARENT (Quebec West and South):: I shall endeavour to speak in the language of the majority, but if I feel I cannot bring home in English what I wish to express I shall revert to French, and that without any apologies to anyone. It has been said that no one should sit in this parliament who does not realize that there is no part of the world to-day which is not menaced from without and few parts which are not menaced from within.
Hearing the speeches that have already been made on the national defence estimates now to be introduced, one would be inclined to recall to this august body the geographical situation of Canada. Switzerland, Belgium, Greece and all the other small European countries are situated on the frontiers of the great European powers, and in order to preserve their neutrality and to safeguard their citizens it is necessary for them to keep armies day and night at their respective borders. As to the geographical situation of Canada, it cannot be compared with that of these countries. On the north we are bounded by the Arctic ocean, and no one will venture to say that the Eskimos or the polar bears are a menace to the peace of Canada. Many thousands of miles to the west there is the powerful Japanese nation. To the south of us there is the United States and to the east, 4,000 miles away, the European volcano.
Let us consider the situation from the point of view of the menace from without. Let us deal first with the western menace, that of the Japanese empire. Where and when did Japan ever make a move or utter a word that would justify Canada in preparing against aggression from that country? There is no doubt that the population of Japan is increasing at an astonishing rate and that the time has come for that country to place her surplus population somewhere. Japan has clearly indicated to the world what she wants and where she desires to enlarge her empire. She had the wisdom to attack China, taking advantage of the political situation in that country and of its powerless army. Japan has conquered land as rich as Canada, land of such magnitude that hundreds of years will pass before it is populated by the Japanese people. Yesterday I heard the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) pointing to the danger of a conflict between Japan and the United States and the difficult

situation in which Canada would be placed in such an event. Well, I shall frankly admit that such a menace does not alarm me. It would be practically impossible to move a large army to that part of Canada, and the Rockies are a natural defence. What is more, there are three nations deeply interested in the future of Canada, three nations which are financially interested in this country to the extent of billions of dollars. These nations are: Canada herself, the United States of America, and England. Up to now Japan in her diplomatic relations has never made a move which would lead us to conclude that there is a real menace from that source. When did Japan ever show signs of willingness to test her power on land and sea against the British Empire, against the United States of America and against Canada-and I might add, against the Russian bear? Moreover it is not with the military equipment contemplated in the present estimates that Canada could ward off the menace of war with a population of seventy millions, with one of the greatest military forces on land and sea.
This leads us to examine from the second angle the menace from without. The United States of America are our neighbours to the south. There are 3,000 miles of border separating Canada from the United States. Needless to say we do not require any Maginot defence line to protect us there. Over one hundred years of peace and good will have done more than any army could do in that respect, and the best thing for Canada is to keep that imaginary line which separates us free from military guards or anti-aircraft guns. And as Canada will keep the present leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) for many years to come, I believe I am right in stating that he can do more by his tact and diplomacy with our neighbour than any army which we could raise and equip, and by the time he will retire, the equipment bought will have become obsolete.
Then I come to the third angle of the menace from without: the menace from the east. Nearly four thousand miles separate us from the countries which might possibly attack Canada from the east. We have heard of the danger of air raids. These might be by airship or aeroplane. An airship would have to fly over France or England, and the speed of such aircraft is such as to make them of little utility in war. They are difficult to conceal and an easy target for antiaircraft guns. As to aeroplanes, very few have succeeded in crossing the Atlantic from east to west on non-stop flights, and with bombs

National Defence-Mr. Crerar
aboard I believe such airplanes are a menace more in imagination than in reality. To support this contention I might say that Lloyds of London, the world-famous insurance group, are actually cancelling all insurances against war in every country in the world except in Canada and the United States. If there were any real danger to this country and the United States, why would men of such knowledge and experience not treat Canada as they are treating all the other countries of the world?
As to our navy, it is claimed to be for use on our shores exclusively. Little danger is to be feared there, for to assume such a menace to exist would be to deny the power of England on the sea, and proof has yet to be brought forth to show that Britain does not still rule the sea.
Much more could be said, but I do not wish to take too much of the time of the house. However, I am not convinced that with $14,000,000 we can stop the menace from without, and no one can convince me that we need such an amount to protect ourselves from the menace from within. What is the menace from within? It is twofold: communist agitation and labour trouble. Do we need an army to deal with these two prospective menaces? I think not. If any real danger exists, it is from the communists, and they should be dealt with accordingly. The federal police should be reinforced; the provincial and municipal police are actually being reinforced and should be equipped to protect the property of the law-abiding citizens of this country.
As to labour troubles, I have faith in the ability of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), by his justice and knowledge of the labour situation in Canada, to deal with these problems with equity and justice to the employees and the employer. Some may say it is not within my province to judge the military situation of my country, that experts in military matters have recommended these expenditures. Well, Mr. Speaker, this recalls to my mind an occasion when I was reading law at the university. One morning I attended an important criminal case being tried before a jury. Six doctors had been called by the crown to prove that the accused was sane, and six had been called by the accused to prove that he was insane. The trial judge, who at one time was a member of a Conservative cabinet, after the witnesses had been heard, said to the jury: "Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard twelve experts, but you are twelve intelligent men, you do not need to believe them." What we need is not a
defence expenditure, but to be defended from military experts.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the increase in the national defence estimates, because it is my sincere conviction that by this increase of $14,000,000 we shall be just knitting one sleeve of Canada's military uniform, which when completed will have cost Canada millions and millions of dollars. I perform my duty to my country to the best of my judgment and conscience. I regret that I cannot see my way clear to follow my party on this matter. I disagree with my party in regard to the national defence estimates, but I stand with my chiefs on the general policy of the government.
There are precedents for the stand I am taking. I shall vote against the motion of want of confidence in the government as moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), for the issue at stake does not justify such a motion. But I shall not support the increased estimates for national defence when they come before the committee of the house, because in my humble opinion it is putting a useless additional burden on the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country at a time when this country cannot afford such an expenditure.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: It is not my intention to trespass on the patience of the house for any length of time. This discussion, however, is very interesting and important.
I should like to say a few words in regard to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). This amendment, of course, constitutes a direct challenge to the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that this house go into committee of supply, and as such it is a direct vote of want of confidence in the government. If this amendment is adopted, of course this House of Commons changes, but I am certain thait will not happen. If that should take place, however, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who leads the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group in this house should be called upon to form a government, what would he do? Would he abolish the Department of National Defence in Canada? It is all very well for my hon. friends to criticize and to take a lofty, superior attitude in this house, but what would they do if they were faced with responsibility and with the practical question of what should be done in connection with the defence of this country? A good many years ago, when this country was engaged in

National Defence-Mr. Crerar
the titanic struggle of the great war, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre announced himself as entirely opposed to war. I have no fault to find with that; indeed I may say that I have a great deal of respect for the moral courage shown by my hon. friend at that time. But I recall also that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who at that time was the leader of the Labour party in Great Britain, took a similar position. Mr. MacDonald was an out-and-out pacifist during the war. He was opposed to Great Britain entering the war; he was opposed to military expenditures. Well, a few short years after the war he became Prime Minister of Great Britain and his party had the responsibility of government. What was their attitude in their new responsibility? I am bound to say ithat Mr. MacDonald took a much more realistic view of what was his responsibility while he was in office than he did while he was a member of the opposition without responsibility. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that if my hon. friends in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party ever come to power in Canada, they will take a much more realistic view of the whole problem of defence in this country than has been indicated in the speeches which have been made in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North.
No one likes war. For myself I can say that I detest war from the bottom of my heart. I believe I am the only member of this house who was a member of the unionist administration in Canada which was formed to concentrate Canada's energies on the war, and at that time I saw a little from the inside as well as from the outside of what war means to a country. No one wants a war in Canada. It is the last thing that is desired by any person from one end of this dominion to the other. But the fact that we do not want war and that we may detest war with all our hearts does not touch the question of these estimates which are before parliament for consideration at the present time. If I could base my attitude towards these estimates upon my detestation of war I would oppose the estimates, but that is an unrealistic attitude and one which this dominion cannot afford to take at this time. W'hat are the other countries in the world doing? I think perhaps if my hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party were a little more frank with the country, they would come out openly as a socialist party. Outside this house I have criticized my hon. friends on that score. Their program is one of socialism.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Advanced socialism.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hear, hear.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am glad to hear my hon. friend say, "Hear, hear."


James Shaver Woodsworth: We have always
said it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: But I would say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that he would be a little more frank and, may I add, a little more honest with the Canadian people if he would state openly that his party is a socialist party. There is no discredit in being a socialist. But what are the socialist parties in the world doing to-day in this matter of defence? I have already cited the experience of the socialist party in Great Britain, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's experience in both his first and second governments. Though I understand my hon. friends in the opposite corner have not the admiration for Mr. Ramsay MacDonald that they once had, still to-day Mr. MacDonald is a member of a government which has just announced the greatest program of expenditure for defence purposes that has ever been announced in Great Britain.


Mr. COLD WELL:: And he is a saddened, broken old man.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Well, we shall take France, which has a socialist government, a popular front government with a socialist prime minister, a gentleman who has been a socialist all his life, or at any rate all his political life. He is not a broken old man. What is his attitude towards this question? I venture to say that Mr. Blum's government is spending as much, if not more, on defence as has been spent by any government in France since the war. What about Sweden? That is a socialist state, or a semi-socialist state, which my hon. friends hold up to us as an example. What is Sweden doing? That country is off to one side of Europe; it has not been at war for as long as Canada has not been at war, but to-day Sweden is spending two or three dollars for every dollar we are proposing to spend for defence in Canada. So I do not think that argument holds.
Perhaps the real reason for the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North lies a little deeper than the mere negation of the estimates brought down by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). As someone has already said, this resolution has two wings. Let me read it:

National Defence-Mr. Crerar
This house views with grave concern the startling increases of expenditure proposed by the government for purposes of national armament-
If the amendment had stopped there, it would have been clear-cut and understandable. But it does not stop there; it goes on:
-in contrast with the inadequate provision for the social security of all sections of the Canadian people.
From the amendment it seems to me fair to ask this question: If this government had brought down estimates that satisfied the requirements of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his associates in regard to adequate provision for the social security of all sections of the Canadian people, would my hon. friends be taking the position they have taken with regard to these defence estimates?


Mr. COLDWELL:: We would be glad to get $14,000,000 towards that end.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That begs the question. I think it is a fair inference from the amendment to say that if a sufficient amount of money to satisfy my hon. friends were being voted in this house for purposes of social security- though I do not know what social security may mean, in the terms of this resolution-then they would not be objecting to the estimates which have been brought down by the Minister of National Defence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If this is not simply an oratorical question, may I say that we are absolutely opposed to the increases in the defence estimates. Particularly is this an outstanding injustice when nothing is being done and no money can be found for social security.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If that is so, why did not the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre see that his lieutenant the hon. member for Vancouver North worded his amendment in a different fashion?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is well worded; I have no objection to the wording of it.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: So far as provision for social security is concerned, I do not know what the hon. member has in mind. This is not the time to discuss that aspect of our many problems, but I would remind the hon. member that this country is providing to-day, in pensions of one kind and another, through federal and provincial governments, a great deal indeed by way of social security.
I may say, however, that the estimates have not lightly been put forward by the government. No government with any sense of re-31111-61
sponsibility to the Canadian people, having in mind the unemployment which exists and the onerous burden of taxation resting upon our people, would lightly put forward additional expenditures on defence or anything else. It was only because the government, after most serious consideration, came to the conclusion that it was their bounden duty to do so, that these estimates were placed before parliament.
What is Canada's position? We have attained practically all the attributes of nationhood. So far as our conduct of our internal and external affairs is concerned, Canada is to-day complete mistress in her own house. That position brings with it some responsibilities. If we look around the world we must realize that unquestionably, so far as world peace is concerned, the position is grave. That point has been traversed by many who have preceded me in the debate. Whether we like it or not, there are forces abroad in the world to-day which to all appearances are leading the world to destruction or into another great war. Are we to stand peacefully aside and make no preparation for any contingency which may arise? It is all very well for hon. members to talk, but if Canada should be invaded-and that is not beyond the bounds of possibility, in view of the progress modern science has made-


Major James William Coldwell: Will the minister tell us who is likely to invade us or attack us?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I am not a prophet any more than the hon. member, although, if I went into the prophesying business I might do a little better than he has done.


Major James William Coldwell: We hope so.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The United States did not want to go into the great war. President Wilson did everything he could to keep that country out of the war. On more than one occasion he declared that the United States was too proud to fight. But that country found itself impelled by forces which could not be foreseen, forces which were uncontrollable, to enter the war.


Major James William Coldwell: The war debt.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: War debt nothing 1 No one can measure the forces at work to-day; no one can judge what the possible effects may be. No matter how much Canada may dislike any war activity, if she found herself in a position where she had to defend herself, would hon. members be proud of a situation they had created whereby she had not the means to carry out that defence? I am satis-



National Defence-Mr. Crerar
fied the judgment of history on that course would be severe indeed.
We have to take account of these things. Let me repeat that the government does not desire to add to the burdens of the Canadian people. We are not going into this matter lightly as the hon. members for Vancouver North and Rosetown-Biggar indicated.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not say that; I object to the statement.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I accept the hon. member's statement. He is always courteous in debate, and I wish to be courteous to him. Let me repeat that this has not been entered upon lightly. We have taken this course because after serious consideration we felt it was our bounden duty to place these estimates before parliament.
The question has been asked-I believe it was asked by the hon. member for Vancouver North-against whom are we arming? I do not think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar will object when I say he intimated in his speech

I shall not use the term insinuated-that this was part of a scheme by which Canada was committed to supply expeditionary forces overseas. That point has been dealt with by my right hon. leader who, in the most unequivocal terms, has cleared up the situation in that respect. I need not repeat his statement. This government will not decide whether or not Canada shall send an expeditionary force overseas; parliament will decide, if such occasion should arise during the life of the present government.
No; we are not arming against anyone. Against whom would we arm? Whom would we desire to attack? Against whom would we be aggressors? We have no neighbours on the north, and we would not fight the United States on the south. We have enjoyed1 a hundred years of peace with that country, and I am sure that state of affairs will continue for more than another hundred years. We are not arming against anyone, but we are putting ourselves into a position where, if necessary, we may defend ourselves. I believe that is the bounden duty of any government holding the responsible position of governing this country.


Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my privilege yesterday to listen to the speech delivered by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), but since then I have read his speech carefully and in detail, noting every particular. May I say that in his submission to the house yesterday afternoon and evening the minister placed before parliament in clear

and concise language the exact position of Canada in relation to defence. In his observations he did not mislead the house in any detail, nor did he withhold from the record one item which might have been regarded as a weakness in the position of this dominion to-day in her world sphere.
I should like to compliment many of the speakers who have preceded me and I want to make special reference to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) who presented the position of Canada to the house this evening. I believe that we, as members of the House of Commons, should analyse the situation and consider it from a larger perspective than some hon. members have done this afternoon and this evening. We should not follow the narrow perspective embodied in the speeches of the mover (Mr. MacNeil) and the seconder (Mr. Coldwell) of the amendment.
May I refer again to the speech of the Minister of National Defence. In my humble opinion he left nothing unsaid.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Alexander Fraser: Apparently some hon. members did not read his speech. May I say that the Minister of National Defence, in outlining Canada's position, left nothing unsaid.
I should like to refer for a moment to Canada's position in world affairs. As has been noted by many of the speakers who preceded me, in the past Canada has depended upon the British taxpayer for the protection of her trade lanes on the seven seas. It has been stated also that Canada has depended upon the protection of the great republic to the south. It has been said that we should still remain wards of either Great Britain or the United States. I should like to direct the attention of hon. members to some facts which have been placed before them in the past. In 1936 Canada sold $400,000,000 worth of Canadian products to Great Britain, while in that same year Great Britain sold $120,000,000 worth of her products to Canada. Canada has a mercantile marine; we have ships on the seven seas flying the Canadian flag, and Canadian citizens are scattered throughout the world. We pride ourselves on being a full-fledged nation, and yet some hon. members object to our paying an infinitesimal part of one per cent of our income in order that Canadian commerce and Canadian citizens may be protected in the event of war.
I should like to place on record what in my humble opinion is our present position. We see in the press to-night that Great Britain is to start the construction of ten ships on April 1. We see another item to the effect that in 1937 the United States will

National Defence-Mr. Fraser
spend a greater amount on armaments than has been spent in any year during her history. We see another item to the effect that Lloyd George, the war-time minister of Great Britain, makes the statement that the world is going mad and that nothing can prevent a conflagration. We read another item to the effect that a British embassy is in the United States trying to prevent Great Britain from being embroiled in a war until the people of the motherland have taken up the slack.
As was stated by one hon. gentleman who spoke last night, for the last four or five years Great Britain has been asleep. That country decided upon a policy of disarmament and the curtailing of votes for national defence, but a year or so ago she woke up to the realization that Europe had rearmed. What is the position to-day of the British Empire? What has happened in Africa because of the Italian rape of Ethiopia? The conquest of Ethiopia placed Italy in control of the headwaters of the Nile. Could anyone have realized three or four years ago that such misery, suffering, degradation and cruelty would have been perpetrated in Spain? What will happen should the fascists gain power in Spain? The first step will be the breaking of British influence in the Mediterranean and interference with British trade through the Suez to the far east.
I may be wrong, but it is my humble opinion that if Great Britain had been prepared she would not have suffered the humiliation she did suffer in connection with the Mediterranean situation and the Italian conquest of Ethiopia. Whether we like it or not, there is existing throughout the world the devastating influences of fascism, communism and nazism which are breaking in surges against the last bulwark of democracy, the British Empire.
What is our position in Canada? Our position to-day is not the same as it was in 191f. 0l!r Position to-day is not the relative position in which the British Empire was in 1914, Our position to-day as a component part of the British commonwealth of nations is that we are confronted with the fact that Great Britain has all she can do to protect her own shores. Our position to-day is that we can no longer retain our asinine and colonial aspect in connection with world affairs. Our position is such that we have to spend money on armaments with which to defend ourselves. We must increase those expenditures in order to protect ourselves as Great Britain can no longer help us. Great Britain has all she can do to protect herself. I notice the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) smiling. After following the red ensign around the world he should know the present position of the British Empire. He should know with what Canada is confronted to-day. No one should know that as well as a man who has followed that red ensign from Singapore to London.
We must realize not only that we are an independent nation within the British commonwealth of nations but that we must do our bit. We must protect ourselves. We shall not have the privilege of deciding whether we are going to be neutral or not. We shall not have the privilege of determining whether we are going to get into war and whether we are going to be attacked. To-day Germany and Japan have entered an alliance; should trouble arise, we in this dominion on the highway from Yokohama to London would be subject to attack, and if the views of hon. members opposite should prevail, we would be in no position to withstand it. It is the duty of this and any succeeding government to vote part of the income of the people of Canada by way of protective insurance against eventualities that may arise in a world that to-day is going mad.
I congratulate the Minister of National Defence upon bringing down his estimates, tabling them, going into them in detail item by item, and exposing to the house and to the^ country the existing weakness of our military, naval and aviation services, and I am taking his speech as the basis of my remarks. We could not to-day arm a battalion in this country. We have no modern machine guns, no modern aeroplanes and certainly no modern coast or naval defences. I remembered, when reference to this matter was made by the minister in his speech, having stood at my office door on the shores of lake Ontario and having seen seven Italian aeroplanes on their flight direct from Italy over lake Ontario. Yet in the face of such achievements somebody comes along and publicly declares, "Better a convict than a soldier," without an appreciation or a realization that to-day this country is more vulnerable than she has ever been, and that the apron-strings of the old motherland have been broken through the necessity of preserving her very life blood, the heart of the empire; without a realization that the next war will be fought, not with picks and shovels, but with gas bombs and with deadly weapons of warfare unknown in any previous conflict. In face of such facts, hon. members move a resolution of lack of confidence in this government because my leader and my colleagues, having the interests of the people close to

National Defence-Mr. Fraser
their hearts, have the courage of their convictions and the foresight to come into this house and table estimates, sir, that in my opinion are absolutely inadequate to meet the situation. May I say to the Minister of National Defence that these estimates, instead of being thirty-four or thirty-five millions of dollars, should have been at least seventy-five millions of dollars in order to bring the naval, aviation and military equipment of this country up to the standards necessitated by the development of armaments throughout the world to-day.
We have listened to many eloquent speeches in connection with this question. I desire, in conclusion, to place upon the records of this house what are in my humble opinion allimportant considerations: First, that the last bulwark of democracy is exemplified by the British Empire; second, that by no stretch of imagination can Canada or any other component part of the empire disinterest or disconnect itself from the interests of Britain; third, that the interests of this country lie not only with Britain but with the great republic to the south of us, and we would be remiss in our duty if, as was suggested this afternoon, we should depend upon the strength of the United States to protect our shores. We have a duty as a component part of the British commonwealth of nations. We have a duty to democracy and civilization. Above all, as has been stated in this house, we have a duty to the Canadian people. We are not a colony. And we are not a vassal state, although we would have been if the attitude that has been taken by speakers opposite in connection with these paltry estimates had been taken by this country and by the United States during lhe world war. Talk about social services; talk about railway deficits; talk about any-Ihing else in the way of reforms! We would have neither social services nor railways nor anything else if we were unprotected against a world conflagration based upon the great surging forces of nazism, fascism and communism to-day. Let us get down to brass tacks and realize where we are, whether our nationality be French, English or any other.


An hon. MEMBER:: Scottish.


William Alexander Fraser: Let us realize that it is our duty as Canadian citizens not only to support these estimates, not only to vote against this asinine resolution, but to make up our minds to continue in our loyalty and to vote for greater estimates next year, the year after, and just so long as dictatorship is rampant throughout the world.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: I wish to take this opportunity to correct the
[Mr. Fraser.l
false impression given to this house by the remarks yesterday of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). I do not say that he intentionally misinterpreted my remarks of February 4, but misinterpret them he surely did.
On page 882 of Hansard the hon. member is reported as saying:
I cannot for instance accept the suggestions made in this house recently by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston), when he said on the fourth instant that we should have the world's best fleet in our waters; the world's best army in our land, and the world's best air fleet in our own country. I hope I am not doing him an injustice when I quote his remarks apart from the context.
Now. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the hon. member 'has done, because from there on is the gross misinterpretation of what I said. He goes on to say that:
If we are to have the world's finest navy in our waters we shall require one that surpasses the British navy, which has now a naval tonnage of 1,161,000, with something like 200,000 additional tonnage under construction, and a personnel of something like 90,000 seamen. If we were to have the world's finest army we should need an army greater than Germany's or the Soviet Union's 1,300,000 under arms. And if we were to have the world's greatest air force we should have to have a fleet greater than that of the Soviet Union or that of Germany, in excess of 4,000 aircraft.
At this point I wish to give three possible meanings of that. First of all, Great Britain has the world's best fleet and in that fleet she has one boat which is better than the others. Now, if we were to have that best ship, or possibly some similar to it, we could be said to have the best navy. Second, if Canada has the best navy according to the size of her territory, her population and her wealth, we could be said to have the world's best navy. Third, if we had the greatest number of ships and each one of these the largest possible, and if we had a greater number of sailors than any other nation in the world, then we could be said to have the best navy in the world.
This last is absolutely absurd because we have not the wealth to have such equipment, nor have we the men to use for the purpose of manning such a fleet. Yet this last is the interpretation the hon. member has put upon my words. The whole content of my address was strictly self defence, and on no consideration would I permit Canada to participate in foreign wars. I never said or inferred that we should have a greater military force than Great Britain, Germany, or any other country. I was not speaking of quantity at all, but the hon. member for Vancouver North stressed quantity, yes, magnified it many times. I was speaking of quality. I have in mind a

National Defence-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
little incident which many hon. members of this very house will recall in regard to the Ross rifle. These rifles were of a decidedly inferior quality and our Canadian soldiers were compelled to throw them away and pick up the Lee-Enfield rifles, although they left themselves liable to court martial by so doing.
A repetition of such things as that should not be permitted. We should have the best. As I stated in my last speech, and as I state again, the United States war experience illustrates why no foreign power could invade Canada, provided we took ordinary common sense precaution to prevent it. Is there any hon. member sitting in this house who does not desire to have our homes, our wives and our families protected from the ravaging of a raiding horde?
Mr. Speaker, I cannot lower myself to such depths of .degradation as to expect any other country to defend us when we will not do anything to help ourselves.
The hon. member for Vancouver North said, as reported at page 884 of Hansard, the second column:
If we are attacked it will be because of our relationship with Great Britain or of our proximity to the United States. If either of these powers get us into trouble we have no choice but to rely on them for defence. . . .
Surely the hon. member does not believe that we should get protection from Great Britain or the United States, giving as our excuse that we are merely neighbours and should be protected for that reason, or telling Great Britain that she should protect us because of our relationship with the British Empire, and at the same time do absolutely nothing to help ourselves. I cannot believe that of any hon. member. I am reminded of that old poem:
Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
AVhose heart hath ne'er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned,
From wandering on a foreign strand?
If sueli there breathe, go, mark him well!
I propose, Mr. Speaker, to vote for this amendment, but I must make my stand clear once again. I am not voting against a proper self-defence program, but I am voting against the method the government proposes to use for raising the money for this defence program, that is by borrowing from financial institutions and burdening our people for years to come with an increased load of taxation which they cannot bear.
On motion of Mr. Leader the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 17, 1937