1937-02-04

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current) presented the first report of the special committee on the elections and franchise acts, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved:: That on and after Monday, the 8th of February next, to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence on Mondays over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.
He said: I am informed by the government whip that he has communicated with the whips of the various parties and that this motion is agreeable.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I understand that there will be no move on the part of the government for some time yet to take away Wednesdays.


Ernest Lapointe: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the report of the royal commission on anthracite coal.
Mr. CAHAN:: Will the report be printed and distributed?


Mr. ROGERS:: I am informed that arrangements have already been made for the printing and distribution of the report.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Is the building known as "The Duffield Building," at Hamilton, Ontario, still leased by the federal government?
2.	If so, to what use is this building being put this winter?
3.	What is the approximate monthly cost of maintenance for this building?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Vacant since December 1, 1936.
3.	Winter months-$397 a month.
Summer months-$95 a month.


RAILWAY MAINTENANCE WORK, 1936
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	How many men were employed on the deferred maintenance work during the summer of 1936: (a) on the Canadian National rail-

Questions
ways; (b) on the Canadian Pacific railway, under the agreement entered into between the Canadian government and the said railways?
2.	Were all the men employed by the said railways, under the agreement -with the government taken from government relief camps?
3.	What were the total amounts paid by the government under said agreement to: (a) Canadian National railways; (b) Canadian Pacific railway?
4.	What were the total amounts by which the government reimbursed; (a) Canadian National railways; (b) Canadian Pacific railway, for (1) wages; (2) board and lodging; (3) bedding; (4) medical aid?
5.	If the railways were reimbursed for medical aid, what medical aid services were rendered by the said companies?
6.	What were the total amounts paid by the government to reimburse the railway companies in settlement of all claims mentioned in paragraph 5 of the said agreement?
7.	What were the total amounts paid by the
government for transportation under paragraph 2 of the said agreement to:	(a) Canadian
National railways; (b) Canadian Pacific railway?
8.	What was the average number of days worked per man with: (a) Canadian National railways; (b) Canadian Pacific railway?
9.	What was the average wage per man, for the season's work with: (a) Canadian National railways; (b) Canadian Pacific railway?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	(a) Canadian National railways.. 7,987 (b) Canadian Pacific railway.. .. 8,344
2.	No.
3. (a) Canadian National railways, $1,300,000.00; (b) Canadian Pacific railway, $1,326,026.17.
4.	C.N.R.	C.P.R.(a)	Wages.. .. (b)	Board and	$1,300,000.00	$1,310,237.93lodging ....	Nil	Nil(c) Bedding ..	Nil	Nil(d) Medical aid	Nil	Nil
5. The accounts of the companies for medical aid as presented to date are included with accounts for workmen's compensation and are presently under audit. No payments have yet been made to the companies covering these
accounts, which amount to:
Canadian National	 $9,727.03
Canadian Pacific	 9,085.18
6.	See answer No. 5.
7.	Accounts received to date:
Canadian National	 $2,451.77
Canadian Pacific	 3,430.27
8 and 9. As to average number of days worked and average wage per man. The days worked per man varied from two to three days to the full period of six months, and the wages earned ranged from $5 to $312, depending on the duration of employment. The maximum permitted1 to be employed by each company

under the agreements in question was 5,000 or 10,000 altogether, and to secure results a total of 16,331 had to be hired, including neighbourhood unemployed. The work gangs averaged 35 men, and there were two pay-rolls per month, or twelve pay-rolls altogether, covering maintenance projects from one end of Canada to the other. To work out the averages requested would entail examination and analysis of the days worked and amounts paid each of these employees on each and every pay-roll, and such information could only be secured at great expenditure of time and money. And, even if secured, the results would be inconclusive and misleading.


IMPORTED CLOVER SEED-COLOUR REGULATIONS
Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: 1.	When and why were staining regulations on imported red clover seeds established?
2.	Why was it recently removed from seed imported from British Isles and New Zealand?
3.	Was there any official request made by British government for removal of such staining regulations?
4.	At whose request were these changes made.


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	In 1923 colour regulations were applied to imported southern grown red clover seed.
In 1926 the seed importation regulations were amended to provide for the colouring of imported red clover seed grown in the United States 1 per cent orange, all other countries 1 per cent green, except red clover seed from southern countries such as Italy, Africa or part of Turkestan, which was required to be coloured 10 per cent red.
In 1928 the colour for imported red clover seed grown in the United States was changed from orange to navy blue.
These colour regulations were established as a result of plot tests conducted by the dominion agrostologist showing that red clover seed grown in southern countries was not sufficiently winter hardy to withstand Canadian climatic conditions, while red clover seed groivn in countries with climatic conditions similar to those of Canada were quite or nearly as winter hardy as Canadian-grown seed.
2.	Colour regulations were recently removed from imported red clover seed grown in Great Britain and New Zealand on the recommendation of the advisory board under the seeds act. It was represented that no similar requirement is made by these countries when seed is exported from Canada, and that, since our export trade in alsike, red clover and other kinds of seed is of considerable volume and value, the same treat-

Questions
ment as received by us should be extended to these countries. It was also pointed out that red clover seed originating in Great Britain and New Zealand is of about comparable value to Canadian-grown seed in respect to winter hardiness, and is relatively free from many objectionable impurities now common to Canadian-grown seed; that in a year when there is a surplus Canadian production, seed imports will not be required, but when there is a shortage, imports must be made to supplement domestic production. Under these conditions serious market competition need not be feared.
3.	No.
4.	The British and Canadian Seed Trade.


OLD AGE PENSIONERS, NEW BRUNSWICK.
Mr. BROOKS:: What is the number receiving old age pensions in the province of New Brunswick under the following headings:	(a) pension of
$20; (b) over $15 and less than $20; (c) over $10 and including $15; (d) over $5 and including $10; (e) $5 and under?


Mr. DUNNING:: I should like to point out to the hon. member who has asked this question that a great deal of detailed work is required to answer it. Old age pensions are administered by each of the provinces, which make returns to the federal government, of course, in order to justify the payment of the federal government proportion. To answer a question such as this involves a complete examination of every name, because the returns are not classified in the manner in which the question is asked. I would ask my hon. friend to allow the question to stand to-day and to give consideration to a possible amendment of it with a view to making the reply easier and less expensive.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: This question was partly answered the other day.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I assume it can be answered along the same lines as the question that was answered the other day with reference to those receiving twenty dollars.


Charles Avery Dunning: If it is insisted upon it will be answered.


HEALTH OF ANIMALS BRANCH-DOCTOR DUNBAR
Mr. NEEDHAM:: 1.	Has Dr. Dunbar, V.S., Melfort, Saskatchewan. been appointed to the staff of the Health of Animals branch?
2.	If so, is the appointment permanent or temporary?
3.	How often did he take an oral or written examination to qualify for a position on the staff of the Health of Animals branch?
4.	What were the dates of these examinations?	_
5.	What marks did he obtain in each case?
6.	What marks were necessary to qualify for the position sought?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Temporary, part-time.
3.	Twice.
4.	April 24, 1928; August 2, 1933.
5.	28-2 per cent and 46 per cent, respectively.
6.	70 per cent.


ENLISTMENTS IN 22ND BATTALION
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who are the young men from the county of Temiseouata who have been recommended for enrolment in the 22nd regiment at the citadel of Quebec since October, 1935?
2.	Upon what dates did the Department of National Defence receive these applications or recommendations ?
3.	How many of these young men have been enlisted in the 22nd battalion?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	A. Leblanc, Cabano, 23-11-35; G. Breton, Cabano, 25-1-36; R. Laplante, Cabano, 13-3-36;
S.	Ouellet, Ste. Rose du Degele, 13-3-36; W. Beaulieu, Riviere du Loup, 6-3-36; G. Boucher, Cabano, 4-4-36; C. Gagnon, St. Jean de Dieu, 12-1-37.
2.	On dates as stated against the names in the preceding answer.
3.	A. Leblanc.


TELEPHONE LINES, MATAPEDIA-MATANE
Mr. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: Will the telephone lines constructed in Matapedia-Matane during the fall of 1935, and not in operation at the present time, be put into operation, and, if so, when?


Mr. CARDIN:: It is expected that the telephone lines built in the Matapedia-Matane constituency in the fall of 1935 will be placed in operation as soon as satisfactory co-operation is forthcoming from the municipalities in which these lines extend. This matter is now being dealt with by the public service commission of Quebec and it is not known how soon a definite settlement will be arrived at.


SHIPPIGAN, N.B., POSTMASTER
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Was Alphonse G. Robichaud appointed postmaster at Shippigan, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, has the department been informed of any alleged irregularities in his office since his appointment?
3.	If so, has an investigation been held, and what, if any, is the nature of the irregularities in detail?
Questions


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The only irregularity reported is in connection with a shortage of S30.92 found in the official cash during an inspection on the 14th January, 1937. This was attributed by the inspector to the post office funds having been mixed with the postmaster's private funds.


STE. ANGELE, QTJE., POSTMASTER
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	Has Cyprien Plante, postmaster at Ste-Angele, Rimouski county, been dismissed? If so, (a) on what date; (b) what reason was alleged for his dismissal; (e) was an inquiry held in this case?
2.	(a) "What are the names of the other postmasters in the county of Rimouski who were dismissed; (b) was an inquiry conducted in each case?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Yes-(a) 5th September, 1936;	(b)
Change of site; (c) Yes.
2.	(a) Joseph Michaud, St. Donat de Rimouski; Mrs. A. R. Tremblay, St. Gabriel Est; Etienne Levesque, Mont Joli; Timothee Rioux, La Societe; Adelard Levesque, Bien-court; Alcide Boucher, Lac des Aigles; Joseph Lebel, Luceville. (b) Yes.



MONT JOLI-STE. ANGELE, QUE., MAIL CONTRACT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WERMENLINGER;
1.	Was Emile Plante, who carries the mail from Mont-Joli to Ste-Angele, Rimouski county, informed that his contract would be cancelled by the government in the near future?
2.	If so, why?
Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Yes.
2.	In the public interest.



MONT JOLI, QUE., POSTMASTER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WERMENLINGER;
1.	Was Etienne Levesque, postmaster at Mont-Joli, dismissed? If so, (a) when; (b) for what reason; (c) for how many years had he held such office at Mont-Joli?
2.	Was an inquiry held in his case? If not, why?
3.	What amounts were paid as salary to the postmaster at Mont-Joli in* 1935?
4.	Is there a post office named Mont-Joli Nord? If so, how far is it situated from the Mont-Joli post office?
5.	When was the post office at Mont-Joli Nord established, and for what reason?
6.	Were applications received from returned soldiers for the postmastership of Mont-Joli? If so, (a) what are their names; (b) why were they not appointed?
Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1. Yes (a) 16th July, 1936. (b) Insufficient attention to duties and unsatisfactory management. (c) Twenty years.

2.	Yes.
3.	$3,677 out of this amount the postmaster had to pay for his staff and office supplies.
4.	Yes. i of a mile.
5.	6th April, 1927. In order to give improved postal facilities to residents on north side of the town which is separated from the south side by railway and tunnel.
6.	Yes. (a) Alphonse Martin, (b) No permanent appointment made yet.



MONT-JOLI NORD, QUE., POST OFFICE

Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	What amount will the government pay as rental for the new post office at Mont-Joli Nord after January 45?
2.	To whom will such rental be paid, and who is the owner?
3.	Who supplies the furniture for the said post office?
4.	What was the rental paid for the former post office, and, in both cases, who has or had to look after the repairs?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: The department is not aware of any recent change in post office quarters at Mont-Joli Nord. The postmistress provides at her own expense the post office premises and equipment and receives as compensation an allowance amounting now to $100 a year based on the revenue of the office.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BARBER:: 1.	What was the total amount of the travelling expenses of members of the government for the calendar year 1936?
2.	What was the amount of the travelling expenses of each member of the government for the same period?


Mr. GRAY:: 1.	What was the total amount of the traveling expenses of the government for the fiscal years ending 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, and 1936?
2.	What was the amount of the travelling expenses of each member of the government per year for the same period?


MONTREAL CUSTOMS SERVICE
Mr. JEAN:: 1.	What are the names of all the officers and other employees, permanent or temporary, who were employed in the customs service at Montreal during 1936?
2.	What was the nature of their duties, and what salary did each one receive during the year?
3.	Upon what dates did they commence their duties, and were they appointed by the Civil Service commission, the Department of National Revenue, or otherwise?
FEBRUARY 4, 1937	S35
Foreign Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)


MONTREAL INLAND REVENUE SERVICE
Mr. JEAN:: 1.	What are the names of all the officers and other employees, permanent or temporary, who are employed in the inland revenue service at Montreal during 1936?
2.	What was the nature of their duties, and
what salary did each one receive during the year?	.
3.	Upon what dates did they commence their duties, and were they appointed by the Civil Service commission, the Department of National Revenue, or otherwise?


MONTREAL-AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES
Mr. JEAN:: 1.	What are the names of all officers and other employees, permanent or temporary, who were employed in the service of the Department of Agriculture at Montreal during 1936?
2.	What was the nature of their duties, and what salary did each one receive during the year?
3.	Upon what dates did they commence their duties, and were they appointed by the Civil Service commisson, the Department of Agriculture, or otherwise?


MONTREAL-NATIONAL DEFENCE EMPLOYEES
Mr. JEAN:: 1.	What are the names of all the officers and other employees, permanent or temporary, who were employed in the service of the Department of National" Defence at Montreal, during 1936?
2.	What was the nature of their duties and what salary did each one receive during the year?
3.	Upon what dates did they commence their duties, and were they appointed by the Civil Service commission, the Department of National Defence, or otherwise?


MONTREAL-HARBOUR SERVICE
Mr. JEAN:: 1.	What are the names of all the officers and other employees, permanent or temporary, who were employed on the harbour service at Montreal during 1936?
2.	What was the nature of their duties and
-what salary did each one receive during the year?	v	,
3.	Upon what dates did they commence their duties, and vrere they appointed by the Civil Service commission, the harbour commission, or otherwise?


MONTREAL-PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES
Mr. JEAN:: 1.	What are the names of all the officers and other employees, permanent or temporary, who were employed by the Department of Public Works at Montreal, during 1936?
2.	What was the nature of their duties and what salary did each one receive during the year?
3.	Upon what dates did they commence their duties, and were they appointed by the Civil Service commission, the Department of Public Works, or other-wise?



BANK OF CANADA BUILDING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). It is announced in the newspapers that the government is proceeding with the erection of a building for the Bank of Canada in Ottawa. Can the minister say whether the specifications for such building will permit the use of Tyndall stone from Manitoba, which was used in the erection of this centre block building? The people of Manitoba are anxious to know whether restrictions which have existed hitherto with reference to that stone will be removed in the future, and in particular with respect to this building.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In answer to my hon. friend I would say that this government has nothing to do with the construction of an office building for the Bank of Canada. The bank itself, not the government or the Department of Public Works, is providing for that building. It is therefore a matter for the bank.



FOREIGN EOLICY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, January 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woodisworth:
That, in the opinion of this house, the foreign policy of Canada should conform to the following principles:-
1.	That under existing international relations, in the event of war. Canada should remain strictly neutral regardless of who the belligerents may be.
2.	That at no time should Canadian citizens be permitted to make profits out of supplying war munitions or materials.
3.	That the Canadian government should make every effort to discover a,nd remove the causes of international friction and social injustice.
Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: In continuing from the other day my remarks with respect to this resolution, I wish to make it very clear that I am voicing only my personal opinions, and I think it is up to every member of this house to do the same.
The problem of war is one which, to my mind, is dealt with too lightly. I discussed the other day the first two paragraphs of the resolution, and I wish now to refer to the third paragraph, which reads:
That the Canadian government should make, every effort to discover and remove the causes of international friction and social injustice.
536	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
There, I think, lies one of the main causes of war, and I think there should be in this house a great deal of concentrated thought upon that one subject. I am in full accord with this part of the resolution; in fact, as I said before, I am in entire agreement with the principle of the resolution as a whole, but in view of the fact that it was probably rather loosely worded, some things in it would have to be changed before I could vote for it.
I believe that one of the great causes of discontent is connected with the search for foreign markets in the endeavour to expand national trade. It seems to me that a good deal of friction thereby occurs between the nations, because every nation is looking for the same thing. If our attention were more closely drawn to the possibilities of the home market through the supplying of our own people with the goods with which it is possible to supply them, we should not have so much difficulty in that direction.
One of the beneficial results of a proper international organization would be the reconciling of ambitions for colonial expansion. There is no doubt that the war of 1914, in which Germany was the aggressor, was waged for colonial expansion. The war that seems likely to break out in a very short time will be occasioned by the same thing. Surely there is enough colonial territory in the world to provide everybody with sufficient raw materials to carry on the industries they require. The urge for colonial expansion undoubtedly results from the search for raw materials, and if we could attain to some sort of organization, as was suggested in a resolution recently submitted, in this house, whereby the nations could get together in conference-though I dislike the word-and discuss their grievances and adjust these difficulties, much good would follow for the world. For instance, if Germany is in need of crude oil, and, a conference was held' at which all nations were represented, possibly an arrangement could be worked out by which she could receive all the crude oil required for her domestic and industrial needs, though not to the extent of stimulating and increasing or commercializing the accumulation of war material. If our attention were concentrated on these matters we might get a little nearer the solution of the problem of war.
I am largely in agreement with what Bernard Shaw said about conferences in a statement to the Associated Press at San Francisco on March 5:
Disarmament conferences are utter rubbish. They are hejd merely to keep the public amused, he smiled. No nation is going to disarm. They sit around a table and say, "If I shoot you with a 14-inch gun will you throw away your 16-inch guns?''

That has been the idea underlying most of these conferences. It has not been a question of whether we can really solve the difficulties which bring about war; the idea has been, as Bernard Shaw suggests, that if one nation throws away its 16-inch gun the other may shoot at it with a 14-inch gun.
One of the great causes of war is foreign financial investment. I was surprised to see the other day that Great Britain is even now contemplating a loan to finance Italy, a country which no doubt, if there is another war, will be one of our opponents. Why should any of our financial organizations in the British Empire fee financing a country which is purely on a war basis? Our financial institutions have made loans to Germany and Russia, and these countries are carrying out a program of aggressive warfare. When our own financial institutions will assist foreign nations in the financing of a war program, I submit they are doing something that is entirely wrong; and that is one of the things which we should do our best to put a stop to.
It is true we have a great many organizations throughout the dominion that are spreading the doctrine of peace; we have anti-war organizations, we have different peace societies; and there are various church organizations that are devoted to peace. But I am reminded of the way in which these different peace organizations functioned during the last war. We have had these organizations for a number of years-we had them even before the outbreak of war in 1914-and what happened when war broke out? These very organizations that broadcast peace throughout the world were turned into a war propaganda machine, and they began to work in the opposite direction. During the war we had churches preaching to the young men to go into the war; in Germany preachers urged them to do the same. There can be no reliance on these peace organizations. I do not mean to imply, of course, that their intentions were not good, but they are not made use of for the benefit of human society, and we should not base our strength on these peace organizations.
I do not think we should entirely disregard the possibility of war; I do not think we should treat it too lightly. In my opinion we should go ahead and prepare a proper defence program, trusting neither to the United States nor to Great Britain nor to any of the other nations. If we declare to these nations that we are going to stand on our own feet, then we should not in any sense of the word depend upon Great Britain. I am absolutely against war and I believe it would be wrong for this

Foreign Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
dominion ever to participate in any foreign war without the consent of the Canadian people in the form of a plebiscite or by some similar method. Before we step off the continent to fight in any European war we should have the consent of the people of Canada. I would like to make that clear. If we proceed as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) has said, on a purely defensive program, the cost involved will not be nearly so great.
This country is especially well-protected by nature. On the south, of course, there is one of the greatest nations in the world, the United States. We have always had amicable relations with them and we need not fear them. At the same time I do not suggest that we should put our trust in them. There is no reason to suppose, however, that the United States would ever attack Canada, nor would Canada attack the United States. Moreover, there is no reason to suppose that the United States would permit any foreign power to use its soil as a military base from which to attack Canada, or vice versa-the rule would work both ways. In the north we are protected naturally by the Arctic and it would be almost impossible for an attacking force to come down upon us on that side. Then we have the Pacific and the Atlantic coasts. These two coasts would have to be protected in a purely self-defence program.
When we speak of the coasts we naturally think of the creation of a navy. In my opinion we have not a navy sufficiently strong to defend our coasts. I submit that we should have a navy second to none. I shall be asked at once: Where will the boats come from? Well, if it is a purely defensive program we should be starting a shipbuilding concern in Canada to provide the ships. This would take care of a great deal of the unemployment that now exists; it would provide work for a large number of Canadians, bearing in mind of course, that it is a purely defensive program, and building the ships necessary for a decent navy manned by Canadian seamen. We should have a fleet capable of protecting us against any aggressive force, and it would not require a very considerable fleet either. It would not entail costs nearly as great as if we were preparing a fleet sufficiently strong to attack any of the European countries.
Along with that coastal defence we should have an air force second to none. That could be achieved in two ways. In my opinion, one of the best ways of establishing an air force would be to encourage commercial flying so as to educate fliers in Canada. That is the main thing. An adequate commercial air
fleet could be turned almost overnight into a fighting force in an emergency. I do not say, however, that we should put all our strength in that; we should direct our attention to the building up of an effective military air force as well, so that in the event of sudden attack it would be able to take the initiative until the others were organized. That, too, would provide more employment in Canada and would help to solve a problem that faces us at all times. Then, in connection with coastal defence, we should need fortifications; the ocean ports would have to be properly fortified. That is purely defensive, because these forts would prevent any invading fleet from landing on our shores. It would be necessary to have a militia well equipped and possibly a standing army. This would tend to give employment to those now out of work, and it would not cause dissatisfaction among the people of Canada, because I do not believe there is a man either in this house or anywhere else in Canada who would say that we should not be prepared to build up a substantial organization for selfdefence so that we should be able to protect ourselves in time of need. I do not think we need worry greatly over foreign invasion, when you consider the fact that it is next to an impossibility for any one of the foreign countries to attack us or to land safely, so as to make any progress. When you consider that fact you realize the absurdity of building up too tremendous a fighting machine, and it would not be in the interests of the country to do that. I submit, however, that we should have one of the best.
Some people may say that Europe is now so well equipped with air forces as to be able to land here overnight. Well, I do not know of any airship built so far that can traverse the three thousand miles of water separating us from Europe and make the return trip without landing here for refueling or repairs. True, the Italians last year demonstrated with a fleet of twenty air machines that they could come over. But what is twenty machines, what is one hundred machines when it comes to a question of conquering this country? And if they had nowhere to land they would be eliminated. Then we should have our own fortifications to meet them. They would have to get by our own fleet and if they got by that, they would have to attack our own air force. But that is not all; if they succeeded in landing their men their difficulty would only then have begun. We would have a militia to meet them, an air force and a navy, and on top of that they would have to establish a permanent base here.
538	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
To show you the impossibility of such an attack I want to read an extract from the Saturday Evening Post of Nevember 17, 1936, giving the British experience in the last war:
British experience in the world war indicated that about forty pounds of general cargo per soldier per day was required to supply an army from an overseas base. In the A.E.F. we started out with that figure. We attempted to build up a ninety-day reserve for an army of two million men, but we did not get very far with it. On that basis we would have had to unload 40,000 tons of cargo per day. Loaded on army trucks that would have required a daily truck train more than 150 miles long.
This cargo consisted not only of food, clothing, guns, ammunition and all that sort of thing, but of such little odds and ends as 35,000 motor trucks, 1,500 standard locomotives, 20,000 freight cars, 5,000 miles of standard steel rails and 3,500,000 cross ties. We had all the French ports at our disposal. Our line of communication across the ocean was never seriously threatened. All we had to do was to run ships back and forth like ferryboats. But even so we had to shorten our objective to 30,000 tons per day. and as a matter of fact we never reached 25.000. Our shortage was met by the allies. Our own war experience illustrates why no foreign power could invade America provided we bake ordinary common sense precautions to prevent it.
I think that is a very sensible argument. If we take ordinary common sense precautions there can be no question in the world of any foreign invasion of this country. I think, sir, we should, have the world's best fleet in our own waters, we should have the world's best army on our own land' and we should have the world's best air fleet in our own air, and never step off the soil of Canada without a clear understanding and declaration from the people of Canada, as I suggested a while ago.
One main question is, how are you going to finance this? I was interested the other day when I picked up a clipping from the Hamilton Spectator reporting a speech by the Minister of National Defence:
Hon. Ian Mackenzie, Minister of Defence, explains to a "defence-conscious" country that the government is also "acutely conscious of its primary responsibility for local defence." But, he adds, the question of how far Canada can go in discharging that responsibility depends upon "the extent to which the hard-pressed Canadian taxpayer is able and willing to meet new burdens and new taxes." The price of independence has to be paid.
I contend that if we have to depend for a defence program upon the amount of money which can be extorted from the taxpayers of this country we are not going to get very far. If I may be so bold as to say so, I do not think that was the minister's intention. Directly, yes, but indirectly, no, because the people of Canada cannot stand any more taxation to build up defences if it must be

done by the orthodox method of borrowing. During the last war we built up a tremendous national debt; we have not paid it and never will pay it. In view of the fact that we have not paid for the last war, how are we going to finance another? We shall go into debt, just as surely as we are here, if we follow the method proposed by the minister. There is no alternative. I suggest following a different plan of financing. This government should finance its defence program on its own credit, not by borrowing money. To .me it is ricidu-lous to see the government borrowing money from the banks to carry out its program. But, it will be said, if the banks do it there is no inflation. I am not going to argue the point whether or not it is inflation, but I say that if it is inflation for the government to do it, it would be inflation for the banks; if it is not inflation for the banks it would not be inflation if the government did it. The same amount of money would be put out in any case. Suppose it took $50,000,000; if the $50,000,000 can be created by the banks why should it not be created by the federal government? One of the speakers on this side said the other day that the former government created in that way about $15,000,000 for the railways. That did not cause inflation; you never heard any question of it. They said it was a time of emergency. Well, surely this is a time of emergency, and surely this is a time to take every precaution to build up good defences and keep our country from going any further into debt. If it could be done without serious consequences then, why can it not now?
The logical thing is for the dominion government to create the amount of money it would otherwise borrow from the banks, put the money in the Bank of Canada, if you like; pay them for the clerical work, say a quarter of one per cent-I am told that the actual cost is about one-seventh of one per cent for bookkeeping, but pay them well; I do not advocate cutting it too small, give them one-quarter or one-half of one per cent for the clerical work. One of the great advantages of this method of financing-which has been followed by the government in the past without any serious consequences, and could be done again without any more serious consequences, and would not be inflation if done by the government any more than it would be if done by the banks-is that we would not have to tax our people for the next five hundred years to pay the interest on a debt the principal of which never could and never would be paid.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mutch
There is one thing that would have to be considered no matter how this program is financed, that is, if we are to follow the declaration of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day when he said there should be-he did not say there would not be-no profiteering, no blood money, no blood profits from war. Following that declaration I say there should be controlled prices. During the last war the price of wheat was controlled when it was going too high, and there is no doubt they will do it again as to that commodity. Why, then, can they not control prices of other articles? We know there were tremendous profits made in the last war. This is the time, right now, in this session, to go ahead and plan defences and let the people of Canada know exactly what the government intend to do and how they intend to do it. Then everyone will be satisfied.


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: When this debate began a week ago last Monday it occurred to me that there was something ironic in the fact that it was initiated on the anniversary of the poet who optimistically wrote about the time-
That man to man, the world o'er Shall brothers be for a' that.
That poet, however, was not always so optimistic; in another poem he wrote something which I have been treasuring in my mind for a good many years and obeying literally for the last two sessions. The lines are something to this effect:
In politics if thou wouldst mix, and mean thy fortunes be,
Bear this in mind; be deaf and blind, let great folk hear and see.
I cut that out about twelve years ago and have carried it ever since, but a few minutes ago I threw it away because it is no longer for me, at any rate for the time being, to follow that very sage advice. On this particular question I had thought to be silent in this house as I have been hitherto, but, sir, as one of those who fought in the great war to make the world safe for eight or ten or twelve per cent or whatever can be got -not, as the .hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphaii) suggested, to keep the world safe for democracy-it seemed to me the expression of opinions in respect to foreign policy for Canada should not be left entirely to those who were either too young to fight in the last war or will be too old to fight in the next. It seems to me the returned' soldiers of Canada have kept too much aloof from politics. If this country was worth dying for, as thousands did die, surely it is worth the while of those who survive to take some interest in and attempt to play some part
with respect to the foreign policy of this country. The youth of to-day have been told so often the future belongs to them that the majority of them have come to accept it literally and are, I believe, willing to step in and carry on at any time. On the other hand, another generation older than ours has carried on through about twice their normal space of time in the direction of the public affairs of Canada. They have done that not perhaps of their own volition but because the generation which to a great extent disappeared during the last war has been so busy trying to establish itself, to keep alive and pay for the war they fought, that until recently they have not been in a position to take part in public affairs. We who belong to neither of these generations touch both of them. We, whose illusions are gone, perhaps need something of the vigorous, selfish viewpoint of youth. We who are a bit hasty in condemning smugness and lip service need the restraint of our more diplomatic elders. We need something of the tact, the diplomacy and the steadiness of the older generation who have carried on throughout the most trying period of our history.
The motion is divided into three parts. I take it, sir, that it relates more to the question of foreign policy than to *hat of defence. If I may be permitted to express my mind I would say that the first part of the motion is nonsense and the third part is only a pious expression. There are many of us who feel that the meat in the resolution is to be found in the second part. Mr. Speaker, when the day dawns in which war is unprofitable, that day will be the dawn of universal peace.
It has been stated often that in war everyone loses. That, sir, is arrant nonsense. It would be true to say that no matter who wins or loses the battles, the same people always win the war. Some of the greatest fortunes of the world were based on a foundation . the mortar of which is human blood. I need not elaborate that point, because it is something the truth of which every hon. member is aware. And so when we look over the situation, as we listen to some of the discussions relevant to the question of national policy, and a great many that are not relevant to it, I wonder when we are going to stop fooling ourselves. When shall we stop chattering about treaties, leagues, and armaments? When shall we stop defining ourselves as militarists or pacifists, or whatever designation we may apply? We are playing our little part in the wings and leaving the centre of the stage to the apostles of the high god Mammon, whose right hand is Mars.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mutch
We ought to be honest with ourselves and with each other. We ought to be able to say definitely that when the hour strikes, if it does strike, the financial resources of Canada will be conscripted to the last dollar, even as men are taken, to the last unhappy youth. Do that, sir, and we shall have struck a blow in our own defence which not only will be heard but will echo and reecho around the world and without shedding blood. Then we shall be on our way toward peace, that which has been described as the peace that passeth understanding. I do not know why it passeth understanding unless it is because we talk so much about it that we cannot think about it. Perhaps we cannot hear the message of peace because of the clang and clank of the moneychangers in the temple-and by that I mean the armament manufacturers.
The Prime Minister has said that the element of profit is necessary to the supply of arms and munitions. I agree with him. I wish he would say to the world that so far as Canada is concerned there is no profit to be made out of war. If that means nationalization of munitions in time of peace as well as war, I am still for it. If governments were as careful of our individual lives as they are of our collective credit we would feel a great deal more secure. I doubt whether any government can control inflation, but I know that *while there is profit in war no government can protect us against it. Ten millions of people cannot forever hold half a continent in an overcrowded world. Neither can they defend it. It has been said that in the Armageddon to come Canada is in a favoured position. May I say to the house that if Armageddon comes, Canada, in the parlance of the gangster, is " on the spot." If might is to prevail, then it will seek the choicest prize. Look about you: throughout the world to-day there is no greater object of envy than the Dominion of Canada.
Permit me to repeat that there is too little of real honesty in discussions of this subject. I am pleased to note that so far in the debate there has been little of the emotional cant which is generally associated with true patriotism. My loyalty, sir, is not only to the land of my birth, but to the people in it. My inheritance is not a ploughed field, but a free spirit; mine is not the supreme Japanese privilege of dying for my country but the opportunity of living in it and doing something, if I can, to help the others who live in it to attain the free life which should be the lot of every Canadian. We cannot free the world from war; but, sir, we can declare on the question of war profits that Canada has taken a firm stand.

Then, another point has arisen in the debate which irritates me, as a returned soldier, and always has the same effect. Reference was madle to men who fought and died: for $1.10 per day. As a former soldier may I say the expression amuses me when it does not annoy me. Those who died in France and by whose graves some hon. members stood last fall did not die for $1.10 a day. The money element in war is reckoned not in wages but in dividends. Those men died for an ideal- hazy, half-understood; most of them would have scorned a description of it. But it was real. There was nothing of mob fatalism in their action. Beneath exteriors as varied as their numbers they wore a shining armour of idealism worthy of a greater and better cause.	Deluded?-maybe; deceived?-perhaps; grumbling?-sometimes. Suffering and wretched, they carried on till death. Need I say it is beneath the dignity of any hon. member or any person outside the house to suggest that those men acted only for mercenary reasons, for $1.10 a day. Theirs was not the disillusionment; that was reserved for us, who did not die. We talk too much and think too little. We crave action when we ought to pause and reflect. There is no dearth of opportunity for action. We in Canada, in common with the world, have problems worthy [DOT] of all the patriotic endeavour we can muster. There is a clear challenge to a fight with a worthy foeman, poverty-a fight in which none is conscripted but in which all must serve. It is a fight in which man allies himself with God, not as in the great war when the German carried His name on his belt-buckle and romantic British journalists described His angels leading from the clouds, but as one reverently thinks He intended us to apt, in the fight against man's inhumanity to man.
I revert, in closing, to the resolution before us. Despite all I have said I cannot support it. The first clause limits our actions without having any regard to our position or need. The third clause offers lip service to an abstraction. It breaks no new ground and presents no appeal. It offers nothing and promises nothing. It is only a wind-sock on the political landing field. Parliament owes the Canada for which a generation died something more concrete, something more definite and something more sincere.


Mr. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):: Foreign Policy-Mr. Landeryou
In view of the extensive rearmament of powerful nations throughout the world, the British Empire must be in a position to defend its people, its territory, its trade routes and lines of communication. I would point out, however, that Great Britain must be careful of European entanglements, because while I feel certain the Canadian people are prepared to help defend the British Empire, they are not prepared to enter into a war of aggression or a war in any part of the world which does not vitally .concern the well-being of the English speaking units of the empire. I would point out further that old methods of financing the building of armaments, and of conducting war, must be abolished. The people of Canada will not stand much longer the steady pyramiding of debts under the present system, which have as their direct result chaotic conditions in our economic life.
In this connection may I read a statement made by Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it was delivered at Birmingham on January 29. The news item is headed with the words "Living Standards are Endangered by Rearmament Plans," and is in the following terms:
Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared to-day, "If something is not done" to reduce "the terrible burden of armaments it is bound to pull down the standard of living for a generation to come."
Chamberlain referred in a public address to the "incredible folly of a civilization which is piling up these terrible burdens on the shoulders of the nation."
"We are embarking on by far the largest program for defence ever undertaken by this country in peace times" he said. "It is involving us in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds upon munitions and weapons which produce no economic return and which indeed have the inevitable effect of diverting our industries from more desirable activities. I believe that course was absolutely essential. We had no choice in the matter."
The government must finance defence without creating enormous debt burdens to be placed on generations to come. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said the Liberal party stands for the issuing of currency and credit in terms of the public need. We are of opinion that the country is in need of defence. Let us issue the credit necessary for the purpose without borrowing, and take steps to prevent profiteering on the manufacture of defence equipment. By taking the profit out of war we will be on the road to peace.


Mr. F. D. MacKENZIE (Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, as very often happens when a question is before this house, after several members have taken part in the debate there is

very little to be said. It is not my intention to try to bring anything new into the discussion, but rather to emphasize and stress an idea already put forward.
In my opinion the first and third parts of the resolution have received more consideration than they deserve. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) I think disposed of these completely. The second part of the resolution contains the germ of an idea which has some merit of a very practical kind. However, the wording of the resolution is too all-embracing, so much so that it defeats its own purpose.	I think the
resolution should read something like this:
That, in the opinion of this house, legislation should be placed on the statute books of Canada ensuring that on the outbreak of war, in which Canada was engaged, Canadian citizens should not profiteer at the expense of their country.
Perhaps it could read something like this:
That legislation should be enacted committing the country to the principle that should Canada ever be called upon to fight, either in defence of her frontiers or for other reasons, all the resources of the country such as men, money and material should be mobilized in a national scheme.
It could be put shortly as follows:
If and when Canada goes to war, all the country's resources shall be nationalized.
In my opinion a resolution in the terms of the last one I have read would merit support.
When we returned to Canada from the last war there was a general feeling among the boys whom I knew that the conscription of wealth and labour, as well as of men for fighting, should be the basis of any arrangement for Canada entering another war. This opinion has become more general; as time has gone on I have found that more people support it. It is supported also by editorials in the press. From my own observations I have come to believe that the view is now very widely held that if Canada is forced into another war or undertakes another war, there must be a conscription of men and money.
This opinion is being expressed not only on the streets, in the clubs, and in the editorial columns of our newspapers, but by organizations of various kinds. Resolutions in support of this principle have been passed by organizations of province-wide strength. I hold in my hand a copy of a resolution passed by such an organization. I refer to the United Farmers of Manitoba, an organization which has always stood for sane, progressive and forward policies and which has

Foreign Policy-Mr. MacKenzie (Neepawa)
always shown a careful, intelligent and conscientious leadership. This is no wild, irresponsible group of radical agriculturists; it is a body made up of men possessing keen minds and sound judgment. And generally speaking they are all peace loving men. On November 27, 28 and 29 a provincial conference of this organization was held at Neepawa. I should like to quote briefly from a resolution adopted at that meeting dealing with this very matter. The debate thereon was very interesting and in my opinion compared quite favourably with the debate we have just, listened to on this resolution. I listened to men whose voices in years past had been heard and heard with effect right here in this chamber. Two findings of more than ordinary importance were agreed upon and embodied in a resolution. Right here may I say that the government might very well note the support in this resolution for their defence program, an implied support offered prior to the announced government program and anticipating some such program of defence. May I quote briefly:
Whereas under the changed conditions as regards world peace, many people expect the Canadian government to enter upon a new and extended defence program, and
Whereas, in our opinion, one of the vital elements in any defence policy should be the maintenance and extension of the spirit of peace,
Therefore, be it resolved that we urge upon the government that if any defence budget is adopted, a reasonable and definite proportion of the total sum be devoted to promoting the peace spirit among our people and to giving the peoples of the world to know that in the hearts of our people there is a deep, intense and universal desire to live at peace with them all.
The resolution goes on to show how this plan might be put into operation, but I shall not take up the time of the house with the details. It continues:
That in the undertaking of any preparations for the possible contingency of war (1) the government take steps to commit the nation to the principle that immediately upon the declaration of war, financial control of all industry shall be assumed by the government so that profiteering of every kind, out of war conditions and services, shall be rendered impossible and that all wealth shall be conserved and applied to the national purpose of maintenance of the population and the realization of the nation's war objective.
I commend this next clause to the attention of the Minister of National Defence. It reads:
That the working out of plans for such mobilization of economic resources be made a part of any defence policy upon which the nation may enter.
I think hon. members will agree with me that the resolution I have quoted needs little elucidation. When one reads it carefully and follows out all its implications, can there be any doubt that here is possibly the greatest assurance of peace obtainable anywhere? It may be nationalization, yes, but only after a declaration of war and only after the ground .has been prepared well ahead of time. There will have to be nationalization in some form or other should Canada enter another war. If legislation to this effect is placed upon our statute books so that all may know that the next war will not mean fat profits, that it will mean nationalization, the mobilization of all the men and resources for the country's fight, I ask you if we are likely to have another war in which Canada is concerned.
When we refer to the munitions maker I think we have in mind anyone who makes a profit out of war. Will the munitions maker want war when he knows that this plan has been put in effect? Will he want war when he knows that the government in case of war will immediately step in and take over control of all the production of the state? Think of this in all its implications. I want to leave this question with you.
How practicable is this resolution? Having seen something of war operations in more than one theatre, I know the tremendous problem of organization involved. The problem would not be increased, but rather would be lessened by preparation ahead of time. I realize that there are difficulties in the way of obtaining goods and services when the profit motive is removed; it might be said that we would be crippling our own cause as other nations would not do likewise, but I answer that by saying: If you have considered all the implications of the scheme and their consequences you will see, as I see, that this applies only after we are at war-at war under a national scheme-and if there is a firing squad for cowardice, for slacking or other mistakes on the fighting front, there would no doubt, under a scheme of nationalization, be the same arrangement for slackers on the home front, just as there is in Russia to-diay.
I think the people should thin!' of these things and be prepared for what is ahead if Canada enters another war. For myself I cannot conceive of the country ever entering another war on the free and easy basis on which we did the last. And when hon. members object to this scheme because it means nationalization in war, and would lead to a possible continuation of the same type of government after war, I would answer, quite
544	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Marshall
true; but what hope of a democratic form of government, what hope of anything but dictatorship or anarchy, or what hope of any kind would follow another world war?
I cannot, Mr. Speaker, support the resolution as it stands on the order paper.


Mr. J. A. MARSHALL (Camrose):: I had not intended, Mr. Speaker, to take part in this debate, for one reason. At the first session of the present parliament there was introduced for discussion by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), a resolution which in many respects is similar to the one we are now discussing. For example, it stated "that, unless and until, there is a sincere acceptance and application of 'the above"

referring to certain principles therein stated-"by the member-nations of the league, Canada will refuse to participate in any foreign war no matter who the belligerents may be." On that occasion I spoke briefly to the resolution and outlined the studied opinion of the social credit group on war. This year the resolution which is sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) goes further, in my opinion; it has been broadened- to include such matters as war profiteering and government plans to remove causes of war. I should, however, like to read from what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said last year in the debate on the resolution of the hon. member for Weyburn, to which I have already referredi. It is found at page 675 of Hansard, and is as follows:
We come to the policies of our country, and as yet, unfortunately in my judgment, this country, like a good many other countries is still relying more or less upon armaments as a last resort. I suggest that an isolationist position cannot be successfully maintained in the world to-day. Things may come to such a pass, if we are about to be dragged into a war and there may be no other policy open to us. We may be forced to adopt an isolationist policy and refuse to be dragged in. But it should be remembered that to-day the world is becoming more or less integrated industrially, financially and socially. We cannot stay out by ourselves. As long as we are in the world neighbourhood we have to deal with the people whom we meet in that neighbourhood. So we ought to recognize that the League of Nations, in so far as it is an association of nations seeking to promote peace, ought to be supported.
In my opinion this does not conform strictly to the first section of the present resolution. It is quite possible that I have missed the purport of the hon. member's remarks on that occasion, or indeed may have misconstrued them; if I have, I know he will put me right and I shall be glad to have him do so.

Some days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) outlined definitely and concisely the Liberal viewpoint of the world situation as it now presents itself to us and as it affects Canada. I think I am safe in saying that it was not an imperialistic viewpoint. He was followed by one of the younger members of the Conservative party, who spoke definitely in favour of imperialism, and I think he was speaking on behalf of the whole of his party. The leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group placed upon Hansard the complete manifesto of his party upon the subject. To me has been given the task of outlining what we of the Social Credit party sincerely believe are the causes of war and how such a calamity can not only be avoided but forever wiped out. Before doing this, however, I should like to make one or two general remarks.
The thing which concerns me most at the moment is not whether I am an isolationist or an imperialist, but what we should do now, when every nation is rearming feverishly. I must confess that I lean towards Canada taking some action now, although my whole being cries out against rearmament. I sometimes say to myself when thinking of the situation: What would you do, if you were leader in this Dominion of Canada, should the United States and Japan make up their minds some morning to shoot it out on the Pacific, or if one of these nations established or attempted to establish a base somewhere in Canada from which to carry on its operations? It is imperative that we face the facts now and make a decision on this difficult position.
In this resolution we are asked to lend our support to the taking of profits out of war. As the Prime Minister has said, if we eliminate profits from guns and ammunition and tanks we must also eliminate profits from horses and cattle, grain and foodstuffs. That would mean the socialization of industry, and I am afraid I cannot go that far. However, I will say this. I will support whole-heartedly any movement or any organization which pledges itself to smash munition rings and the international financiers who stand behind those rings.
Then we come to the last section. The Prime Minister said it should have come first. I agree with him entirely, but I would go further and say it should come first, last and all the time. We call the fire engine to put out a fire, but when the danger is over we plan how to prevent fires in the future. The League of Nations did the best it could, but we must see to it that a new league shall try out new schemes and new plans. If we

Foreign Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
persist in following the old ideas of bygone days we shall always have trouble. We must develop the courage to try new methods even though we may be prejudiced against them.
High tariffs and economic nationalism have been advanced as reasons for international friction. I do not agree. Tariffs are simply herrings drawn across the trail to deceive; and as for economic nationalism, I cannot see what is wrong with any nation aiming to develop itself internally to such a degree that its citizens may have all the food they want, all the clothes they want to wear and the finest homes they can possibly build to live in. That is what my understanding of economic nationalism is, and until a better definition of the term is forthcoming that definition is good enough for me. I believe I can bring many eminent authorities to substantiate the statement that commercial and industrial rivalry are entirely responsible for the jealousy and hatred amongst nations to-day.
It is surprising that on many occasions I find myself heartily in accord with the Prime Minister, but there is the odd occasion when we part company. Speaking the other day he said that if ever war should have to be declared parliament would decide. Well, Mr. Speaker, as a member of this house I certainly do not crave or yearn for the responsibility; in fact I am not so sure that is the right course to adopt. Most of us at present sitting in this House of Commons and in the Senate as well have reached the stage in life when it would be exceedingly difficult for us to man a machine gun, to take up a bomber laden with deadly disease or gas bombs, or perhaps to take our turn in a trench or in a dugout. Yet in our hands lies the power to send some other mother's son to do the job for us. We have not yet by any means paid for the last war; we have not given economic security to those to whom such security was promised. We are at our wit's end to know what to do with the returned soldier problem. The Minister of Pensions is doing his very best, but the new problems that are constantly confronting him are in my judgment almost insurmountable. He, of all ministers in the cabinet, is deserving of much sympathy. Those who would have to suffer, and if need be die; those who have to bear the terrible burden and the costs of another war, should surely have something to say as to whether war should or should not be declared. In my judgment we should refer the matter to the people for their decision by means of a referendum. It can be done; it simply must be done.
And now may I read the statement which I mentioned a few moments ago as outlining the policy of the Social Credit party:
Because we recognize that war is one of the inevitable consequences of the present monetary system brought about to a very large degree by the struggle for markets to establish favourable trade balances, and because we realize that until tile nations of the world are prepared to depart from traditional monetary methods and substitute a money system based upon the productive capacity of the nations, we believe there can be little hope for lasting peace. We also believe that the greatest success in eliminating war may be achieved by the proper adjustment of consumption in relation to production and this, we believe, can most readily be brought about by the adoption of the basic principles of Social Credit.
We believe that the nations of the world must be prepared to bring into operation systems based upon human values rather than material values so as to satisfy the requirements of their people to the full capacity of industry to produce and deliver goods and services.
Having these objects in view we, therefore, propose to strive for their attainment which we believe will bring about among the nations:
(1)	The reduction of armaments;
(2)	The reduction of armies and navies;
(3)	The training of youth in other than warlike channels;
(4)	The discouragement of all activities having war-like tendencies;
(5)	The elimination of artificial trade barriers.
You may disagree entirely with our viewpoint; that is only to be expected. Nevertheless, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we are sincere when we say that only by these methods will war and its hellish horrors ever be obliterated.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice); Mr. Speaker, the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is indeed a very important one, and although it is impossible for me to support it I am pleased to say that it serves a good purpose in bringing to the attention of the country conditions as they are in the world to-day.
My hon. friend has painted a picture of war which certainly is not overdrawn; he could have said a good deal more about it. Another world war under present conditions would result necessarily in a cataclysm which might be the end of civilization. Many thinkers believe that another world war would bring about revolution, and that is one of the chief reasons why the leaders of the world, in spite of difficulties they have to meet, are I think opposed to war and will try to avoid it. It is all very well to speak of neutrality, but scientific developments have bound all the nations of the world together in such a way that the fate of every one

546	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
of them depends largely on the fate of the others. That is why it is essential that they should unite in order to prevent war and the consequences which would necessarily follow.
The best way to avoid our being involved in a war is to do our utmost to prevent it. The best way not to be involved in a war is to take steps to ensure that there shall be no war. And the statesmen of the world, to whatever country they belong, who may be in any way responsible for the prevention of the catastrophe of war will deserve well not only of their own fellow countrymen but of the citizens of other countries, even if they make mistakes in other policies. I do not yield to my hon. friend in my hatred of war.
I hate war in every fibre of my being. I will do anything to try to prevent Canada being involved in a war. But peace is twosided. As a world statesman, the present premier of France, Leon Blum, said recently, peace must be general because war would be general.	_
The main fault I find with the resolution of my hon. friend is that it is not at all constructive; indeed, to my mind it is destructive. Has my hon. friend realized that if his resolution were adopted by this parliament. Canada would be out of the League of Nations? My hon. friend and some of those who agree with him profess loyalty to the league, at least they give it lip service. But if this resolution were carried we should advertise to the world that we would not do anything in regard to observance of the pledges which this country has given to_ the sister members of the League of Nations. To article X, to article XVI of the covenant of the league, we are pledged. It is true that parliament would decide to what extent we should help a fellow member of the league if attacked by an aggressor. But reserving the right to judge as to the extent of our participation in the defence of that member is not neutrality, nor does it mean that in economic or diplomatic matters we would not side with the victim of the aggression rather than with the aggressor.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I asik-


Ernest Lapointe: I would crave my hon. friend's indulgence to allow me to proceed without interruption.
There is no doubt that this resolution if carried would mean the withdrawal of Canada from the League of Nations. Thus we should be left with no connection with any organization through which we could work with the other nations of the world for the establishment of international peace. Yet my hon. friend says he is in favour of the League of Nations. They all say that. But

in what way would he support the League of Nations? I agree that the League of Nations is not as effective as I would like it to be, not as effective as it was meant to be. But I will not admit that it has failed, as many hon. members including, I think, the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), have said. Some nations have failed the league; my hon. friend is failing the league in introducing this resolution. But the League of Nations has not failed. When the league was created after the war there was behind it a strong wave of public sentiment. It answered a psychological need, a state of mind that existed everywhere after the war. The people of the world were eager for peace; they were craving peace; they had a passionate desire for peace. It is a state of mind which perhaps does not exist to-day, but this sentimental and mystic feeling still prevails. There is need that a prophet should arise somewhere to rekindle the flame. But the league is not dead.
I say more than that. If there were another war, from that terrible cataclysm the League of Nations would arise again and' be revivified. It would emerge with some changes, perhaps; but surely the movement towards international order in the civilized world will not stop; it will go on. The only question is whether new blood may be necessary in order that the league may be more solidly entrenched in the world. After all, the League of Nations is only twenty years old, and it has to fight a condition that has existed for thousands of years. It has to replace with brotherly love and friendship the ferocious attitude which exists in many quarters of the world. This is a difficult work, but everyone should assist in it instead of trying to find reasons for criticism and blaming the league for not having done more than it has been able to do. And who can say that the league has not prevented wars? Conditions have been terribly difficult during the few years which have elapsed since the end of the war. War has loomed up many times, and the league has been successful in doing something. If it has not been successful in some instances, particularly in two glaring ones, does this fact take away every credit the league may have in regard to other instances with which my hon. friend is well acquainted? In that respect may I quote the words of the' present Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, uttered only a few weeks ago. This is wihat Mr. Yvon Delbos said:
Doubtless, also, some who pretent to be realists set up the concept of peace imposed by the single law of force against the ideal of peace through justice, the failure of which they proclaim. But are not they themselves

Foreign Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
the creators of the impotence which they denounce? In fact, the family of nations is weak only so far as they weaken it. Moreover, it is less feeble than they claim and than they desire. As for _ the concept which they set up against it, this has been tried out only too thoroughly. All history proves to us that the reign of force has never resulted in anything but bloody conflicts. And how can one claim that war is avoided by multiplying the sinews of war and the temptations to recur to it while refusing procedures which tend to avoid it; that the security of the weak is guaranteed by placing no restraint on abuses by the strong; that harmony among the peoples is to be accomplished by preventing them from organizing; that a champion of order is one who does not admit any international law? Such an attitude bears its own condemnation. But the risks of war which it creates and the obstacles which it opposes to peace-loving nations unfortunately retard the necessary organization.
That is no reason to renounce the ideal. On the contrary', redoubled efforts are necessary.
I associate myself with those words, and I commend them to the consideration of hon. members.
Oceosionally there is some talk of the cost of the League of Nations. Well, Mr. Speaker, the whole cost of the League of Nations, the world court and the international labour office amounts to $9,500,000, which is less than the cost of a single first-class cruiser such as those which are being constructed by many at the present time.
I am not like my hon. friend,, who believes in having force behind the League of Nations. I do not think war should be avoided by means of war.


Mr. MOODS  WORTH@: I ask the minister not to put into my mouth what I did not say.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not want to put anything into my hon. friend's mouth; there is plenty in it already. I was of opinion that my hon. friend had most openly expressed himself in the way I described, but I accept his statement. I say I am opposed to force being exercised by the League of Nations, but I believe we should help the victim against the aggressor, economically, diplomatically or otherwise. I refuse to agree that we should treat the gangster, international or otherwise, just as we treat his victim, the one who is struck by him.
The weakness of the league, if weakness exists, is due to the anarchy which prevails in the world at the present time much more than to any defect in the structure of the league. Of course the extremists, whether they are militarists or pacifists, speak against the league; all those on the extreme side
usually denounce the league. But that is the very reason why we who claim to be moderate should support it as strongly as we can.
There are contradictions in my hon. friend's position, as I think he will admit. For instance. he says he is not an isolationist. How does he reconcile that statement with the terms of his resolution? If this motion is adopted, we go out entirely from the concert of nations, and mind you, Mr. Speaker, it is not only to the League of Nations that we as a country have given pledges. When we signed the Pact of Paris we pledged ourselves to consider as a criminal any nation which would try to effect the settlement of an international conflict by means of war or which would accept war as a national policy in solving disputes. In that Pact of Paris which we signed, and which was accepted here unanimously, we declared that any nation taking that position would be an enemy of Canada. That is what is really stated in the Pact of Paris, but my hon, friend brushes that aside together with the pact of the League of Nations.
he seriously considered what a declaration of absolute neutrality, as embodied in his resolution, would mean? Has he considered that, according to all constitutional writers, this would mean the secession of Canada from the commonwealth of nations? I do not think my hon. friend wants to go that far. There is all the difference in the world between neutrality, and participation or non-participation, which we shall be always free to declare, in the event of any war. The parliament of Canada will be always free to say whether or not we shall participate in any war. But neutrality is quite different. In the constitutional position of Canada to-day neutrality would mean that an enemy of our king could be a friend of Canada; that we could trade with him during a war in which the king might be engaged; that to nations with which the king might be at war we could send ordinary material, anything that a neutral nation could sell to countries actively engaged in war.
This question as to the right of the dominions to be strictly neutral is one of the questions yet to be solved;, and it will not be solved in the way suggested by my hon. friend. My hon. friend referred to South Africa and said that Canada should' do as South Africa has done in that regard. I have before me the debates of the South African parliament for 1934 when the constitutional
548	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
act of that country was discussed. At page 1939 I find these words, which were uttered by the Minister of the Interior, who was in charge of the bill:
If South Africa has not got the right of neutrality it can still do three things. It can decide to participate actively in the war. Or it can still be passively belligerent. And the third thing that may happen, it may want to go further, or it is possible that the hostile power may not be content with its passivity, and then South Africa, as the master of its own destiny, can, in the last resort, exercise its power of secession. I am not talking about the right of secession, but it can break away and thus assume that right of neutrality. We say, then, that whatever line we follow, whether we have the right of neutrality or not we find ourselves in exactly the same position. Any one of these things can happen and the ultimate result is the same. The only difference is that in the one case you have a revolution. That is to say that if we exercise the power of secession without the right of secession, it means revolution, but apart from that, the result is the same. So I return to the point I make, and that is. that in practice this question is an academic question on which we may have a difference of view.
Then may I particularly direct the attention of the house to a statement made by the Minister of Justice, General Smuts, who is well known throughout the British commonwealth of nations, and who has always fought for South African autonomy. This statement appears at page 2080:
To my mind these things, secession, neutrality and the like are impracticable and academic. I do not believe that anything we can say in a constitution will settle our attitude or influence it -when we come to the day of secession or to the day to declare our neutrality. These events, if ever they come to pass, would shake the whole British Empire and perhaps the whole world to its foundations. It is futile. You may talk about these things in a debating way if you are a debating society, but men who have been through the ordeals we have been through attach no importance to formulae of words. Consider, for example, the position of the United States of America during the war. The United States did her utmost to keep out of the Great war. She fought a presidential election during the war to keep out of it, and everybody was pledged to the full to keep out of the war; but in spite of all in a couple of months she was in the war. She could not maintain her neutrality. Whether it is neutrality or secession or any of these things they will be decided, not by legal documents or the phraseology of a bill like this-
I might add-or a resolution like that of my hon. friend.
-but by the ordeal of facts, of great events which might shake not only this country, but even the world to its foundations. But sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. Wise men leave these things alone.
I commend) that to my hon. friend. I have not time to read all the quotations I have before me, but I would direct the attention of

my hon. friend and of the house to a very valuable work. The Present Juridical Status of the British Dominions in International Law, written by Mr. Baker, who is a jurist of repute in Britain and who some time ago was elected as a labour member of the British parliament. Mr. Baker has a whole chapter devoted to this subject, headed The Problem of "Automatic Belligerency" and the Effect of the Covenant of the League of Nations, in which he takes exactly the view I have tried to submit to the house, and in which he quotes Pearce Higgins, Duncan Hall, Smith and Corbett, who are Canadian constitutional authors, as well as McNair, Keith and various other authors. He concludes with these words:
As Keith has said of the application of the covenant to inter-commonwealth relations, "the truth is.. . .that the matter could not be thought out in advance," and in consequence it "presents a problem which time and usage alone can solve."
Mr. Baker states there what I have been saying, that there is all the difference between neutrality and passive belligerency; that participation in any war will be a matter strictly for the parliament of each dominion to decide, and. that this decision will be taken in the light of the circumstances as they exist at the time.
May I conclude this phase of the discussion by quoting what my old leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, stated in regard to this matter:
Whilst T cannot admit that Canada should take part in all the wars of Great Britain, neither am I prepared to say that she should not take part in any war at all. I am prepared to look upon each case upon its merits as it arises. . . .1 claim for Canada this, that in future Canada shall be at liberty to act or not to act, to interfere or not to interfere, to do just as she pleases, and that she shall reserve to herself the right to judge whether or not there is cause for her to act.
History has shown that when a war breaks out, matters of this kind are not decided by whatever resolutions or even laws have been placed upon the statute books. They are decided in the light of conditions as they exist and, unfortunately by the feelings that are aroused when the time comes and hostilities begin. But that is human nature. It would be futile to place a resolution of this kind in the records of parliament. Parliament cannot bind its successors on this or on any other question. A resolution of this parliament would not bind the parliament which would be at the head of affairs when trouble came to Canada. By no means could future parliaments be 'bound by an act or by words of this parliament. I say that elementary prudence requires us to preserve our liberty, our freedom and our independence of judgment for the time when the occasion arises.
FEBRUARY 4, 1937	54c
Foreign Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
Let me tell my hon. friend that neutrality does not mean doing away with the necessity of armaments. The United States have proclaimed their desire for neutrality-they have passed no resolution of this kind-but they are increasing their armaments to a degree greater than has been seen by any American. Just a few weeks ago the King of Belgium made a statement to the world which aroused great interest. He proclaimed the neutrality of Belgium and stated that it was absolutely without any commitments to any other country. But he said that in order to assure that neutrality, Belgium would have to increase her armaments. He asked the Belgian nation to support the government in its policy of increased armaments. Increased armaments and neutrality go together. May I translate one or two sentences from his speech?
Unless she possesses herself of a system of defence capable of resisting, Belgium will see herself from the outset invaded and massacred. That is why we must, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has stated recently, pursue a policy completely Belgian. This policy looks to our being placed outside the conflicts of our neighbours, it insures our national ideals, but it must be sustained by a military and financial effort. This will bring about the unity of Belgium and animate her people with an intense and primordial desire for peace.
Switzerland is perhaps the classical example of a neutral country, but I do not think my hon. friend would like to see Canada militarized to the extent of Switzerland. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) was telling me that when he was at the League of Nations there were posters on nearly every wall in Geneva asking the people of Switzerland to subscribe to a national loan for armaments. When my hon. friend uses opposition to armaments as an argument in support of a resolution declaring neutrality, I think he is entirely wrong. Experience has shown that those countries which are stated, by law or otherwise, to be neutral, are compelled to have many armaments in order to protect themselves and their neutrality. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) wanted us to ask President Roosevelt to convene a world conference on peace. Everyone knows that the president is an apostle of peace and is working for peace. Does he think that is sufficient to warrant a policy of no protection at all for the United States? I have in my hands the New York Times of Saturday, August 15. 1936, which contains the full text of a speech on international affairs delivered by President Roosevelt at Chautauqua. This speech has been read by many people in Canada. The president said:
We are not isolationists except in so far as we seek to isolate ourselves completely from war. Yet we must remember that so long as
war exists on earth there will be some danger t.iat even the nation which most ardently desires peace may be drawn into war.
I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. I have seen men coughing out their gassed lungs. I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. I have seen two hundred limping, exhausted men come out of line-the survivors of a regiment of one thousand that went forward forty-eight hours before. I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war.
I have passed unnumbered hours, I shall pass unnumbered hours, thinking and planning how war may be kept from this nation.
I wish I could keep war from all nations, but that is beyond my power. I can at least make certain that no act of the United States helps to produce or to promote war. I can at least make clear that the conscience of America revolts against war and that any nation which provokes war forfeits the sympathy of the people of the United States.
Many causes produce war. There are ancient hatreds, turbulent frontiers, the "legacy of old forgotten far off things, and battles long ago. There are new-born fanaticisms, convictions on the part of certain peoples that they have become the unique depositories of ultimate truth and right.
A dark old world was devastated by wars between conflicting religions. A dark, modern world faces wars between conflicting economic and political fanaticisms in which are intertwined race ratreds. To bring it home, it is as it within the territorial limits of the United States, forty-eight nations with forty-eight forms of government, forty-eight customs barriers, forty-eight languages and forty-eight eternal and different verities, were spending their time and their substance in a frenzy of effort to make themselves strong enough to conquer their neighbours or strong enough to defend themselves against their neighbours.
Further on, he says:
In spite of every possible forethought, international relations involve of necessity a vast unchartered area. In that area safe sailing will depend on the know-ledge and the experience and the wisdom of those who direct our foreign policy. Feace will depend on their day to day decisions.
At this late date, with the wisdom -which is so easy after the event and so difficult before tile event, we find it possible to trace the tragic series of small decisions which led Europe into the great war in 1914 and eventually engulfed us and many other nations.
We can keep out of w-ar if those who watch and decide have a sufficiently detailed understanding of international affairs to make certain that the small decisions of each day do not lead toward war, and if, at the same time, they possess the courage to say "no" to those who selfishly or unwisely would let us go to war.
Of all the nations of the world to-day we are in many ways most singularly blessed. Our closest neighbours are good neighbours. If there are remoter nations that w-ish us not good but ill. they know that w-e are strong; they know that we can and will defend ourselves and defend our neighbourhood.
550	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
We seek to dominate no other nation. We ask no territorial expansion. We appose imperialism. We desire reduction in world armaments.	.
We believe in democracy; we believe in freedom; we believe in peace. We offer to every nation of the world the handclasp of the good neighbour. Let those who wish our friendship look us in the eye and take our hand.
I think those words of President Roosevelt could be reechoed by us and certainly represent the feelings of most Canadians. We are in a splendid position geographically, and we thank God for it. But perhaps we are over enthusiastic if we suppose that other countries are not thinking of Canada and* its resources. The other day, while in the library reading some books on this question, I put my hand1 on a publication, "The Future of the League of Nations," which is a record of a series of discussions held at Chatham House during 1936. In attendance there were some of the best known British thinkers, including Sir Norman Angell, Lord Arnold, Sir James Barrett, Hon. R. H. Brand, Lord Howard, the Marquis of Lothian and other distinguished' men. Even our friend H. G. Wells was one of the conferees, also Sir Arthur Salter and many other men who are well known to members of this house. This is what one of the main participants in the conference, Doctor Toynbee, said at page 120:
I think the Italian case-
He was discussing the Italo-Ethiopian conflict.
-shows the strength of the universal scheme. It seems to me that what really sent the Italians to fight Abyssinia was two things done by North American countries. The first was in 1927 when the Italians raised the point of access to raw materials and the Canadian delegate stamped on it; and the second was the passing of the two American Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924 which produced this mass of baulked young men in Italy who had to be turned to something good or bad.
So it is obvious that the problem of the natural resources in which some countries are lacking, and which constitute the great wealth of this country, is far from being solved, and that Canada's resources are certainly coveted by many interests elsewhere. President Roosevelt, in the speech from which I have quoted, spoke of world conditions and the nature of the new conflicts that are raging in the world. To-day there are groups organized and ready to fight and die for an abstract creed. These are no longer wars of trade and frontiers; such groups are fighting for abstract ideas. My hon. friend mentioned two countries not by their names but by the names of their leaders, Hitler and Mussolini. I wish he had mentioned Russia as well. They are all
fighting freedom and democracy, and we must include them all in our abhorrence of the creeds which they try to preach and spread throughout the world. In this connection may I say to an organization from which I receive occasional resolutions and other communications and which calls itself the League against War and Fascism, that I should be inclined to consider its resolutions and communications with more sympathy if it would add to its name and activities so as to make it read, the league against war and fascism "and communism," which it refrains from doing.


An hon. MEMBER:: And deliberately.


Ernest Lapointe: And deliberately? I do not know. One of my hon. friends says so. But as far as we in Canada are concerned we are for our free institutions and we defend them, and if a big war in Europe is occasioned by a conflict between these two creeds or doctrines, Canada should not spend one cent or one life in support of either of them. Possibly it is unfortunate that some Canadians are taking sides in the conflict which is going on over there to-day. We should remain loyal to Canadian ideals. Totalitarian states, absolutism, dictatorships, the prevention of people speaking their own minds on pain of being sent to some island or concentration camp-to all these things whether they come from the right or the left, we in Canada are opposed; they are bad for us Canadians; I do not see why anybody should fight in support of either side in such a conflict, and we shall not.
But we must be able to defend our citizens against the madness of some present day rulers. If international chiefs or gangsters ever come to assail us in a mad impulse^-because the world is mad at the present time -we cannot meet them with a declaration of neutrality. That will not do at all. In that regard, as my hon. friend often talks of South Africa, may I read one article in the platform of the nationalist party in South Africa, that is, the extreme party for South African autonomy. I find it in the Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire, where there is a report of the debate on May 22 last, and the leader of the nationalist party said:
In connection with the status of South Africa, the Prime Minister and other members of the government had said, over and over again that they were on a footing of closest cooperation with the British defence force. They stood for the maintenance of that connection and therefore differed in nothing from Colonel Stallard and his party.
The Nationalist party, in its program of principles, acknowledged " the duty of the government to provide an efficient system of

Foreign Policy-Mr. Brunelle
land defence, both on land and sea, and in the air, for the protection of the country and its interests and consistent with our national independence."
I said1 that if on a mad impulse, in the course of a war, some of these people should come and try to injure Canada in any way, it would be our duty to defend ourselves. But there must be some preparation for that defence. When a house is burning it is too late to organize a fire brigade; that must be done before the fire occurs. When a flood is in progress it is then too late to build a dam; the damage is done before this precaution has been resorted to. Similarly, if we believe-if we do not, I give up my case immediately-it is the duty of Canada to protect its own citizens against any possible emergency, then I do not think anybody could oppose what is an elementary necessity for such defence, and for such defence alone.
My hon. friend took it upon himself to make a sort of appeal to the French-Canadian members. May I tell him that possibly the French-Canadian members will not accept his leadership in this regard. I was a member of parliament during the great war and had some experience of what took place; I had experience of what occurred in my own province. In the fight against conscription, against compulsory military service, which was waged_ in Quebec, I said to all who took part in it-and this statement was everywhere emphasized!-that everyone in that province was ready to do anything for the defence of Canada when the time came. And that statement still holds good. We are prepared to do anything for the defence of Canada. But I do not think our people would like to be involved in a war that might be waged between communism and fascism, because they hate both. They are prepared, however, to defend their own country, and in that respect my hon. friend will not succeed in his passionate appeal to them.
The other day I read this statement by the great American economist, Roger W. Babson:
The Spanish revolution is only the first round in a world conflict which will last for a long time.
If this is true, and if Canada wishes to remain outside that conflict, we must see to it that we shall be able to defend the women and children of our country should these madmen, in a moment of insane impulse, try to attack us.
These are my last words. The duties of a public man are difficult but they must be discharged. If I believe that there is some possibility of danger-and everybody says
there is-I will accept my responsibility. I will not trust to the impassioned speeches of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or to the misrepresentations of any section of the press whether in my own province or elsewhere. I do my duty as my conscience bids me; I do my duty because I should not want to be accused at any time of not having done something to prevent the death of any Canadian woman or child. This is the position I take and by it I stand.
As to the last part of my hon. friend's resolution, let me assure him that Canada is anxious to do anything it can to prevent international conflict andt to work for peace. We will do everything we can to throw Canada's influence into the scale on the side of peace, and we have always done so. May I refer to certain incidents. Take the Chanak affair; we refused to be bound to go to war because of some conflict in the far east. Take Locarno; we were asked to guarantee the eastern frontier of some countries and we refused to do that. We refused to be committed, and I regarded that as the proper course to adopt. We are not committed ; we shall decide when the time comes whether we shall participate or not, and I trust that circumstances will justify Canada in remaining outside any conflict. But we want to reserve our freedom and our independence, as free men should, and not to be committed by any resolution such as my hon. friend has proposed.


Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, before the house is called upon to vote upon so important a question as that of Canada's neutrality in the event of war, I deem it my duty to express my opinion. I shall do so with the frankness and straightforwardness that the gravity of the situation demands.
The government, perhaps with good reason, seems to have deviated somewhat from the policy adhered to in recent years as regards armaments and national defence. This deviation is seen especially in an increase in the defence estimates. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I have been taken rather unawares and1 that I have not been able to give to my remarks all the attention I should have liked. However, in view of the turn events have taken and of a body of opinion this is manifesting itself in many parts of the country, I feel that I should speak up without hesitation and, of course, without provocation, while fully respecting the opinions of those who entertain regarding our national situation, views that differ from mine.
I agree with the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) that we should
Foreign Policy-Mr. Brunelle

cultivate a North American rather than a European mentality. It is hardly necessary to point out in detail the difference between these two mentalities. In most of the countries of Europe children, even on their mother's knees, constantly hear talk of war, of the enemy frontier, of hostile neighbours and their hated inhabitants. Later, at school, they learn how to make war, how to invade and attack some foreign nation. It is therefore not surprising that Europeans should be ready to sacrifice almost everything for armaments, for they have grown up in an atmosphere that we in this country hardly know. That is why, when war is seriously spoken of in Canada, a considerable part of the population becomes alarmed. Besides, we have been brought up in the hatred of war, of armaments and all their works. We have been told that many European nations make war in order to acquire territory, while we in Canada possess more territory than we can occupy and develop. Our public men and our leaders have taught us that competition in armaments was wrong or at least dangerous. Like many others who whisper what I shall say out loud, I have formed an opinion in accordance with that of the people among whom I live. In order to be logical and sincere, I must say that I am in favour of the first part of the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in so far as he wishes Canada to declare its neutrality, but on condition that such neutrality be compatible with our obligations, our honour and our national protection. Indeed, as representatives of the people, we must protect our citizens; our duty requires it. On the other hand, it must be admitted that should the empire be attacked Canada, as part of the empire, would be exposed1 to attack, and if we simply say: we are neutral, we will not fight, the enemy will have but one answer, which will be to summon us to surrender.
On the question of Canada's neutrality and her armaments, I should like to form an honest opinion, based on realities as well as on prudence, and this is how I analyse the situation. First, what alternatives have we? Should we separate from the empire? If so, we would naturally become an absolutely independent nation, and as such we could rely only on ourselves for our defence. We would have to provide for our defence and do so alone. Would that cost us less than it does now? Would we be better protected? We are told that the United States would defend us, but if they spend millions of dollars and sacrifice the lives of their soldiers for us, they will

naturally seek some compensation. Do we want to belong to the United States?
Secondly, do we want to remain in the empire? If so, can we remain in it by folding our arms in case of a war, even of defence? In the event of an attack against the empire and against us as part of the empire, can we simply not defend ourselves but call England or the rest of the empire to our aid?
Thirdly, can we afford to arm ourselves sufficiently to repel a serious attack? Are we sufficiently rich in men and money to do so?
I say that we are not. A small nation whose population is concentrated in a limited area with a short boundary line can resist an enemy far more powerful that she is, but Canada is too large in area and too small in population to offer a serious defence m case of attack. I believe that Canada could not defend herself against most of the European nations taken individually. I go as far as to say that, under present conditions, any defence that Canada could offer against a serious attack would be almost futile.
However, I consider that considerations of prudence and foresight demand that Canada, as one of the nations of the world, should have some kind of an army, in the same way that every city needs a police force. We therefore need an army whose size and cost should be measured by the danger that threatens us and our ability to pay. My opinion is that we are not exposed to great danger, and it is a fact that the state of our finances does not permit us to undertake any expenditure that is not absolutely necessary. I therefore object to the provision of armaments to an extent not justified by any immediate danger and by the financial resources of the country. Above all, Mr. Speaker, I object to any participation by Canada in the armament race. The most distressing, disconcerting and discouraging part of it is the apparent approval given, through a combination of circumstances both visible and invisible, to Canada's entry in the race for armaments.
With such boundaries as the north pole, the Atlantic ocean, the Pacific ocean, and the United States, whose president recently declared: "Our boundary line is the link that unites us," I wonder against what enemies we should protect ourselves if not, perhaps with some reason, against domestic agitators or certain subversive elements already active in this country.
Lastly, I am opposed to anything that smacks of imperialism. If my opinion in this matter differs from that of the members of the party to which I belong, and which no

Foreign Policy-Mr. Brunelle
doubt is the best, there is no reason for astonishment, as I believe the Liberal party to be big and wide enough to include different opinions.
Mr. Speaker, with the reservations already mentioned, I agree with the principle of the first paragraph of the resolution now before this house:
That under existing international relations, in the event of war, Canada should remain strictly neutral regardless of who the belligerents may be.
As to the second paragraph of the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-his riding is like his resolutions, it extends in every direction

I cannot support this proposal which reads as follows:
That at no time should Canadian citizens be permitted to make profits out of supplying war munitions or materials.
I fail to see why we should object to the manufacture of war munitions to be sold to an unjustly attacked nation. When a country attacks another unjustly, the country thus attacked is justified in defending itself and in looking for assistance. Since I do not agree with the resolution in its entirety, I have no other alternative but to vote against it as is customary. I felt that it was my duty to give these explanations before voting on the resolution.
When the National Defence estimates are brought down, I will follow the dictates of my conscience. I will take into account local requirements and certain menacing factors now prevailing in this country. For instance, I will bear in mind the significance of the recent uprising at Guelph, Ontario, which it is claimed is the result of subversive movements in our dominion. Recent occurrences in Quebec city will also be taken into account. I will recall the rather strange statement made recently by the hon. the premier of the province of Quebec at Trois-Rivieres, which reads as follows:
Speaking as Attorney General of this province, I affirm that communistic organizations distributed a short time ago money to the young men of the province of Quebec for the purpose of enrolling them in the Spanish communist armies, and they even supplied them with Canadian passports.
Again, I will not lose sight of the disturbing forces already mentioned that have been prevalent in other countries and which are now at w'ork in Spain. I will take into account the extent to which Spain and other countries have suffered from the activities of these agitators, and I will not forget that we have in the province of Quebec similar principles and institutions to defend.
I will postpone to a later date the discussion on the possibility or likelihood of Canada being attacked. I may say that Norway and Holland have for many years followed an anti-armament policy, and both these countries found that, as a result, they were far better off. I submit that nations that have no armament program are less subject to aggression, as a country is often attacked as a result of armament. Approximately 50,000 human lives were sacrificed during the last war, exclusive of the huge expenditures that we had to meet and that still constitute a problem to-day. The consequences of the last war and our national defence program represent nearly two fifths of our budget estimates. This should be a lesson to us. In Canada, we should be chiefly concerned with the clearing of lands that are fit for cultivation; we should strive to develop our mines that are so rich and abundant. Unemployment is the worst enemy that we have to combat; we must wipe out our national debt by means of a sound and practical policy.
As a North American country, the first duty of Canada is to ensure peace and progress at home. Personally, like the rest of our population, I wish to convey the assurance of my loyalty to the crown but, I repeat, I am utterly opposed to any imperialistic tendency. I was taught to believe that I am not a mere colonial but that I belong to an independent, free and self-governing dominion. As a citizen of such a dominion, I am proud to say that I am a plain Canadian. It is as subjects of the British Empire that many of our people are led to take an interest in European affairs.
Personally, I would like all Canadians to be plain Canadians, and would be pleased to see Canada, in relation to the empire, placed in the position of those solid bodies that do not dissolve when they come in contact with or under the influence of surrounding elements.
In conclusion, I may say that before preparing ourselves, or whilst preparing to face any enemy from outside, it is urgent that we should maintain peace within our boundaries by putting an end to all dissensions, so that our citizens may enjoy their rights in Canada. Let those who constitute the majority of the Canadian population show generosity towards the minority; if not for the sake of love, let it be at least in a true spirit of solidarity. Let us make a truce, and rid ourselves of such political tactics as those used by the Ontario Conservative leader who sits in this house, and by his friend Mr. Drew

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mallette
against the French-Canadian population in the course of a by-election in the province of Ontario.
Let us first settle our local and national difficulties and, once for all, may we realize that Canada is big enough to ensure the complete development of the ideals and the free enjoyment of the respective rights of the two great races in this country. Let the " bonne entente " be our motto, not only in theory but in practice. We will feel better inclined to greater sacrifices for our country that we love so much at the present time, but for which we will show a greater love when vve are sure that all the members of the Canadian family are prepared to gladly march forward hand in hand.


Mr. VITAL MALLETTE (Jacques-Cartier) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) spoke on his motion on January 25th, he invited the French-Canadian members to express their views on the advisability for Canada, in the event of war, to remain strictly neutral regardless of who the belligerents may be. The hon. member may rest assured that the French-Canadian members, who are all patriots, have, irrespective of party, carefully considered his resolution. Notwithstanding the importance of the issue, it is not likely that every member will give his opinion to this house; but in order to make my position clear, I wish to say a few words on this subject.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moves:
That under existing international relations, in the event of war, Canada should remain strictly neutral regardless of who the belligerents may be.
Mr. Speaker, this is a most interesting proposal. If the mere accepting of the motion could settle this question to the satisfaction of all, I am sure that the members of this house would be in favour of it. The province of Quebec is undoubtedly opposed to imperialism. The belief there is that the word means the taking over of territory belonging to other nations by means of warfare. Quebec is not inclined to enter into partnership with the gentlemen from London or elsewhere who have their eyes on oil fields, diamond mines, gold mines, etc., etc., lying in foreign lands. These men would not hesitate in any way to have the empire, including Canada, engaged in a war to enrich themselves at the expense of poor defenceless peoples, by sending young men from all parts of the British Empire as cannon fodder, so as to satisfy the lust of these worshippers of the Golden Calf. Que-

bee is utterly against it, and it is not a party question at that. I also believe that the other provinces of the Dominion are no more anxious to embark upon ventures of this kind. The province of Quebec is also of the opinion that Canada has never been the cause of any war in which England was involved since the Treaty of Paris in 1763; but on the other hand, Canada has been invaded: by the enemies of England, first at the time of the American Revolution, then in the war of 1812, not to speak of the trouble occasioned by the Fenian raids some time later. I say England, because at that time, the words British Empire and British Commonwealth of Nations were unknown. I may say that all the questions pertaining to the settling of the Canadian boundaries were subject to arbitration and I do not think that Canada has gained very much by it. The Privy Council lately settled the Labrador boundary. The. province of Quebec was far from being satisfied with this judgment, but accepted it without protest.
As to the cost of war, I would advise the members of this house to study the figures given by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Elliott) in his speech delivered on January 28th, which will be found at page 381 of Hansard. These figures, I believe, appeared in Maclean's magazine of September 1, 1936. They show that from 1915 to 1936- both years included-the war has cost Canada a total of 84,602,968,368, of which $2,000,000,000 is for interest only. And this is not the end; the worst is yet to come. As others have stated before me and with great eloquence, the worst feature of it all is the useless sacrifice of human lives, and the ensuing misery which seems endless. Unfortunately, this does not settle the question because, even though the Canadian parliament should agree to this resolution, this would not guarantee safety to this country, in the event of one of the great powers declaring war upon Great Britain. Such an enemy would not hesitate to attack the empire anywhere. Should a naval or air squadron reach our shores, could we protect ourselves simply by informing the officer commanding that we are neutral? The answer admits of no doubt. Indeed, it is evident that, neutral or not, Canada, in the eyes of nonBritish people, forms part of the empire.
It has been said that the United States would protect us. That may be. But I am not simple enough to 'believe that if our American neighbours come to our defence they will do so without our paying the cost in some way or another. We have not forgotten the case of Belgium. For many years Belgium had been protected by treaties signed by the

Foreign Policy-Mr. Robichaud
principal European powers, but in spite of these treaties which were considered sacred, which were almost considered as the keystone of European politics, Belgium was invaded.
Here, we have had the Chanak incident, when Lloyd George, at the time Prime Minister of Great Britain, inquired of the dominions, of Canada in particular, whether they would support his country against the Turks. Canada's Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Mackenzie King, replied that the matter would be submitted to parliament. It must not be forgotten that, speaking at Geneva some time ago, the right hon. the Prime Minister reiterated this position which, more recently, he asserted again in this house. Such is therefore the Liberal policy, the policy which we have adopted, the policy which received the approval and the encouragement of the thinking citizens of this country. Certainly, we are against all participation in war if it can possibly be avoided. We take the position that we are opposed to war. But should we be attacked we would necessarily have to defend ourselves.
I know that some people make a great deal of a separatist movement in Quebec. This movement should not be given greater importance than it deserves. There is no doubt that some of our young men are dissatisfied with the present situation. We can hardly blame them when we see hundreds upon hundreds of well-educated, healthy young men vainly seeking suitable employment. Their discontent is only natural. These young men find a further cause of discontent in the conviction that they hold1-and I may add that we, the French-Canadian members of this house, are pretty much of their opinion-that our people do not obtain all the civil service positions they should occupy. Therein lies one of the causes of discontent. This discontent will vanish as soon as its causes are removed.
As to this separatist movement, there is in, the province of Quebec a man qualified above all others by the high office he occupies to pass judgment upon it. This man is Hon. Maurice Duplessis, Premier of the province of Quebec. In its edition of January 18, 1937, the Gazette reports the premier as having said at a dinner given by the Provincial Command of the Federation of Catholic Scouts of the Province of Quebec:
Again he condemned any separatist movement in the province, urging rather unity with all the other provinces for the real progress of the country.
Not only did Hon. Maurice Duplessis make this statement, but another member of his government, Hon. Bona Dussault, Minister of
Agriculture, spoke as follows at a banquet of the Canadian Ayrshire Breeders' Association held at the Queens Hotel, Montreal:
It is not by locking ourselves up in the province of Quebec that we shall be able to achieve anything tangible and stable. It is said that a separatist movement is manifesting itself in this province. I can assure you that it does not represent the sentiment of our population. I can understand how our young men, imbued with new theories and filled with ambition, should have wished for a moment to isolate Quebec from the other provinces of the dominion. Let us hope that those who launched this movement will return to the sound ideals of their fathers who wanted a United Canada.
This statement was published in Le Canada of January 29, 1937, and is to be found in La Presse and La Patrie of the same date. I hold these papers at the disposal of anyone who wishes to consult them.
I shall conclude without referring to the two other clauses of the resolution, as they are not the most important ones. The resolution is an excellent one from an academic viewpoint. Unfortunately, it belongs to the realm of dreams. Were the house to agree to it, it would have the same value as most of the resolutions that are so lightly made at the beginning of each new year.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. LOUIS P. A. ROBICHAUD (Kent, N.B.): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but in view of what may develop I feel it only right that I should place on record the reason why I am going to vote against this resolution, if it comes to a vote.
The first part of the resolution states that Canada should remain strictly neutral regardless of who the belligerents may be. Let me say that I agree with the mover of the resolution in those sentiments. I think we should do everything possible to remain neutral in any future war, and strangely enough that is the very reason why I am going to vote against the resolution. It has been said by some hon. members, whether in or out of this house I do not know, that this resolution really is insincere; that it was meant to put some of us on the spot, as one might say. Of course I am too generous to sa3r that of the mover of this resolution; I believe he is sincere, but to my mind he is taking the very course which will defeat his purpose.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Rinfret
I say that for this reason: Let us suppose we pass the resolution to-night, and word goes out that Canada is not going to take part in any future war. The very men who would be interested in moulding public opinion, in keeping alert and awake, in acting as watch-dogs against our taking part in any future war, would be lulled into a false sense of security, believing that since the parliament of Canada passed this resolution we would not take part in any war which might develop. Thus the purpose for which this resolution is brought forward would be defeated. I do not want to take part in any future war, but at the same time I want to keep public opinion alive and alert in working against this idea, of security from participation on our part in any future war, so I am going to vote against this motion. As was explained by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), if a time should come when parliament had to take a stand, no doubt emotion would sway a large part of the people, and if we are not constantly vigilant there would be the danger that this movement would carry us off our feet, so that before we knew it we would be at war. So I say that if we passed this resolution tonight it would have the effect of lulling us into a false sense of security. We would think, "Well, we have passed this resolution, so there is no danger of Canada taking part in any war that may arise." For that reason I am going to vote against the resolution.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to
make a long speech on this motion. It has been before the house on several occasions; many speeches have already been delivered in connection with it, but inasmuch as it touches a question which in one way or another has been brought very often before those who are in public life, I think before casting my vote I should clearly and briefly give my reasons for opposing the resolution. In presenting my argument I may occasionally refer to facts that already have been placed before the house, but at the same time, in order to make my speech complete though terse and brief, I shall have to repeat some of the things that have been said already.
My first objection to the motion is that in my opinion it is inopportune. I do not see why at this stage either of this year or of this session our time should be taken up with a heated discussion of a problem which is only hypothetical and which is not really before us. I believe we have so many ques-

tions to solve and so many actual, local problems to deal with that it is, I shall not say a waste of time, but an inopportune time to bring up a question of this kind.
I also share the view already expressed that we should not bind our liberty and freedom of thought by a pronouncement in advance as to an event which may happen only five or ten years hence, under circumstances we can neither foresee nor foretell. I may say further-and this is another view of the question-that if we take the motion seriously and vote upon it as an engagement to be undertaken not only for the moment but for the coming years, then the argument as to refusing to bind our liberty as to future pronouncements is very strong.
I would be inclined to say, however, that I oppose the motion because of its futility under the guise of great importance and moment. Not only can we not bind another parliament by a decision here to-night; we cannot even bind this parliament for another session. We may decide to-night that we agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). Then we may come back next year with a motion of a different kind. Every hon. member who voted for this motion might rise on that occasion and say, "Well, I have reconsidered the matter. There are new circumstances which I had not foreseen or which did not exist at the time I voted before, so I am going to reverse my vote." Therefore, Mr. Speaker, whether we consider that by voting on this motion we may bind ourselves for the future or whether we consider on the contrary that it is futile to make a solemn pronouncement to-day on a matter which may impress us differently at another session, I do not intend to vote for the motion.
It has been pointed out ateo, with great effect, that there is an immense difference between neutrality and participation. We may decide to participate or not to participate in any war abroad. We may take our stand as to that. I say without hesitation that it certainly would require exceptional circumstances to convince me that we should participate in any European conflict, but neutrality is another thing. You may decide to be neutral but the other party may not want to consider you as such. Who is to say that when war is declared on Great Britain any of these European or Asiatic countries will accept a declaration of neutrality on the part of Canada, even if it should come from us? It is better not to mention any names, but if one country should decide on an expeditionary force against Canada, a flotilla of airships, for instance, to be sent

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
against Halifax or Vancouver, it would not suffice for my hon. friend to stand on the wharves of Halifax or Vancouver and- wave his little resolution as a white flag in the hope of convincing that country that Canada was neutral. Therefore a declaration of neutrality by Canada means nothing; it is a matter that is not within our control. We may like to be neutral, and we may say to the aviators, "Do not shoot at us; do you not know that we are neutral?"- but if they do shoot, we cease to be neutral. I do not wish to be harsh or discourteous to the hon. member, but when I consider the resolution, notwithstanding my effort to give it every consideration I believe I am still more opposed to it when I realize that it can lead us nowhere.
There is another side of the question I am proud to present to-night, and it comes from one who represents a county in the province of Quebec. It is well known that in that province we are not militaristic; it is well known that we are not anxious to support participation in European wars. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that a true Britisher from my province would like to speak the language of the resolution. After all, we form part of one of the British nations. We are part of the commonwealth, and what do we declare in the resolution? These are the words:
That under existing international relations, in the event of war, Canada should remain strictly neutral regardless of who the belligerents may be.
If we take that declaration we must realize that it means this:	Just for the whimsical
caprice of saying it, and for no good reason at all, we are saying to Great Britain, "It does not matter what happens; it does not matter in what war you may be engaged; it does not matter if you are on the brink of defeat and destruction, we are not going to help you." I am too good a Britisher to hold with such language on the subject. It is the attitude one friendly country would not hold toward another. Certainly it is language which France would not use towards Great Britain, because they are on good terms. Are we going to say to the mother country, to Australia or to the sister nation of South Africa: "No matter what happens, no matter what your miseries or difficulties may be, even though you may be facing complete annihilation, we take a certain cynical pleasure in declaring to you that even if matters go that far we will do nothing to help you."
I repeat that a pronouncement of that kind is either futile or unacceptable and I shall not support it in either ease. Why have we this
motion? I know it is wrong to impute motive to a member, and in the present instance I do not impute one to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I must add, however, that I can see what certain groups in the country are going to do with the resolution. They will use it in an effort to appeal to a certain class of people they have not the least chance of reaching otherwise. Through it they will try to bring those people to certain of their social ideas.
I take exception to the motion because of its complex nature. In paragraph 1 it says one thing and in paragraph 2 it says another. There are very few people who would vote for the second paragraph, but those people might be induced to regard it with certain favour on account of the first one. Certain people may not be socialists, and may be far from communism or anything of the kind, but they are such confirmed pacifists that they might be induced to accept the resolution- at least that would seem to be the hope behind it.
It is a great mistake to place before the House of Commons a complex motion which can only confuse the issue. I have been trying to be clear rather than prolonged or eloquent and shall be content to conclude by saying that I am in favour of the third paragraph, namely that Canada should make every effort to discover and remove the causes of international friction and social injustice, but I believe the best way to do that is to vote against the two other paragraphs.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, it is a great satisfaction to me to know that my resolution has brought fdrth a serious discussion on our foreign policy. On the whole I believe the speeches have been in good spirit. Undoubtedly we face a great and complicated problem, and I am pleased to know that most hon. members take the matter seriously. I am sure most of the speakers will forgive me if I do not discuss in detail the various criticisms they have offered.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret), who has just made a short speech, has suggested that we have so many practical problems to face that we ought not to waste time on a merely academic discussion. I think he must be hard put to it when he brings forward an argument of that kind. Surely we all recognize the serious state of Europe to-day. None of us can read the newspapers without realizing that Canada may possibly be called upon to face a war in Europe. Surely then a discussion on foreign policy cannot be called academic. Further if the possibility of war
558	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
in Europe is so remote, I should like to know why the government has included in its estimates a great increase for armaments. If war is so far away there can be no reason for changing our peace policy and increasing our armaments.
Throughout the years I have had great respect for the clear logic of the French people. But as I listened to the speech of the Secretary of State and even to that of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), I am bound to say I hoped they did not represent the logic of the French people in Canada. The Secretary of State has said that decisions of this parliament cannot bind decisions of future parliaments. No one is attempting to .do that. In the resolution we simply decide what at the time we think best. If the arguments we have heard were carried out to its logical conclusion, this would mean that parliament could do no business, or could not express itself. Again, I hope that the argument of the Secretary of State is not a sample of French logic.
May I refer, too, to the eloquent speech of the Minister of Justice. I would point out, however, that it was not so much a speech on my resolution as a defence of the increased military estimates, and a statement or, in my opinion, a misstatement-of the situation in Spain. In one place the minister said that we must not treat the gangster as we treat his victim; yet apparently he proposes to treat a recognized government in precisely the same way as he would treat rebels. I do not propose to go into those particular matters to-night as there will be opportunities in the future. I shall simply point out that the Minister of Justice has interjected questions which'are quite outside the scope of the resolution. He resented very much what he called my appeal to the French-Canadians and he suggested, rather sarcastically, that I might be endeavouring to be the leader of the French-Canadians.


An hon, MEMBER:: No danger.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have no such ambition, but I would point out that if the Minister of Justice keeps on as he has been doing he will cease to be the leader of French-Canadian opinion. Surely he is not so fearful of the policies of his government that he will not even permit an. appeal to French-Canadians. I happen to be an English-Cana-dian from the west; there are others from Ontario who are French-Canadians. Surely we are all Canadians.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then why does the hon. member single out French-Canadians?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I spoke of the FrenctHCanadians as I would speak of western Canadians or of residents of any other part of the dominion. I spoke of the French-Canadians for this special reason-I do not mean what I have to say as a disparagement of the French-Canadians. I do not know whether I should be expected to be ashamed of the fact; indeed I am not, but during the war I opposed conscription. At that time Sir Wilfrid Laurier led' the opposition to conscription. I rather imagined: that that fact, if nothing else, would give me the right to make an appeal to French-Canadians against militarism. Of course, if the present leaders of the French-Canadians in this house undertake to go back on the position of Sir Wilfrid Laurier-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hon. members say, "no, no," but let me assure them and the house that if we have war, conscription is inevitable. The Minister of Justice doubtless is sincere-I am afraid, judging from his speech, he does not credit me with sincerity- but in talking as he does he seems to me to be betraying the principles of peace and the whole collective idea which lies behind the League of Nations. In following the lead of other nations and attempting to plead that Canada increase her armaments, I think he has betrayed the fundamental principles of peace. Since he is the recognized leader among French-Canadians, have I not the right to appeal to them on that point just as I would appeal to my own group?


Mr. BAKER:: Would it not be better to use the words "French-speaking Canadians?"


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have no objection to that. My point is that I was one of those who opposed conscription. It was not so easy for me as I was living in an Englishspeaking community, a community made up of people of Anglo-Saxon, stock. However, I did so and now it seems to me I have the right to hope that the French-Canadians wfho opposed conscription at that time will resist increases in armaments. I am trying to do what I can, so far as the western provinces are concerned, to prevent such increases.
The Minister of Justice confesses that war means revolution, and yet he urges that we prepare for war. If we are prepared for war and war comes, surely we cannot be said to have tried to avoid the path which inevitably will lead to revolution. He asserts that it takes two to make peace, but may I suggest to him that it is equally true that it takes two to make war. However, he did not say that.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: It takes only one to make war.


Mr. BENNETT:: There must be someone to make war against.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If that is the logic of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), then it is about on a par with that of the Minister of Justice.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: A very good par; better than yours.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Minister of
Justice said that he wished I had referred to Stalin as well as to Mussolini and Hitler. I referred to Germany and Italy and Japan, all of which are outside the league. The U.S.S.R. is inside the league and to that degree is committed to the principles of collective security. I had always thought that the Minister of Justice fought fair, but I suggest that such a reference as that is not fair. I shall have no hesitation in saying in the future what I have said in the past with regard to my attitude towards soviet Russia, but I do not think it is quite fair to bring that country into a discussion where it had no place and where it had not been mentioned.
As I listened to the minister it seemed to me that either he had the jitters or he wanted to give the jitters to the Canadian people. He tells us that the world has gone mad; he talks about gangsters and thieves and so on, but that was the very kind of talk we had before the great war in order to whip the people of Canada into a war fever. We heard of the beast of Berlin and the huns and all that sort of thing. The minister was saying that which is sometimes said to children, "the goblins will get you if you don't watch out." To him the world is full of goblins.


Ernest Lapointe: And there are some in the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister deprecates any talk about our foreign policy, and he concludes by saying, "sufficient to the day is the evil thereof." He tells us that a wise man will leave these things alone. I once more point out that this government is proposing a very heavy increase in armaments. If it is sufficient to wait until the evil day, why are they anticipating that evil day by preparing in this way? Surely it would be far more sensible for us definitely to face the whole situation and devise a foreign policy; then if it is considered that our foreign policy requires armaments, I suppose the
government will have to provide them. If he will permit me to say so, I think it is downright nonsense for the Minister of Justice to tell us that we ought not to consider anything in connection with our foreign policy, that sufficient to the day is the evil thereof!
The government proposes a very heavy armaments program. Let me remind the house and the country that that will mean very heavy additional taxation. Worse than that, it offers no hope of security. It is the same old game again. We were told the last war had been fought to end war. Instead of that, it may be simply a prelude to a greater war. Canada, it would seem, is to follow the lead of the European nations. There are hundreds of thousands of people who came to this country from the old lands in order to escape the burdens of militarism. They came to a country where they thought they might have permanent peace, and yet we are preparing to follow methods which in Europe have proved to be absolutely futile.


An hon. MEMBER:: A lot of those people should have been deported.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister's speech was undoubtedly one of passion, but it was full of contradictions.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke the other day, he admitted very frankly, and I was glad to have his admission, that war settles nothing. I remember a striking statement made in the Winnipeg Free Press in 1920:
This is the point to which the great war carried the convictions of civilized society-


An hon. MEMBER:: That was the Winnipeg strike.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -that war is not only a horror in itself, but that it is a total failure; that it "settles" nothing; that it ruins the victor as well as the vanquished.
That stands out, to me, as one of the great lessons of the last war. I ask again, as I asked the other day, is there no other way? When the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch) alluded to the disillusionment that had been experienced by many men who were at the front, I was reminded of some very bitter words by Jerome K. Jerome:
I have to admit that for nearly four years I held opinions which I now find to have been an illusion. I clung to ideals which I now find to have been false.
We were told that England was fighting to obtain a "righteous peace." I am learning now what "righteous peace" means. It means that when you've got your enemy down, the more you jump on him the more righteous you feel. . . .
560	COMMON'S
Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
I am learning what a "peace of reconciliation" means. It means that when you've persuaded your enemy to lay down his arms on certain terms, and on condition of the fulfilment of certain pledges, you then proceed to break every one of those pledges, and leave him to reconcile himself to his own folly. . . .
Wilson's oft-repeated assertion that America entered the war to make the world "safe for democracy" should rightly be interpreted "safe from democracy," since the iron heel of militarism is set down wherever democracy dares to lift its head.
These words are unfortunately only too true. We have sown the wind and we are reaping the whirlwind, but we are not going to prevent that whirlwind by sowing more wind.
The Prime Minister-most unfortunately, 1 think, because he is the head of this nation- really offered us no alternative to the present method of settlement. He proceeds to prepare for wrar.
I thought the Prime Minister had a rather curious idea of Christian ethics. If the other fellow is an angel of light, treat him decently. If you do not think him an angel of light, then treat him as you would the devil. That was practically his suggestion. I sometimes wonder why those who think this way do not come out frankly and repudiate the teachings of Jesus. This is a letter which I came across the other day in the Vancouver Sun:
No, we cannot function on dreams. This is a cold-blooded, practical world, with great nations hungering for land, and all the utopian theories of the C.C.F. of Canada will not change it.
Jesus of Nazareth said "Turn the other cheek," and they harpooned him on a cross, and basically human nature hasn't altered, let there be no illusions about that.
The teaching is evident. We must avoid doing anything that would bring disaster upon us.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Jesus is held up as a horrible example.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does the hon. gentleman believe that self-defence is ever justified?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not going into what is at the moment a purely academic question. I would suggest that not all members or leaders in the church take the position that the Prime Minister did. This is a resolution from the Alberta conference of the United church, 1936.


Mr. PRASER:: What has that to do with the question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Your committee would recommend re-affirmation of our unalterable opposition to all

war, and particularly in view of the suggestions promulgated by the federal minister of defence that we must have a defensive force sufficiently strong to deal with subversive elements within our borders, and to repel any attacks from without. We would also utter our emphatic protest against the increased military appropriations by the federal government now in session, for cadet and other military purposes.
That conference had not heard of the recently announced action of the government, to provide greatly increased military appropriations.
The Prime Minister frankly said that he does not expect patriotism in munitions manufactures. He said, as reported at page 247 of Hansard:
Of one thing I am perfectly sure; no manufacturer of munitions will engage in that business for the sake of charity.
I think that is a significant admission. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Maybank) was right when he protested against people talking about the soldiers going to the front for SI.10 a day. Most of them went because they thought that the


Ralph Maybank: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg South Centre made no such remark.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. gentleman means the member for Winnipeg South.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Exactly; I meant the hon. member for Winnipeg South. I was going to say that I think the great majority of men who went to the front did so with the idea that they were giving patriotic service to their country. Other people stayed at home and profiteered out o-f the war-there is no doubt about that-and they have never been held to an accounting. Certain inquiries were made by the Liberals just after the war, but before long this investigation petered out, and we have never dealt with the profiteers who

criminally in my judgment

made money while others of their fellow-citizens died in France. I am firmly of opinion that, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South suggested, if we could take the profit out of war we would do away with a great deal that now foments and fosters war. I have not time tonight to go into the revelations which have been made by the Nye committee and by a host of books like Merchants of Death.
Again, the Prime Minister, in referring to the British commission that dealt with the possibility of nationalizing armaments, says:
Members of all political parties served on the commission.
This leaves a false impression. Let me quote a note from Foreign Affairs in an article

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworlh
on the American and British munitions investigation, January, 1937, pages 320 and 328:
This commission also consisted of seven members but, unlike the American group, they did not hold public office. The chairman, Sir John Eldon Bankes, was a retired judge, 81 years of age. Two members (one a cooperator and one a retired magazine editor) were well over 70. The other members were a professor of comparative law, a journalist, a business man, and a woman who was formerly an official of the league. The personnel did not offer much promise of an aggressive enquiry; the members themselves had no first-hand knowledge of the problems with which they were to deal, and they were not authorized, as the senate committee was, to employ experts to direct the investigation and examine the witnesses. . . .
A little later:
It was not authorized, under its terms of reference, to undertake a detailed investigation of the evils ascribed to the munitions traffic, and consequently only three instances of alleged abuse were brought to its attention. On the whole, the argument for nationalization as presented to the commission, was, in its own words, "purely speculative in character and unsupported by evidence." But under the commission's mode of procedure it was impossible for the advocates of nationalization to present anything more than a speculative case. Possible evils could be cited, but no opportunity was provided to prove the existence of actual evils. . . .
There is, therefore, nothing that has been brought forward by the Prime Minister to offset the statements which were made to the effect that there had been grievous abuses under private manufacture, or to warrant anyone in saying that there is any evidence to prove that the munitions business should not be nationalized.
I urge that we do not deceive ourselves. Armaments mean war; there is no other reason for armaments than possible war, and the furnishing of armaments is one of the surest ways of inducing war. Let me cite two statements in support of that. Earl Grey, in Twenty-Five Years, said:
The enormous growth of armaments, the sense of insecurity and fear caused by them, it was these that made war inevitable.
We are following in the same old path. On this point I should like to quote some rather remarkable words spoken a few years ago by the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). In referring to the peace pact he said:
The very essence of this instrument is that those who sign it . . . begin at once to destroy by peaceful means those instruments by which peace is rendered impossible. . . . We must therefore destroy the instruments that make for war, so that when such appeals are made to the emotions there will be no response-no cannon, no navy, no troops. That is the only
way by which peace can be made lasting in this world.
Well, instead of that we are now proposing to provide more cannon, a greater navy and more troops and air forces. I wonder whether we are heading in the way that makes for peace. In connection with the heavy increase for national defence, may I venture to express the opinion that there should be no increase until the veterans of the last war are adequately provided for. We have at the present time some 50,000 veterans who are unemployed. I do not think I am asking too much when I make a plea on behalf of hundreds of veterans in my own constituency as well as those throughout the west, who have written and spoken to me. I urge that we should not make any further expenditures for war until the men who are suffering from the last war are adequately provided for. I would say further that there should be no increase in expenditures until the burden of taxation is shifted from the shoulders of those who now bear it to the shoulders of those who made profits out of the last war. That is only fair. We still have in our midst people who made profits out of the war and salted them down in tax-free bonds, while the whole population, including returned men themselves, are struggling under the burden. I say that no more funds should be voted for war purposes until those who made profits out of the last war are forced to surrender their ill-gotten gains.
Again, I would suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that there be no increase for national defence until there is full provision for social services. Only last year the blind made an appeal to the minister for special attention. It is quite true that this year the age limit for the old age pension is being lowered to sixty-five in the case of the blind.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Nobody said that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Below seventy.
That, however, will not provide for the vast number of the blind. Last year when this question was under consideration the minister told us from his place in the house that he was quite sympathetic; but, he said, we have no money. We have no money. That was last year, and yet to-day the Minister of Finance can apparently supply, I do not know how much, perhaps twelve, fourteen and possibly, before we are through twenty million dollars additional for national defence. We have our unemployed boys sent to farms, receiving 85 a month and if they can possibly stick it out until the spring they



Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
get $7.50-and this after five years of unemployment. But we are told that we have no money to do anything better for them. I say, Mr. Speaker, that no money should be spent on war preparations until these boys are provided for. Every day brings to my desk letters from destitute people in the far-off districts of northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan, farmers and their wives in destitute circumstances. What can I say? I can only inform them that the government says it has no money; that relief is a provincial responsibility. There are districts out in the west that have been hard1 hit by the drought and the municipalities themselves are bankrupt; yet all the minister can say is, "Well, under our constitution nothing can be done; it is a provincial responsibility."


Charles Avery Dunning: We are spending millions there.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, but we should spend millions more until these people are adequately provided for; we have no right to spend money in armaments until that is done. Teachers in the west are almost starving and children cannot go to school. But there is money enough to send Canada into the ranks of the militarist nations. Our medical services are hopelessly inadequate in almost every province, and housing is abominable throughout the dominion. We have no money for any of these things, but we are asked to vote large sums for increased military expenditures.
The Prime Minister said the other day that the increase for defence is for the defence of Canada and of Canada alone. Well, that may be his idea, but I would remark that this scheme fits in admirably with the imperialistic designs of a great many people in the old land. The other day I read in the Ottawa Journal the following statement:
Swansea, Wales, Jan. 28 (CP).-A complete air defence force of 1,000 fighting 'planes was advocated for Canada to-day by Sir Henry Page Croft, Conservative member of parliament for Bournemouth.
"Collective security within the empire is essential," he said, "in view of the failure of collective security for the world."
I am sure that every effort will be made to draw Canada into such a relationship rvith the old land that Great Britain will be free to carry on her imperialistic enterprises. Frankly I am afraid of the influence these coronation ceremonies may have on those Canadians who go over to London to represent the government. I know how easy it is to be polite on such occasions, how easy it is to try to make a good showing from the standpoint of the Canadian people. In the

same issue of the Journal from which I quoted, on the next page I saw this item:
London, January 27. Purchase of twenty United States designed planes by the Australian government was questioned in the house to-day ...	4
Both he and Colonel Burton inquired if reasonable steps had been taken to coordinate the Australian-manufactured planes with British Air Force requirements or assign the licences to British firms.
Sir Philip, replying, said:	"The commonwealth government consulted His Majesty s government in the United Kingdom with regard to the projected factory early last year, and since that time close contact has been maintained. Negotiations have proceeded on the basis that the types of service aircraft to be produced in the factory would be British designed, and this is accepted by the commonwealth government as general policy.
It seems to me that our forces will fit in just like spare parts to the great imperial machine. Either the British manufacturers are eager for sales or the British government is insisting upon a uniform type. I do not want to-night to go into the question of our national armaments, but why should we have mechanized army equipment? Why an air force? Surely these are forces which could readily be transported abroad and are designed more for such purposes than to defend our coasts.
There are some who say that those who oppose armaments live in a dream land. But in reality have we anything to fear from the United States? Is there any reasonable supposition that Germany is going to invade Canada, or that Japan would invade our country? I do not think so. Until there is, can we not go on our own peaceable way?
The Minister of Justice had a good deal to say about neutrality. Let me point out that he differed very decidedly from the Prime Minister. The other day the Prime Minister made this statement, as reported at page 219 of Hansard:
Participation in war is the positive aspect, if I may put it in that way, and the question of neutrality is the negative aspect. Over and over again we have laid down the principle that so far as participation in war is concerned, it will be for the parliament of Canada to decide. Having taken that attitude with respect to participation, I think we might well take the same attitude with respect to neutrality.
The Prime Minister was either leading the house to believe or labouring under the impression that we could decide in parliament whether or not we would be neutral. The Minister of Justice to-day took the other point of view, and I think the correct one. I should like to ask the Prime Minister some time-he is not in his seat-Is not Canada automatically at war when Great Britain is

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
at war? It is all very well to say that it is for ns to determine the extent to which we shall send reinforcements, if at all; but as the Minister of Justice explained toKlay, if Great Britain is at war we are at war. But the Prime Minister says that parliament is going to decide as to neutrality. It is rather important to know that he thinks that way, but unfortunately that position is not sound. It is at present constitutionally impossible for parliament to decide to remain neutral in case of a war in which Great Britain is involved, until the first steps have been taken, as in South Africa, to secure Canadian control of the documents evidencing the crown's intentions. Canada has never yet declared war or made peace for herself, and could not do so as matters now stand.
The Minister of Justice quoted Professor Berriedale Keith. I too would like to quote Keith. In the Journal of Comparative Legislation, 1935, page 274, he is reported as saying that certain decisions-

seem to establish that any royal prerogative in respect of a dominion may under suitable legislation be controlled by that dominion.
It seems to me it is possible for Canada to control her neutrality, but this cannot be done on the mere say-so of the Prime Minister, or even of parliament. As an authority on the constitutional aspect wrote me-and I take it as my own-from the point of view of constitutional law the question seems to depend upon whether the crown has or has not been divided; that is, whether or not the empire is now merely an association of states united by a common sovereignty or a common crown. There is a reasonable amount of evidence that the crown is still undivided and unitary.
From the point of view of international law, he says:
While dominions of the British commonwealth have acquired international status as separate entities, the exact status which they have obtained is far from clear. The separate negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties on their behalf, the separate representation of the dominions in the League of Nations and the exchange of diplomatic representatives with certain dominions by certain foreign governments, may be interpreted merely as de facto recognition of the dominions as separate, though not necessarily independent, international persons. It does not follow that other member states of the family of nations have recognized the independence of Canada or other dominions de jure, nor their capacity to declare neutrality or war on their own behalf. The recognition of the independence of a territory or colony formerly part of a sovereign state without the express consent of that former state is generally regarded by authorities in international law, as well as by the practice of nations, as an unfriendly act.
311X1-36J
By analogy it might be considered an unfriendly act on the part of other states to recognize the right of Canada to be neutral in the event of Great Britain being involved in war without the express assent of the government of Great Britain or other recognized constitutional authority such as the Imperial conference.
It would appear to be necessary that some formal declaration of the right of Canada to declare neutrality be made. The appropriate constitutional authority would be the imperial conference, and the appropriate procedure a formal declaration communicated to foreign governments.
As usual, I think I may say, the Prime Minister advocated the middle way, which means in effect, a do-nothing policy. He said, as reported at page 252 of Hansard:
I believe that with a revision of the covenant which will enable the league to proceed along lines which with further consultation, conciliation, and mediation, we shall see develop a great institution that will serve the world well.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has expired.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I have five minutes longer?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member has already had the advantage of about four minutes additional.


Mr. HEAPS:: The Minister of Justice had the advantage of almost half an hour.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member cannot continue unless he has the unanimous consent of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I thank the house for their courtesy. The Minister of Justice objected to the use of force by the league.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend said I put words into his mouth. I have the reference before me; it is page 239 of Hansard. That is what he advocated, to give armaments to the league to enforce its decisions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is my position; I have said that personally I do not believe in the exercise of force in international affairs. I have said that I did not think the building up of our armies was the way to promote peace, but I have realized that our governments are not travelling in that direction. Under the circumstances it would be a decided step forward if we could have collective security instead of attempted security by the exercise of power on the part of individual nations. That was my point, and in substantiation of that I should like to

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
read this paragraph by Mr. H. N. Brailsford, in his pamphlet Towards a New League, pages 58 and 59:
The Genevan idea that one can allow history to run on by its own uncoordinated motions, and then pull oneself up from time to time to arbitrate a "dispute"-this is thinking too obsolete for serious discussion...
What statesman of mature mind and ripe experience will undertake to give us peace, unless he can control such fundamental economic happenings? There are, of course, "disputes" that can be handled on police court lines- the Corfu affair was nothing more. But every major dispute demands planning and legislation on a wide international scale. If we mean to forbid the Japanese to conquer Manchuria, to fend off the Italians from Ethiopia, and to divert the Germans from an adventure at Russia's expense, we must have the authority and the intelligence to meet in other ways their problems of markets, capital investment, raw materials, and population. It is not enough to tackle these problems by improvisation after the dispute has arisen, as the league tried to do in the Lytton report and the Paris terms of August. Tliose were attempts to buy off the aggressor by a compromise at the sole expense of China and Abyssinia. That is not the way to do it. The only civilized way is by authoritative planning, which will assure to every nation the facilities indispensable in the modern world for an economic life geared to the highest attainable standard. This it must do for all, and not merely for such powers as are strong enough and egoistic enough to make a dangerous fuss. It must do it steadily, the world over, and not spasmodically at the expense of selected victims. This means more than the holding from time to time of an economic conference, whose recommendations can have no effect, until a miscellaneous horde of governments afterwards separately ratifies them. It means, in plain words, federal government, with a general staff for economic planning, and a strong executive responsible to a democratic legislature, that can enact its measures by majority vote.
This afternoon we heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) quote President Roosevelt as to the horrors of the next war. We all realize at least something of what those horrors might be. I simply ask that this house, as a group of reasonable people using the same methods, which, I think, they would employ in their private affairs, should seriously consider whether there is no other way of bringing about peace than by beginning to travel the road which, throughout the years, inevitably has led to disaster.
Motion negatived on division.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. LALONDE:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, evidence, reports and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, relating to an investigation conducted by the said
[ Mr. Woodsworth.1
department at Mont-Laurier in August, 1936, in connection with a charge made against the postmistress of Mont-Laurier.



WAR MEASURES


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, legislation should be immediately brought down by the government of the day providing that, in the event of another war involving Canada's active participation, every agency, financial, industrial, transportation or natural resources, shall automatically be conscripted for the duration of such a war, and that a penalty be imposed for the violation thereof.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I do not present
this motion to the house as one who has lost all hope of peace or as one who anticipates another war. But in view of the fear of an impending conflict, to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred this afternoon, I believe the policy which this country would follow in the event of war should be discussed at this time.
This motion is in no way inconsistent with the resolutions that have been presented and the pleas for peace that- have been made from time to time by our group in this chamber. It follows in logical sequence those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). The hon. member for Winnipeg North asked that we should have a peace conference that might prevent war. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked that, if this was impossible, we in Canada should refrain from entering into such a war. Now, in this motion, I am suggesting that if it is impossible to keep out of a war, at least we should state clearly to the people of Canada the steps which we shall pursue in the prosecution of such a war.
At the outset, may I direct attention to the fact that if we are drawn into the maelstrom of war the legislation asked for in this motion would be invaluable. On the other hand, should war be averted, which I am sure is the wish of every hon. member, no harm possibly can have been done by placing upon the statute books of Canada measures such as are suggested in this resolution.
In the first place, may I point out to hon. members that this motion does not request the nationalization of industry. Personally I would favour such a step, but for the purposes for which this motion is intended nationalization would be unnecessary. The

War Measures-Mr. Douglas
word "conscription" does not mean or imply social ownership. It means the compulsory enlistment or the regulation, control and regimentation of industry in the interests of the state during a pressing emergency. It would mean the strict control and supervision of industry to prevent citizens from making large sums of money at the expense of the state. It would mean the fixing of prices, the stabilization of wages and the national control of finance and credit, to the end that no person or group of persons, by reason of their age, their occupation or their particular position, should be enabled to benefit while other sections of the population were engaged in making sacrifices in defence of their country. It should be pointed out that this idea is not new and that practically every nation engaged in the last war was moving slowly toward this situation when the armistice was signed. In Great Britain, when Mr. Lloyd George was appointed Minister of Munitions, he began the coordination of industry in an endeavour to harness more efficiently the resources of the nation, and the British profiteering act of 1919 was a further step in this direction.
In March, 1918, Bernard Baruch was appointed head of the war industries board in the United States, and undertook to organize distribution so that the army's needs would be supplied, and the prices paid by civilians for depleted supplies of goods would be kept down to a reasonable level. This body fixed prices, stabilized wages, and even proceeded, to fix prices on the basic commodities purchased by the consumer. Products were graded according to quality and sold at a fixed price according to grade. For instance, a person not having a war industries board card in the window was not permitted to sell shoes. Rents as well as the prices of wearing apparel and food products were to have been fixed, but the armistice made unnecessary any further action on the part of the board.
Mr. Baruch, who was an outstanding and successful American business man, was so convinced by his experience as chairman of the war industries board of the necessity of such a step that he has since been a constant advocate of a program to take profit out of war, and has spent a small fortune in research work along this line. In the Atlantic Monthly of January, 1926, he outlines in the following terms the program submitted by the war industries board:
In the event of war, the president would have power, acting through another war industries board, to fix prices at what was considered a fair level before the war. It would be
illegal to buy, sell, serve or rent at any other than these prices. Brakes would be applied to every agency of inflation before the hurtful process started. The draft board would have before it the estimated needs of every business and profession in its relationship to the conduct of the war, and men would be selected accordingly. Prices would be made public and readjusted every three months, so that consumers would have redress if prices were considered too high.	Money would be controlled and directed like any other resource.
Mr. Baruch continues:
A man should no more be permitted in war time to use his money as he w'ishes than he should be permitted to use the product of his mill or factory. Each part of the community must adjust its wants to the great undertaking in order to win.
Be goes on>
to say:
If the government in the future has authority to fix prices and distribution of mateiials and labour, rent and use of man-power, transportation and all the things necessary for the conduct of war, any rise in prices will be prevented, even in the anticipation of war. This plan will remove the possibility of anyone's urging w'ar as a means of making profits. The fact that profits would be less in war than in peace, and that w-ealth and resources would be directed by the government might have some active deterring influence on men of great resources. Instead of being passive they might become active advocates of peace.
Recently in France the government took steps to bring the entire armament industry under direct government control, with a view not only to prevent certain armament manufacturers from supplying potential enemies, but to ensure greater efficiency in the event of the outbreak of war.
In discussing the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King', said:
Even if we succeeded in bringing about the nationalization of industry to the extent that all w'ar materials could be manufactured without profit, I am afraid that for a long time to come we would not recover what in the interval we had lost in the way of individual initiative and freedom.
May I point out that the experience in the last war was just the opposite to the assertion made by the Prime Minister. Those who have followed closely the herculean efforts of Lloyd George during the famous shell shortage of 1915, or the struggles of Bernard Baruch in the United States, will never claim that private industry is able efficiently to supply the needs of a country at war. In practically every country engaged in the last war it was necessary to impose government control, and to place many of the entrepreneurs in managerial capacities in their own plants.

War Measures-Mr. Douglas
With reference to loss of initiative, I think the house will recognize that in time of war thousands of people are compelled to suppress their desire for initiative and are expected for the good of the state to subjugate their individual desire to centralized authority so that the war may be more efficiently conducted.
The motion is not an attempt to force the nationalization of industry upon the country or to suggest any policy which would make toward the lessening of our efficiency in the event of a declaration of war. The intention of the motion is that we shall begin now to take the necessary steps to remove the element of profit from any war which may occur in which Canada shall be involved, and that all the industrial, financial and human resources of the nation shall be mobilized for the purpose of bringing such war to a successful termination. Let me, therefore, draw to the attention of hon. members some of the advantages to be derived from taking the necessary steps to place upon the statute books legislation which would immediately conscript all wealth in the event of Canada participating in a war.
The first reason for advocating such a course is that private manufacture of arms permits a condition whereby individuals, and groups of individuals, motivated by the desire for profit, constantly foment war scares and stir up international friction. There is perhaps no story quite so black as the history of the armament manufacturers of Europe, Great Britain and the United States. The activities of private manufacturers of armaments may be divided roughly into three classes: First, their activities prior to the great war; second, their activities during the great war, and, third, their activities in the post-war period. For the purpose of this debate it is unnecessary to trace the origin of great armament firms such as Krupp in Germany; Schneider Creusot in France; Armstrong and Vickers in England; Gatling, Maxim and du Pont in the United States. Suffice it to say that for half a century before the great war these firms were growing in power in different parts of the world. They exchanged patents. They owned shares in each other's companies. They bought influential newspapers and periodicals, and put members of the civil and military authorities on their pay-rolls. I refer hon. members to a study of the armament industry written by Doctor Engelbrecht and Hanighen, entitled Merchants of Death, or Philip Noel-Baker's book entitled The Private Manufacture of Armaments, or E. Staley's War and the Private Investor. These three books are heavily documented. They are prepared not by journalists, but by men of research.

Very early in their development, armament manufacturers were quick to learn two things. One was that patriotism is not always profitable, and that to refuse to sell equipment to an enemy or a potential enemy may be patriotic, but it is very poor business. So the Franco-Prussian war was won by the assistance of Schneider's artillery, and Sir Basil Zaharoff, the wily Greek, showed his impartiality by selling submarines not only to his native Greece but also to her oppressor, Turkey. The pompom guns which wrought such devastating havoc in the Boer war were sold to South Africa by the British firm of Vickers. Krupp manufactured in Germany armour-plating for battleships that were later destined to defeat the fatherland in the great war. British arms-manufacturers fortified the Dardanelles where later thousands of young Anzacs were to meet their death. Some of the manipulations of this den of thieves were almost amusing. For instance, after the Russo-Japanese war Schneider wanted to rearm the Russian army, but found that the Russians were lacking in the necessary finances. Schneider thereupon organized a banking syndicate and floated a loan in Paris to facilitate the Russian rearmament. The Russian revolution which took place in 1917 resulted in the repudiation of all debts, and as a consequence the French people found that they had equipped the Russian army but had paid for it themselves.
The second great lesson which the members of the armament ring were quick to [DOT] learn was that times of peace and security meant times of depression in their particular line of business. Consequently, they sowed discord in an attempt to keep the nations of Europe in a constant state of military and naval preparedness. For instance, Schneider had placed in those French papers which he owned statements purporting to have been made by German military officials boasting about their superior military strength as compared with that of France. The response was, of course, an increased military expenditure by the French. This was immediately brought to the attention of the German people and resulted in a similar step being taken by that country. In this way suspicion was kept at fever heat and every opportunity was taken by these salesmen of death to keep every nation in a maximum state of military and naval preparedness.
However, it was during the great war that the armament manufacturers showed themselves in their true colours. The great war revealed the fact that these armament manufacturers have no country and own no loyalty other than their personal gain and the satiation of their unending greed. The great war was a mass of contradiction. British ships foundered

War Measures-Mr. Douglas
in the Dardanelles because of British-made mines and were crippled by British-made guns. French troops in Bulgaria were repulsed by French 75 mm. guns in the hands of their enemies. Bulgarian and Roumanian troops fought each other with weapons bought from the same firm. The Skoda company helped to rearm Russia and the Russians turned their Austrian-made guns against the Austrian armies.
The international solidarity of the armament manufacturers was shown by the Briey-Dombasle incident. The great iron mines of the French armament industry are in the Briey basin. Early in the war these were captured by the German forces and immediately used to supply Germany's ever increasing demand for armaments. In 1916 the French advanced sufficiently in this territory to bring the Briey basin well within the range of their heavy artillery. Throughout the entire war it would have been possible to continue aeroplane bombing operations against this section. It would have been possible at any time from 1916 to 1918 to destroy the mines and brass furnaces of the Briey district and to cut off the supply of metal which was keeping the German military machine operating. Yet, throughout the duration of the war, Briey remained one of the so-called quite sectors. Documentary evidence has since been produced in the French Chambei of Deputies showing that when queries were made as to why the iron mines at Briey had not been reduced to ashes, the reply of headquarters was, "If we destroy Briey, the Germans will at once retaliate and destroy our plant at Dombasle." That is, both sides would have been badly crippled; the war would have come to an end long before it did, and perhaps a million or more men would not have been killed. To the armament manufacturers this would have been the supreme tragedy.
Throughout the duration of the war there was a most significant and confused international trade in war materials even between enemy nations. German industrialists were shipping scrap-iron to France via Switzerland at the rate of 150,000 tons a month to be used to tear German boys to pieces. In the attack on Verdun German boys found themselves impaled on barbed wire which had been made a few months before in Germany. English merchants shipped into Germany through Scandinavia, glycerine and Canadian nickel which it was known perfectly well would be used to mangle English soldiers in the trenches. French nickel also found its tortuous way, greased by profit, into Germany.
The construction of German submarines would have been practically impossible but for the shipment of French aluminum which arrived in Germany via Switzerland. Volumes of evidence have been produced by the Carnegie endowment for international peace, the Walter Haines school for international relations at Johns Hopkins university and the Nye commission appointed by the senate of the United States, to show that throughout the entire war patriotism was sacrificed to the making of profits and human lives were destroyed in order that dividends might be earned on armament shares. In every country that participated in the great war amazing profits were made by companies selling war materials to various governments.
With the cessation of hostilities in 1918 the armament makers had to resort once again to their old tactics of keeping nations in a constant state of armed preparedness and of stirring up international friction wherever possible. Before the war to end war was quite finished, Schneider, Vickers, Skoda and Krupp were busily engaged again. In fact, the peace conference was still in session when war broke out between Greece and Turkey. The British supported Greece and Vickers arms were amply supplied to the Greeks who advanced into Asia Minor. The French were also interested in that particular area and consequently did not prevent Schneider from arming the Turks. We have the ironical picture of the British and French delegates sitting at the peace conference while Greek soldiers with British guns were engaged in the task of fighting Turkish soldiers armed with French guns. An American correspondent reported as follows:
First I saw the retreat of the Greeks. They left behind artillery and machine guns all of which bore the mark of the English firm of Vickers. Then I witnessed the triumphant entry of the Turks into Smyrna. They brought with them magnificent guns made by Schneider-Creusot. On that day I understood what the entente cordiale meant.
When the Riff uprising took place in Morocco it was put down at great cost of French soldiers. These wild tribesmen were found to possess large supplies of excellent modern military equipment of French manufacture. Discreet silence in official and journalistic quarters stifled comment on this discovery.
The rearmament of Germany under Adolf Hitler was financed and carried out to a very large extent by the firm of Skoda in Czechoslovakia and the Schneider-Creusot firm in France. In 1933, despite the fact that the treaty of Versailles forbade Germany from having a military air force, the Germans
War Measures-Mr. Douglas

placed an order with a British aircraft manufacturer for sixty of the most efficient fighting planes in the market. Only the intervention of the British air ministry prevented the delivery of the planes to help in Germany's rearmament program. Nor are we here in Canada altogether free from this unscrupulous trade in blood and slaughter. With the consent of the house I should like to place on Hansard a table secured from the external trade branch of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics dealing with the export trade of Canada. From this table it will be seen that our exports of nickel have doubled.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) cannot put the table on Hansard without reading it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to raise the point, but several tables have been placed on Hansard this year by members who merely handed them to the Clerk.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With the consent of the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the house disagrees, of course I shall be compelled to read it.


Ernest Lapointe: I object. We cannot answer things like that unless they are read. It is easy to make a long speech in that way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Lapointe) should be the last person to say that, after speaking an hour and twenty minutes this afternoon.


Ernest Lapointe: At least
I was reading what citations I wished to have recorded in Hansard.


Mr. REID:: And the minister did not read his speech. Keep to the truth.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I shall not take time now to read this table. I shall be very glad in closing the debate to place it on Hansard or to have one of my colleagues do so. But I wish to say that the export of nickel from this country has been doubled since 1933, despite the fact that 1933 was our best year since 1929. To whom was this increased exportation sent? Our exports to Great Britain have doubled, and our exports to Germany have also doubled since 1933, while last year the increase was twenty-seven fold. The increase in the export of nickel to Italy has been phenomenal. The increase in 1935 over 1934 was fourfold, which recalls the fact that that was the year in which Italy was waging her ruthless campaign against Ethiopia. It is interesting to note the tremendous increase

of nickel exports during the past three years to the Netherlands, which means in reality indirect shipment to Germany. That nickel is undoubtedly being used in Hitler's rearmament program. Fortunes are being made in Canada to-day by the International Nickel Company and by a number of firms selling huge quantities of copper to rearming nations in Europe. Last year the production of copper reached 420,000,000 pounds, the greatest number recorded in Canadian history. The Canada Car and Found,ry Company, a firm which began in 1917 with the manufacture of arms to ship to Russia, has had a new lease of life on the expectation of orders from Great Britain to build aeroplanes. Press reports state that Canadian Vickers are said to be making contacts in western Canada with such firms as the Vulcan Iron Works in Winnipeg and the idle General Motors plant in Regina, with a view to establishing armament plants in that part of the country. Canadian Industries Limited, of which the president is Mr. A. E. Purvis, chairman of the National Employment Commission, controls the major chemical industries of Canada, has investments in General Motors and Dunlop Tires, and owns five explosives and armament factories in Canada. The total earnings of Canadian Industries Limited for 1934 are more than one million- dollars above 1933, and for 1935 are slightly less than one million dollars over 1933.
Figures of the Department of External Affairs show tremendous increases in our exports to Morocco during the last three months of 1936. One of my colleagues will deal with that. I just want to say in passing that those exports consist in the main of large quantities of wheat which are going to Spanish Morocco and undoubtedly are being used to feed insurgent troops, and of large quantities of nitrate, which, the chemists say, can very easily be converted into high explosives. It is possible, in fact it is more than likely, that we are making a very large contribution to the unfortunate conflict which is now going on in the Spanish peninsula.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the whole history o,f the armament industry ought to teach us that the private manufacture of arms should not be left to the unpatriotic, unscrupulous, and oftentimes diabolical machinations of international racketeers. I contend that the parliament of this country has a responsibility to its people to see to it that certain corporations and individuals, motivated only by a desire for gain, should not be permitted, now or later, to supply war materials to enemies or potential enemies. This is particularly true of the

War Measures-Mr. Douglas
export of nickel. In a modern war no country can fight long without nickel, since it is absolutely necessary for the manufacture of shells, cannon, armour-plating, tanks, et cetera. Nickel, along with oil, has become the indispensable requirement of modem warfare. Not only can no nation fight a modem war without nickel, but no nation can participate in a modern war without Canadian nickel, for we in Canada are in the fortunate position of controlling the major supply of the world's nickel. We have within our hands what may prove to be the key to the entire situation. Courageous and conclusive action taken at this time may well prevent the rearming of certain nations in Europe to-day. It is for this reason that I have urged in this house before, and now urge again, that the government consider seriously the advisability of setting up a commission to control the export of nickel from Canada and to prevent what easily may come to pass, the slaughtering of our youth by the very material which we have dug from our soil.
The second reason why I believe this resolution should be passed is that it would be a deterrent to keep us from plunging into war. In a time of crisis no nation can afford to have within its borders a small group of individuals who, for purely personal reasons, desire to see their country at war. That there are such individuals has been shown again and again by the history of the past fifteen years. The story of William B. Shearer, whose unscrupulous actions did so much to sabotage the naval disarmament conference at Geneva, is known to all hon. members. At a public investigation in the United States, Mr. Shearer claimed that he had been promised $250,000 by certain shipbuilding concerns and steel companies for his services on that occasion. Mr. Shearer represents a type, one that I am afraid is not altogether uncommon. This parliament can remove once and for all the profit incentive that might stimulate certain individuals to advocate war, by declaring unequivocally here and now that in the event of an outbreak of a war in which Canada is actively participating, all wealth shall be conscripted, controlled and operated for the sole purpose of winning the war, without so far as is humanly possible the making of profits by any corporation or individual.
The third reason why I believe such a step would be beneficial to the interests of the Canadian people is that it would give our citizens across Canada the feeling that fair treatment was being meted out to all and sundry, irrespective of rank, age, sex or social position. It is being recognized to-day
by most students of international affairs that an outbreak of war will be followed almost immediately by a conscription of all available man-power. I have never had a very high opinion of the armament manufacturers, but nothing I could have said would have constituted a more scathing indictment than this statement of the Prime Minister the other day:
Of one thing I am perfectly sure; no manufacturer of munitions will engage in that business for the sake of charity.
That is true beyond a doubt. But we shall expect men to hazard their lives not for charity but for patriotism. Once again we shall ask, as we did from 1914 to 1918, over half a million young Canadians to suffer the hardships and privations of a military campaign, indeed, even to lay down their lives on the foreign field, with no greater promise of reward than that a grateful country will erect a cenotaph to their memory or utter eulogistic orations over their graves. But while men are being asked to make the supreme sacrifice, other men will benefit by the very absence of these young heroes. Men engaged in industry will make higher wages. People in all walks of life will benefit by the scarcity of labour, while those engaged in the manufacture of implements of war will make fabulous fortunes at the expense of the state. Nothing we can say here will justify this discrimination. I for one have no wish to see Canada become involved in a war, but if we are compelled to participate in a war I would ask that the sacrifice which will undoubtedly be entailed shall be extended to all sections, classes and ages of the population. Let us have no more war in which the members of one group fight and receive $1.10 a day while others line their pockets in comfort and security. If we go into war we must all go in and not leave the burden to merely a few. If we have the power to conscript human life and to expose it to danger, who shall deny us the power to ask for the use of the economic and physical resources of the nation.
The final reason why I propose this motion to the house is that I believe it is one of the few proposals that, while acting as a stimulus to peace, nevertheless would strengthen us in the event of war. I take it that all of us want peace, and that none of us is desirous of seeing Canada participate in another world war. Yet all of us would hesitate to take in the interests of peace any steps which would leave us helpless in the event of war. We are citizens of the world, but first and foremost we are citizens of Canada and her welfare and security must always remain of
War Measures-Mr. Douglas

paramount importance. But the proposals contained within this motion, while acting as a deterrent to war, would not weaken us in the event of war but would rather coordinate and strengthen our nation in any struggle in which it might be called to engage. No group of people know more about the horror of war than the men who served in the last great conflict that shook the world. At the dominion convention of the Great War Veterans' Association in 1925 the following resolution was adopted:
That the dominion parliament be urged to consider legislation, to mobilize the whole power of the nation for national service in the event of a declaration of war;
That, the property equally with the persona, lives and liberties of all citizens shall be subject to conscription for defence of the nation.
If I am informed correctly, I believe the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) was the individual who moved this resolution at the historic convention to which I have referred. I can conceive of no one better equipped than the Minister of National Defence to understand the procedure that would best recommend itself to all parts of the country. The fact that the minister, supported by the Canadian Legion, advocated such a step, ought to commend it to every hon. member.
At a more recent conference, namely, the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, held March 19, 1936, the following resolution was adopted:
Be it resolved that this convention reaffirms the resolution passed at the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion held at Ottawa in 1934, and at Niagara Falls in 1932, urging that in the event of another war the government take immediate steps to conscript the entire man-power, wealth, natural resources, public utilities, business and industrial institutions of the nation, so that by so doing the profit may be taken out of war and the entire citizenship may be moved in a common incentive to seek peace and maintain it.
These two resolutions, coming as they do from bodies of men who bore the brunt of the last titanic struggle in which we were engaged, speak more eloquently than anyone else can for the need of measures similar to those suggested in the motion now before the house.
During the last war, while some fought, others filled' their pockets; while some laid down their lives, others laid up treasure against the morrow. Now, with the danger of another conflict hovering over us, men who fought so nobly and sacrificed so much have placed themselves on record, asking that should they or their children be called upon to ex-

pose themselves to danger in defence of their country, the burden of such an undertaking should be borne by the rich as well as by the poor, and by the aged as well as by the young. Only upon such a basis would any government dare to ask its people to undergo the rigours and excruciating suffering of another war.


Mr. R. J. DEACHMAN (Huron North):: Listening to this debate during the last day or two I have come to the conclusion that we shall have no more wars. We shall be saved from war not by armaments but by resolutions discussed in this House of Commons by our peace time soldiers. War is the essence of violence, and when war comes we shall marshal what forces we can possibly assemble and hurl them against the forces of the enemy.
The only question which we need to discuss in regard to this resolution is this very simple one: Would the passing of the resolution and its embodiment in an act of parliament help us to strike harder when the day of war came? Well. I have my doubts. In the last great war twelve days elapsed between the murder of an Austrian prince and the outbreak of hostilities. During that time the military machine clicked in Europe. Sir Edward Grey and the other British leaders strove to prevent war and then came the pentecost of calamity.
When the next war comes I venture to suggest that it will come upon us much more suddenly. Perhaps we shall hear of uneasiness in the cabinets and in the capitals of Europe, and then wake up some morning to find that war has broken out. And what will be the situation at that time? The government will have the task of carrying on the business of the nation; it will have to conduct the war. I have considerable confidence in the present government, as many hon. members know, but I do not believe that a government which is running the affairs of this nation and at the same time taking its part in what will be the most titanic conflict the world has ever known, will stop at that time to consider the fact that a resolution had been proposed by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), suggesting a change in our economic system.
My hon. friend suggests to-night that he does not propose that conscription shall involve the taking over of any particular plants or anything else in Canada. What does it mean? The suggestion is that these things shall automatically be conscripted for the duration of the war and that penalties shall be imposed for the violation thereof. I am not sure what this means; I am not sure whether it means that the penalty is to be

War Measures-Mr. Deachman
imposed upon those who refuse to accept the conscription or whether it is to be imposed upon the government for not carrying out the act if passed. But what difference does it make? When the war comes the government of the day will do the best it can. It will take over what plants it needs; it will conscript men. But you do not improve the situation by passing a resolution declaring now that you wish to do this. I imagine that the government which is laying certain plans for eventualities that may arise will also consider other plans it intends to carry into effect so far as economic circumstances and financial conditions will permit. But I do not believe the government can suddenly decide to take over the countryas entire industry. It will take over what is necessary and do the best it can to marshal the forces of the nation in the struggle which is before it.
We lost the last war not in the field but by peace. We may lose the next war, although fought for freedom and the establishment of our own political conceptions, if we attempt at the outbreak of hostilities to accept the ideas which are guiding our enemies in the conflict. We have in Europe to-day these war-mad nations, but they cannot be saved from their madness by government ownership of munition factories. They cannot be saved from it by taking the profit out of war. Russia has taken the profit out of war; Russia owns her munition factories; there are no profiteers in war supplies in Russia. If profiteering is attempted, those found guilty of it are backed up against a wall and shot. But Russia marshals the greatest war force in Europe to-day and is one of the prime disturbers, although perhaps she may feel her position justified because she faces the other great war nation of Europe which, accepting a different political theory also prepares for the coming conflict.
I venture to suggest that we have heard too much of the power of the armament makers to cause war. Does anyone in this house think that Great Britain has, on the advice of a few munition makers, turned to armaments as she has during the last two or three years? Is that possible? Great Britain has turned to armaments after risking her safety in the cause of peace; she has armed because she feels that she must be prepared to fight or lose her position in the world. But she is not doing that at the behest of some manufacturer of armaments. I suggest that the same thing is true of the United States. To-day the United States is spending on arms and equipment for war more money than she ever spent before. Does any hon. member believe that President Roosevelt and Secretary of State Hull are guided by a desire to please the munition manufacturers of the United States? Is that conceivable? We are preparing here to spend money on military equipment; does any hon. member think the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) are governed by a desire to give an order to some manufacturers of arms and war equipment? The action taken is because of the situation which exists in the world today. Rightly or wrongly they are convinced that our defences must be increased, and they are going about this in the way which, in their judgment, is best calculated to meet the situation. That is the position. There are other and far more potent causes of war.
This does not mean for a moment that during war we should not apply the principles of sound taxation to the profiteers and all who make money from war. We should endeavour as far as possible to conduct a pay-as-you-go war. We may accomplish all that is sought by this resolution by the application of taxes which will take from those who make money out of war the gains which they have made. But the situation cannot be improved by taking over factories, unless in special circumstances of particular need. You cannot help your side to win war by becoming communists or fascists, or by adopting the principles of communism or fascism. There are other and far more deep-seated causes of war than the munition makers or even the fascists, causes which have their being in the economic life of the (people and the very nature of things as they exist to-day. There are in Europe to-day certain land-hungry nations, nations which have not the natural resources required to enable them to develop the life of their people as they desire. We have the same thing on the Pacific-Japan, with a rapidly growing population, struggling to make headway. It finds that otheT nations have acquired great areas of land, and now it proposes to acquire some on its own account. It is bursting with the forces of expansion. When that happens, it constitutes a problem which must be faced; it is a problem which we ought .to discuss in this house, if we are going to avoid war. Germany wants colonies, Italy wants colonies. It is all very well to say that they cannot have them, if that is the viewpoint, but are you going to deny to them the right to do business with you? That 'is precisely what we are doing to-day. I have heard the argument, and it is true, that Germany or Italy can come to Canada for wheat; they can go to the United States for cotton;

War Measures-Mr. Deachman
they can go to Australia for wool; all these countries are ready to sell them the raw materials which they possess. But are these nations willing to accept goods from Germany or Italy in payment for the products which they want to buy? I ask this house one question:	At the time that we were
holding millions and millions of bushels of wheat in the elevators of western Canada, if Germany or Italy had come to us and said, "We want one hundred million bushels of wheat; we will take it at a fair price and will ship in payment an equivalent value in goods," what would the government have said? I wonder what my friend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) would have said. I am sorry he is not in his seat. 1 wonder what the government which formerly occupied the treasury benches would have said. There would have been at once the cry, we cannot permit the importation, of these goods from outside because it would deprive our Canadian people of employment. Well, if you accept that doctrine, then you must keep your wheat at home, because the only means by which you can get payment for the goods which you send out is by accepting payment in goods.
Another particularly striking thing came to my attention the other day. Following the war American financiers loaned large sums of money abroad. In- other words, there were large outward shipments of goods from the United States to different countries, and the Americans accepted ,bonds in payment therefor. Then the interest- on those bonds became payable. Meanwhile the tariff of the United States had gone up and there was no chance to make payment in goods. What followed? The value of the bonds went down. The whole financial structure began to collapse, and that was the beginning of the crisis of 1929. The American people, no more intelligent than the average protectionist in, this country

and that is not very intelligent- accepted the idea that if they were paid in goods for the goods they had sent abroad, ruin would stare them in the face; their people would be unemplojred.
Let us follow the technique of that a little and see if we can make it clear. If the British government owes someone in the United States $1,000 on a bond, settlement would normally be made by the shipment of goods to the United States to the extent of Sl.OOO; the goods would be sold and the bondholder would be paid-I leave out the intermediate transactions in exchange. The bondholder would then have SI.000 which he would spend in buying a new car. Would anyone be deprived of employment by that

process? It is clear and simple; there is no difficulty about it. But the obstacle that stands in the way is nothing other than the economic ignorance-


An hon. MEMBER:: Stupidity.


Robert John Deachman: That is a good word; I shall put the two together-the economic stupidity and ignorance of the protectionist spirit which dominates the people of the world to-day. Can you save this situation by discussing a resolution like this? Can you save it by an amendment to the British North America Act, as was discussed in the house the other day? Is there any other way by which the people can get clear of the fear and the horror of war than by making them recognize that in a world which God has made an integrated and correlated world, you cannot live unto yourself alone and still have peace?
That is the essence of the whole situation. That is what we must do if we hope to escape war. As long as men are human, with human passions, you will not be clear of war and the fear of war until you get clearly into your minds the fact that you can exchange freely with your brother man without the slightest fear of injury to yourself. That is the approach in truth to the elimination of war. There is no other way by which we can escape that curse.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a word or two to the discussion on the resolution now before the house, aud I wish to affirm my approval of it. I had intended to speak for a little while to the motion which was debated this afternoon, but I was one of the speakers listed to follow the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and I felt that it would be an imposition on my part to speak just at that time. I find, however, that some of my material will fit into this discussion very admirably, and with that in mind I wish to present a few observations.
I am certain that no one wants war. I am sure that if the peoples of the world were asked their opinion by way of a plebiscite or a vote, almost to a man the verdict would be: No. But we realize that conditions are as they are and that facts must be faced. Therefore we have the resolution reading "in the event of war." It is suggested that the industries-and I fancy the resolution means particularly the war industries-of the country should be conscripted in case of war. That may appear to involve a great deal; nevertheless it is not without its possibilities. I

War Measures-Mr. Hansell
am conscious of the fact that there would arise the necessity of determining what manufacturing was for war purposes and what was not. This is not always easy. The same is true with regard to our exports. For instance, Canada is the leading nickel exporting country in the world. She produces about eighty-one per cent of the total nickel production of the world. Canada's production of nickel increased by more than fifty-one per cent from 1933 to 1934. In 1935, Canada exported about $28,500,000 worth of nickel, or about four times as much a? she exported in 1933. and I have said nothing about the huge quantities of other kinds of metal that have been exported. It will readily be seen, therefore, that some difficulty may arise in determining which of these exports are for probable war purposes, and the same thing would be true, although to a lesser degree, in regard to finished products.
We cannot permit such difficulties to interfere with that which is right, and certainly to my mind it is not right for private industry to make money at the expense of life. I listened with some interest to the previous speaker, the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman). Whether or not I got the complete force of his argument, I understood it to be that the resolution had to do with whether or not we could strike harder when war came. I do not think that is the intent of the resolution. It is not a question of whether or not we can strike harder when time of war comes; it is a matter of whether or not we are to be drawn into a war by the influence of the fine art of private manufacturers of arms. The hon. gentleman referred to Great Britain; he mentioned President Roosevelt, Mr. Cordell Hull and the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King), saying that these men certainly would not be influenced by private manufacturers; that they would not go to war simply because private manufacturers of munitions influenced them. I am not going to debate that point. We do not assume for a moment that they would do so. Nevertheless the fact must be faced that for a long, long time private manufacturers of armaments have had their propagandists in the field. Those propagandists are not there to influence governments to stay out of war. While the mover of the resolution (Mr. Douglas) was speaking this evening he referred to the well known Mr. William B. Shearer. It was by sheer coincidence that I happened to be reading about this same gentleman at that very time. In this connection I should like to read a paragraph or two-


Mr. DUPUIS:: What is the title of the book?


Ernest George Hansell: I will give that. I might mention also that some in this corner of the house have been accused of reading a great many quotations.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, I am going to quote from a book which I believe to be exceptionally authoritative. It is the first in a series of two volumes by Philip Noel-Baker, M.P., entitled The Private Manufacture of Armaments. Someone may cry out, 'Who is he?" I am going to read who he is. He is the late Cassell Professor of International Relations in the university of London; late Fellow of King's College, Cambridge; member of the British delegation to the peace conference, 1919; parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 19291931; personal assistant to the president of the disarmament conference, 1932 and 1933. In the book there is a prefatory note by Viscount Cecil.
Now for the quotation concerning Mr. William B. Shearer and the propaganda that goes on at disarmament conferences, if you please. I am breaking into the middle of the story:
There are, moreover, some aspects of Mr. Shearer's work with which many British readers are unfamiliar. Most people, indeed, remember no more than the simple fact that Mr. Shearer was paid $25,000 for six weeks' propaganda at the naval conference summoned in 1927 by President Coolidge at Geneva.
That is a pretty nice sum of money for six weeks' work. It makes me feel that perhaps we who are endeavouring to unravel international complications are receiving the salaries of office boys. To continue the quotation:
They forget that this was only one special job among a number, and that for several years he was doing the same kind of propaganda for a number of employers in the United States. Here is his own account of his activities, as he summarized them in the suit he lodged against the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, and the American Brown Boveri Company-the three most important private naval shipyards in the United States:
" Services rendered and performed by plaintiff relating and with respect to the shipbuilding industry, the business of ship building, and the increase thereof, as affecting the business and financial interests and welfare of the defendants; service as representative of the defendants at Washington, D.C., Geneva, Switzerland, New York city, and other places in connection with the matters above referred to; the preparation and distribution of literature, data, and information relating to the above-mentioned and other matters; interviews and conferences with various individuals, in-
War Measures-Mr. Hansell

eluding public officials and representatives of the press; the preparation and delivery of public addresses; the organization and conduct of a publicity campaign for the benefit of and aid of the business and financial interests of the defendants; consulting and advising with the defendants in relation to the above and other matters affecting their business and financial welfare; and generally aiding and assisting the defendants in the conduct and promotion of their business affairs."
In pursuance of these activities, Mr. Shearer:
(a)	Visited Geneva during the meeting of the preparatory disarmament commission in 1926;
(b)	Visited Geneva again during the naval conference summoned by President Coolidge in 1927;
(e) "Lobbied" in Washington during the "three cruiser fight" in 1927, to which reference has been made above;
(d)	"Lobbied" again in Washington on the Jones-White Merchant Shipping Bill, which Mr. Wilder so successfully carried through in 1928;
(e)	"Lobbied" yet again in Washington in the so-called "fifteen cruiser fight" in 1929;
(f)	Conducted speaking tours throughout the country, interviewed the press, wrote articles, etc.
I think that is enough of that. But to say such work was not done in the interests of profiteering in war manufactures is to talk nonsense.
May I add one or two further observations, and I am getting them from the same book. Perhaps I am doing a good deal of quoting tonight, and some hon. members may object. I trust, however, that the objection is not raised because the authorities are so authoritative. As a general rule governments approve the private manufacturing of armaments, sometimes even to the extent of giving financial backing and assistance, although the British government has been against this policy of financial assistance for the armament export trade. Nevertheless, to say the least, financial concerns are sometimes closely related to armament firms. Vickers, Armstrong, Schneider and Krupp have either created their own banking houses to help them carry on their work or established close personal relations with important banks.
Then there is the sale of armaments to potential enemies. To some extent the mover of the resolution has covered this question. It is obvious that private manufacturers of armaments are in business not for pleasure or by reason of their great patriotism, but rather for profit. It could be said that if the profit were taken out of war there would be no private manufacturing of armaments. This means that armament firms are constantly on the lookout for foreign markets, which results in the sale of armaments to potential enemies.

At page 184 of the book I find that out of 141 warships built by Armstrong-Whitworth before the great war, 105 were built for foreign countries and thirty-six for Great Britain. At page 189 I read the following:
After the war the German armament industry, with the knowledge and collusion of the German general staff, did much to organize the rearmament of Russia. In particular, they allowed Herr Stolzenberg to set up a chemical warfare factory on Russian soil, and Junkers to build extensive aircraft works. In these and other ways, German arms firms helped the Soviet government to lay the foundations of its present military strength. To-day the governments of Russia and Germany are preparing openly and feverishly for war, and there is no more dangerous situation in the world than that which their hostility involves. .. .Italy was a member of the triple alliance; she was bound by treaty to join Germany and Austria-Hungary if European war broke out; yet she failed to march in August, 1914, and within a year she was fighting on the other side. Other no less flagrant cases could be cited.
Then, at page 195:
The latest tanks are the result of long and costly experiment and research. Yet it has been stated that, when Germany started to rearm, and while her right to do so w-as still violently contested by the government of France, a great French arms firm sold 400 tanks to Herr Hitler's government. In order to evade suspicion, the tanks were shipped through Holland to Germany.
With these few observations I announce my determination to support the resolution. I am glad the mover of the resolution has stated that it is not intended to emphasize the nationalization of industry. Personally I am against the nationalization of industry, but I do not think that in a time of war industry should make huge profits out of that which kills and destroys our young manhood. It may be said that war is a national crisis and that we should conscript all industry. It might also be said that we are now in the midst of a national crisis and that all industry should be conscripted or nationalized, The national crisis we are in today is purely economic, whereas the crisis of war is entirely different. With these reservations, I intend to vote for the resolution.
Mr. J. It. HURTUBISE (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this resolution, but in view of the remarks made to-day and a few days ago by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) with reference to the exportation of nickel, I feel it to be my duty to say a few words. After listening to the hon. gentleman one would think that the producers of nickel in Canada are combined with the arms manufacturers of the world. I should like to prove to the house that this is far from being so. The

War Measures-Mr. Hurtubise
International Nickel Company, which is the exclusive exporter of nickel from Canada, has made a great contribution to this country in the way of scientific and industrial advancement. It is true that some nickel goes into armaments, but it is not a great deal. Before the great war, nickel was not used to any great extent in industry and naturally a large part of the production was used in armaments. However, in 1929 more nickel was used in industry than was used for armaments at the peak of the war-time consumption. The company's representatives state that manufacturers of armaments now consume less than five per cent of its production. I should like to quote what was said by Mr. F. E. Lathe and Mr. S. J. Cook of the national research laboratories. These gentlemen presented a paper at the thirteenth annual meeting of the League of Nations Society of Canada on the control of war metals as a peace measure. These men made inquiries as to the production and exportation of Canadian nickel and at this meeting held in Ottawa on May 31, 1935, they said:
The restriction on the production or movement of war metals would not necessarily prevent war. The only real hope of placing effective restriction upon the conduct of war operations by limiting the production or movement of key metals lies in international action.
They say that substitutes could be made available for aluminum and nickel, at least in so far as the application of these metals are concerned. As I said before, the representatives of the company state that only five per cent of its production is used for war purposes. After making a study of the matter, these two gentlemen state that eighteen per cent of the nickel exported is used for armaments. The International Nickel Company, the sole producer of nickel in Canada, has made a great contribution to the progress of this country. Nickel is used in this and other countries for almost every purpose. It is used for architectural and household purposes, mainly in the form of monel metal. Nickel silver and stainless steel are used for exterior and interior architectural ornamentation and also for restaurant, household and factory equipment. A large amount of nickel silver is used for hardware, plumbing and tableware. These are just some of the uses to which this metal is put.
During the past few years the International Nickel Company has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in research work to find new uses for this metal. These people are intelligent and they realize the word is being passed around that nickel is being used largely
for armaments. They are trying to prove to the Canadian people that only a small percentage of their production is used for that purpose. The large portion of their production is used for purposes other than armaments. We see all around us examples of the use of this metal in one alloy or another.
I mentioned architectural and household use. Nickel is used also in the automotive industry. Nickel alloys are used for automotive parts subject to great strain such as gears, drive shafts, roller-bearings and forgings. Stainless steel is used for ornamental parts and nickel alloys are used for cylinders and other parts of the engine. Nickel silver is used for interior ornamental work and also in the manufacture of spark-plugs. These articles are not manufactured for war purposes and there are hundreds of thousands of pounds of nickel exported every day to be put to uses such as these. I discussed this matter with the officials of the company and I know for a fact that nickel is being used, not for armaments but for the different purposes I have mentioned.
Because of its lightness it is also used in aviation. The chemical and allied industries are large users of nickel. For instance, monel metal, inconel-these are different preparations of nickel-and stainless and corrosion-resistant steel for corrosion-resisting equipment for all sorts of articles in the ceramic, dairy, laundry, distilling, dry-cleaning, glass, icecream, pulp and paper, soap, textile, wine and beer industries. This indicates the wide range of uses of nickel. Then there are electrical and radio uses: nickel radio tube parts, monel metal bolts, nuts and fittings, nickel chromium electrical-resistance alloys for heater coils and elements of electrical heating appliances; nickel-iron alloys for thermostatic elements; nickel-iron and nickel-cadmium accumulator batteries. This again indicates the wide use of nickel. In machinery there is the rolled, forged and cast nickel alloy steel for stressed parts. That is where nickel comes most into use on account of its combination with steel, giving the greatest resistance ever found in steel. Nickel is used in gears, shafting and roller-bearings, nickel alloy cast-iron for bed plates, frames, cylinders, brake drums, rolls, housings, for heavy machinery, machine tools, agricultural implements, excavating machinery. Then in marine construction, we find nickel alloy steel propeller shafts, turbine gears, diesel engine parts, nickel alloy cast-iron pumps and valves. Then in the mining in-
War Measures-Mr. Hurtubise

dustry, nickel is used in drilling equipment and mine skips, ear axles, crushing machinery, nickel alloy cast-iron for crushing and grinding equipment, pumps, and valves. It is also used in the railways. This shows that there is a very wide range of uses for nickel.
The hon. member for Weyburn mentioned the great exports of nickel to different countries. Everybody knows that the United States is the most advanced nation in the manufacture of mechanical instruments. They have hundreds of industries of that kind, and it is for their purposes that most of the nickel exported to that country is used. Forty per cent of our nickel production goes to the United States. The hon. member mentioned some time ago that nickel was going in increasing amounts to the Netherlands. I should like to give figures of the world distribution of exports of nickel. If I were allowed, Mr. Speaker, I could put on Hansard the whole table supplied by the bureau of statistics showing the exportation of nickel from 1927 to 1937.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Put it on Hansard.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Read it.


Mr. HURTUBISE:: I refer to Canada's exports of nickel and its derivatives, by hundredweight, to the chief importing countries for the fisical years ended March 31. I know the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) has seen this report, but I contend that he has drawn false conclusions from the figures.
The total exports of nickel in hundredweights were:
Year	100 pounds
1927		 624,447
1928		 782,285
1929		 1,074,822
1930		 1,065,175
1931		 819,293
1932		 543,791
1933		 325,607
1934		 1,066,421
1935		 1,195,025
1936		 1,609,252
Great Britain and the United States are the greatest importers.
Great Britain imported, in hundredweights:
Year	100 pounds
1927		 243,305
1928		 346,639
1929		 303,638
1930		 138,284
1931		 319,569
1932		 198,755
1933		 59,976
1934		 340,393
1935		 444,358
1936		 607,906

The United States imported:
Year	100 pounds
1927		 300,097
1928		 317,511
1929		 619,596
1930		 790,511
1931		 407,455
1932		 247,871
1933		 156,706
1934		 515,893
1935		 526,699
1936		 721,986
The Netherlands imported:
Year	100 pounds
1927		 75,558
1928		 101,696
1929		 95,733
1930		 88,487
1931		 24,056
1932		 19,889
1933		'	 28,274
1934		 102,882
1935		 70,673
1936		 123,008
As the hon. member said, this shows the increase of exports to neutrals.
At this point let me observe that I cannot understand how an embargo or restrictions can be placed on the exportation of nickel. Those who import it will give all kinds of misinformation before, during or after war.
In the years enumerated the imports for Norway were as follows:
Year	106 pounds
1930		 874
1931		 36,656
1932		 51,464
1933		 69,517
1934		 88,850
1935		 108,181
1936		 111,462
Let us take Germany, the bugbear of which wp are so much afraid. Her imports were:
Year	100 pounds
1927		 1,823
1928		 6,528
1929		 15.726
1930		 3,284
1931		 6.597
1932		 9,885
1933		 2.512
1934		 8,303
1935		 1,910
1936		 833
These are all hundredweight.


Mr. COLDWELL:: What about Italy?


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: These are the figures for Italy:
Year	100 pounds
1927		 1,121
1928		 4,502
1929		 7,270
1930		 7,758
1931		 7,620
1932		 3.363
1933		 3,254
1934		 2,575
1935		 12,711
1936		 25,114

War Measures-Mr. Hurtubise
The figures for France are:
Year	100 pounds
1927		 Nil
1928		 538
1929		 23,827
1930		 24,748
1931		 879
1932		 1,202
1933		 115
1934		 457
1935		 1.864
1936		 3,885
The figures for Japan are:
Year	100 pounds
1927		 2,543
1928		 4,516
1929		 8,692
1930		 1,991
1931		 2,989
1932		 3,821
1933		 2,466
1934		 7,009
1935		 23,841
1936		 14,312
Let me give now the total figures for foreign countries:
Year	100 pounds
1927		 381,142
1928		 435,640
1929		 771,184
1930		 926,888
1931		 499,724
1932		 345,033
1933		 265,625
1934		 725,969
1935		 750,594
1936		 1,001,232


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the source of these figures?


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: The bureau of statistics. As I have said, the different alloys which the manufacturers of nickel in Canada produce and export are rendering a great service not only to this country but to all the nations of the world, and it is not by any means in the manufacture of armaments only that their nickel is used. The nickel is produced in Copper Cliff, three and a half miles from where I live, and I know the conditions there. Some hon. members are under the impression that the manufacturers are concerned only with armaments; that they are ogres; that they are great profiteers, and that their workmen are labouring like slaves and are badly taken care of. Let me take this opportunity to say I know for a fact that not only is this industry making a great contribution to the welfare of Canada but its labourers are the best-treated in the country. I do not have them with me, but in my files I have circulars from the labour defence league, which is a branch of the communist organization that is working so hard in Canada. These circulars make interesting reading. When the Inter-31111-37
national Nickel Company almost closed down for a while for repairs or reconstruction, these people were cursing the company for not making use of a sufficient number of men, and now that the company is using more men and treating them well, what do we find? If an accident happens, if a man is killed, they put up posters all over the city to convey the impression that the workmen are being cruelly treated.
I can assure the house that in addition to research work the company is spending unlimited amounts to prevent accidents. Accidents will happen in any industry, in any walk of life, no matter what precautions we may take against them; they cannot be altogether eliminated. I can, however, vouch for the fact that the company is making every effort and spending considerable sums of money to protect its employees. Not only that, but it is taking care of them from the social point of view. Last fall when the communists around Sudbury were spreading propaganda with respect to the treatment the labouring classes were supposed to be receiving from the company, I went to the officials and asked for a report to show what the company was doing for its men and what its operations meant, not only for that district, but for the dominion. I have in my hand a report given me in September, and according to the figures set out in this report I find that in the ten years from 1926 to 1935 the company paid in wages and salaries, $84,000,000; in materials, $69,000,000, and in freight, power and dividends, $47,000,000, creating per annum an average of $20,000,000 in direct Canadian buying power. On the basis of present operations the company spent in Canada during 1936, in labour and salaries, $15,800,000; in materials, $12,500,000, and in freight, power and dividends, $8,700,000, thus creating in 1936 a total of $37,000,000 in direct Canadian buying power.


Major James William Coldwell: What were their total profits last year?


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: I shall come to that in a moment. The estimated capital expenditure of the International Nickel Company in 1936 for Canadian labour and materials was $11,000,000. The company used more than 250,000 tons of Canadian coal. I said at the beginning that this company is making a contribution to Canadian life, in furnishing employment, in buying Canadian materials and in many other ways. On the basis of present operations the company will use in a year 53,000,000 feet of Canadian lumber. This would provide steady employment for a year for a lumber camp of more than 1,000

War Measures-Mr. Hurtubise

men. The company at present has more than 9,000 employees, which means that it is providing a livelihood for some 20,000 people in Canadian homes, and through its purchases the company provides a livelihood for an additional 20,000 people in Canada.
I hope I have been able to prove that the International Nickel Company have no connection with the manufacture of armaments. Their greatest ambition is to get away altogether from it. They cannot prevent some nickel from going for use in armaments, as will steel, copper or any other metal. But why discriminate against nickel when it can be proven that only a very sm-all percentage goes to armaments, and that is uncontrollable? Why not say as much against copper or any other metal?


Ernest George Hansell: We would.
Mr, HURTUBISE:	I have been in this
house for seven years and the only talk of embargoes and restrictions on the export of metal has always been in regard to nickel, as if it were the only metal used in armaments. I know, because I am in close contact with what is being done; I talk with those concerned every year and I know the efforts they are making to extend the use of nickel in every industry in this and all other countries, and to lessen- its -use as much as possible for armaments. Why discriminate against this company? The hon. member for Weybum (Mr. Douglas) as well as others who have spoken are far away from it; how can they judge of the program of the company? I am at closer range, and as I knew this question was to come up, I made it my business to procure these figures. I am more than, ever convinced that this discrimination against the International Nickel Company is antinational; it is nothing but the thin end of the wedge of socialism. One speaker said tonight it was not their ambition to socialize everything. Well, it is nothing but the thin end of the wedge leading to nationalization of all our industries. Would -the -nationalization of the manufacture of nickel in Canada give better results than those I have demonstrated? I cannot think it would give more work, or better accommodation for their labouring men.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Or more profits to the
shareholders.


Mr. MacINNIS:: The hon. member has
not reached that yet.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: Nationalization could
not give as much protection and satisfaction bo the employees. If we enter upon a socialization policy the results would be what 
they are in Russia. We have to take one or the other, socialization and communism or the profit system.
Not only has the International Nickel Company made a contribution from the scientific -point of view, from the labour point of view, -but it has brought into the coffers of the Minister of Finance over $3,000,000.


Major James William Coldwell: What were its profits last year?


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: Last year its profits were over $23,000,000. But that has to be compared with its total production. If you do a $25,000 business and make $1,000 profit, how does this compare with such an enterprise as the International Nickel Company m-aking $23,000,000 profit? The ratio is no greater. I say it is pure and simple discrimination against that company.


Angus MacInnis: It has not hurt them any.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: Why discriminate against them? There are other industries in this country making big profits. Why should- the International Nickel Company be blamed if they make the average rate of profit that the others do? It is because they are intelligent men and know their business that they succeed. If others fail, it is because they have not the proper men at the head of their organization.


Mr. MacNICOL:: They pay big income taxes.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: Yes, they pay according to their amount of work and their profits. They are on the same basis as any other company. If one compares the amount of business they do in on-e year with that done by other companies, are their profits any bigger than those of the other companies?


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, they are.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: The total is bigger, but the percentage is not. From the speeches we have heard to-day it is evident that the desire of some hon. members is to set up socialism and communism in this country. I trust that by these few remarks I have been able to dissipate the misapprehension and misinformation which some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon would convey to the Canadian public. In view of those speeches and the tenor of the resolution I cannot support it.


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

Home Improvement Loans
Friday, February 5, 1937