1938-04-01

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) to indicate to the house whether
the management of the Canadian National Railways has under consideration the reopening of the railway station at Malton, Ontario, in view of the prospective increase of traffic attributable to the location of the airport and certain new industries at that point.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Is Malton in the count} of Peel?
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) The matter being entirely one for the manage iment of the Canadian National Railways all I can say to my hon. friend is that I shah direct the attention of the management to the question he has asked.



DEATHS IN UNITED STATES FOLLOWING USE AS CANCER SERUM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. J. McCANN (Renfrew South):: I wish to direct a series of questions to the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power).
1.	In view of the catastrophe at Orlando, Florida, where seven persons met their death following the use of a cancer treatment serum known as ensol, manufactured and distributed from Kingston, Ontario, what steps are being taken by the federal Department of Health regarding an investigation, and what protection is afforded to the Canadian public to prevent the occurrence of such an accident or incident in this country?
2.	Is ensol licensed for manufacture and distribution in Canada?
3.	Is ensol manufactured under government supervision?
4.	Has the distribution of ensol been prohibited pending the holding of an investigation?
5.	Has any attempt been made to recall batches of ensol made at the same time as that which was distributed to Orlando, Florida?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of this question. Some two days ago the department was informed through the United States food and drugs administration that a number of deaths had occurred at Orlando, Florida. Immediately the department dispatched Mr. Lancaster, chief dominion analyst, Doctor Harris, chief of the laboratory of hygiene, and Mr. James Gibbard, bacteriologist, to Kingston to inquire into the circumstances connected with the manufacture and distribution of the batch of ensol, No. 10170, under suspicion.
Ensol

On examining the books in which the records of shipments were contained, our officers found that a certain number of vials containing ten cubic centimeters each had been distributed to different places in the United States and Canada. Upon the advice of our officials a telegram was immediately dispatched by the Hendry Connell Research Foundation to all recipients of ensol. This telegram ordered the recipients immediately to discontinue treatment with any of the ensol of batch No. 10170. The National Health Institute at Washington was advised, and Mr. Lancaster, the chief dominion analyst, telephoned the food and drugs administration in Washington, informing them that all consignees of this particular batch of ensol in the United States had been instructed by telegram to discontinue its use. Subsequently a list of all recipients of ensol since January 1, 1938, was prepared and a similar telegram dispatched to them. It should be pointed out that with every vial of ensol Doctor Connell enclosed printed instructions for use, in which he particularly warned those using the ensol that certain aseptic precautions should be taken. Inspection of the records shows that many doses of this particular batch, No. 10170, have been given to patients in Canada, with no ill effects reported. In the meanwhile all further distribution of ensol has ceased pending results of laboratory examinations and autopsies.
An application was made by the Hendry Connell Research Foundation to manufacture and sell ensol some two or three years ago, in 1935. A licence was refused and the applicant was advised that a licence would not be granted until such time as a pronouncement had been made upon the efficacy of ensol by a responsible medical authority. Under existing legislation the department is unable to supervise or control free distribution, as it has no authority therefor; nor has it authority to interfere with the making up and preparation of prescriptions by laboratories, by physicians themselves or by hospitals.
Further consideration will be given to the entire question as soon as all the facts have been ascertained upon investigation and through laboratory tests being made both here and in the United States.



INSTOW, SASK., FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY as to conditions with respect to FEED OATS AND FODDER
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) whether

or not the conditions that have been complained of with respect to feed oats and fodder at Instow, Saskatchewan, have been remedied. I was going to communicate with the minister before he came in, but possibly on Monday next he can give us some information on the matter. I think perhaps the situation has been corrected by this time.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, $425,720.
Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East):: Mr. Chairman, when I resumed my seat the other evening I had been commenting on the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). Before I come to the matter I was discussing at that time I should like to take this opportunity of correcting, if that is necessary, an impression that might be gained from something I said in respect of the functions of a member of parliament as compared with those of one who does not have the responsibility of membership in this house or the responsibility of a minister of the crown. What I obviously meant was not that we should turn this place into a citadel of hypocrisy; but that what any hon. member said at this time in this House should be with an appreciation of the existing international situation. I did not mean that we should say things here differently than we would outside this house.
Regarding the statement of the hon. member for Vancouver North that we should acquire the legal right to assert neutrality, I should point out that as a matter of history, in respect of at least minor wars in which Great Britain was a participant, we have always taken the attitude that this was not our business. I could refer to the Fashoda incident of 1884, in which Sir John A. Macdonald refused to have Canada involved. Then one could make reference to the Chanak incident, when the present Prime Minister as Secretary of State for External Affairs took the stand of Canadian non-participation. I further contend that in the Locarno treaties there is an implied non-participation on the part of Canada in any major European war in which Great Britain should be involved. I also suggest that if the famous Balfour declaration of 1926 means anything, there is no question about our right to assume a position of neutrality. I do suggest to the house, however, that in any event neutrality is rather a matter of policy than a matter of legal debate. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver North



I, 1938

[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Defence
that we should have the legal power to assert our neutrality, without commenting in any way as to any given event in regard to which we might exercise that right. My submission is that the Foreign Enlistment Act passed in this house in 1937, the amendment to the Customs Act of last year and the proposed amendment to the Shipping Act now before the house, clearly indicate that the administration has no intention of becoming entangled in foreign wars.
Speaking in this house on June 18, 1936, I made the plea that has been made by the hon. member for Vancouver North. I then asked that we should acquire the legal right to declare a position of neutrality if we so desired. On that occasion I quoted the words of the Prime Minister regarding neutrality in terms of constitutional and international law. Those words deserve to be repeated here to-day in order to remove what I think is a misconception on the part of the hon. member for Vancouver North when he discussed the position Canada would occupy in respect of a war in which Great Britain was involved, and in which we might wish to assume a position of either passive belligerency or complete non-participation. I repeat the words of the Prime Minister at this time, words uttered in 1926 and referred to by myself in this house in 1936, because I think they will help, as I have noted, to clarify the issue:
There is a distinction to be drawn between the purely legal and technical position in which this dominion may be placed and the moral obligations which arise under treaties, depending upon the manner in which such treaties are entered into, upon the parties who are present, and the representative capacities in which they acted while negotiations were proceeding. Legally and technically Canada will be bound by the ratification of this treaty.
The Prime Minister was referring to the Lausanne treaty.
In other words, speaking internationally, the whole British Empire in relation to the rest of the world will stand as one when this treaty is ratified. But as respects the obligations arising out of the treaty itself, speaking now of inter-imperial obligations, this parliament, if regard is to be had to the representations which from the outset we have made to the British government, will in no way be bound by any obligation beyond that which parliament of its own volition recognizes as arising out of the situation.
Somewhere Sir Arthur Berriedale Keith has expressed the view that this is a correct statement of the position. Let me remind the hon. member for Vancouver North, as he has been reminded already: assuming that in a given event we wish to be neutral, I trust he will appreciate the full significance of that desire in respect of the use of force. There is
every bit as much likelihood, if not more, of our being called upon to use force to protect a neutral position, as there is if that neutral position be not asserted. Last year his leader, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) moved in this chamber the following resolution which I give in part:
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.
In other words, regarding any conflict we should assert a position of neutrality. But the hon. member for Vancouver North, if I interpret correctly his speech of last Friday, does not agree with the statement made by his leader, because at page 1728 of Hansard he is reported to have said:
I am not suggesting that we should attempt to make a prior declaration of neutrality and bind parliament.
So that at any rate we have this difference in the points of view of the hon. member for Vancouver North and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on this issue. In this particular the hon. member does not agree with his leader, and I think it should be stated whether or not, when the hon. member for Vancouver North was speaking, he was declaring his own position or that of his party.
With regard to this question of neutrality one should not forget the experience of the United States. It is significant that a former president, Mr. Hoover, recommended only the day before yesterday, following a return from Europe, the abrogation of the existing neutrality legislation of the United States. And there are growing evidences, in congress itself, of a change in this particular.
One should mention here, I think, that the anomalous position in which Lord Atkin has put us as a result of his judgment in respect of Canada's treaty making power. In passing I suggest this should be remedied at the earliest possible moment.
Speaking of the foreign policy of this country, which I now intend to discuss, I think one might well say by way of preface, that if a government party is expected to have a foreign policy, so, too, should all the political parties in this house. One wonders, for instance, if the speech delivered by the hon. member for Argenteuil' (Mr. Heon) the other day in Montreal, represents the point of view of the party of which he is a member, or whether one is to take the speech of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church)
Supply-National Defence
[Stage Direction]
as indicating more clearly the position of his party regarding these matters.
Even at the expense of labouring the point, in respect of the question of commitments I think I should place on Hansard one or two further declarations of responsible ministers, indicating the position of Canada, so that any hon. gentleman who should follow me will not seek to emphasize that while assuming there are commitments we at the same time display an unwillingness or a reluctance to indicate their full significance.
Mr. J. H. Thomas, speaking on March 9, 1936, in the House of Commons at Westminster, as Secretary of State for the Dominions, said:
At the jubilee celebration in 1935 the United Kingdom government had explained to the dominion prime ministers that the defence position, since which the full content of the white paper had been communicated to them, and without a solitary exception every dominion not only acquiesced but felt that this was a policy that .ought to be supported.
Obviously, if that was correct, the statement of the present Prime Minister-
The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I regret to
inform the hon. member that he has exceeded his time.


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver North had a little more than forty minutes, and that it is to that speech the hon. member wishes to reply, I think he should have an opportunity to continue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is a very kind intervention, and I thank the hon. member for it.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: The good Samaritan.


Paul Joseph James Martin: If that statement were
allowed to go unchallenged, naturally what I have said in respect of commitments would place the present administration and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in a most embarrassing position. However, to take care of that matter, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on March 10, 1936, commenting upon the statement of Mr. Thomas, the then Secretary of State for the Dominions, said:
A summary of the white paper which was recently laid on the table of the House of Commons at Westminster, describing the proposal of the government of the United Kingdom, for the strengthening of its defence forces and the reorganization of the committee of imperial defence, was communicated to us. The summary reached us at the same time that a full statement appeared in the press of the contents of the white paper. But we were not asked our
[Mr. Martin.1
opinion of the white paper nor were we asked to give any approval of it or any commitment with regard to it.
The statement of the Prime Minister would not be complete, nor would we have a complete disclosure of the foreign policy of this country, unless, in respect of the matter to which the Secretary of State for the Dominions had referred, one quoted the statement made in the house by the present leader of the opposition, when he was prime minister, in answer to a question by the present Prime Minister on May 20, 1935. The present Prime Minister had asked the present leader of the opposition if at the conferences in connection with the jubilee celebration any commitments had been made by Canada, and the then prime minister (Mr. Bennett) replied:
At this moment I shall not do more than say that I think it is very desirable that I should at once make it clear that so far as this dominion is concerned no commitments were sought with respect to the matters to which reference has been made, nor were any given. I say that because it is desirable that there should be no false conceptions and no misstatements or misunderstandings abroad with respect to matters of such importance to us all.
So that the record is now complete. We have not only the present Prime Minister but also a former prime minister, representing the only other political group which has held office in Canada, telling us that we have no commitments, nor have we had any commitments with any unit in any part of the world.
These official statements effectively arrest the interpretation the hon. member for Vancouver North sought to give the other night. Then, finally, in a broadcast statement over the national network of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on July 19, 1937, after his return from Great Britain, following the coronation and the imperial conference, the Prime Minister said:
In concluding what I have to say on the subjects of foreign affairs and defence, I should like to make perfectly clear that the position of the Canadian government, as asserted prior to the conference, of the full and untrammelled responsibility of the Canadian parliament for decision on the vital issues of foreign policies and defence, was completely maintained throughout. It was made clear in the conference discussions that Canada was not committed to joining in any Imperial or any league military undertakings; and, equally, that there was no commitment against such participation; that, in brief, any decision, on the part of Canada, to join in war would have to be taken by the parliament of Canada in the light of the circumstances and facts of the day, as they may exist in Canada, and in the areas involved. That position has been made clear in Ottawa, in Geneva, and in London, and it remains the position of the government of Canada. Neither at the Imperial conference itself.- nor at any time, prior or subsequent to the conference, were commitments made with

Supply-National Defence
respect to matters on which the Canadian parliament would wish to be informed in advance; nor have policies with respect to any matter been enunciated or approved which were not wholly in accord with those of the government as known to the country, and previously expressed by myself or my colleagues in parliament.
I now leave this matter of commitments. I ask the house to agree that, if any hon. member suggests again that there are commitments, the onus will rest with that hon. gentleman to indicate precisely the full nature of the alleged commitments.
It is said constantly that we have no foreign policy.


Mr. MacNEIL:: Would you not consider
a contractual obligation to maintain naval bases for his majesty's ships in time of war in fact a commitment?


Paul Joseph James Martin: By no means. A contract of that sort can be ended. For instance, one can recite the case of Italy regarding an arrangement made with the Austrian government in connection with the Austrian Tyrol. That was denounced. That was a contractual obligation, but there is a difference between a contractual obligation and a constitutional obligation. As I pointed out the other night, there is no constitutional obligation on the part of Canada in respect to these naval bases.
I do not agree fully with all that this government has done by way of foreign policy, but I do say that this government has had and has a foreign policy. In the light of existing circumstances, it is the only foreign policy that this country could have, bearing in mind Canada's best interests. In the Italo-Abys-sinia dispute, whether or not we liked the way our government acted, its foreign policy was clear and well-defined. Regarding our attitude toward the reoccupation of the Rhineland there was no question as to our official point of view. We had a definite policy respecting the proposed amendments to the covenant of the League of Nations. The Prime Minister made that clear to the assembly of the league when he spoke on behalf of this government in 1936. Hon. members may not have agreed with him, but he did not equivocate in the matter.
There is a disposition to say that the Brussels Conference was not a success and that this country had no foreign policy in connection with it. We must not overlook the important contribution made by that conference respecting the present conflict in China. I am sure I can give no greater authority for this statement than Doctor Hu Shi. At the Brussels conference, which met on November 24, there were represented many
of the countries represented in Washington when the nine-power treaty of 1921-22 was drawn up. That treaty provided for the recognition of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of China, and the Brussels conference reaffirmed its provisions. While some hon. gentlemen may contend that there are no teeth in that reaffirmation, I should like to point out what Doctor Hu Shi had to say. Speaking in Ottawa the other day this great Chinese philosopher observed that he regarded the reaffirmation as being of tremendous importance. The policy of this government was to agree with the reaffirmation of the principles of the nine-power treaty. If that does not mean having a definite foreign policy in respect to that one matter, then what does it mean?
The position that we took is of great significance when we realize that Sweden, Norway and Denmark, all peace-loving countries, all members of that Scandinavian group traditionally strong collective security countries, made reservations and refused to vote for the declarations given. Hon. gentlemen opposite often hold up these countries as the best examples of consistent foreign policy. These three countries in declining to vote refused to affirm the declarations and Canada did, I presume because of the foreign policy of the present government. When you consider the number of countries represented you realize that there was a diminution as compared .with the conference of 1922. Our country was not only represented, but went the full way with the other countries in expressing its horror at the use of force in faraway China. Hon. members may say that we should have done more, but I do not think we could in the light of the present world situation.
What do we mean by foreign policy? If hon. gentlemen opposite think that the government should have a declared formula for every question, then it is impossible to expect this or any other government to have a foreign policy. There are certain constant factors such as geographical position, economic interests, and the general state of community opinion which must be borne in mind. There are few men more astute in the conduct of foreign affairs than was Sir Eyre Crowe, at one time head of the western division of the foreign office. In a famous memorandum given on January 1, 1907, he laid down the basis of Anglo-German relationship. Anyone who analyses Mr. Harold Nicolson's estimate of that memorandum will appreciate the value of what I have said. In dealing with Anglo-German relationship, as conceived by Sir Eyre Crowe, certain considerations had to be
Supply-National Defence

borne in mind by the British government, among which was the fact that Great Britain was an island, facing the exposed flank of Europe. Being an island, she had to maintain food outlets and inlets. If that is true in the case of Great Britain, it is equally true in the case of Canada. What are the constant factors to be considered? Any one who is prepared to examine these constant factors will not fail to recognize the truth of what I am saying.
Let me digress for a moment. I am not saying that the present foreign policy of this country should be maintained continually or should have been maintained from the close of the war up to about two and a half years ago; I am simply answering the statement that we have at the moment no foreign policy. In a recent book on Canada, Andre Seigfried said:
The foreign policy of Canada is based on three essentials, which are relatively simple and easy to summarize. They are first, the assertion of a distinct political status in international affairs; secondly, protection against menace from overseas powers; and thirdly, economic considerations, connected with the development of natural resources and the maintenance of the export trade. Whichever way we turn, we are sure to be confronted by one or other of these three propositions.
The attitude Canada adopts is a function of either her proximity to the U.S.A., her connection with Great Britain, or her intei'-national trade, which in turn depends upon the maintenance of peace.
I do not think anyone will quarrel with the statement that these are the constant factors which must be kept in mind. When we criticize the absence of an external affairs tradition in this parliament we should remember that we are a comparatively new member of the family of states. We have not yet acquired the complete technique in these matters that is expected of much older and more experienced countries. I am not offering this as an extenuating circumstance; I am simply stating a fact. The progress we have made is certainly much greater than that made by the great republic to the south, having in mind the length of time that country has been a member of the family of states.
I have no apology to make for my statement regarding Canadian foreign affairs. I am speaking now, not of a situation I should like to see, not of a situation that I think should have been, but of a situation that is. In this respect I suggest that we have a very definite foreign policy. This foreign policy was given to the house last year by the Prime Minister, but it will bear repetition. There are at least seven principles of our foreign policy. The first and guiding principle in the formulation

of Canada's foreign policy should be the maintenance of the unity of Canada as a nation. If this were not basic we would be faced with the absurd proposition of trying to keep peace in 'Europe at a time when Europe was not inclined to accept our assistance, and at the same time further jeopardizing the unity of Canada. That surely is fundamental, and no hon. member has stated that proposition better than the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), who speaking in this house in 1926, said-and I commend his words:
May we not reasonably hope that those who succeed us in filling the highest offices in the gift of the people of Canada shall only undertake such inter-imperial and international responsibility as may be undertaken with the general approval of all sections of the country, and to ensure that the action of parliament, and of the government which this parliament maintains and sustains, shall have the approval not only of a majority of the electoral constituencies throughout Canada, but also have the substantial support and cooperation of the constituencies in every important section, district or province of the dominion?
If that was not our attitude then we certainly could not make an effective contribution under present circumstances to the restoration of peace in the world. Add to that the fact that we have normal problems in respect of lack of unity. If hon. members were to follow, for instance, the observations of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon), or perhaps go the full way of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), is there any doubt of what the effect would be in this country? One has simply to remember the effect of conscription in this country; and by the way, talking of conscription, I for one deplore anyone in another place or in this House of Commons or for that matter outside Parliament advocating, in respect of a possible future conflict, that we should again think in terms of the conscription of our man power.
The second principle is that Canada's foreign policy is, in the main, a matter not of Canada's relations to the league but of Canada's relations to the United Kingdom and the United States. Whether we like it or not, this is the fact. We have certain affiliations; we have certain neighbours; and in the light of the uncertainty of world affairs, whatever we do must be done in the light of our relations with these affiliations and to these neighbours. There may be some who want us to withdraw from the Empire; there may be some who want a modification of our position in it; but no one, regardless of the position he takes in this respect, will deny the

Supply-National Defence
need for taking into consideration the fact that whatever we do must be done in the light of these two relationships.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Does the hon. member
consider that the separate right of neutrality may be claimed without conducting certain constitutional negotiations with his majesty's government in the United Kingdom?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Most certainly, but I do not quite appreciate how that touches what I have just said. That is involved in the new status which we have acquired, but in no sense is it related to the matter to which I am referring.
I am not afraid to assert in this house that we are a North American state. I am not afraid to assert that the very fact that we are on the North American continent should not only give us the right but should compel us to realize that our situation as a country on the North American continent does confer certain opportunities in respect of possible assistance in the event of a conflict, as well as certain orientations because of this geographical reality. But to state that we are a part of the North American continent and that we are a member of the British Empire is not in itself, I acknowledge, likely to take us out of the difficulties to which the hon. member has alluded. I am merely pointing out that in forming its foreign policy the government of this country, when it comes to make a decision, has to bear in mind these constant factors-and our relationship to Great Britain and our relationship to the United States are two very important constant factors. I believe in Canadian participation in the Pan-American Union, but I realize that if, as a matter of foreign policy, this government made a decision one way or the other at the present time with respect to that matter, greater disadvantage would come than advantage.
The third principle is that Canada should as a general rule occupy a back seat at Geneva or elsewhere when European or Asiatic problems are being discussed. With regard to the period from 1920 up until two years ago, I would not agree with that as an adequate formulation of Canada's foreign policy, but in the light of circumstances as they are, in the light of the attitude, for instance, of the Scandinavian countries, peace-minded as they have traditionally been, and in the light of the attitude taken by the greater powers generally, could we take at the present time any other position?
One of the most important figures in bringing about an earlier conception of the League of Nations, and conceiving the idea long before
the wTar wTas at an end, was Lawrence Lowell, a former president of Harvard university; and here is what he says about participation at the present time in full measure in respect of the League of Nations, and in respect of any part of the Americas trying to bring about any real appeasement in Europe:
Any general war in Europe would be a calamity to civilization that would drag us down with that part of the world from which we sprang; but in the present aspect of affairs we cannot help to prevent it, for it rests upon conditions there which we cannot change, upon the inability of European nations to act with harmony enough to settle their dissensions by peaceful means.
That surely is a significant statement. No one is stronger in the championing of collective action than I am, and it is because I believe in collective action that I do not want it to be disturbed by pious wishes which can only result, if translated immediately into terms of action, in disaster to the countries that adopt them, and to the collective system itself. Members of this house have a responsibility in doing their utmost to keep this country out of war. And to this end the present government dedicates itself.
The fourth and fifth principles, taking them together, are that Canada is under no obligation to participate in the economic and military sanctions of the league or in the defence of any other part of the commonwealth. I need merely mention the resolution of this house that was passed in 1926 in respect of economic sanctions. Of the position taken by us then, I need say nothing more I think than that it was contrary to our membership in the league at that time, but it does represent a foreign policy persistently pursued in this country and so directed as to preclude the slightest possibility of our being drawn into a European conflict. However, there is this to be said: Events confirm the stand taken by the government in sponsoring the 1926 resolution. We have from the beginning taken the attitude at the league that we did not by way of anticipation, want to be drawn into any armed conflict in respect of trying to carry out the provisions of the covenant of the league. In the light of the fact that the greater powers as well as some of the other powers of Europe have used the league as a means of preserving the status quo, I think that events have more than confirmed the judgment of successive Canadian governments in respect of economic and military sanctions.


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: If I may interrupt the hon. gentleman to ask a question, I remember the Prime Minister quoting those seven principles which I believe were taken from the formula by Mr. Escott Read. If I
Supply-National Defence

remember correctly, the Prime Minister gave rather general assent to them. Does the hon. member now suggest they represent the policy of the government, or his policy?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member knows that I have no authority to speak for the government. I am simply giving my interpretation of what I understand to be the present foreign policy of this government. I concur in Mr. Reid's excellent summary of present Canadian foreign policy.
Seventh, Canada is willing to participate in international enquiries into international economic grievances.
In 1921 our delegate, the present chief justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario, took the attitude that the primary function of the league was to deal with political matters; the examination of economic questions-raw materials and accessibility thereto, the closed market system of the world, and the like- was not properly within the functions of the league. Now. since the present government has not indicated the extent to which in this particular it is prepared to go, there may be offered some legitimate criticism, although not to the extent that some hon. gentlemen may suppose. We now recognize that the peace of the world is to be effected mainly through recognizing the economic implications of the relations of one state with another. And the government of this country, when it comes to implementing its policy in that respect, will be faced with the duty of considering the question of Canada as an outlet for population and as a source of raw materials. I would ask hon. gentlemen whether, in this connection, they would assert with regard to immigration, for. instance, that we should take a definite stand as to the contention that Japan has an insufficient area for the support of its population, or regarding the same claim on behalf of Italy? These are questions that cannot lightly be determined. While I believe that the peace of the world must be sought, once the present unrest has subsided, along such lines as these, I do not agree that anyone could reasonably be expected to make a particular pronouncement of policy at the present time in the absence of cooperative effort.
This program, be it satisfactory or unsatisfactory, is a program, and, as I have already suggested, one which in the light of existing circumstances is best suited to the interests of Canada. A country must not be unwilling to consider interests other than its own, but as, seemingly, this is a time when no country is willing to think of interests other than its own, it would be the highest type of folly for
IMr. Martin.]
this government to take any course different from the one it is pursuing.
So much with regard to the present. I have already stated my position with regard to the past up to two years ago. I am going to vote for these estimates, but not because I believe we are thereby defending our homes. If a war comes, whether of aggression or of defence, it can mean only the destruction of homes and much else. I consent to vote for these estimates for the same reason, and no other, that a man would consent to the amputation of an arm. In doing so I do not absolve anyone or any country. The condition of the world represents the vacillation both of public opinion and of governments. It may be said with a good deal of truth that Great Britain might have staved off the present situation, but we all have a measure of responsibility with regard to the invoking of article XIX, respecting consideration of the claims of an earlier Germany, Italy and Japan -claims which, if recognized, might have delayed the mischievous advent of the totalitarian states.
With regard to the future, the necessary disposition and good faith assured, and only the future-because to try to implement at this time the following program would defeat the purposes I have in mind-I am of the opinion that if the present balance of power system could be dropped, if the concert of certain nations could be disposed of, if it is possible to get back to Geneva, we shall then have to decide whether we are going to return to Geneva through the employment of force or through the agencies of conciliation. But if we do get back to Geneva we should embrace a program involving the following:
1.	The renunciation of economic warfare; and that, this government can do quite readily because of its traditional fiscal policies.
2.	Economic disarmament to be accompanied by military disarmament.
3.	Positive international cooperation to make it possible for all nations to improve the standards of living of their peoples by having assured access to the good things of life. This positive cooperation involves:
(a)	Improving the standard of labour and living by international agreement, as is being done by the international labour office.
(b)	A consideration of the raw materials inaccessibility argument. There is a lot of nonsense in connection with this argument, but so far as it is valid it should be faced squarely.
(c)	Freer access to markets, so that nations may be able to sell that which they best

Supply-National Dejence
produce, in order to obtain the exchange with which to acquire raw materials.
(d)	Trading on a basis of equality rather than of discrimination; and that again, this government can afford to do in the light of its traditions.
(e)	Currency stabilization and better coordination of financial policies.
(f)	Possible extension of the principle of mandates or international development of certain colonial areas.
(g)	Provisions for peaceful change.
Last, and I think most important:
(h)	Readaptation of the collective system.
As regards this program I have sought not
to be an apologist for anyone. I have criticized the past foreign policy of the present and other governments. But confining oneself for the moment to the situation in which we now find the world, no man in the position of responsibility occupied by a member of this house can urge the government to resort to any other course than it is following at the present time.
I merely express again before taking my seat, the hope that it will be possible to permit the agencies of conference to replace force as an instrument of national policy and as a means of settling disputes between nations, the hope that the law will supplant the will of any one man or ruler of a country. While I recognize that in the present situation it is almost futile to attempt to be idealistic, I am convinced, even if that conviction is based upon idealism, that the present system of heavy armaments and of foreign policies based upon them cannot preserve the peace of the world. Peace can come only by a revision of the concept of sovereignty and a recognition of the fact that, because of the economic and political interdependence of the world, nations have to be prepared to give and take in respect both of political and of economic matters. But the time for that has not come; we can only hope that it will come in the not distant future.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: In rising to speak to this matter of defence, may I say first that I would very much like to have more than forty minutes, but I feel that the indulgence of this house has already been extended on too many occasions, and I propose to try to keep within the rules in this regard.
First I desire to deal very briefly with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). He has, I think, endeavoured, and quite ably, to make an apology for what I still consider to be
the government's lack of policy. Having followed the hon. member's speeches from time to time on international affairs and the League of Nations, I am sure that what he undertook this afternoon must have been an uncongenial and perhaps even difficult task. In outlining the policy which he laid before the committee he said that he had no authority to speak for the government, yet he led us to infer that the government had a policy, and he laid before the committee a policy-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the hon. member permit me to point out that that statement is not accurate? I did not lay before the committee a policy. I laid before it what I understood to be the policy of the present government.


Major James William Coldwell: I accept that explanation and say that the hon. member laid before the committee a formula, and the idea I got was that it was the policy which is governing the government's policy; yet the formula is not the government's formula but that of Mr. Escott Reid, who has no responsibility whatsoever in relation to the government of the country.
The hon. member twitted my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) the other day, saying he had changed his position in regard to some of the matters now before the committee. May I just quote the concluding paragraph from what the hon. member for Vancouver North said last year in discussing the problem of defence, as found at page 887 of Hansard of February 15, 1937:
I submit we are being asked to support measures of defence which offer no defence. We are being asked to jeopardize our social security and to perpetuate social inequalities without the assurance that there will be additional security against danger from war. In the name of national defence we are facing commitments which mean anything but the defence of Canadian soil or Canadian homes. We desire peace, and we are taking the road to war. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the situation demands a straightforward statement from the government as to its intentions for the future.
In his address last Friday the hon. member for Vancouver North reiterated that position over and over again. Hence I would say that there was no change in the basic and fundamental principle from which he spoke this year as compared with a year ago. This year, as last year, we argue that defence plans should be based on a clear-cut foreign policy. We ask, as we did a year ago, what is that policy? So far this house has been given no definite statement from the government regarding it.

Supply-National Defence

That is not my opinion only. It is the opinion of political observers all across Canada. As recently as last Saturday evening the Ottawa Journal, edited by a gentleman whose ability and powers of observation I think none of us will question, remarked that this house and this nation should be told the truth regarding the defence estimates, should be told what is implied by them. For, he said, anything else is not honest, and can bring only injury. That, briefly, is the opinion also of the group with which I am associated.
The hon. member for Essex East illustrated what he termed our policy in relation to international affairs by quoting from the recent Brussels conference. Last October at Geneva we associated ourselves with other nations in calling upon members of the league to give at least moral support to China. We were also at Brussels, and what did the Chinese delegation say at Brussels? According to a Canadian Press dispatch dated November 15, 1937:
Canada has been a substantial contributor to Japan's weapon of war, according to a statement issued by the Chinese delegation to the nine-power treaty conference to-day.
The statement analyses Japan's dependence on foreign supplies for raw materials. It says that in 1936 Japan imported aluminum, used in aircraft manufacture, valued at 12,000,000 yen ($3,480,000). Of this Canada furnished 71-7 per cent.
In the same year Japan imported 33,000,000 yen worth of copper, of which Canada furnished 97-11 per cent.
In the same paper there followed a comparative table issued from Ottawa showing the increases in our sales to Japan last year.
Then the hon, member for Essex East undertook to read the hon. member for Vancouver North a lecture on our duties as members of parliament. He said:
What he states here should be different and from a different point of view from what he would say if he were in the lecture hall of a university or making a public lecture apart from his responsibility as a member of parliament.
Surely if this advice were followed-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman-


Major James William Coldwell: Just a moment. I did not interrupt the hon. member, and I think he will be quite satisfied with what I am going to say when I have said it. Surely if this advice were followed the atmosphere of this chamber would be even more unreal than it already is, and we should sit here simply employing words to conceal our thoughts. In other words as the hon. member for Essex East this afternoon stated, this

institution of democracy might become the citadel of hypocrisy. I can only suppose that over the week-end he has read those words a good many times-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You are quite right.


Major James William Coldwell: He has seen their implications, and realized that it must have been in a moment of mental aberration that he said what he did on Friday. To my mind it illustrates this, that even one of the most liberal-if I may put it that way-of the Liberals who sit on the opposite side of the house can be affected by the reactionary influences with which he is continuously associated. Once in a while we see an indication of that, and I take it this was one of the occasions.
Now we are told in this house that we may not discuss foreign policy, at least not as frankly as they discuss it at Westminster, or we may start a war somewhere.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I ask my hon. friend when that statement was made?


Major James William Coldwell: Well, I might withdraw the words that a statement was made; in fact I do not think I used those words. But, last year, again and again the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked what the foreign policy of this government was, and again and again we had no indication of it. The same thing has occurred this year; we have no indication of that policy. Yet day after day I read in the press of their frank discussions of policy at Westminster. [DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend, seeing he has referred to it, that I think he will recall that last session I made a very comprehensive statement with respect to the foreign policy of the present administration. I think he will also recall that at the present session I said our foreign policy had not changed in any particular from that set forth comprehensively last session. I believe I also said that I hoped every hon. member would feel free to discuss just as fully as he might wish the question of foreign policy in this house, but that when it came to statements by the government, these had to be made, having in mind the government's full responsibility for its every utterance in the light of conditions as they are known to be.


Major James William Coldwell: I appreciate the explanation of the Prime Minister, and I accept his statement. May I direct his attention to the fact that all across the country in many of our leading papers, representing all shades

Supply-National Defence
of thought, the statement is continually made -and I sympathize with it-that we have no clear cut understanding in this house or this country as to what policy the Prime Minister really has in mind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not the fault of the government, and may I say one other thing. I think all hon. members of the house will see, if they look at Hansard, that for nearly two months I have been trying to have an item in external affairs taken up so that I might have a chance again this year to place before the house a comprehensive statement with respect to foreign policy. I wished to do that before the Minister of National Defence brought in his estimates. The minister's estimates have been proceeded with ahead of mine for the reason that if the expenditures are to be made, and made to the greatest advantage, they ought to be made very soon. On that account the minister has not been held back. But, as the records will show, for two months I have consistently asked for a chance to bring external affairs before the house. Personally I wanted to have the matter off my mind before the Easter vacation, but I am afraid that will be impossible now.


Major James William Coldwell: I think what the Prime Minister has said is quite right; he has intimated to the house that he would like to introduce an item with regard to external affairs. But may I point out that we are not in control of the house; the government largely decides what business shall be taken up from day to day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that what has prevented me from doing so for longer than three weeks has been the amendment to the motion to go into supply.


Major James William Coldwell: May I remind the Prime Minister that we have gone into a number of departments already; post office, national revenue, public works and others, and I think ample opportunity has been afforded to go into the Department of External Affairs had the right hon. gentleman so desired.
The hon. member for Essex East took exception to our saying that these estimates implied certain commitments. He asked this question: Against what countries are we committed to prosecute a war of aggression? He referred to some nations which he named, and said:
The hon. member has a responsibility as a member of parliament, and in his sincere approach to his problem I think he should be
in a position to give an answer to a question of this kind.
The hon. member for Vancouver North is neither the prime minister nor the minister of national defence. If he should be expected to answer the question as against whom we are committed to prosecute a war of aggression, how much more should the members of the government be prepared to answer the question: for what purpose are these defence plans being executed or from whom may we expect aggression? I would expect an answer to the latter question much more than my hon. friend should expect the hon. member for Vancouver North to answer his question. So far, as I have said already, in my opinion we have not had an adequate answer. Again I say the defence plans must be based on a definite foreign policy, and again I ask what is that policy. Surely the government can tell us whether it is a purely British Empire policy designed solely for the development and protection of empire interests; or a policy purely of north American isolation, with Canada living strictly apart from world conflicts, commerce and considerations; or a league of nations policy based upon loyal support of collective security for the maintenance of world peace; or that of a purely autonomous state endeavouring to relate its individual policy to the other three I have named. If the last is the case we should tell the British people and the world just where we stand; for in Great Britain there are many who believe that the Prime Minister was correctly quoted when the British papers alleged that he said at Paris that any threat to England would immediately bring Canada to her side. I have that report here, appearing in the Daily Sketch of July 3, 1937. I hope when the Prime Minister speaks-as I hope he will speak-he will tell us and Great Britain and the world exactly what he said; and, what is more important, exactly what the words really imply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend would like me to do so I shall give the facts right now. I have before me a communication which I recently received from Mr. George Hambleton, who is well known (o all in this house as a former member of its press gallery and the correspondent of the Canadian Press in England. Mr. Hambleton was present at the meeting in Paris at which I spoke, and he took down verbatim what I said in shorthand notes. Some time ago, I wrote Mr. Hambleton and asked if he still had his notes and if he could send me a
Supply-National Defence

verbatim account of what I said at the time. He replied to my communication as follows: Boismuir,
Chiltern Rd.,
Amersham, Bucks., Eng. Feb. 14, 1938.
Rt. Hon. \V. L. Mackenzie King,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. King:
On my return from Ireland, I looked up my shorthand notes of your Paris speech of July 2, 1937, and enclose verbatim transcript of the passage at issue. You will notice that, in one or two places, it differs slightly from my cable to the Canadian Press but the differences are not material. They are due to my having to prepare a cable summary quickly.
My shorthand notes do not cover the entire speech verbatim but they are verbatim of the material passage. I have transcribed the material passage as I took it down at the time, with the preceding and following paragraphs.
I also enclose clipping of New York Times report of the speech, supplied to the Montreal Gazette. It generally bears out my own cable. Both the independent report of the New York Times and my orni notes are at obvious variance with the version published in London.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely yours,
G. Hambleton.
The account of my speech as transcribed by Mr, Hambleton from his notes is given by him as follows:
Mackenzie King at Paris-July 2, 1937.
"Mr. Lapointe and I have just returned from the imperial conference. There, around one table, we had together the representatives of different governments of the British Empire. I know that, to many people on the continent of Europe, it may seem that because we come, in this way, representatives of different governments and have our legations as we have in Paris side by side with the British embassy, that this is a note indicative of a desire on our part to go off on our own and possibly to separate in some way from the British Isles themselves. People who have that view mistake entirely the real bond that holds the peoples of the British Commonwealth. Freedom is the essence of our life within the community of British nations. We like to manage our own affairs. We share with other parts of the empire in discussing questions of mutual interest. The fact that we have our own representation in several countries is an evidence of that liberty and freedom which above all else we prize and were it imperilled from any source whatever would bring us together again in preservation of it.
"We are glad to have the opportunity of taking even a small part in this great cooperative effort on the part of the government of France to help to show to the modern world the development of arts and crafts in their application to modem life ..."
Such is the transcript of his notes, as taken down by Mr. Hambleton. I have here the report which was sent at the time by Mr. 
T. J. Philip, another correspondent, by wireless to the New York Times. This is the report of what I said in Paris as published in the New York Times and also in the Montreal Gazette:
King Holds Canada is World's Friend.
No country more fortunate in foreign relations, premier avers.
Opens Pavilion in Paris.
Says Empire's Units are Independent but Determined to Keep Freedom Jointly if Necessary.
Paris, July 2.-Opening the Canadian Pavilion of the International Exhibition here to-day, Premier W. L. Mackenzie King said that no country was more fortunate in its relations with other countries than Canada. He had just attended the imperial conference at London where all associated dominions of the British Empire met together with the mother country in perfect freedom and independence but united in a determination to keep their freedom jointly if necessary. With the United States Canada lived on most cordial terms of good neighbourhood and between Canada and France there was a sentimental link which would never die.
Canada, he said, was proud to take a small part in the exhibition which was designed to show how the peoples of every country lived by the genius and effort of men of all races, and how essential each nation was to the other.
Then, reference is made to some observations of my colleague, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe).
The Ottawa papers carried a report of what I said at Paris. The report appearing in the Ottawa Morning Citizen of July 3, 1937, is headed in these words:
Mackenzie King Discusses Trade Treaty at Paris.
This is a Canadian Press dispatch, via Havas, and reads:
The Prime Minister, arriving from his visits to German and Belgian leaders, officially opened the pavilion with its exhibits of Canadian industry, agriculture and mining.
He stressed the close bonds of sympathy and mutual understanding linking Canada with France, and warned his hearers to beware of any false interpretations of empire unity.
Anyone who believed that the fact Canada had her own legations in certain countries was an indication "of desire on our part to go off on our own and possibly separate in some way from the British Isles" was mistaken, he said. "People who hold that view mistake entirely the bond that holds the peoples of the British Commonwealth" he said. "Freedom is the essence of our life within the British Commonwealth. We like to manage our own affairs."
But, he added, the fact "we have our own representation in other countries is evidence of that great liberty and freedom which, above all, we prize, and wrere it imperilled from any source whatever would bring us together again in preservation of it."

Supply-National Defence
I believe the Ottawa Journal contained the same dispatch, and I have read the dispatch from the Montreal Gazette. Then I have also here the report from its own correspondent to the London Telegraph. The article is headed:
Liberty as Basis of Empire Unity; Canadian Premier's Speech in Paris; An Example for Europe.
It states:
Mr. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, inaugurating the Canadian pavilion at the Paris exhibition this morning, held up the British Empire as an example to the world of tolerance and understanding.
In an impromptu speech, he said that his visit to the coronation and his participation in the Imperial conference had convinced him more than ever of the value of freedom to the world.
Liberty, he said, was the bulwark of the British Empire. While the motherland and each of the dominions remained free, men of good will came together from time to time, talked over matters of mutual interest, and thus strengthened the union of the British Commonwealth.
His visit to the continent, he continued, had convinced him that men of good will in every country could follow this example and talk over their differences. People in Europe would make a great mistake if they concluded that, because various dominions had their own foreign legations, they lacked unity. On the contrary, this was but an example of their common freedom.
Those are all dispatches from different correspondents as to what I said, and they are in accord but differ from the one quoted by my hon. friend. There is the dispatch from our own correspondent in London who went to Paris to be present at the opening of the pavilion, the correspondent to the Canadian press. I think most hon. members know Mr. George Hambleton, and must know how accurate he would likely be in any report he w-ould send. Mr. Hambleton still has his shorthand notes, and no doubt would be prepared to produce them at any time or place if that were desired. A correspondent to the New York press gives his version, which agrees with that of Mr. Hambleton, and the version of the correspondent to the London Telegraph is also in accord with Mr. Hamble-ton's. The other report which appeared and to which my hon. friend referred, is not in accord with any of these, and contains words which I did not use.
The context makes quite clear what I was speaking about at the opening of the pavilion. I was referring particularly to the significance of legations. I spoke of legations in that way because I was speaking in the presence of
Mr. Brugere, the then French Minister to Canada and also in the presence of the British Ambassador. In some parts of Europe there would seem to be a deliberate effort on the part of some to have it appear that because Canada has her own legations in different countries, in some way or another she is desirous of separating herself from relationships with other parts of the empire.
My contention has always been directly the opposite. I have contended and believe that the bond which unites us and keeps us united is the bond of freedom of which complete autonomy is one expression, and autonomy which in Canada we enjoy in relation to foreign affairs, as well as with respect to domestic affairs. That was the point I brought out. My observations were made in the presence of my colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Belleehasse (Mr. Boulanger) who was Canadian commissioner at the exhibition, both of whom were on the platform at the time I spoke. They both heard my remarks, and both have since told me that neither of them had heard anything which could be construed after the manner of the dispatch the hon. member has just quoted. They did, however, hear me say what has been quoted in the dispatch of Mr. Hambleton and regarded it as wholly appropriate to this occasion. I have not gone out of my way to deny erroneous reports for the simple reason that I did not wish, by having people speculate on the meaning of this or the meaning of that, to embarrass the situation in Europe any more than was necessary. Sometimes it is just as well to let matters alone even if one has personally to suffer because of it. If any good purpose could have been served by making a restatement at the time, I should have made it. To have taken exception to the statement at the time might have given a significance to my words which in some quarters might have been still more misleading. I hope, however, that what I have now placed before the house will be sufficient to indicate exactly what was said and exactly what was meant.
Mr. COLD WELL; I would say simply this, that had the Prime Minister made a simple statement as to just what he had said and meant, I would have accepted it, without further evidence. I imagine the words which were interpreted in the manner I have indicated in some newspapers would be the words, "if that liberty were threatened it would bring us together again." No doubt the construction placed upon those words by some correspondents was the construction we have heard.
Supply-National Defence

Subsequently, I believe it was on July 9, addressing a Conservative meeting in London, Mr. Chamberlain referred to the "remarkable speech given by the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King, at Paris" and he quoted the press dispatch. That, I believe, was the construction which was placed generally upon the dispatches which appeared in the British papers. I am glad we have had the explanation placed before the House of Commons and the country to-day.
Both the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) and the hon. member for Essex East deny that in the event of war we are committed. I wonder if they will state that when Great Britain is at war Canada can remain at peace. May it not be more realistic to admit that whatever the constitutional position may be, Canada's desire for freedom of choice would not, in all probability, be honoured by a belligerent enemy of Great Britain. If that is realistic, then would not a straightforward, concrete, downright Canadian foreign policy be a step in the direction of real world peace? We believe that, and that is why we are insistent that such a statement should be made before we are asked to support military, naval and air force estimates. We felt a year ago-indeed the estimates subsequently presented confirmed the analysis made by my colleague from Vancouver North-that Canada's program was closely linked with the policy of the British national government. I make a distinction in my own mind between the British national government, the present government of Great Britain, and the aspirations of the British people. We said a year ago that we distrusted their policy because it implied a desertion of the principles of the League of Nations and of collective security. I think everyone will agree that the events of the past year have proved that our fears were amply justified, and the recent resignation of the foreign secretary of Great Britain makes that more abundantly clear than it was before. As was stated by the hon. member for Essex East, the past months have been to many of us-I include myself-months of sad disillusionment. We believe peace can be maintained by a league of nations, a league reconstructed and reconstituted. But to that belief the policies and pronouncements of the national government have given blow after blow, until a short time ago Mr. Chamberlain shattered that ideal almost completely; at least for the time being.
We can no longer dismiss the fact that that for which the great war was said to have been fought has been lost. Great Britain de-

dared through the lips of its war-time prime minister, Mr. Lloyd George, that the world must be made safe for democracy, but twenty years after we have another prime minister trying to placate the dictators who have destroyed democracy in their own countries and whose minions are prepared to destroy freedom throughout the world.
Canada is still a part of the British commonwealth. It is the senior self-governing dominion. Are we content, as it were, to simply follow along with the policy now being followed in Great Britain? If we are not, then I think we owe it to ourselves and to the British people to say so before the die is cast. Unless we do that, in the eyes of the enemy nations at least, when Britain is at war we shall be at war. As my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver North, said the other day, this parliament may be faced some day with the accomplished fact of war.
It is well known that a large and influential section of the British governing group never liked the league and have never really been loyal to it. I believe that the uncertain attitude, if I may put it that way, of Canada, in relation to sanctions from time to time rather played into their hands. I do not think that any government in Canada wished to play into their hands. I should like to say that I believe a little more courage on the part of the Prime Minister of Canada during recent years would have done much to persuade the British government to stand by the league. The British people, through the peace ballot, and by their attitude toward the Hoare-Laval controversy and the Eden incident proved their faith in the league and collective security.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend think the government should have had a policy of applying sanctions which would have involved military sanctions?


Mr. COLD WELL:: This government did agree to the institution of sanctions against Italy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Economic
sanctions.


Thomas Miller Bell: Economic sanctions.
Subsequently we withdrew ourselves from an advocacy of oil sanctions. My contention is that if the peace of Canada and of the world were endangered by one kind of economic sanctions, against minerals for example, then it would be endangered by all kinds of economic sanctions. We assumed some and we disallowed another.

Supply-National Defence


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Should this government have insisted on oil sanctions being imposed at that time?


Thomas Miller Bell: Having agreed to some sanctions being imposed, the most important of all sanctions, oil sanctions, ought to have been agreed to. It may be argued that that would have led to war-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure it would have.


Major James William Coldwell: I disagree with that statement. As a matter of fact the recent book by the Italian General, De Bono, in which he discusses the entire Ethiopian affair, indicates quite clearly that had oil sanctions been applied he expected to have received orders to stop the Ethiopian campaign where he was. I think that that is the impression that is quite widespread across the world. The Prime Minister has a different opinion, but my opinion is that which I have just stated.
I believe that in Great Britain the attitude of the Labour and Liberal parties truly represent the heart of Britain. British liberalism is still true to its democratic tradition, and through the lips of its leaders, Sir Archibald Sinclair, and David Lloyd George, it joins with Clement Attlee of the labour movement in denouncing the repressions and hypocrisy of Hitler and Mussolini. Thus the Liberal and Labour parties in Great Britain follow the tradition of that British liberalism which demanded years ago the ejection of the Turkish oppressors from Europe bag and baggage. That demand did not lead to war. I believe that the famous phrase "bag and baggage" was used by Gladstone in connection with the Turks and Turkish atrocities sixty years ago. How far Canadian Liberalism is removed from the historic liberalism which gave it birth its present policies mutely testify.
Canada is my home and my country, the land in which my children were born and in which I hope they will live. I have a deep affection for the land which gave me birth and education. I am of its people, bone of their bone, flesh of their flesh. But when my overseas kin elect and support a government whose policies are a dark betrayal of the democratic ideals which I regard still more highly, then I think it is my duty to urge that we tell them in no uncertain terms that we shall not stand for the type of policy which has been pursued and which I believe will eventually bring about the loss of democracy throughout a large part of the world. For these policies we in Canada must assume
no responsibility. However, due to the breakdown of the League of Nations, we in Canada are compelled to consider some measures of defensive rearmament. To that, in so far as they are defensive we in this group offer no objection; for the international scene has changed, and for the worse, since last year.
We insist also that in the light of recent events our government should make a clear statement regarding Canada's foreign policy, a statement that will leave no room for doubt in this country, in Great Britain and throughout the world. It should in my judgment be a policy wholly and completely independent of any understandings there may be between the national government and the European dictators. I believe the Prime Minister will agree with that. Until the British people have elected a government that is sincere in its attachment to collective security, we must pursue our own course, a course which looks first to the interests of the Canadian people, a course that will satisfy a democratic and freedom loving people.
By a striking coincidence, on the very day that Mr. Chamberlain deserted European democracy a United States cabinet minister, Mr. Secretary Wallace, broadcast a message to the British people. He said in part:
Totalitarianism, either of the right or of the left, is alien to the spirit that dominates the English speaking democracies of the world.
He continued:
Totalitarianism is subversive of the ideals upon which our democracies are founded.
Those of us who continue to believe that it is better to be governed even badly by ourselves than to be well governed by others must be increasingly alert, especially against insidious fascism. It seems to me that fascism constitutes the greatest threat in the world to-day.
To my way of thinking, fascism is a retrograde movement. It means a turning back of the hands of the clock. It means that liberty to live one's life, with only such restrictions as are necessary in order to assure the equal liberty of others, must be surrendered to a dictatorial power which will think and act for all.
He added that humans become economic and political robots under a fascist state, and must release "all the barbarities of supersavage modern warfare upon unoffending peoples" at the mandate of a dictator. He asked for cooperation by democracies of the world to prove the effectiveness of the principles upon which their plan of government is founded. He went on:
Certainly, with the fascist countries of the world drawing closer and closer together in an ominous and bodeful phalanx it behooves
Supply-National Defence

America and all other democratic nations to prove that under a democratic form of government the highest political liberty as well as the greatest economic security not only can, but will, be provided.
These words of the United States Secretary express also, I am certain, the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of the British and Canadian peoples. Yet the policy at least of the motherland to-day, in my opinion, is being directed by those who have strengthened fascist dictators who have released all the barbarities of supersavage modern warfare upon unoffending peoples without their borders. To me the blood of primitive Ethiopians cries aloud against it, and the wailings of Judah echo across the world in protest. Surely civilized peoples everywhere stand aghast at the barbarities recently perpetrated in Barcelona.
In common with other small nations Canada has everything to gain by the building up of a strong League of Nations. It is true that in order to achieve real collective security the pooling of sovereign rights under certain circumstances, as the member for Essex East has indicated, may be essential. The attitude of Canada in the past has not been conducive to the strengthening of the league. As I said a few minutes ago, in my opinion our attitude in connection with the Ethiopian affair and the institution of oil sanctions was in no small measure responsible for a league weakness at that time. The Prime Minister has argued that this might have led to war. We have already discussed that possibility.
But what is of more interest to us now is what, if anything, has Canada said to the British government recently. Have we tacitly or silently endorsed the destruction of the league by the present government of Great Britain? If not, do we still adhere to the League of Nations covenant with the reservations we have made from time to time? If we do, then what is our relationship to present imperial policies? I think these questions ought to be answered in the course of this or subsequent debate. The Prime Minister of Great Britain has stated in the house that the dominions have been consulted and that to some extent recent pronouncements in regard to Czechoslovakia are in part due, it is said, to the attitude of the self-governing dominions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Consulted, did my hon. friend say?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, consulted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not believe the Prime Minister of Great Britain has used that word. I may be wrong, but my recollec-
FMr. Cold well.]
tion is that the Prime Minister said that we had been kept informed of what had taken place. But that we had been consulted, or that any advice had been given by the government, was not, I think, suggested.


Thomas Miller Bell: I think in certain press
dispatches the word " consulted " was used. I know that when I was thinking of what I was going to say I took that word " consulted " from one of the dispatches. But if the right hon. gentleman says that that is not the word that should have been used, I take it that the government has been kept informed, and if there has been any actual or implied advice with respect to that information I think we should be given to understand what that advice may have been, if any has been given.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can assure my hon. friend right away that no advice has been asked and none has been given by the present government.


Major James William Coldwell: I am glad to get that assurance. The purpose of my suggesting that a statement should be made was that we might get such an assurance, and I am very glad indeed to get it.
It seems to me, then, that the world is now faced with two alternatives: Either for members of the league to go to Geneva, meet there and declare that they will join in resisting any new active aggression by whomsoever offered; or for the democratic powers to declare that they will resist any aggressive action against Czechoslovakia or any others of t'he smaller nations so threatened. These are desperate alternatives, and in the present condition of the league it is unlikely that league action will be taken or, I fear, that the democratic powers will act in unison. To my mind the best thing Canada can do is to exert all the pressure possible for the reorganization of the League of Nations and for effective security by these means.
As I said before, we should assume no responsibility for the effects of the disastrous policies of the present national government of Great Britain, and a pronouncement to that effect would, I believe, have a wholesome influence upon the people of Great Britain and would be an excellent antidote to statements made by expatriated Canadians, like Beverley Baxter, who arrogate to themselves the right tp speak for this country at Westminster. In the meantime, and until the situation is clarified, Canada should confine her defence program to such arms as would protect our ports against sporadic raids; for all military authorities and the Minister of National Defence agree, as he did the other afternoon, that

Supply-National Defence
invasion of Canada is a very remote contingency. To the extent that military and naval estimates are based on the policy I 'have outlined I think the house this year should support them, but of course they should be scrutinized closely to ensure that they are not in preparation for a war which would not be in the interests of democracy and which might even fasten the evils of to-day on the generation of to-morrow.
I have somewhat exceeded, the time I intended to take, Mr. Chairman, but I should like just to add this, that I believe all across Canada men and women are looking anxiously to this parliament to-day for a lead in relation to this problem. Fear of war is widespread. Canada is a peaceful and a peace-loving nation. We are far removed from the seat of any general hostilities that may arise. We do not desire to arm ourselves for any war of aggression. I have taken in the past an attitude that might almost be described as that of a pacifist. In the light of the conditions that face us to-day I am prepared to support that which is essential to the defence of our democratic institutions. But I want to be positively assured, before doing anything of the kind, that that is exactly what is implied by the estimates. I view with some misgiving the analysis which has been made by the hon. member for Vancouver North, in which he argues the indications are that the program is built upon the idea, which is held by many of our leading military men, that in the event of war we should be compelled to send an expeditionary force abroad. I think that idea should be dispelled completely. I am quite confident of this, that a large number of the young men of this land will refuse to bear arms in a cause in which they feel they have no interest. I have moved among many young people in the last few years, and I know that there are large numbers of them who, looking at the condition of their own fathers who fought in the great war, and seeing that nothing has come to them but disillusionment and misery, do not intend to foe drawn into such a war if they can avoid it. So, in speaking to these estimates, I simply wish to say before I sit down that in my opinion Canada, as a nation at present apart from the streams of hates and fears that bring war in other parts of the world, can, if it will, through the means of an effective league of nations and the fostering of the ideal of collective security, exercise an influence towards a greater measure of peace than, perhaps, the world has ever known.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I fail to see how anyone can seriously disagree
with any of the fine sentiments so well expressed by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin). I am sure we all agree that nobody in Canada wants war.
I am sure we all agree that we are prepared to do anything to protect democracy. I believe there is a widespread feeling throughout the dominion that we should be prepared to make our share of the sacrifices which are necessary in case democracy is threatened.
We find, however, that we are greatly handicapped because of lack of knowledge of conditions as they are. I have wondered whether, if we were all in the position of the Prime Minister of Great Britain and knew all that he knows, we would be quite so certain as to whether he was making a mistake or not in each move that he makes. That has impressed me in discussions in the press or among people on the street. I find that whenever I am confronted with a situation about which I know practically all the details, I am often considerably at a loss to know just what to do. For me, therefore, to presume to say just what a man ought to do in a set of circumstances of the details of which I know practically nothing, is something to which I would hardly like to commit myself. Consequently, I am inclined to leave the management of Great Britain pretty much to the government which is charged with the responsibility for taking care of Great Britain's welfare. They may be wrong; they may be right. I find it sufficiently difficult for me to say just what Canada ought to do.
In the first place, with all other Canadians and, I believe, British people throughout the world, I am unalterably opposed to war. So are all social crediters. I think there is not an individual in this chamber who is not opposed to war. In order to clarify the minds of men in so far as they find themselves at all interested in the attitude of social crediters generally on the question of war, perhaps it will be well for me to make a few statements so that people within the chamber and without will know what we think and why we think it.
Major Douglas is, of course, the great leader of the movement. Consequently, his pronouncements are looked upon with considerable respect by all followers of social credit. He has advocated, consistently and earnestly, patiently and long-sufferingly, such a course of procedure as would be most likely in his opinion to prevent the people of the world from becoming involved in war. The first time I knew of social credit I read a statement wherein Major Douglas had said that unless the policies he advocated were adopted,
Supply-National Defence

the world would be inevitably plunged into war of a most devastating and universally destructive nature. He therefore urged as far back as 1923 that we change our economic system with the object in view of removing the causes of war.
He has done a great deal along this line. When he was out in Alberta in 1934, he used this potential danger of war as one of the greatest motives for our becoming interested in a new economic system. I should like to read a few short excerpts from a radio broadcast which Major Douglas delivered over the British Broadcasting Corporation system in November, 1934. In these excerpts he is not stating the causes of war; he has assumed that the causes have been neglected and that the patient is about to come down with the disease. He is telling us what to do about it. That is about the situation with us. We have not taken precautionary measures, whether we foresaw the danger or whether we lid not. We are about to come down with the malady, and the question is, What to do about it all?
Major Douglas, says, first:
I have no interest, direct or indirect, in the armaments industry, but I am fairly familiar with big business, and I do not believe that the bribery and corruption, of which we have heard so much in connection with armaments, are any worse in that trade than in many others.
That is a significant statement, considering one of the great motives which have been heralded far and wide and laboured throughout the country, bearing upon the question of war.
Again he says this, and here he sets forth, by implication at least, the causes of war which he has laboured to remove:
So long as we are prepared to agree, firstly, that the removal of industrial unemployment is the primary object of statesmanship, and secondly, that the capture of foreign markets is the shortest path to the attainment of this objective, we have the primary economic irritant to military war always with us; and moreover, we have it in an accelerating rate of growth, because production is expanding through the use of power machinery, and undeveloped markets into which surplus can be poured are contracting.
That, I fancy, is perhaps the most significant remark we shall hear this day. At another place he says:
In the first place, I believe it to be, while the present financial system persists, merely sentimental to suppose that a weak nation, particularly if it be also a rich nation, is a factor making for peace. Quite the contrary. It is as sensible as if it had paper walls.
That sets forth, as well as it could be stated, my own attitude on the question of defence for Canada. I have always felt that
[Mr. Blackmore.l
if you wish to be free from war, it is a good thing either to be strong enough yourself or to be a member of a combination which is strong enough to make an attack on any of its members exceedingly dangerous.
A similar idea was advanced by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar when he advocated collective security. I am an ardent advocate of collective security, but I wish I knew with whom to " collect." And when I am " collected " with them, I should like to know exactly who would call on me to act, and upon what provocation; what kind of response he would expect me to make when he called upon me; where and when he would like me to make it, and a wide variety of other details.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And what the others would themselves be prepared to do.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) reminded me of one important question I forgot. Yes; I say that too. I have been a most earnest student of this matter of the League of Nations, collective security and all that kind of thing. I may be a little simple; but I have found a number of people who seem to be most ardent advocates of collective security, rather disposed to scorn the other members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, who as far as I can see with my limited vision ought to be the most likely people with whom we could " collect " for collective security. I grant that is only the view of an extremely unimportant layman, but in my blundering way I cannot help reaching some such conclusion.
I continue with another quotation from Major Douglas:
International bankers are, almost to a man, strong advocates of national disarmament

That is a weighty remark. If that is true, it constitutes a sort of handwriting on the wall.

but their bank clerks, alone amongst civilian employees in this country, are armed with revolvers, and the strength of bank premises compares with that of modern fortresses.
I have weighed those words often, and the more I think about them the more I become inclined to national defence. Again he says:
Strength unaccompanied by a motive for aggression is a factor making for peace.
Those words express exactly my opinion. If, then, the Dominion of Canada wishes to be a factor making for peace, above all things let the Dominion of Canada be strong.
The question then arises, Wha-t constitutes strength? Strength does not lie in armaments

Supply-National Defence
or in large standing armies. This truth has been demonstrated many times in the world's history. Strength has its home in the strong hearts of a brave, contented people who feel that their country is a land to love. We in Canada to-day, I regret to say, have not so managed our economic life as to render our people contented and happy. We have not been able bo accord to those heroes whose blood was shed and whose health was sacrificed in the last war, that measure of comfort which we wanted to accord to them. The result is the very state of mind which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar outlined, when our youth of to-day contemplate the possibility of going to war. We as social credit people say. and I am sure all hon. members agree, that it is our first duty to make Canada prosperous and economically sound, so that her people may be inclined to love her and ready to die for her as they were in 1914.
But in our modern day if we do not have, in addition to a strong, happy and contented people, the armaments which will enable us successfully to cope with those vast destructive machines which have been perfected, ready to be directed against us, our people are thrown under such a dreadful handicap as to render exceedingly doubtful the possibility of their emerging successfully from a conflict. Consequently, we need both a strong and happy people and adequate defences.
Much of what I am going to say pertains to how to finance these defence estimates. Trusting that my fellow members of the committee will continue to exercise that kind patience which they have thus far exercised, I am going to speak once more about a way in which we can raise money without drawing it from the very lifeblood of the people of this country, without depriving them of the relief and assistance of which so many of them are in desperate need. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) occupies a position which many times has made me feel the deepest sympathy for him. Before his election he was reported in the press as having said-and from my knowledge of the hon. gentleman's sincerity I am sure he meant it-that he would favour the creation of $500,000,000 of new money. The hon. gentleman meant that. With the character Which I have come to believe the hon. member possesses, I doubt very much that he would have stood for election unless he had assurance that his promise was possible of fulfilment. Consequently. he felt that there was a possibility of creating new money with which to finance
any project which might be found by the government to be desirable. May I revert to his own beliefs, which he expressed and which I am sure he still holds.


Frederick George Sanderson: I would point out to the hon. member that he is out of order. He should confine his remarks to the estimates of the Department of National Defence, and particularly to the item No. 180, which is under discussion.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I believe it will be found that the main point of discussion in this parliament with regard to these estimates will be the cost, the ways and means of financing our defence. Therefore, I feel it is perfectly in order for me to discuss the ways and means of financing the defences of this country. If we could not find that money, I would say there would be no use in talking about defences at all. So with your permission, Mr. Chairman, and with the hope that you will inform me if I deviate too far from the course I have laid down,
I shall proceed to discuss the ways and means of financing these estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: According to my hon. friend's own words, what he wishes to discuss ought to be said, if at all, in committee of ways and means, not in committee of supply. He says he wants to talk about ways and means now, and this is not the time for that.


John Horne Blackmore: I speak subject to being called to order, and if I am not in order I do not wish to discuss the point; but virtually every resolution we receive from Alberta-and that, of Canada's nine provinces, is the one which we represent- says either to oppose defences or to ask that the defences be financed by national money, so that the cost will not have to be deducted from the amount the government spends for relief and other projects. So whether or not we should support defences would depend in large measure, as the Prime Minister will recognize, upon how those defences are to be financed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I only point out to the hon. gentleman that there are two main committees of the house, one of which is constituted to deal with supply and the other with ways and means. At the present time we are in committee of supply. My hon. friend says he wishes to discuss ways and means, and I say he is out of order. When the house is in committee of ways and
Supply-National Defence

means will be the time to consider whether or not he is in order in discussing what he has in mind. Certainly he is not in order in discussing ways and means when we are in committee of supply.


Mr. STEVENS:: Surely the Prime Minister is not going to suggest that when this committee of the whole is considering voting supply to the government, that is, authorizing the government to spend money, it is out of order for an hon. member to question the [DOT] government as to the source from which it expects to obtain the money for the particular project, whatever it might be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question
of the source is dealt with in the committee of ways and means. That is what that committee is for.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What I wish to submit to you, Mr. Chairman, before the final ruling is made, is this: If the rules of the house are interpreted in the narrowest sense, obviously fair discussion cannot proceed. It has been the history of the British parliamentary system that rules are fairly generously interpreted; otherwise we could not possibly conduct a discussion. There is scarcely a moment we sit here when we could not raise a narrow point of order, but the Prime Minister surely cannot press the point that because the hon. gentleman is about to analyse some suggestions made by the Minister of National Defence with regard to ways of raising the money which he wishes to apply to this particular project, he is to be precluded from carrying on that discussion. For the sake of fair and free discussion I would urge the Prime Minister not to press that point of view to the extent of having a ruling made upon that narrow point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
committee will recognize that I desire to have the discussion just as free as possible, but I should like to have it in relation to the estimates under consideration, not with relation to monetary theories which is another matter altogether. We spent two or three weeks discussing the question of social credit, and now my hon. friend is quite frank about his purpose, much more so than his supporter at the moment, may I say. The hon. gentleman says what he wishes to discuss, and it is not to analyse some suggestion of the minister, which is what the hon. member for Kootenay East has just said. Quite frankly, in his own words, the hon. member has said it is the subject of social credit. Social credit does not enter into this discussion at all. The hon. gentleman referred to how the money is to

be raised to make good this supply; the words he used were, the ways and means in which the money is to be raised. The ways and means by which money is to be raised is a matter for the other main committee of this house, namely the committee of ways and means. The present committee discusses what supply, if any, is to be voted and determines that matter. The committee of ways and means discuses the ways and means in which the money is to be raised with which to provide the supply. I cannot think of anything that could be plainer than that. All that pertains to ways and means is entirely the work of a different committee.


Frederick George Sanderson: Does any other hon.
member wish to speak to the point of order? In my opinion the point of order raised by the right hon. Prime Minister is well taken. As he has pointed out, we are in committee of supply, not in committee of ways and means. There has been a long debate which ended yesterday, in regard to social credit, and in my opinion the hon. member for Lethbridge was out of order when he followed the line he did in regard to monetary matters. Therefore, I would ask him to be good enough to confine his remarks to the resolution which is under discussion in relation to national defence estimates.


John Horne Blackmore: Of course we are
new to the game and we do not know about all these things, but from my observation of what has been done in the house I would be inclined to think that what the hon. member for Kootenay East said was about right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The strict rule has been
violated a thousand times.


John Horne Blackmore: After all, what I was discussing was the suggestion made by the Minister of National Defence before the election. Certainly I do not believe he would call that social credit, but I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and will refrain from any discussion of this kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You are abandoning the
social credit tendencies of the Minister of National Defence?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes. Mr. Chairman -and I assume I am in order in saying this, repeating what I said a moment ago to the Prime Minister-there is gathering in this dominion a tremendous body of opinion which would oppose national defence on this very ground. Dealing with the question of having a strong, united and happy people, I would say that unless a change of means of financing

Supply-National Defence
is made, there will develop in this country a greater and greater indisposition to support defences, an indisposition which may reach the point where the unity of this country is gravely endangered. I think I can safely say that without discussing what should be done.
Throughout Canada to-day there are great numbers of people on the verge of sickness from privation. No hon. member will question my statement that in this country there are thousands of men who served overseas for four years in the last war, who to-day are deprived of the very necessities of life. They have reached the point where they are almost in despair, and it is utterly impossible for them to find work or to enter into any kind of business through which they could support themselves.
The youth of the land see these men in towns and cities. I ask this question: Of what value is it to the youth of my home city of Lethbridge to go into Galt Gardens and see a splendid monument to those men who served overseas and, on the very benches not more than fifty feet away from the monument, see the remnants and wrecks of that war in clothes as shabby as would be found on any man in the city. On their faces are the most hopeless and despondent looks. Still they bravely stand up and face the world, with their chins up, "packing all their troubles in their old kit bags," as they did so heroically for four years.
If that condition continues to exist, and to be accentuated in Canada, to the extent to which the making of this country weak will risk the safety of democracy, just to that extent the government in power will be responsible for weakening the defences of democracy. I think no one can safely question that assertion. People not only in Alberta but in all the other provinces are beginning to feel very bitter about this condition. Therefore, I felt I would be quite in order if I were again to urge most earnestly the reasons why we need not take the dollars to be spent on armaments and to be spent on various devices necessary to making this country strong, from a military standpoint, from what has been devoted to the support of those who, through no fault of their own, are suffering.
However, I bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and to the wishes of the Prime Minister and shall take some other opportunity to make my observations. But, just as sure as we are sitting in this chamber, this question of change of money policy must be met and it must be answered. It cannot be sidestepped indefinitely. One reason I thought it would be perfectly safe to discuss the matter was that the hon. member for Selkirk
(Mr. Thorson) last year made a most superb contribution to the discussions in the house when he pointed out the colossal debt which had resulted from the past war, and indicated to the people of Canada the sort of absolute impossibility they would face if they should be plunged into another war of relatively similar proportions, with no means of financing it other than those used in the last war.
I conclude by saying, first of all, that we oppose war as do all hon. members in the house. We believe that the causes of war are economic. I grant that there is among some peoples a desire for national aggrandizement; that is one of the causes; but we would not have a Mussolini or a Hitler had there not been all around them thousands and thousands of people who saw no other way out. I submit, sir, that if in this country we develop a condition whereby thousands and thousands of people can see no other way out, we are setting the stage for something we would hate to think about. The cause of war is fundamentally economic. We believe that those causes can and should be removed. We maintain that in an age of plenty, where man's mind has perfected the most magnificent machines, and where there are plenty of resources, it is utterly unnecessary that man should suffer from economic causes. With the greatest assiduity, these economic causes should be sought and removed, and the efforts should not stop if we try once and fail.
At present we believe war is imminent. I hope we may escape it for another year or two; I shall even be so sanguine as to hope that we may escape it entirely. After a most careful scrutiny of everything I have been able to learn regarding Great Britain and the British government, I have concluded that she has done everything in her power to manoeuvre Great Britain out of war. If that is not so, then it is because I do not know; and if I do not know, it is because it has not been written, or I have not been able to find it. I would say that so far as they possibly could, at least during the last few years the British government have kept Great Britain out of war; and I shall go far enough to say that I believe the same is true of our own Prime Minister.
Just the same, we must realize the cold, bitter fact that we are in a world where war is imminent, and no one can forecast from what quarter the thunderbolt will strike. Consequently, to contend that we should not prepare would be the part of great indiscretion. I say that we must change our economic system-we must do it, even to finance a war. We should do it to finance the preparation for war. We should not sacrifice our
Supply-National Defence

people's necessities in order to prepare. We should use new money, debt free and interest free.
I shall close my observations by saying that I purpose supporting the defence estimates, steadily-scrutinizingly, it is true, and expecting results from every dollar spent- but steadily so long as I see matters as I see them to-day.


Mr. WILFRID GARIEPY (Three Rivers) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, when in the course of this debate the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Tremblay), who usually shows better judgment, bracketed under the collective appellation of communist all those who oppose the increased armament appropriations, he certainly was guilty of excessive zeal.
Still clinging to the views which I expressed last session on the matter under consideration, I view with alarm our mounting defence appropriations. Reduced under some items, increased under others, these appropriations are being maintained at unusually high levels, so much so that it can no longer be denied that we are gradually taking rank with the nations, great and small, which expend a large part of their revenue on rifles, on guns, on aeroplanes-in short on the whole machinery of war.
I wish to say to the hon. member for Dorchester that I am no more a communist than he is. He has misjudged me. A taxpayer of Quebec province, I have the mentality, the pride, the convictions, the faith which characterize my people. I am in favour of the Padlock Act passed by the Duplessis government; I consider it a safeguard against nefarious activities aimed at the safety of the nation.
There would be public protests should the Department of Justice arm itself with the power of disavowal in order to combat the legitimate autonomy of my province. We should be left free to protect ourselves against the ravages of error. That is my stand, and the hon. member for Dorchester should, before brandishing his excommunications, examine his own conscience and find his own way.
His Excellency Archbishop Gauthier had in mind a certain type of representative of the people when he said on March 15 last:
It is far more important to know whether the reasoning of our young men does not contain some germ of truth and whether our weaknesses, our hesitations, our indecision do not really work out to the advantage of communism. We seem to lack pride and courage. Our province of Quebec has been for several months past the object of most unjustified attacks. Because we try to prevent a handful of communists from doing as they please, we 
are classed among the uncivilized tribes of darkest Africa. Has anyone risen in the Senate or the House of Commons to say what we are? And is it perchance in our province that the religious and educational liberty of the citizen is not fully respected?
Further on, His Lordship said:
We are now asked to go into action in order to save democracy. The theme is not unfamiliar. In 1914 volunteer armies were raised and, later on, conscription was forced upon us with the cry:	"Let us make the world safe for
democracy." The professionals of communism no doubt think that a slogan that succeeded once will succeed again. So we hear to-day a refrain that greatly resembles the former one: "Let us save the life of democracy." There was reason to expect, we are told, that the sacrifices made during the great -war would permit us to extend to backward peoples the blessings of the democratic system.
Quebec is neither selfish nor apathetic; it does not lack in nobility and whole-hearted patriotism. Ever since 1760, its intelligent and laborious people have contributed their share to the country's development.
The hon. member for Belleehasse (Mr. Boulanger), in an effort not lacking in merit, has attempted to belittle the provinces. But the provinces are everything, as Sieyes said about the Third Estate: Le tiers etat, c'est tout. Sir John A. Macdonald met with a reverse when he failed to obtain the legislative union which he had sought. It was Cartier who imposed the federation of provinces that is, an association based on compromise, a pact founded on sacrifice. The provinces surrendered some rights, but they preserved, within clearly defined bounds, their own autonomy which made them masters in their own territory. Thus it is that Oliver Mowat, a former Conservative, understood the matter when, as head of a Liberal administration in Ontario, he made his opinion prevail, as against Sir John A. Macdonald, before the Privy Council.
Unrestrained concentration is an evil, it is a virus which will destroy confederation if a remedy is not found.
No one in Quebec will want separation; no one will uphold the doctrine known as separatism, providing we are not crushed, providing we are left our freedom, providing we are not drawn into the whirlpool of militarism.
Quebec is loyal, and in proof of this I may say that every design of a new Canadian flag that has been submitted to me included, in some shape or other, the Union Jack. We are proud of being British subjects, and our aspirations are toward ideals in which prejudice, narrow-mindedness and fanaticism are unknown.
Since 1918, did you ever hear a member from Quebec, whatever his political views

Supply-National Defence
may have been, whether conservative, liberal or nationalist, who opposed any contribution to the soldiers' settlement fund? And this amounts to $100,000,000, eighty per cent of which was paid by the two oldest provinces of this dominion: Ontario and Quebec.
Our war debt exceeds $2,000,000,000, and interest charges are draining our annual budget. Did we ever falter when faced with these national commitments; did we ever refuse to honour the signature of our country and the memory of those who sacrificed their lives for the motherland?
These thoughts should have come to the mind of the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Bertrand) when, in the course of this debate, he tried to joke about the dangers that an aerial attack might entail for the city which I have the honour to represent.
The hon. member for Laurier would be well advised to limit his interest to the constituency which he represents. As a matter of fact he does not live there. He is an itinerant candidate who already tried his luck in Nicolet. He is known in our part of the country under the name of "Drop it or get out."
Let me tell him that by trying to be too witty one spoils what little wit one has. He spoils his case who tries to prove too much. There are no munition factories in the St. Maurice district. His observations were marked with childish malice. Why did he not talk about Quebec, Levis, Riviere du Loup, Roberval, Lake St. John and Gaspe?
Why are we not told where the attack will come from? What do we fear? Where is the cause for alarm? They are stirring up the bitterest emotions of the people through fears which are imaginary so far as Canada is concerned. Nobody threatened us, and no danger was disclosed.
The hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) reconsidered the stand that he took last year. He has a right to do so, just as I am entitled to ask why Canada is less secure because Japan invaded China, or Italy took possession of Ethiopia, or Germany absorbed Austria.
Since war is raging more than ever overseas, should we not be all the more cautious, and prevent any rash commitment on the part of Canada?
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) for the illustrating and outspoken statement which she made during this debate and tell her that I concur in its general lines. That statement deserves a special mention, for it stands out with a peculiar brilliancy among all the other speeches.
Every member must do his duty to the best of his ability and conscience. It is not true that party discipline binds us to the point that all freedom and all desires for what is good be smothered.
In 1916, the hon. gentleman who was then member for Kamouraska did not secure a unanimous liberal vote when he submitted a motion to this house censuring the nefarious provisions of Ontario's school act. In 1917, the liberal majority deserted Laurier to rally under the banner of the Union government.
At present, like the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail), the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts) and the people, I see in the military development which is outlined an organization which is liable and calculated to draw my country into all kinds of wars.
Should the alarm be given, whatever it might be, the emotions of the people will be so stirred up that the decision of Parliament will be an accomplished fact and will serve no more as a protection against participation in the conflict and the sending of troops to the theatre of war.
The suggestion that the colony should assume the cost of defence is not a new one, for long before 1867 the mother country endeavoured to carry out such a scheme which was one of the main arguments put forward in support of the merging of British American colonies into a federation.
Last year, the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) based his argument wholly upon the lack of a line of defence. But that line of defence is no more defined this year than it was last year. And we have, in addition, the threat of a widespread war in other continents.
Last week the hon. member for Lafleche-St. Maurice (Mr. Crete) again asked: "Where is the line of defence? Where is the line of demarcation? How far will our soldiers have to go?" Again no reply was forthcoming.
The Liberals as a party were identifying themselves better with the people when in Montreal East they administered such a crushing defeat to Sir Georges Etienne Cartier, the sponsor, nay the author, of the Militia Act. That act is still in existence, as was shown the other day by the hon. member for Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), without any one disputing the point. That act is quite elastic and broad, and it is also fraught with danger. What does it say? Section 2, chapter 132 of the revised statutes of Canada says:
(b) "emergency" means war, invasion, riot or insurrection, real or apprehended;
Supply-National Dojence

Section 8 reads as follows:
All tlie male inhabitants of Canada, of the age of eighteen years and upwards, and under sixty, not exempt or disqualified by law, and being British subjects, shall be liable to service in the militia; provided that the governor general may require all the male inhabitants of Canada, capable of bearing arms, to serve in the case of a levee en masse.
Section 64 provides that:
The governor in council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
Section 69 says:
The Army Act for the time being in force in Great Britain, the King's regulations and all other laws applicable to his majesty's troops in Canada and not inconsistent with this act or the regulations made hereunder, shall have force and effect as if they had been enacted by the parliament of Canada for the government of the militia.
Is that clear enough? Is that sufficiently convincing?
The right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) may contend that the Military Service Act is dead, but such is not the case with respect to the Militia Act, whose far-reaching tentacles are ever threatening us, and which makes us liable to service beyond Canada.
That is a far cry from national defence confined to the boundaries and the interests of Canada. That is the imperialistic doctrine being revived, taking shape again, coming to the fore and overpowering us with its whole might-[DOT]


Mr. LACOMBE:: May I ask a question
of the hon. member? Will he please tell me rvhether the Military Service Act is dead in Canada?


Wilfrid Gariépy: Mr. Chairman, I am not
discussing the Military Service Act; I shall be governed by the statement which the right honourable the Minister of Justice made the other day. My argument is based upon the Militia Act which unquestionably is still in force, which contains the sections I read a moment ago with respect to either matter, and which leads to a definite conclusion to be drawn by every reasonable man, by every patriot in whose mind the interests of our confederation are foremost.
I say that the imperialistic doctrine is being revived, is again taking shape, is coming to the fore and will be overpowering us with all its might unless parliament heeds the wishes of the people and confines our defence obligations to our geographical boundaries, unless, moreover, parliament defines beforehand the character of our external obligations

and declares upon our neutrality within well defined limits. I think my stand is consistent with the true Liberal tradition.


Liguori Lacombe: The hon. member has
not answered my question. I would like to know whether or not conscription has become a dead letter here.


Wilfrid Gariépy: 
Mr. V. J. POTTIER (Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare):: Supply-National Defence


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Has the hon. member conveniently at hand the figures of density of population of the various countries?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: I am taking next the population of each country as a whole. I know the density of population is a feature.
I was dealing only with area.
I now come to the per capita expenditure, and this is what we find. The average per capita expenditure for war defence is $6.49. The highest for any country is that of Germany

as I have just indicated-in the amount of $41.72. The lowest for any country is, again, Panama, with sixteen cents per capita. Canada expended $3.18.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. R. EMMERSON (Westmorland) moved that the house go into committee of the whole on private bills.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata); With regard to these divorce bills, they are said to come from the province of Quebec. But I have made a little list from those bills, taking a few of them at random. For instance, in the Williamson case the place of birth of the husband was Montreal; of the wife, Westmount; place of marriage Montreal. In the case of Cohen the husband was

born in Russia, the wife in Rumania, and they were married in Montreal. In the case of McMartin the husband was born in Oyster Bay, New York; the wife at Shreveport, Louisiana, and they were married in Oyster Bay, New York. In the Hislop case the husband was born in Rumania, the wife in Russia, and they were married in Montreal. In the Oravec case they are people from Winnipeg and were married there. In the Klajner or Klein case the husband was born in Bendzin, and the wife in Bendzin, and the place of marriage was Poland. In the case of the Skinners there is no place of birth of husband or wife, but they were married in London. In the Resnick case both parties were born in Russia, and they were married in Montreal. In the Adams case the husband was born at Petrolia, Ontario; the wife at Martha-ville, Ontario, and they were married at Sault Ste. Marie. In the case of O'Sullivan both parties were born and married in England. In the Macdonald case both were born at Saint John, New Brunswick and married there.
It surprises me very much that it was said afterwards that these divorce laws are for the people of the province of Quebec. I have quoted many instances of people who came from other provinces or from Russia, Rumania and everywhere. I do not see the propriety of having that kind of legislation on divorce in our statute books. The number of divorce acts in the statute books is almost incredible. I saw an answer which was given to the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rose-mount (Mr. Fournier) the other day about the number of divorces and the fact is not at all as represented to him. I made a calculation for the years 1928 to 1937 inclusive, and found the number of private bills that were divorce bills was 1,069. That means that in 1,069 cases the House of Commons passed those bills through first reading, second reading, committee and third reading; the same thing was done in the senate, and His Excellency the Governor General, the representative of the king, had to put his name on each divorce act. We have more important things to discuss than those, especially when one picks at random the evidence in any one of those cases and finds it is always the same story. There is an investigator who looks through the keyhole and says, "I am the bell boy;" he gets in and sees a woman there with a man, a bottle of whiskey half full, two glasses, or perhaps the bottle is empty. They report that to the senate; the parties are asked if there is connivance, and the complainant says there is no connivance. Then the august body of the senate says, "We must grant them a divorce." We hear parliament

Private Bills-Procedure
spoken of as the high court of parliament. The only thing on which parliament is acting as a court is divorce. We are using our legislative authority in a judicial capacity.
James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the
hon. member whether it would not be a good thing to have a divorce court set up in the province of Quebec as in the other provinces?


Mr. POULIOT:: I thank my hon. friend
for his suggestion, and I shall conclude by offering mine. Most of those people try to take advantage of the fact that they reside for a certain time in the province of Quebec to come here and bother us with their applications, which mean huge fees for the attorneys in each case, for the lobbyists who are here to bother hon. members about those divorce bills, and we receive no consideration at all. I wonder whether it would not be better to tell all those people that they should elect domicile in any province in which there is a divorce court rather than bother the House of Commons and the Senate and disturb His Excellency the Governor General to ratify their divorce. That is my humble suggestion. We have many interesting questions to discuss in this house, just as the senators have in the other house. Therefore, it seems to me that first of all no licence as a lobbyist should be issued in favour of any lawyer who is acting for anyone who asks for a divorce or is defendant in a divorce case. That would be one way to stop this sort of thing. Then the rules of the house should be amended in order that the clerk should have no authority to issue any licence to those lobbyists. The second point is that they would have no lawyers and they would be told to go and elect domicile in another province in which there are divorce courts, and give us peace. This would be so much the better for the House of Commons, the Senate and His Excellency the Governor General and the country at large.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Alice Cecile Pinder Hartt.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Ruby Mary Foster Ryder.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Ethel Sadie Davidson Case.

Mr. White.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Ray Simon Stern.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Norma Adelaide MacKenzie Hird.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Mabel Marjorie Thompson Maynes.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Walter Edward Gorham.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Margaret Anne Eddie Bender.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Kathryn Chronia Briggs.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Vera May Levis Holloway.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Robert Andrew Young.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 39, respecting the Dominion Association of Chartered Accountants.-Mr. Plax-ton.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Mary Lorraine Ward Williamson.-Mr. Plaxton.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Lyall Gibson Hodges.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Esther Lazaro-vitch Cohen.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Dorothy Reaves McMartin.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Mary Dorothy Picard Whitcombe.-Mr. Plaxton.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Emil Kastus.- Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Eva Fleming Hislop.-Mr. Betts.
Bill No. 61, for the relief of Sigmund Oravec. -Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Robert Parry.- Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Nacha Ferszt Iilajner (otherwise known as Nora Firstenfeld Klein).-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Leonora May Howard.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Annie Elizabeth Climie Adams.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Margaret Alice Mizener.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Frances Dorothy Scott Skinner.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Esther Rotman Resnick.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Dorothy MacFie Safford Dale.

Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Alice Temple Jamieson Adair.-Mr. White.
Bill No. 74. for the relief of Gladys Kathleen Crook O'Sullivan.-Mr. Emmerson.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Geraldine Estelle Bamford.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Charles Marie.- Mr. Ross (St. Paul's).
Bill No. 77, for the relief of Rosamond Cheriton Stoyle Macdonald.-Mr. Jacobs.
[Stage Direction]
Restigouche Log Driving Company

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. J. VENIOT (Gloucester) moved the second reading of Bill No. 66, respecting The Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 1-Directors.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It appears that the hon. member in charge of the bill proposes, by resolution, to make anybody a director. The effect of this would be to make any person on the street or elsewhere, who secured a resolution of directors, a director of the boom company. When I look at the side note, I cannot think that that is what is intended. All that is necessary is to add the words "or a member of a corporation," because as the section stands now, it covers a director or a manager. All that was intended, I believe, is that anybody who is a member of a shareholder company could be elected to the directorate of the company in which a corporation is a shareholder. As the clause reads, it would be competent to pass a resolution of directors to make any of us 'here directors of the boom company. Apparently, from the note, that is not what is intended.


Mr. VENIOT:: I think the intention of the company was not to make anybody on the street a director of the company. Perhaps it might be appropriate to give a few words of explanation in order to clarify the situation. In 1910, when the act respecting the Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company was passed, logging and boom operations on the Restigouche river, or in the region surrounding the river, were confined chiefly to companies whose mills and head offices were located in Campbellton or Dalhousie or in the neighbourhood of the Restigouche river. The act specified that every owner of 100,000 superficial feet and upwards of logs intended to be handled by the Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company may become a member of the company, and may attend and vote at all meetings for the fiscal year of the company.
Since that time the long lumber industry has practically gone out of the picture in the neighbourhood and has been replaced by the pulp and paper and rayon industries, in the hands of large corporations, such as The New Brunswick International Paper Company, Fraser Companies Limited, and others, with head offices and boards of directors located in the large cities, such as Montreal

and Toronto-, but with their operations still continuing in Campbellton, Dalhousie or other points in the neighbourhood of the Restigouche river.
It is to overcome this handicap of being obliged to send representatives, either directors or managers of the company, to attend these meetings, that this request is made. I think the companies would be desirous of having as their representative in the neighbourhood somebody who is more conversant with the logging and booming operations, such as, for example, the manager of a company located in Campbellton who knows exactly what the requirements of logging and booming may be. I think it might be appropriate to change the wording specified here to "a shareholder authorized by resolution of the directors of a corporation, which is a member of the company."


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only point I make is that it authorizes anybody, instead of a member of the corporation who is a shareholder.


Mr. MICHAUD:: That is the object of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To name any person, whether he is a member or not?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Any person authorized by resolution of the directors of a corporation which is a member of the company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the person selected need not be a member of the shareholder company.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That is correct; he need not be. It is to avoid this inconvenience that the amendment is moved.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am greatly surprised that any corporation would seek by a resolution of its directors to appoint a stranger to be a director of a company in which it was a shareholder. If they decided to appoint any member of the corporation that is a shareholder to be a director, that would be all right. That would apply to the president, vice-president and officers of the shareholding corporation. Surely you are not going to appoint as a director of the Restigouche boom company a perfect stranger who has no corporate holding in the enterprise. That is a new provision of company law; it is something that has never -been done in this country.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: This company is owned by two other companies, the International paper company and the Fraser company. They found it difficult to have their own

Restigouche Log Driving Company
directors to act as directors of the boom company, and they want to select certain of their employees, such as the head of the woods department. He might not happen to be a director or shareholder of the holding company, but they want to make him a director of the boom company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is proper that a shareholder of a shareholding corporation may become a director of the boom company; but when you say that by resolution of the directors of the shareholder company they can elect a perfect stranger to be a director of the boom company, you are transgressing every rule that governs the conduct of corporations in any country. One of the qualifications has been that before a person can be elected a shareholder he shall in some way be connected with the enterprise. The usual practice has been to qualify him by transferring to him a single share. That is so in our Canadian National enterprises. This practice has been carried on in order to maintain the corporate identity of the companies. All that would be necessary to do to meet the ordinary requirements would be to change the word " person " to the words " member of a corporation." I would suggest that progress be reported and this bill considered at the next sitting of the committee. This would be a dangerous precedent for us to establish here, and I hesitate to see it done once attention has been directed to it.


Mr. CRERAR:: If he were a shareholder in one of the two companies it would be all right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all you want.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I take it that this amendment would not be necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let me put the situation in this way. We have a company known as Jones Limited. One of the shareholders of Jones Limited is Smith Limited, a corporation. As the act now stands, the president, vice president or manager of Smith Limited could be made a director of Jones Limited. This amendment seeks to make it possible for anyone to have a resolution passed by the directors of Smith Limited appointing a man on the street or elsewhere a director of Jones Limited. I think the minister realizes that such a thing is never done.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I admit that it is rather unusual, but I do not see where any harm would result from it here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We would be doing something that has never been done.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The leader of the opposition speaks of appointing a stranger; but what would happen in this case, according to the explanation given by the sponsor of the bill, is that they would appoint the manager or some one of their employees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The manager is a member.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: He might not be a shareholder.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the amendment provides for, that a stranger may be made a director of the boom company.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The manager could scarcely be described as a stranger.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is in the bill now.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: At the present time no person would be eligible to be elected a director unless he was a stockholder in the Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This bill changes that.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is the fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; that is not the fact. The original act provides that no one shall be qualified to hold office as a director unless he is a member of the company or a director or the manager of a corporation which is a member of the company. That is the present position. This amendment provides that the directors of this shareholding corporation can pass a resolution naming the deputy clerk sitting at the table a director of the boom company.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Would not the difficulty be overcome by changing the wording and substituting the words "or a person who is an employee of one of the companies authorized by resolution"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: All that would be necessary to do to meet what the hon. gentleman has in mind is to delete the word " person " and substitute therefor the words "or a member of the corporation which is a member of the company." He could be then given a qualifying share and we would be maintaining the theory which has always prevailed with respect to corporations. I do not wish to embarrass my hon. friend with his legislation, but I think it is my duty to point out that we are creating a dangerous precedent when we say that the board of directors of a corporation that happens to be a shareholder in a company can meet together and pass a resolution appointing a stranger to be a director of the company. That would be a dangerous thing to do as some one else will be coming here next year and wanting the same thing.

Canadian Pacific Railway Company


Clarence Joseph Veniot: According to the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, the person who would become a director would have to be a member of one of the individual companies, whether he owned one or a greater number of shares. I think that difficulty could be overcome by changing the wording to that effect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All you need to do is make the change I have suggested.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I see no reason why a member of one of these corporations could not be found in Campbellton or Dalhousie where the business is carried on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Fisheries can see that this is a fair suggestion. He is interested in this company as it runs logs down the Restigouche. I have no interest in the matter except the interest I always have when a precedent is being established that may create trouble for everyone in the future.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. M. TURNER (Springfield) moved the second reading of Bill No. 67, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 1-Power to lease.
Mr. HOWE:: I should like to know why this matter has been brought before parliament in this form rather than having been referred to the board of railway commissioners. I have no objection to the objects sought to be achieved by the bill as I am familiar with the situation, but the Railway Act provides that a lease can be arranged by the board of railway commissioners when each party to the lease has approved the terms thereof by vote of two-thirds of their shareholders.


Mr. TURNER:: I can give the full particulars if I am permitted to make a statement at this time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not objecting to the principle; I am simply saying that this is an unusual way to deal with the matter when the necessary machinery has been set up under the Railway Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the bill been to the railway committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Would it not be desirable to move now that it be referred to the railway committee?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The purpose of the provisions of the Railway Act is that interested parties shall be heard, and with the permission of the sponsor I move that this bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


John Mouat Turner: That will be quite satisfactory to me, Mr. Chairman.
Section stands.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
Th_- house resumed from Tuesday, March 29, consideration in committee of Bill No. 15, to incorporate Niagara Falls Observation Bridge Company-Mr. Damude-Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
On section 8-Power to construct bridge.
Mr. LOCKHART:: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two questions to ask the hon. member for Welland, and I wish to make a correction in connection with one or two points that came up in the discussion the last time the bill was before the committee. In the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, the hon. member for Saskatoon asked why the money was divided, $2,000,000 for construction and $2,000,000 for land. I would refer the hon. member to page 60 of the minutes of the meeting of the committee, where following a question that had been asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North as to how the money was divided, the Hon. Mr. McQuesten said:
Hon. Mr. McQuesten:	As far as my information is now, we do not think it will exceed

That was for the bridge. He went on:
And the other $2,000,000 was for purchasing land.
That was afterwards extended to include buildings also, and it was on that point that I was enlarging when the bill was before the committee the other evening.
There is one other point I wish to bring up, which has been brought to my attention by citizens of my community.


Mr. YOUNG:: If the hon. member will permit me, I think what was said during the whole discussion was that approximately $2,000,000 would be required for each purpose,

Niagara Falls Bridge
but they did not say that it would require the whole $2,000,000 in either case. They did not know what the land would cost or what the bridge would cost.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: The point is that it was divided in the manner I have stated, half and half.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: But Mr. McQuesten did not say it would take the full $2,000,000 for either purpose.


Norman James Macdonald Lockhart: I have quoted from the minutes of the meeting to show how Mr. McQuesten understood the amount would be divided. Of course, no one would assume for a moment that an estimate could be given of what the land might cost because they were acquiring probably five acres.
It has been brought to my attention by someone who read the account of the discussion, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North said with reference to this project:
I submit that when you build a bridge with an operating income of $273,000 a year and an annual expenditure of only $65,000, there must be a fairly large profit for those who own the bridge.
I pointed out to the hon. member, and he might have added, that carrying charges, interest on bonds and other items were included. From the way in which he gave the figures some may have thought that the difference between $273,000 and $65,000 left a tremendous spread which was altogether out of proportion, and I have been asked to have that corrected.
I notice in the press reports which I have been receiving daily from the city of Niagara Falls that a telegram was sent to the Prime Minister requesting him to see to it that a provision be inserted in the bill before it passes this house in order to protect the taxpayers against any loss of taxation. Could the hon. member for Welland tell me if such a telegram was dispatched to the Prime Minister?


Mr. DAMUDE:: That is correct, and I
understand that the telegram was referred to the Minister of Transport and replied to by him. I also received a telegram from the mayor of Niagara Falls, to which I replied the same day, suggesting that if the city council wish to make representations here they do so before the senate committee when the bill is before that body.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. member for Lincoln has referred to figures which I gave this committee. They were correct so far as they were given, and if there was an insufficiency of figures supplied by myself, I want to assure the committee that this was
not my fault. The fault lay with those who oppose the present application. Mr. Robertson, counsel for those who oppose this bridge, was requested by me and, I believe, by other members of the railway committee to furnish it with a proper statement showing the receipts and expenditures on the bridge for the ten year period from 1927 to 1937, and although he promised to submit such a statement, it was not forthcoming up to the time the railway committee reported the bill. The only figures he gave were those I gave the committee of the whole on the last occasion when this bill was under consideration. We have not the faintest idea even to-day how this $65,000 is made up, because no itemized statement has been submitted. When Mr. Robertson, representing the private corporation which is so anxious to have the present bill defeated, was asked if he could produce a profit and loss account of the bridge, he said he could not nor did he know where there was one in existence.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Mr. Robertson gave a
clear explanation of that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No. He submitted balance
sheets for the ten previous years of the whole operations of the corporation, nine-tenths of which had reference to utilities owned on the United States side.


Alexander McKay Edwards: There was painting.


Abraham Albert Heaps: He made some statement
to that effect; but there was no itemized statement showing how the $65,000 was made up, and I think other members of the railway committee will bear me out that in giving the committee of the whole the figures I gave of $273,000 of income and $65,000 of expenditure, I gave the only figures that, as I remember, Mr. Robertson submitted. There was one other figure he gave which strengthened the argument of those who opposed the bridge. He said there was two per cent placed in a depreciation account each year. The bridge having been in existence for forty years, with two per cent placed in a depreciation account for forty years, the bridge would have been debt free.


Alexander McKay Edwards: No, no. What about upkeep?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Hon. members to my right, if they have any business acumen, and I believe they have-


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: I ask the hon. gentleman if he ever handled a private business in his life; if so, how can he come to those conclusions?
Niagara Falls Bridge


Abraham Albert Heaps: I may not have handled one of my own; but I have handled public utilities, and I know a good deal more about them than some of those who are interrupting. The cost of painting a bridge is not capital expenditure, and anybody who has anything to do with business ought to know that. Painting is purely maintenance and comes out of operating revenue, and if a bridge requires painting every one or two years, that is not capital expenditure, and cannot be reckoned as part of the capital expenditure of the utility. The same applies to maintenance charges; they are not capital expenditure, as the hon. member should know. They represent part of the operation costs of the bridge; indeed, they are part of the $65,000, part of the annual expenditure of the bridge, and if two per cent were put in each year, as I said a moment ago, which caused the hon. gentleman to my right to become so excited-


Alexander McKay Edwards: It was such a foolish statement; that is why.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The statement was made by Mr. Robertson, K.C., counsel for the private corporation. I am merely repeating what he said.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: I was a member of that committee, and everybody was speaking at the same time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Unfortunately there was no printed record of the proceedings, but it was stated that two per cent was set aside for sinking fund purposes. What I claim is that if two per cent were set aside each year by way of amortization and put in reserve for the purposes of a sinking fund, at the end of forty years the bridge would be paid for and there would be no bonded indebtedness.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Two per cent for forty years would not represent more than seventy per cent.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Two per cent each year amortized over a period of forty years would be, as far as I understand arithmetic, approximately one hundred cents on the dollar, and not seventy, as the hon. member states.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Seventy per cent is about right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Two per cent of the bonds, not two per cent capital.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, if it is two per cent of the bonds, that is eighty per cent.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: That is near enough.
' Mr. HEAPS: I do not wish to continue the discussion on this point because the facts

are obvious even to my hon. friends. The issue is not whether the income was $273,000 and the expenditure was $65,000 a year. The question is whether there should be a bridge there owned in part by the province of Ontario, or whether we should allow a private corporation to construct a bridge which will be owned in perpetuity by a United States company whose head office is in that country. That is my main reason for supporting the present bill. I saw the old bridge a few weeks ago down in the Niagara river, and I think it was not a bad place for it to be. It is unfortunate for the people who owned the bridge that it is where it is; but so far as the people of Ontario are concerned, it would be very desirable from a purely Canadian standpoint, as a "Canada first" policy, may I say, to-have the people of Canada own that part of the bridge which is located in the Dominion of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why does the hon. member not put that in the statute?


Mr. HARRIS:: I am glad to see the hon. member for Winnipeg North enrolled in the ranks of the "Canada first" party. Forty years at two per cent would be eighty per cent of the cost of the bridge; we can admit that.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Joseph Henry Harris: As regards this particular
clause-
The company may construct, maintain and operate a bridge across the Niagara river-*
-the company owns only half; the legislation embodied in this particular bill does not make proper provision for the consummation of the work at the other end. In the committee of which I had the pleasure of being one of the members it was quite clearly shown that since the advent of the Peace bridge the revenue has gone down there considerably. The hon. member mentioned the cost of maintaining the bridge; to-day he goes a degree further and adds the depreciation charges; but what about the interest on the four million dollars which it is proposed to spend on this particular project?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I did not discuss the cost of the new bridge.


Joseph Henry Harris: Interest costs money, and five per cent a year on four million dollars is $200,000 of the $273,000 mentioned. That leaves only $73,000-S65,000 for the operation of the bridge and less than $10,000 for depreciation-and anyone who is in business knows that is not nearly enough. Over and above that, do we know that $4,000,000 will be sufficient? Members of the committee

Supply-National Defence
remember that the original bill provided for some 87,000,000 if necessary and 8500,000 for some other costs. Then they drop down to
84.000,000: they divide that up and show where it is going to be spent. Two million dollars is the cost of the bridge and two million dollars is the cost of the approaches on either side of the bridge.


An hon. MEMBER:: Perhaps.
in the woodpile. Perhaps between now and next Tuesday, when the bill again comes before the committee, the minister will tell us just where that Ethiopian is.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.


Joseph Henry Harris: Somebody has said "perhaps," and that remark is well placed. But if it is one million dollars of assessable value taken out of the city of Niagara Falls, where is that city to get its assessment on which to levy taxes to keep going? What provision is being made for that? What provision was made for the city of Niagara Falls to come forward and state its case?
With regard to this particular bridge, as compared with the bridge of the International Railway Company, it is said that it will cost two million dollars. I should like to see a publicly owned bridge there, but I object to this extra two million dollars for the costs of the approaches on either side. I should like to hear some sort of analysis of these figures by the Minister of Transport before I vote on the passage of this particular bill. In the railway committee they called the company twopenny-halfpenny because it only had four lanes of traffic. In the case of the old company, foundations worth half a million dollars are there and will not have to be built again, but under the ownership setup of this new bridge they must be compensation to the International Bridge Company-another added cost to the new project. All this is going to make it a very expensive affair for the people of Ontario. Why should the province have to find $4,000,000 for a bridge which is being sponsored privately for the time being, because, according to the statement of the Minister of Transport, there is no other way to introduce the legislation? Then the owners will be bought out with



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, $425,720.
Vincent-Joseph Pottier: When the committee rose I was attempting to give the approximate per capita expenditure of the world for defence. I gave the figure of S6.49, saying that Germany had the highest, 841.72, and Panama the lowest, 16 cents, while Canada's per capita expenditure was $3.18. Out of the fifty-nine nations that I said were listed, Canada is twentieth from the bottom of the list; in other words, thirty-nine nations spent more per capita than our estimated expenditure for last year.
Another interesting deduction which can be taken from the statement I refer to is the expenditure of the chief dictator groups, Germany, Italy and Japan. It is estimated that last year their expenditure was $3,513,889,500. The next group that is interesting to study is the chief democracies, in which I include England, France and the United States. Their estimated expenditure was $2,708,838,375. The other group that we might consider is that which represents the communistic mode of thought. They spent something over $4,000,000,000 in national defence. When we compare those figures with the estimated expenditure for Canada of $34,000,000 for this year, we have a very small expenditure indeed.
Another important item that we should consider is the expenditure for defence on the North American continent. For last year it is estimated at $1,075,000,000. I include in that the islands adjacent to the continent. The per capita expenditure on the
the money of the province of Ontario.	To	North American	continent last	year was estimy mind something more should come	out	mated at S6.24.	Canada's was $3.18.	with regard to this particular bridge.	As	Complete figures for the fifty	-nine countriessomeone suggests, there may be an Ethiopian	are as follows:	Country	Approximate	Estimated amount	Expenditure	Approximatedefence-1937	per sq. k.m.	per capitaAlbania	. $ 222,360	$ 7 92	$ 0 20Argentina	. 48,933,450	18 11	3 90Australia	. 32,662,792	4 23	5 40Austria	. 39,197,450	466 63	6 50Belgium	, 53,533,000	1,784 00	6 51Bolivia	. 58,560,000	45 00	19 50Brazil	. 61,981,400	7 16	1 45Bulgaria	. 15,628,380	156 20	2 51
Supply-National Defence

Country
Canada	
Chile	
China	
Columbia	
Costa Rica	
Cuba	
Czechoslovakia	
Denmark	
Dominican Republic	
Ecuador	
Egypt	
Estonia	
F inland	
France	
Germany	
Greece	
Guatemala	
Haiti	
Hungary	
India	
Iran	
Iraq	
Irish Free State	
Italy	
Japan	
Latvia	
Lithuania	
Grand Duchy of Luxemburg	
Mexico	
Netherlands	
New Zealand	
Nicaragua	
Norway	
Panama	
Peru	
Poland	
Portugal	
Roumania	
Russia	
Salvador	
Siam	
Spain	
Sweden	
Switzerland	
Turkey	
Union of South Africa	
United Kingdom and Northern Ireland..
U.S.A	
Uruguay	
Venezuela	
Kingdom of Yugoslavia	
Estimated amount	Approximate Expenditure	Approximatedefence-1937	per sq. k.m.	per capita$35,000,000	$ 3 68	$ 3 1820,760,000	27 96	5 00144,900,000	13 05	0 326,888,000	6 18	0 75424,800	7 00	0 7518,381.600	183 00	4 6962,586,170	447 04	4 129,552,780	222 13	3 00380,000	7 63	0 251,246,560	4 00	0 6010,627,050	10 60	0 674,939,500	105 08	4 4519,879,205	51 23	6 33437,558,875	794 11	10 652,799,620,600	5,956 64	41 7227,880,837	214 46	4 501,778,400	16 09	0 711,360,000	52 31	5 0017,380,000	185 37	1 94154,775,140	33 65	0 4216,349,880	11 87	1 065,142,956	11 35	1 747,328,437	106 20	3 50313,267,500	1,010 54	7 45401,001,400	594 95	4 147,990,200	121 05	4 6312,919,200	230 60	5 16336,800	168 00	1 1322,240,000	11 68	1 2341,120,050	1,177 01	5 124,918,725	14 62	4 00470,850	4 50	0 7510,311,000	34 33	3 6884,400	1 00	0 168,554,000	6 08	1 39145,689,600	375 23	4 2628,000,080	304 30	3 8468,322,890	231 60	3 654,020,440,000	191 42	20 071,440,000	42 35	0 8710,252,000	19 79	0 7568,559,200	136 30	2 7645,795,420	104 06	0 7423,628,045	576 04	5 7550,976,200	66 81	3 148,140,981	6 75	0 881,278,079,500	5,238 03	27 19993,200,000	127 33	7 757,593,600	40 60	3 757,750,000	8 51	2 2754,501,840	220 65	3 60
Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Honduras, Liberia and Paraguay are not listed on this table. I could not obtain any adequate rate of exchange.
I mentioned that these figures are given in Canadian currency. We must keep in mind, when comparing expenditures with other countries having a lower standard of living, that the same amount will produce more value in labour and material in such countries. As Canada has a high standard of living, it would make the proportion for defence less than in a foreign country for the same amount.
I have made no reference to colonies or dependencies, as they have themselves no budget for defence. They have police forces
[Mr. PottierJ
which act as defence guards, but their cost is not included in this statement.
I do not agree with the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), when he said in effect that the expenditure for Canada is grossly inadequate. We have to keep in mind in connection with our expenditure for defence our internal possibilities, and a balanced proportion to other expenditures must be maintained. We cannot afford to spend all our money on training a new army when we already have with us an army on relief. The maintenance of Canadian unity is also a serious factor. It is just as serious to have bankruptcy and dissension from within Canada as war from without. I should say, however,

Supply-National Defence
that I support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) that as our next step we must try to increase our air force and develop within the next two years say one thousand Canadian air pilots. I recommend this suggestion to the Minister of National Defence and to the government for their most serious consideration. In other words, I submit we should go as far as possible, keeping the expenditure within a reasonable proportion and maintaining an increasing defence in the air. The trend of defence in other countries in the development of their air forces is out of proportion with the other units of defence, and Canada must keep this in mind.
In this morning's paper we find a declaration from Rome yesterday by the premier of Italy in these words:
Aerial warfare is destined to become increasingly important in the war of to-morrow.
Developments the world over substantiate that statement, and Canada must not forget this development.
I have gone over the amount of our estimates for defence as well as the estimates for other countries. We must realize that huge expenditures are being made throughout the world, and these expenditures are apparently on the increase, in that for 1938 the estimates for Great Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Italy and Japan are growing by leaps and bounds. We saw an announcement from Tokyo last Sunday stating that the government had introduced and gained enactment of the regular budget of $830,000,000 and a military budget of $1,400,000,000 to meet the cost of the war in China in 1938; in other words, more than three times the expenditure estimated by the League of Nations for Japan in 1937.
We have in this morning's paper a further declaration from the premier of Italy referring to the cost of war. He declares that by arming further, regardless of cost-note that-he intends to assure general peace, but above all "our peace." This may all end in the general bankruptcy of nations. I sometimes wonder whether that is not the next hazard of this world rather than that of war. The figures I have just given are food for serious thought in that regard. The expenditures of Canada, however, must be viewed from two angles: How much can we spend, and how far should we go? The proper course is not going to be that indicated by one extreme or the other; the proper course must be that followed by the best considered opinion of Canadians as a whole, keeping in mind the past, having a thought for the present, and an eye for the
future. It appears reasonable that we should at least follow the other dominions of the commonwealth. We are in more or less the same position as they are. On looking at the estimated expenditures for 1937 of Australia, Canada, the Irish Free State, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, we find a total of $88,000,000. Out of that Canada spent $35,000,000. Australia, it is true, has increased her expenditure this year. The average per capita expenditure for the nations of the commonwealth outside Great Britain amounted to $3.39 as compared with Canada's $3.18. I am of the opinion that the estimate which we are going to be asked to vote upon for national defence is a fair amount, having in mind our external situation, our financial ability and our geographic position, and I intend to support each item of the estimates when they are voted.
I have referred to expenditure. I now propose to deal with the policy of the government in making those expenditures, having particular reference to the maritime provinces. It has been declared by the Minister of National Defence that the Canadian defence policy is in the first place for the preservation of Canadian neutrality; in the second place for the defence of Canadian coast lines, ports and terminals, and for the defence of the focal areas of our trade routes in case of necessity. We in the maritimes are particularly interested in the defence of our coast lines, ports, terminals and trade routes. I think at this time it is fair to go back to the last war, 1914-1918, and try to find indications there of what we can expect in the next war. We find that on the Atlantic coast at the close of the war, as nearly as I have been able to get the correct figures, we had:
10 auxiliary patrol vessels
12 Canadian trawlers 7 trawler sweepers
36 trawlers
36 drifters
15 drifters (imperial and temporarily loaned) 6 United States submarine chasers 1 United States torpedo boat.
In all, on the Atlantic coast we had 123 ships. It should be realized by every hon. member that German submarines were within twenty-five miles of the Atlantic coast during the last war. I well remember vessels that I had seen a number of times which were sunk within seeing distance of the shore. This may surprise some hon. members, but in order that there may be no doubt whatever in their minds I should like to refer them to the report made by a commission appointed by this government. I refer to what is known as the reparations commission, which reported first
Supply-National Defence

in 1927 and again in 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933. This is officially known as the report of the royal commissioner appointed by His Excellency the Governor General in Council in pursuance of the Inquiries Act to investigate and report upon all claims which might be submitted to the commissioner for the purpose of determining whether they were within the treaty of Versailles, and the fair amount of such claims. At page 21 of this report it is indicated that in class A, having to do with fishing schooners and fishermen, there were 758 claims amounting to $1,113,384.09. Then on page 71 of the report there is an illustration of what was occurring:
He Schooner Nelson A
Claimant is a Canadian. The schooner, 72 tons, %vas captured by enemy submarine August 4, 1918, and sunk by bombs twenty-five miles from Shelburne. She had sailed from Yarmouth in July and was returning from a fishing trip off the Nova Scotia coast, with a catch of 625 quintals of halibut.
There will be found in the report reference to twenty-one vessels that were dealt with in that way, a number of them close to the Atlantic coast.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Were these vessels sunk by direct enemy action within Canadian coastal waters?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: No; they were not within the three mile limit, if that is what my hon. friend means.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Were they within the twelve mile limit?


Vincent-Joseph Pottier: No; they were within twenty-five miles of shore. As I have already indicated, in this report there will be found reference to no less than twenty-one such schooners, and there were some 737 claims, chiefly of individual fishermen or other persons on board those vessels. That was what happened in the last war. Just try to imagine what will happen if we have another war I We shall have submarines and airships to contend with, particularly if the same countries are involved. Can anyone argue, in the light of these facts, that we should not make provision for our defence?
In the maritimes we have two particular interests: First, the defence of our person and property and, second, the defence of our trade routes, as indicated in the policy of the government. There may be some people in some parts of Canada who care little for our person and property. I submit, however, that as Canadians we are entitled to defence proportionate to what the whole of Canada can adequately provide. It must not be
[Mr. Pottier.l
forgotten that if one portion of Canada is seized, it means wreck and ruin for the remaining portion. A foothold anywhere in Canada means disaster to the whole country.
The second interest of the maritimes is the defence of our coastal trade routes to the United States, Great Britain, the West Indies and other parts of the world. We live by the sea. In my constitutency of Yarmouth-Shel-burne-Clare, for example, the new wealth produced each year through commodities being shipped out of Canada comes from fisheries, lumber and farming. From fisheries we receive approximately $1,150,000; from lumber, approximately $250,000, and from farming, roughly $300,000. That is all new wealth created by reason of these trade routes. That is the only way in which we can buy the manufactured articles, clothes and flour produced in the other portions of Canada. Do away with these routes and we cannot buy. The people have nothing but starvation facing them, particularly in my constituency, if, for example, trade routes to the United States are interrupted in such a way that we cannot ship our fish, particularly lobsters. If that takes place, we can no longer buy from any other portion of Canada. One must also remember that through these trade routes pour out the products not only of the maritimes but of all the rest of Canada. Cut off these life lines, and not only the maritimes but every other portion of Canada will suffer.
These are all possibilities, and every serious Canadian must realize that such eventualities must be provided for. I ask hon. members to keep in mind what happened in the last war on the Atlantic coast in general. We were obliged practically to borrow a patrol squadron, and even with that the German submarines were all along our coast. At the same time I ask hon. members to try to visualize the probabilities in case of another war, to understand the necessity for maintaining as far as possible adequate protection of our coast lines and trade routes. I should like to suggest also to the Minister of National Defence that we in the maritimes look with what I might call a bit of jealousy, perhaps, at the steps taken for the defence of the Pacific coast. I suggest to the minister that so far as possible the defence of the two coast lines should be developed along the same lines and as nearly as possible at the same time. The amount estimated and the policy of the government in the expenditure of that amount should have the support of every hon. member.	[DOT]
In conclusion, I compliment the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie)

Supply-National Defence
and other members of the government upon the sound and orderly procedure they are following in the defence of Canada.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Chairman, may I at the outset congratulate the hon. member who has just taken his seat upon the excellent address he has made. I listened this afternoon to the speeches, and I hope I may be pardoned if I do not attempt to follow very closely the observations which were made. These addresses seemed excellent, so far as the history of the League of Nations, the Locarno pact, and other matters of that kind are concerned; but unfortunately we are living in a practical world, and the conditions which face the people of Canada, and people outside Canada, are not particularly connected with the history of the past, but have a closer bearing on what may happen to us in the future.
One remark of the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), which I am sure commends itself to all, is that our first duty is to keep our country out of war. I believe every Canadian has that ideal in mind, and it is our fond hope that Canada may never again be involved in a great war. The further question which presents itself is this: If we fail to keep Canada out of war, what preparation have we made to defend ourselves?
The debate during the last ten days on defence estimates must indicate that during the last few years Canada has become more defence conscious than at any other time in her history. It is not my intention to deal with the many pertinent events responsible for this attitude of mind among our people, but I believe one of the most striking examples of the change of attitude has been shown by the change of mind of certain members of the House of Commons during the past year. We remember that one year ago, when the estimates of the minister were before the committee, certain members of his party, and of the government, were strongly opposed to them. This year some of those same members have stated definitely that they are supporting the estimates for the present year although the amount is practically the same. This is indeed an evidence of the change of mind not only of people throughout the country but of members of the House of Commons.
Candidly, I believe this change of mind is more than justified. I believe it is prompted not by any great, national nervous sentiment sweeping the country, but by that age old instinct of self-preservation. We, in conjunction with other peace loving nations of the
world, realize that in a world evidently gone mad with the false doctrine of brute force, the only thing to do is to make some effort to protect ourselves in the event of our becoming the object or victim of aggression.
I congratulate the minister upon his able speech delivered a week ago in presenting his estimates to the committee, and I also congratulate him upon his defence program, so far as it goes. I assume the minister required considerable courage to raise the estimates even to the amount at which they now stand, although still inadequate.
I should like to follow the observations of the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare (Mr. Pottier) in discussing these estimates, and matters of defence as they apply to the maritime provinces. I believe I may be pardoned for limiting my remarks in this way, because members from other parts of Canada have discussed the estimates from a sectional standpoint.
It is generally admitted by all that our two coast lines are the vulnerable sections of ohe dominion. They are also the sections which require the greatest expenditures for defence and which must be guarded most carefully. We are very fortunate indeed in having two great oceans separating us from the warring nations of other parts of the world. Yearly those oceans are becoming narrower, and we are becoming more vulnerable on account of the inventions of war and methods of warcraft. Then, too, we are fortunate in having to the south of us a friendly nation. For over one hundred and twenty-five years the United States has been a friendly and peaceful neighbour, and I believe we are justified in feeling that that country will continue to be friendly and peaceful so far as we are concerned.
As was pointed out by the hon. member who preceded me in the debate, more money has been expended on the Pacific than on the Atlantic coast. When we ask ourselves why there is a difference in expenditures, the answer becomes obvious. As our first line of defence on the Atlantic coast we have the British fleet, a fact which was carefully pointed out by the minister. While we do not give general expression to the idea, we all realize that in eastern Canada we must rely upon the British fleet for our defence, but that on the western coast we cannot rely upon any particular fleet. For that reason we must spend more to defend that section of the country. I do not believe there are more potential enemies on the Pacific coast than on the Atlantic; but because we have England and the British fleet on the Atlantic coast we may feel, more safety in that section of
Supply-National Dejence

the country, and a justification for spending more money on the Pacific than on the Atlantic.
Many hon. members have said that the English navy is our first line of defence. May I point out that I believe it to be the only line of defence at the present time so far as eastern Canada is concerned, and it is not costing the people of Canada one cent. Nevertheless there have been very few words of appreciation uttered in this house for that, defence. As reported at page 1650 of Hansard, the minister said:
In regard to the exact position of Canada it is only fair to say that to-day the main deterrent against a major attack upon this country by a European power is the existence of the British fleet in north Atlantic waters. An attack on Canada's overseas trade at the most congested points on our coasts in the opinion of those most competent to observe and advise would be limited to minor raiding forces.
We all recognize that fact: The English fleet is our first line of defence.
What is the second line of defence for our eastern ports? It might possibly be considered to be the Canadian fleet. The Canadian fleet on the Atlantic consists of two destroyers and some mine sweepers. Does the minister consider that these ships can provide any defence for our coast should the first line of defence be defeated? I am satisfied that should the British navy be defeated and enemy battleships come to our coast, our destroyers with their limited gun range could offer practically no defence, even against one battleship.
Our third line of defence, as far as our ports are concerned, are the coastal batteries which are to be established. I understand that on the Pacific coast the first stage of development has been completed and that they are now continuing with the second stage. Perhaps I might inquire of the minister how many stages there are altogether?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: The works on the Pacific will take about three years, that is for interim armament. That does not take into consideration any permanent ordnance in the form of heavy guns.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: The first stage has not even been started yet on the Atlantic coast. As far as any defence batteries are concerned, the Atlantic coast cannot expect any protection for at least three years. I understand that it is very difficult to obtain guns of the type necessary to defend our coast.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is absolutely impossible as long as we insist on ordnance uniform with that of Great Britain.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I assume the minister wants to get the most modern defence equipment.
I come now to what might be considered our fourth line of defence, that is, our air force. It has been said that the people of Canada have become air-minded, but I was wondering if the statement made by the minister is borne out by the opinion of many military experts. On page 1649 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
Let me say just one word with reference to the functions of the air force in connection with the government's program. A well equipped and efficient air force is, in my opinion, of primary importance for the protection of Canadian territory and waters, and in view of the rapidly increasing performance of modern aircraft the possibility of attack by such means is to-day a probability.
The minister says that our air force is to be our great defence against attack. In this connection I notice that four air fields have been established in the maritime provinces at Yarmouth, Dartmouth, Truro and Sydney, all in the province of Nova Scotia. In matters of defence I do not want to be at all narrow-minded, but I would point out to the minister that the two great ports on the Atlantic are Halifax and Saint John. If both these two ports are to be defended by means of aeroplanes, a landing field should be established in the vicinity of Saint John. It seems to me that when the question of the establishment of air fields was being considered, some consideration should have been given to Saint John as it is one of our great Canadian ports. The town of Sussex is the centre of a military training area for the province of New Brunswick. There are many splendid fields nearby which could be easily developed as airports. Any of these would be within easy distance of Saint John.
Reverting again to the value of aeroplanes for defence, I am sure that the minister and hon. members know that in the civil war now raging in Spain every arm is being tried out to determine its practicability. Experts of all nations have been watching the development of armaments in that devastated country. I should like to quote from a statement by Thomas R. Phillips, a member of the faculty of the United States general staff school and at present the United States army expert in Spain. His opinion of aeroplanes as a means of defence is as follows:
Americans for many years have been subjected to the affirmation of an axiom to the effect that the best defence against aerial attack is our own air force. In Spain this has not proved true in its literal sense.
I think it was the hon. member for Vancouver North who referred the other day

Supply-National Defence
to the time required for an aeroplane to leave the field and reach the necessary altitude to fight off oncoming bombers or other attacking aeroplanes. I quote again:	.
The reason our own pursuit in our back yards cannot protect us is not complex, though it is little understood. In soldier terminology, it is a matter of time and space-time for warning, time to reach a fighting altitude, and distance to be flown before interception. Defending airplanes are presumed to be able to leave the ground fifteen minutes after receiving warning. This assumption is generous. It presupposes that the squadrons are alert-that is, pilots on hand and engines warmed up periodically to insure safe take-off. When planes are widely scattered on the ground and hidden from enemy bombers, the time allowed for takeoff must be increased to more than fifteen minutes. After taking off and forming into squadrons, the pursuit must climb to fifteen thousand or more feet. Another seven or eight minutes gone. Thus a minimum of twenty-two minutes' warning is required to give the defenders time to get off the ground and make ready to fight. Translated into warning distance, the warning system, if the attacking bombers approach at 250 miles an hour, must give warning when the enemy bombers are ninety-two miles distant.
There is much more along the same line. As I say, it has been the experience in Spain that the aeroplane does not provide the best defence for towns and cities. It has been proved that it is better when used as an offensive weapon. The other day an hon. member inquired as to the feasibility of aeroplanes as a defence against attack by battleships. It is the opinion of many military experts that it is becoming more difficult for an aeroplane successfully to attack a battleship or any other type of ship. This difficulty arises from the height at which an aeroplane must fly. From fifteen to eighteen thousand feet up, to escape anti-aircraft guns on every battleship, the battleship itself appears as a mere speck on the ocean, and in view of the speed at which the aeroplane flies, and the apparent size of the target, it is almost impossible for an aeroplane to bomb a ship on the ocean.
Our fifth line of defence for our ports-and I think it is the most practical and useful a defence our cities and towns could have-is anti-aircraft artillery. This has been proven conclusively on the battlefields of Spain and in other parts of the world where conflicts have been taking place. I should like to quote again from the article from which I quoted a few moments ago:
Great success and dismal failures have been exhibited by anti-aircraft artillery in Spain. Both can be accounted for by the degree of training of the gunners and relative excellence of the equipment. Antique French guns, first used by the government, failed completely. New German equipment, with robot-operated direction finders which send aiming data electrically to the guns, have scored remarkably. The
Englishman, Air Commodore Charlton, after a visit to insurgent Spain, wrote that the German gunners, in the first three or four salvos, would pip off a bomber at 12,000 feet practically every time, if it was flying a straight course.
That shows how effective anti-aircraft artillery has become. The article goes on to say:
The German anti-aircraft artillery of 88 millimetres calibre-about three and one half inches-fires accurately to an altitude of 25,000 feet. The government now has a large amount of Russian anti-aircraft artillery modelled after the German. Due to poor manufacture, as well as indifferent training of the gunners, it has not performed well.
Against low-flying planes, Spain is a proving ground for the German 20 millimetres-about 8 inch-automatic anti-aircraft cannon. This gun, with two barrels, fires high-explosive projectiles, 360 rounds a minute. Each shell is equipped with a supersensitive fuse which will explode on contact with airplane fabric. It is remarkably effective. The gunner follows the smoking tracers like the spray of a hose and quickly gets his stream of fire on the airplane.
The success of anti-aircraft guns in Spain has started all Europe feverishly building quantities of them. European nations see that cities and rear areas cannot be protected by airplanes; only the anti-aircraft guns are always ready and waiting. Great Britain bought the entire output, for three years, of certain types of anti-aircraft guns of the Bofors factory in Sweden. France has revised its production plans. Italy is dissatisfied with its combination anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapon. Their experience has proved that the anti-aircraft gun must be constructed for its special use.
I am pointing these things out simply to bring to the minister's attention that if we are to protect, especially during the three years in which we are building gun emplacements, our coastal areas and our cities and towns from bombing raids, which as the minister stated the other day is the most likely form of attack, we must have in these areas anti-aircraft guns. We should have effective anti-aircraft artillery in the city of Montreal, in the city of Quebec, in the ports of Saint John and Halifax, and on the Pacific coast.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And in Toronto.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We might even consider it necessary to have anti-aircraft artillery in Toronto. I think the minister will agree that there is a great scarcity of these guns. The article from which I have quoted states that at the present time there are only forty-two such guns in the United States, and it would require, for the defence of New York city alone, nine hundred of them.
I point out these facts to show again that the only defence we have for our eastern Canadian ports at the present time is the
Supply-National Defence

British navy, and it is the only defence which we are likely to have for some time to come.
As an ex-militia man I wish to commend the minister for the attention he is giving to the different branches of our military services. The permanent force, I understand, is to be slightly increased, but not even the most extreme pacifist in this country or anywhere else could accuse us of being militaristic considering the small permanent force we have.
As regards the non-permanent force, I am sure the minister will agree that during the years of the depression and in past years, when it has been almost impossible to get money for militia purposes the non-permanent militia in Canada has carried on in an admirable manner considering all handicaps. I know of officers and men in different units who have been willing to go into camp on half pay, and other officers who have contributed all their pay in order that more men might be trained and the force become more efficient. It is also true-and this shows the importance of our militia to Canada-that during the last war the officers of the nonpermanent militia formed the nucleus for the training of the battalions that went overseas, and I would suggest to the minister that any money which is spent on training officers is money well spent. It is not possible or desirable to train a large standing army in Canada, but we know that, if trouble comes, it is much easier to train the men and prepare the troops by virtue of having well trained, capable officers. We also know that it takes many years, especially in these days of technical equipment, to train men for positions as officers.
The hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) mentioned training for physical fitness in Canada. I do not intend to stress that point, but every nation in the world to-day

and we in Canada learned this lesson in the last war-is aware that physical fitness is one of the ways in which any country must first prepare to defend itself in time of emergency.
A great deal has been said about Canada's foreign policy. I do not consider myself qualified to discuss the question; but I have my own humble opinion, and it is simply this, that we should be united for the defence of the empire. Britain's foreign policy, as it was given to the world a few days ago by Mr. Chamberlain, went further. He said that England would go to the defence of France if necessary, and to the defence of Belgium. I do not think it is perhaps necessary for us in this country to go that far. As a matter of
rMr. Brook? 1
fact, I would be loath to see Canada have to send an expeditionary force across the ocean again to defend any country except England or some other part of the British Empire.
As I said a moment ago, I believe that the foreign policy of Canada can very well be tied up with that of the other nations of the British commonwealth, for the defence of the empire collectively, and individually if necessary. Ex-Premier Baldwin, speaking a short time ago, said that Britain's first line of defence was on the Rhine. We in Canada have no assurance where the first line of defence for Canada may be. I do not think we can assert conclusively that our first line will be the shores of the Pacific coast or the Atlantic coast. It may be better for us, in conjunction with Great Britain and perhaps some other country, to stop the enemy from crossing the Atlantic and landing on our shores. I mentioned a little while ago, and it was observed by some other speaker this afternoon, that Canada is well qualified to provide airmen not only for the defence of our coasts but for defensive service abroad if need be. The aeroplane is an offensive weapon, and should it become necessary for Canada to join in the defence of the empire and act in her own defence, we might very properly, in order to strengthen what would be our first line of defence, send airmen overseas if England should be attacked. I am convinced-and I think every sane person in this dominion is of the same opinion-that if England should be destroyed, it would be too late for Canada to protect herself. We claim that we are a nation. As a nation, it is our responsibility to protect our citizens, not only at home but abroad. They should be able to rely upon the protection of Canada whether they are in this country or any other. A few days ago the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond), in an excellent speech, with much of which, however, I do not agree, said:
Would England or the United States protect us? As far as England is concerned, we cannot expect from her anything that goes beyond her own interest.
As a Canadian, I object to that statement. I do not think it can be said that Britain has been concerned only with her own interests and the protection of her own people. For a hundred years England has helped to protect this country of ours. She did so before we reached the status of a nation, and, as declared in her policy, she is prepared to do so to-day. I should like to call the attention of hon. members to an incident which happened not very long ago in China, during the

Supply-National Defence
troubles there. Many hon. members must have read about it. It will be remembered that up one of the Chinese rivers a Canadian mission from the province of Quebec was in great danger, not only from Japanese forces but from bandits in the Chinese army. It was not a Canadian detachment that went to the defence of the mission; a British gunboat manned by a British crew and guided by one of the good fathers of the mission went to the protection of our people. England was protecting Canadians in that country, and it cannot be said that she was actuated by any selfish motive.
There is not an hon. member but can claim that since the last war England's policy has been one of peace. If she were an aggressor nation, there would be a reason why Canada and other nations would not care to join with her. But her national policy has been one of peace and non-aggression. If, as was stated here this afternoon, the League of Nations has failed, that failure cannot be laid on the shoulders of Great Britain. England has done everything that is nationally possible for a country to do to hold the league together. As regards the Locarno pact, the Washington treaty, and any other treaty into which she has entered with any other nation, she has done her share and more. I am satisfied that had other nations, members of the league, done as much as England did, the world would not be in the unhappy position it is in to-day.
Let it be remembered that other nations are seeking alliance with England. They are not afraid of the involvements of an alliance. In this country we hear much talk of collective security. We know that Canada could not stand alone; but if we wish for collective security, how can we hope to defend ourselves better than by uniting with other parts of the British Empire? If France, Belgium, and many other countries are willing to join with England, I am satisfied that we should be safer and our defence against aggression would be stronger if it were known that we are united with England as far as empire defence is concerned.
I have said that in these days we hear some boasting about our Canadian nationhood. We are all proud of Canada, and with good reason; we are Canadians first. It has been said that we should be proud to be a nation. I remember that during the great war it was the Canadian corps that placed the Canadian name so high in the opinion of the world at that time and as it stands to-day. It was through the achievements of the Canadian corps and Canada's fighting troops that Canada became a nation. But there was no great clamour among the men who fought over-51952-124
seas for "Canadian status." That was left to the politicians and those who remained at home. We were proud to wear on our shoulder-straps the word "Canada." But we were not particularly anxious that we should be known as a nation; it was enough for us that we were part of the British Empire.
I intend to support the estimates of the hon. minister. I wish him all speed with them. I hope that there will be no necessity to use the armaments he is preparing for the defence of our country, and I realize that time is the essence of the matter. In the meanwhile, until we have our coast defended, until we can obtain guns suitable for coast defence, until we have the anti-air-craft guns necessary to defend our cities, let us pray that there shall be peace at home and abroad; and at the same time, I believe, we shall be justified in thanking God that we have the British navy.


Mr. H. S. HAMILTON (Algoma West):: Although we are in committee on one of the items in the estimates of the Department of National Defence, the discussion has been quite general on the defence policy of Canada; and as I have definite views on that subject, and as it is undoubtedly important, I feel a sense of obligation to express them. I have followed carefully most of the speeches. In considering them I find that there are some common grounds on which apparently most hon. members agree. My desire is to see what these common grounds are and then give my views in regard to the points where there are differences of opinion.
First, I should like to congratulate the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) upon what I consider the successful way in which he has fulfilled an extremely difficult role, finding a defence policy along what might be called the middle road, in which I am sure he will secure the support of the majority of the members of this house. By accident a few days ago I happened to read some remarks of the Right Hon. John Bright, delivered in Birmingham on January 13, 1878, on the danger of war with Russia. To me his remarks carry a warning by which I wish to benefit in discussing the subject now before us. I read from a volume in Everyman's Library entitled Selected Speeches of the Right Hon. John Bright, MR., on Public Questions, at page 169:
It is a painful and terrible thing to think how easy it is to stir up a nation to war. Take up any recent history of this country from the time of William III until now, for two centuries or nearly so and you will find that wars are always supported by a class of arguments which after the war is over the people find were arguments they should not have listened to. It is just so now, for unfor-



Supply-National Defence
tunately there still remains the disposition to be excited on these questions. Some poet, I forget which, has said
Religion, freedom, vengeance, what you will,
A word's enough to raise mankind to kill; Some cunning phrase by faction caught and spread,
That guilt may reign and wolves and worms be fed.
"Some cunning phrase by faction caught and spread," like the cunning phrase of the balance of power, which has been described as the ghastly phantom which the government of this country has been pursuing for two centuries and has never yet overtaken. Some cunning phrase like that we have now of "British interests." Lord Derby has said the wisest thing that has been uttered by any member of this administration during the discussions on this war when he said that the greatest of British interests is peace. And a hundred, far more than a hundred public meetings have lately said the same; and millions of households of men and women have thought the same. To-night we shall say amen to this wise declaration. I am delighted to see this grand meeting in this noble hall. This building is consecrated to peace and freedom. You are here in your thousands representing the countless multitudes outside. May we _ not to-night join our voices in this resolution that so far as we are concerned the sanguinary record of the history of our country shall be closed, that we will open a new page on which shall henceforth be inscribed only the blessed message of mercy and of peace?
I wish personally to remember the warning how easy it is to stir up a nation to war, and what a painful and terrible thing it is. I have been impressed in the discussions before this committee with the obvious anxiety of all hon. members to let it be known that they and we, this house and the people of Canada, are anxious to follow as our foremost object the preservation of peace. It is because I feel the government have so carefully and studiously set their course to achieve that object that I wish to compliment the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government upon their efforts toward that end.
I heard a question asked to-day by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) as to the policy of Canada on oil sanctions. For myself I thank the Prime Minister and the government for the action they took in that matter. It may be all very well for Canada to take responsibility for possibly plunging Europe into a terrible war, a war in which millions of men would be slaughtered, and Canada herself perhaps be able to stand aloof from participation in that war. If Canada had been responsible, as she might well have been, for a war of the proportions that might have broken out, I think it would have been a ghastly thing if Canada herself had not thrown all her force and strength and all her man power into subduing the conflagration which she had brought about. If Canada

was ready to follow the possible consequences, well and good. If she was not prepared to follow those consequences, the course she took was a wise one; and personally I am pleased that she took that course.
The hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail), in commenting upon the fact that we do not prevent the exportation of raw materials which may be used in warfare, said that it just did not make sense to be sending out to other countries, potential enemies, material which might be used against Canadians. I agree with her; it does not make sense. Yet I think there is a just reason for it. To-night we have a terrible situation in Asia and in Europe. We feel sympathy for the British statesmen with such terrible responsibilities on their shoulders-how they bear them I do not know-striving as best they can so to adjust and direct their course as to avoid war which might otherwise result. I do not know the factors involved; I do not know how close they are to war; but I can see that the existing situation is precarious. European humanity is under a sword similar to that which hung above the head of Damocles, a naked sword, a terrible sword, a sword suspended by a hair. I believe that to-day statesmen who represent Great Britain and other nations are exerting their best efforts to ensure that that sword does not fall, with the terrible consequences which would result to humanity in Europe, millions of human beings who would be killed or suffer through the destruction of their homes and their country. My feeling is that I and other members of this house, as well as the government, should be very careful that, in ignorance or lack of information, we do not do something which might sever that hair. So, while I realize that it seems foolish to be sending munitions out of the country, without fuller knowledge we cannot afford to do things which might bring about such serious consequences in Europe.
I said that I thought there was some common ground on which hon. members were in agreement. I think this committee agrees that we are prepared to defend Canada. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) emphasized that fact, and I think other speakers have indicated that there is general agreement throughout this chamber that we should do those things which are necessary to defend Canada. The difficulty is in ascertaining what constitutes defence. What is involved in the defence of Canada? What are the limitations of defending Canada? It is apparent at once, I think, that what might be termed local defence, the actual repelling of invasion of our territories by

Supply-National Defence
hostile forces, either on Canadian soil or at our shores, constitutes defending Canada. I think that is agreed. The anxiety of some is that we are not framing our defence policy or building our defence force for that definite purpose, but that we have in mind not facing the issue on Canadian soil or Canadian shores but rather in some way participating in that defence beyond Canada. My thought in that connection is that if war comes, we shall be up against stark reality. It will not be speeches in this house, words, votes or resolutions; it will be reality in its starkest form that we shall be up against, and I have no doubt whatever what will happen. The sound war strategy that will safeguard our people will prevail. Call it war hysteria or what you will, our people will demand that measures be taken which will safeguard this nation. If the change in sentiment in this house that I think is obvious as compared with last year has been brought about by what has happened during the last few months, how much greater would the change be if the things that have occurred elsewhere had occurred in Canada? The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said that civilization stood aghast at the barbarities of Barcelona, What if those barbarities had occurred on Canadian soil? Though not as likely, they are as possible on Canadian soil as in Barcelona or Shanghai, and if these atrocities that have occurred overseas, which have brought about a changed opinion in this house, had happened on Canadian soil, the aroused sentiment that would result would be what would guide Canadian policy when that day came.
The Minister of National Defence, as well as the Prime Minister, has stated that we have no commitments. I am glad of that, and I think the committee will accept that assurance. The hon. member for Vancouver North intimated that, without our intentionally being committed, events themselves would commit us to certain lines of action. My thought is that what will commit us to certain policies will be the events which will occur and which, if they are of major significance, will cause the Canadian people to speak to this house in no uncertain manner, and so guide this house in the action that should be taken. Ours are not the commitments of the government or the commitments resulting from any policy brought into this house by the minister and put forward as the policy of the government. There are no commitments of that kind at the present time. I do not think there should be any. I believe in Canada we should reserve our decisions until events occur which make it necessary for us to choose our course. But 51952-1241
if, when that time comes, there are nations such as we have to-day, world powers with the philosophies, the ruthless attitude and the arrogant aggression which guide some countries to-day to such a great extent, if there is any serious threat to Canada I think it my duty to say that I have no doubt at all that then Canada will associate herself with those nations which can and will preserve her integrity, and will fight to bring about that result, wherever sound war strategy suggests that such fighting should take place.
In such circumstances, when facing stem reality, if Canada thought the safety of her territory and her existence as a nation were in jeopardy, she would demand that some leader, some man capable of following sound war strategy, should guide this nation in doing that which was most necessary to preserve intact our liberty and our territory. I am not referring to local raids, which we must keep in mind; I do not mean safeguarding our coasts in a local sense against anything that might take place in major or minor conflicts. I am talking of real threats to the safety of our country. Then sir, is it not right that we should ask: Could this nation stand by. and would it stand by, and see Great Britain and possibly the United States defeated or destroyed, and not consider that the defences of Canada were being broken down. Can we avoid, or do we not in our souls feel that if Great Britain were crushed, our. first line of defence, as it has been described, would go with her? I would feel it. If the United States were crushed or destroyed, or were rendered incapable of assisting or of cooperating with Canada, would we not feel that we had lost a very important element of our defence? I think we would; I would feel it. And if those great nations were either destroyed or rendered incapable of aiding or cooperating with us, then, sir, would Canada, under the circumstances I have suggested, be able to safeguard herself? I do not think so.
My thought is that for the time being we cannot decide what Canada will do in the event of war. That would depend upon a hundred and one factors. The bombing of Barcelona would be different from the bombing of London; the bombing of London would be different from the bombing of Quebec or Halifax. I do not know what would happen if the House of Commons at Ottawa were bombed while the members were in session.


Abraham Albert Heaps: More gas.


Henry Sidney Hamilton: These matters are not decided finally until the issue is before us. I am not taking exception to what I think
Supply-National Defence

is desirable-the education, if one would dare to call it that, which comes from these discussions and is sent out to implant in the hearts of our people a very real desire for peace, and a willingness to secure that peace not only by action but by inaction. And, sir, if we can decide what constitutes defence, the next question is: With what do we defend our country? With what do we defend it, either in the localized sense of coastal defence or territorial defence, or in the broader sense of association or cooperation with other greater powers, through safeguarding it wherever the war strategy of events may decree that we should defend it. I shall not attempt to discuss the technical end of what our force should consist. But in building a defensive force for Canada there are a few general matters which I should like to emphasize.
The first thing to secure in an armed force for Canada whether it be an air, naval or military force, is morale. That -has always been considered one of the most important factors in any powerful, armed force, and I think it is brought about by confidence. There are things which poison the morale of an armed force. I believe any military man who has served overseas will appreciate that.
We have heard a great deal about profits made while men serve without much remuneration in a deadly game. I emphasize, in passing, that one of the most important matters would be to eliminate profit, with all its ramifications, should our forces ever have to take part in any warfare, and even in connection with the building up of our forces at the present time. I know something about this. I know the effect that things which occurred during the past war had upon me. There is a sense of injustice which must permeate the ranks of any force where, when they are risking their lives in a veiy real way, they are conscious of unfairness, and of advantage being taken of conditions in order to secure monetary or other advantages to which the people who seek them are not entitled.
If I were attempting in any way to say in advance what we would do in case of war- and I would not attempt to do that-in connection with profits alone I would have many suggestions to make. I wish to say this, however, that if it ever becomes my responsibility -and I hope it never will-to say what this parliament should do under certain conditions, involving the possibility of war, I hope and trust that I shall take a definite stand on the elimination of profits in connection with war. I would go even farther than that; I would think not only of money profits. We would
IMr. Hamilton.]
have to see to it that there was some fairness in the decision as to who should serve in the front lines. If I were suggesting what might be advisable-and I do not profess to do so at this time-I might be inclined to suggest, as a brake on the possibility of our inconsiderately going into war, that the members of the House of Commons who vote for it, and who are under the age of fifty-five years, would have an opportunity of serving in the front line, and that parliament would see that they did have that opportunity.
Morale comes from confidence. Those in power and authority, and those who hold positions of strength, should use their powers fairly and for the benefit of those who are less able to take the advantages which some people higher up may take. I believe it was the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar who said that many of the soldiers who fought in the last war have become disillusioned, and that they have lost those things for which they fought-or words to that effect. I cannot agree altogether with the hon. member, and I do not like to permit his statement to go entirely unchallenged.
Great sacrifices were made by Canada, and many lives were lost. It is true that we are disappointed in many things. It is true that many things we thought we would attain have not been attained. But I think it is going too far to say that we lost those things for which we fought. We still have the integrity of Canada. We still have the existence and integrity of the British Commonwealth' of Nations. It is not right to say what we lost until we know what would have happened, had the reverse occurred. Since then we have brought about what we hope will be a great and enduring force for the betterment of world affairs. Since that time we have brought about a British Commonwealth of Nations. It may be that the right to do this was preserved by the fighting which occurred in Europe over twenty years ago.
It has been said that any force which we might raise in Canada would be more or less useless for defence purposes. That may be true in the narrow sense. If the great powers with whom we are closely associated are destroyed and we have to depend upon ourselves, that might be true. As the hon. member who has just spoken has said, the Canadian corps is a comparatively small unit, but modesty compels me to say that it was one of the best fighting units on the western front. It contributed materially to the winning of the war by the allies. The army that Britain dispatched to the continent when the war first broke out was quite small. That army is known now as the Old Contemptibles, but on more than one occasion they saved the

Supply-National Defence
channel ports for Britain. Our defence forces when acting in cooperation with the defence forces of other countries can be a powerful military machine. Isolated and separated that may not be true; but if the final test Comes eventually, we shall undoubtedly be associated with others and we can rest assured that a powerful fighting unit can be built up in Canada. This unit will not be too large, but we shall endeavour to make it as perfect as possible so that if it must be used it will be something upon which we can depend and of which we shall be proud.
The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) referred to the fact that the Minister of National Defence had mentioned the liberties enjoyed in Canada. He did not agree altogether with the statement that we enjoyed complete liberty and he went on to point out his reasons. For some weeks the group to which the hon. member belongs contested in this house the policies of this government. They have the liberty to try to achieve those things which they say do not exist at the present time. I admit that we have not complete liberty when we get into the realm of economics. Complete economic security is something that we must yet attain, and that should be the main purpose of this parliament. But we have that which is so essential and vital, the key liberties that must be maintained. We have the right of free discussion. We have a free House of Commons, despite all that has been said against that contention. We have the right to dissent and disagree. We have the right to move resolutions condemning the government. All these rights have long since disappeared from many parts of the world.
I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar say that one valid reason for a defence force was the necessity to defend democracy. There are three great democratic nations in the world. In any effort that is made to preserve democracy we must consider our relationship with Great Britain and the United States. I have lived in a border town all my life. I have been always able to see the United States on the southern side of the river. I have always seen the stars and stripes flying from their flagpoles; I have always heard the bugle calls from their barracks across the river; I have seen their men in uniform marching along, but ever since I was a boy none of these things has suggested anything but security, safety and friendship. I made this statement at the unveiling of a peace plaque at Sault Ste. Marie a few years ago, and I am glad to repeat it in this chamber. I forget his exact words, but President Roosevelt has said that the international boundary line is simply a line uniting the two nations.
I know that if the people in the town to the south of the town in which I live were in danger, we would feel as though our homes and our town were in danger. I am sure that if we were in danger they would have the same thought.
I think to-night of the terrible responsibilities and burdens carried by British statesmen. My heart goes out to them in the decisions they have to make. The whole world looks to Britain to guide the free nations of the world through the precarious situation that exists to-day. It is a prayer, perhaps inarticulate that:
Tile meteor flag of England
Shall yet terrific burn;
Till danger's troubled night depart,
And the star of peace return.
I believe that is the prayer in the hearts of millions and millions of people outside the British Isles. These are my personal views.
I end by saying that the greatest principle in our defence policy should be a united Canada. We must let the world know that we stand for peace and are ready to use our strength and resources to maintain it. We must let it be known that we are ready to bring it about where it does not exist. We must declare that when those things which we hold dear and precious are in danger, we are prepared to fight. I think the Minister of National Defence has gone a long way toward evolving a defence policy that will join together all parts of Canada. If the dread day ever comes and our armed forces have to march to war, I trust that beside them in spirit will march the whole Canadian nation.
Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South); Mr. Chairman, may I congratulate the member for Algoma West (Mr. Hamilton) upon the splendid speech he has just made. I think it was a most worth while effort.
While I realize that the minister has had a very heavy day, I doubt whether in all his long career in the public service he has listened so long and said so little in any one day. However, I know it will be both soothing and refreshing for him to finish out this bad day by listening to a few words from a fellow-townsman.
To me it is tragic that less than twenty years after the armistice we in this parliament should be forced to consider policies for the defence of the Canadian people in a world which appears to have gone mad. I am sure this is disheartening to every member of this house, and particularly to the minister and the other returned soldier mem-
Supply-National Defence

bers of parliament. However, it is a situation that has to be faced, and in fairness to our people I think we should consider fairly and fully this whole question of defence in order that they may have all the facts before them and be that much better able to come to a proper decision as to what policy Canada should adopt.
I have a few suggestions to make to the minister which I hope will be helpful, also a few criticisms which I hope will also prove helpful. I make them in no spirit of partisanship whatever, because on this question of defence I think partisanship should be kept to the minimum.
I intend to speak first of the local defence of our Pacific coast, and finally-I am afraid it will not be to-night-on the general problem of defence and the question of Canada's foreign policy.
I should like, then, first of all, to carry you away on a magic carpet to the Pacific coast, to help you to get the point of view of those Canadians who live beside the Pacific ocean, or, in other words, the people of British Columbia, of whom I feel quite certain there will be about one million when the next census of Canada is taken in three years' time. Canada is a nation with an outlook on both the Pacific and the Atlantic, and in that I think we are fortunate. It always stirs me when I read the motto over the main door of this building, "The wholesome sea is at her gates, her gates both east and west," because I think it means a great deal to us as a nation to have this outlook on the two great oceans. I am quite sure it makes our people all the more moderate and all the more understanding in their dealings with the other peoples of the world.
Like the people in the rest of Canada, those Canadians who live on the Pacific slope are a peace-loving people. I think their main aim is to be on friendly relations with the other peoples with whom they come in contact and with whom they do business. We are particularly friendly with our neighbours of the Pacific states and of Alaska. They occupy much the same position in the union as we do in the dominion. Their problems are very much the same as ours, and there is a great deal of travel between our province and these Pacific states and the territory of Alaska. I think the two peoples have a very good understanding of each other, and there is a warm friendship between them.
We also have a most friendly feeling for the people of our sister dominions, Australia and New Zealand. I have no doubt it is difficult for eastern Canadians to realize
(Mr. Green.]
just how much we are concerned with and interested in what happens in these two sister dominions. We have had for decades a line of ships running from Vancouver to Australia and New Zealand. We have done a great trade with these other British people, and our feelings for them are the warmest.
We also have kindly feelings for the peoples of China and Japan. We have had business dealings with them for decades, and we have had a line of ships running from Vancouver and Victoria to the orient for many, many years. We have had many contacts with the peoples of the orient. For example, a great many of our own new citizens, particularly in the last few years, have been Britishers retiring from the orient, and this has meant that we have had a little different outlook towards the orient and perhaps a little better understanding of the problems which face the oriental peoples. I must admit that our relations with them have been made difficult by reason of the extensive immigration from the oriental countries to British Columbia. It has served as an irritant because we have felt that we could not assimilate these people. But apart from this problem there has been the friendliest feeling between the people of the Pacific province and the peoples of those two great oriental countries.
Summing it up, we are much interested in what goes on in all these countries on the Pacific, and we are also very much affected by what happens there. Also, like the great majority of other Canadians, I think our people are firm in their belief in the British commonwealth, and in the ideals of the League of Nations.
That is the background, but in the last year on the Pacific coast we have been very much concerned over the aggressive attitude of Japan towards China, and more particularly over the threats by Japan against Great Britain. Many people in our province believe that if the Japanese had decided to challenge the British commonwealth, for example, by attacking Hongkong-and for a short time last fall there seemed to be a chance that that would be done-we on the Pacific coast might very reasonably be faced with a raid. Many people thought that was a distinct possibility. The situation was made doubly menacing by the fact that on our coast we had no adequate defences; that there were settled in our province thousands of their compatriots in strategic positions, some at the mouth of the great Fraser river and others up the river, where they straddled the two transcontinental railways, our main communication with the east, and that there were at

Supply-National Defence
least twelve hundred fishing boats plying up and down our coast manned by Japanese fishermen. These things all made us think, and think very seriously, of the question of the defence of the Pacific coast. And remember that Japan is nearer to British Columbia than it is to Australia. I realize it is not a pleasant prospect.
It is not pleasant to realize that some Canadian people were in danger and could not be protected, but such was, and perhaps is, the case. The people on the Pacific coast remember that this is not the first time they have been placed in that position. In 1914, when war broke out, German cruisers of the China fleet got away on the Pacific. We had for defence one old cruiser-I believe it was the Rainbow-and one sloop-the minister will know the name-I think it was the Sheerwater. That constituted our defence. Sir Richard McBride, who was then premier of British Columbia, went to Seattle a day or two before the outbreak of war and was able to beg, borrow or steal-I do not use the last word seriously, because they cost quite a lot of money-two submarines which were there, having been built to the order of one of the South American republics. It was felt on the Pacific coast, whether rightly or not, that those submarines had a great deal to do with keeping the German cruisers away from Vancouver and Victoria. Later in the war our Pacific coast was protected by the Japanese navy, for which service we give them all due credit. I would point out to the committee that the Monroe doctrine was in force then just as much as it is now, but we on the Pacific coast were protected not by any unit of the United States fleet but by ships of the Japanese navy.
This ridiculous situation-as ridiculous now as it was in 1914-was caused by the fact that the Canadian parliament for years has been toying with the problem of defending the Pacific coast. Until early in the present century Great Britain protected it with a fleet, a garrison and fortifications at Esquimalt. Then Canada took over, and the result was that the fortifications were allowed to deteriorate 'and that we have never had on the Pacific coast more than one or two old ships until the last few years, when we had, first, one modern destroyer, and now we have two. I understand from the minister that the number is to be increased to .four. A start has been made on modernizing the forts; some new fortifications are being constructed, and an attempt is being made to build up an air force-for all of which I give the minister and the government due credit. But, unlike the situation on the Atlantic, there is within thousands of miles no British fleet upon which we can rely for aid. Singapore is seven thousand miles away. Another British fleet is stationed in the British West Indies, also thousands of miles away and therefore of no practical use in the defence of our coast. It follows that we can expect no help from the British fleet. Apparently the government is relying upon the United States navy. In his speech the other day the minister said, at page 1793 of Hansard:
Just as the British navy on the Atlantic is our greatest security in that quarter, so I think it might be reasonable to assume that in a major conflagration we should have friendly fleets-
He used the word "fleets," although I do not know where the other fleet was to come from. -upon the Pacific ocean, and the severity of raids upon our western seaboard would be limited-
Apparently even the minister does not believe that raids could be stopped at present, and they cannot.

by the strength and the position of these friendly fleets. Our major defensive buffer on the Pacific coast is not the Pacific ocean alone but the existence there of friendly fleets. There is no commitment or understanding in regard to these matters, but at this time I think reasonable assumptions are justifiable.
In other words, Mr. Chairman, it is a pious hope. Even then the United States fleet is expected only to limit the severity of the raids. We are apparently not in a position to protect our western seaboard from attack. I agree with the minister that the danger is from hit-and-run raids, possibly by a raiding fleet with an aircraft carrier or carriers. I believe that there is also, as he says, a danger of minor attacks to secure bases or to seize some of our resources. For instance, in the coastal area we have many pulp industries, copper mines and other resources, all of which might easily be held by an attack of that type. The Queen Charlotte islands, containing an area of approximately 3,800 square miles and almost uninhabited, would appear to be a splendid place for an enemy to attempt to establish a base. But I think the minister overlooked the fact that, in addition, our trade routes might be blockaded. There is an extensive trade going out of the ports of Vancouver, New Westminster and Victoria, and a considerable trade up the coast-my information is that over two hundred settlements on toe Pacific coast depend upon boat communication for their supplies-and I fear that an enemy fleet might seriously interfere with all this trade. The. danger is there, and the protection is not. I submit that the question for
Questions

the Canadian government to answer is this: Is it in a position now to protect those Canadians who live on the Pacific slope? If it is not-and the answer certainly is no-then steps should be taken at once.
Mr. Chairman, I have not finished, and it is now about eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, April 4, 1938