1939-04-04

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current) presented the second report of the special committee on electoral matters, as follows: Your committee has had under consideration Bill No. 11, an act respecting balloting on questions of national importance.
Your committee recommends that this bill be not proceeded with, because its adoption would place in the hands of the governor in council a prerogative now exercised by parliament.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: I desire to lay on the table the budget of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National Steamships for the year 1939.1 move:
TMr. Green.]
That the annual budget of the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National Steamships, tabled herewith, and the annual reports laid on the table of the house on March 30, 1939, be referred to the standing committee on railways and shipping, together with the following votes:
442.	Maritime Freight Rates Act, Canadian National Railways Eastern lines, $2,000,000;
443.	Maritime Freight Rates Act, railways other than Canadian National Railways, $800,000;
454. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, capital advanced, $20,000; from main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940, as tabled on January 27, 1939; also
588.	Canadian National Railway Company, $43,750,000;
589.	Prince Edward Island Car Ferry and terminals, $327,000;
590.	Trans-Canada Air Lines, $488,941; from the special supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940, tabled March 31, 1939.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. C. CASSELMAN (Grenville-Dun-das) moved the first reading of Bill No. 66 (from the senate) to incorporate the Canada Board of American Missions of the United Lutheran Church in America.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Explain.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: This is a bill designed to set up a corporation under the name of The Canada Board of American Missions of The United Lutheran Church in America, the purpose being to superintend and promote the work of home missions of that branch of the Lutheran church in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



STERLING INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ERNEST BERTRAND (Laurier) moved the first reading of Bill No. 67 (from the senate) respecting the Sterling Insurance Company of Canada.
Mr. STIRLING:: Explain.


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: The purpose of the bill is to extend the time for the completion of the organization of the company, and to enable it to register under the Companies Insurance Act. The company was incorporated two years ago and has not yet completed its financial arrangements. It is simply asking for an extension of time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Distribution oj Free Butter



DISTRIBUTION OF FREE BUTTER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. M. C. SENN (Haldimand):: I wish
to address to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) a question based upon a report in this morning's Ottawa Journal under the heading, "Free butter will be given needy families." Has the minister a statement to make in this regard, particularly as to how the price is to be arranged and how the distribution will be made?


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: The matter is still under consideration by the department.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I have a question somewhat similar to that asked by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). There appears on page 14 of the Ottawa Citizen a report to the effect that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is now engaged with departmental officials in working out the details of the dominion government plan to buy four million pounds of butter and have it distributed to people on relief throughout the dominion. Is this report correct? If so, does the dominion government propose to pay for this butter with money to be taxed from the people of Canada?


James Garfield Gardiner: There is nothing I can add to the answer which I have already given.



WEALTH AND MAN POWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: There was laid on the table yesterday, a resolution with respect to the mobilization of man power. May I ask the government what action will be taken. Yesterday, in reply to a question of mine which appeared on the order paper, as to what action had been taken by the government in the matter, the information was "Answered by No. 2." That means that the document was tabled. Is that all the action that has been taken?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The answer given to the Ontario government was attached to the communication from the Ontario government, and it seemed to me that those documents indicated as much as could be said at the present time.



RED CEDAR SHINGLE INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I wish to direct a question to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). Has the attention of the government been drawn to statements made in the United States congress recently, which purported to show comparative wage rates in British Columbia and in the states of Washington and Oregon, for workmen employed in the red cedar shingle industry, alleging material differences in the wage rates and working conditions in effect in the two countries? If so, is it the intention of the government to make any investigation into the matter?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Notice has been taken of these statements, which will be brought to the attention of the government of British Columbia with a request that the matter be investigated. Consideration will be given to the whole situation in the light of reports received. In the meantime, I can say that it is certainly not the desire of the government of Canada that the provisions of its trade agreement with the United States should have the effect of lowering labour standards in either country. On the contrary, it is the expectation of the government that the benefits flowing from the agreement will be shared in full measure by labour.



DISTRIBUTION OF FREE BUTTER-STATEMENT OF MR. BLACKMORE ON MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand it has been agreed that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) might present to the house an interim supply bill so as to enable us to have the wherewithal to provide for the service in the next two months. Possibly that item might have precedence to the External Affairs estimates.


John Horne Blackmore: Before you leave the chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word or two touching I he
Distribution of Free Butter


Mr. POULIOT:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Will he be good enough to tell the house why he has not made this suggestion before if he thought it was long overdue ?


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad the hon.
member has raised that question. The very first time we were in this house we began to advocate the dividend. A dividend is a means of enabling people to buy. If this government buys four million pounds of butter and puts into the hands of the people vouchers with which to obtain that butter, the government is putting into their hands a dividend.


Jean-François Pouliot: But the dividend is just
skim milk, not butter.
[Mr. Blackmore.l


John Horne Blackmore: All the more disgrace to a government that neglected it so long, a government that does not give butter instead of skim milk. I grant it is skim milk when we should be having butter and cream and cheese. It is a tardy recognition of the fact that we should long ago have been taking the surplus production which this country has had on hand in superabundance and distributing it to the people. That is precisely the meaning of the $25 a month.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: On the
motion to go into supply it is in order to ventilate grievances. What is my hon. friend's grievance? He is speaking about something which has not been decided, which is in the clouds. He has read in the newspapers that something may happen. What is his grievance?


John Horne Blackmore: I was on the point
of stating the grievance when the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) asked me a question. Here it is. Grievance No. 1: The debt of Canada in January, 1939, was $3,177,-031,860-the direct debt to individuals in Canada and outside-was $3,177,031,860. Some people may not consider that a grievance, but for any person who has children and expects to have grandchildren growing up in this country who will be burdened with that debt, I maintain it is a distinct grievance. This debt is due over the years until 1967. We are paying interest on it, at rates of from one to five per cent per annum. The annual interest payment has been reduced from slightly over $138,000,000 in 1933 to $132,000,000 in 1938, but even at that it is far too much; it is more than this country can carry. During the next thirty years it is estimated that if the average interest rate is 3i per cent we shall pay $3,335,883,450 in interest alone. Can you imagine anything more grievous than that?
The result is a great lack of confidence on the part of business men. They do not dare to invest money. Who would dare, with a debt like that hanging over them? The banks do not dare to lend money. The result is that money is going into government securities instead of into industry. All these matters are unhealthy. If they do not constitute a grievance, I do not know where you would find a grievance. To me they are a very great grievance. We in my group are opposed to the increase of the national debt. It is not necessary; it could be avoided-beyond all question that is true. At the present time we have taxes on business, taxes on income, sales tax, decreasing our purchasing power-which is already deficient; otherwise why the 4,000,000

Distribution oj Free Butter
pounds of butter that people are unable to buy? Certainly it is not because they do not want the butter; it is because they cannot buy it. The fact that the government propose this scheme shows that the government are aware that at present the people cannot buy it; but they will purchase it if the government furnishes the purchasing power.
We have in addition unpredictable tariff changes, largely on account of debt. We have low tariff and high tariff, and no one knows what the next change will be. The result is that because of this debt we have an unbearable grievance. The burden on my part of the country is becoming so great that we can no longer bear it. I am going to talk more about that later, but not to-day. Now it looks as though we are going to be asked to increase our troubles and our children's troubles by taking a million dollars of the taxes of the Canadian people to pay' for this butter. I have no objection to paying for and distributing the butter, but what I object to is the way of getting the money. Where the butter is, the money can be. That statement may sound strange to us, but not so to the nations in Europe faced by exigencies; they learned long ago how to meet such a situation. They have learned how real it is that where goods are, money can be; and the result is that where they are sure they have the goods and the labour, they get the money. They create it. When are we going to change our policy in the interest of our children and our children's children?
I want to point out two or three things in regard to what they are doing in other countries. People will say: Oh well, we do not want to do what Germany is doing. Well, what is France doing? According to an Associated Press dispatch from Paris, dated September 22, 1938, the French government has borrowed from the Bank of France
21,050,000,000 francs without interest. That amounts to $568,350,000. Why does not Canada do something like that? Since I came to this house we have not heard a proposal for getting money without paying interest on it.


Mr. HOWARD:: Oh, yes.


Mr. DUNNING:: My hon. friend is not correct there. The rate on treasury bills at the moment is a little over half of one per cent per annum. That is about what it costs to print money.


John Horne Blackmore: I am glad to hear that. It is time some of these other debts that are bearing interest up to five per cent were placed on the same basis. What France has done, it seems to me we in Canada can do. Surely
the Bank of Canada is as stable an institution as the Bank of France. Surely Canada is as stable as France. Why can we not have interest free money from the Bank of Canada?
I have here a statement regarding the Bank of Canada which I think is interesting. We have had a great deal of talk about what could be done through the bank if we only had a government-owned Bank of Canada. Now we have a government-owned Bank of Canada of what value is it to us? Here is a statement from A. C. Cummings, quoting remarks of Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, referring to the New Zealand bank. His words are:
Here the general function of the central bank is defined as "to give effect to the monetary policy of the government" so that the "economic and social welfare of New Zealand may be promoted and maintained."
That is precisely the purpose for which I believe the Bank of Canada should be operated. This proposal to buy butter would be in line with that policy. He goes on to say:
For such purpose the bank has wide powers of controlling credit and currency regulating transfers of funds, helping exports, and giving financial assistance to the government, as well as buying and selling securities.
Then he turns to the Bank of Canada in contrast. He says:
No such extensive powers, the survey states, were taken for the Bank of Canada when that institution was nationalized.


Charles Avery Dunning: Who says that?


John Horne Blackmore: Reginald McKenna.


Jean-François Pouliot: Quoted by whom?


John Horne Blackmore: A. C. Cummings.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who is he?


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Cummings is a writer of the Ottawa Citizen's London News Bureau of the Southam Publishing Company. He ought to be dependable. He continues:
No such extensive powers, the survey states, were taken for the Bank of Canada when that institution was nationalized. The recent changes in the status of the dominion institution, indeed, are regarded as "having little more than formal significance."
It certainly is high time that we began to use the Bank of Canada in such a way as to relieve ourselves of the burden of debt and to help ourselves take care of internal and external trade to a far greater extent than we have been doing up to the present time. Our average interest rate at the present time is reported to me as being 3-67 per cent on created money. Why should that be? There is no reason at all.
Distribution of Free Butter

I am going to talk-not too long, but long enough to put the idea before the people- about where the money can come from. First thing we know the government will see the light with respect to creating national money, and some hon. member, such as the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), will rise and ask the Social Credit people why they did not propose that long ago. But the first resolution the social credit people put on the order paper was to this effect: That the government of Canada should forthwith commence to create national purchasing power and use it for the economic well-being of Canada.


Jean-François Pouliot: You did not say how.


John Horne Blackmore: It was not our function to say how. The first thing is to decide whether or not you are going to do it; the next thing is to say how. No one asks exactly how you are going to build a bridge before there has been a decision to build it.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: There is established practice in building bridges.


John Horne Blackmore: And there is plenty in regard to making money. The trouble is that hon. members who are so noisy about this matter have not taken the trouble to study financial history; otherwise they would know that there is plenty of experience to serve as a guide. Before we are through I am going to tell some of that experience.
First, what is purchasing power? When we urged that national purchasing power should be created in the Dominion of Canada, there were men who said that purchasing power consisted of goods and services. Now, goods and services are only potential purchasing power. Surplus wheat, for example; is that purchasing power? Not until you can sell it. As soon as you can sell it, it becomes purchasing power, but until you can sell it, surplus wheat is like surplus butter. It has no value unless it can be sold, except as its value is potential. The only thing we have in Canada which is genuine purchasing power is currency and credit. We use both of these as purchasing power. The social credit proposal is that the government create purchasing power, either currency or credit, and use it for the benefit of the Canadian economy, to some extent as Reginald McKenna has pointed out the Bank of New Zealand is designed to work.
What is the basis of credit creation? It is the real credit of a country. What do we mean by the real credit of a country? We mean the country's ability to produce goods. I think it was the Minister of Labour (Mr. 
Rogers) who replied to our first resolution; and if I remember correctly I believe he said you could not get purchasing power apart from goods and services. That is perfectly true. If I do not quote him accurately the minister will correct me, but the flaw in his reasoning was just what I have pointed out. Goods and services are not purchasing power to-day unless you can convert them into currency or credit; they are only potential purchasing power. However, the minister had a very sound thought there. I think we will find that men like Hitler and Mussolini, and others in charge of countries like Italy and Germany, who have been in sore straits and have had to do things in different ways, long ago discovered that where you have goods and services you can have purchasing power; for all that is necessary is to transfer or transform the real credit, which is goods and services, into financial credit, which is currency or credit. Then you have purchasing power right away.
By some hon. members in this house and by newspapers in various parts of the country, which for some unaccountable reason are so tenderly solicitous of a person such as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that they have to leap into the arena to defend him every time these social crediters speak, it has been repeatedly stated that the social credit people advocate inflation, uncontrolled, crude inflation, increasing the money beyond all reason, and all that sort of thing. That is not so at all. All that the social credit people have demanded has been simply the process I have indicated, of transforming real credit into financial credit.


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend is now discussing a matter which was the subject of discussion on a resolution placed upon the order paper in my name, which discussion was adjourned. Prior to that adjournment my hon. friends, of whom the present speaker (Mr. Blackmore) is the leader, had prepared and presented an amendment to the resolution, which amendment was declared out of order. I then expressed the desire that the amendment might be redrafted in order that the house might have an opportunity of deciding upon its merits. That is the position of that debate. Therefore we are now in this situation, that we have an adjourned debate covering exactly the ground which my hon. friend is endeavouring to duplicate on this occasion. I submit that under these circumstances the present discussion is out of order.

Interim Supply Bill


John Horne Blackmore: I stand subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but it is my understanding that any hon. member has a right to voice any grievance on a motion to go into supply-


Ernest Lapointe: On the point of order, may I call your honour's attention to citation 488 of Beauchesne:
Whenever an order of the day has been read for the house to resolve itself into the committee of supply or the committee of ways and means, the motion "That the Speaker do now leave the chair" must be proposed, except in cases provided by standing order 28. When such motion is proposed, it shall be permissible to discuss any public matter within the powers of the federal parliament or to ask for the redress of any grievance, and it is not necessary to move an amendment for that purpose; provided that the discussion and the amendment, if one is moved, shall not relate to any decision of the house during the current session, nor to any item of the estimates, nor to any resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and means, nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been given in the order paper.
Surely the matters my hon. friend is discussing, namely credit and money, the national debt and so on, have been discussed three or four times during this session, and there is already on the order paper a motion on which that discussion has taken place, which discussion will be resumed when that order is reached.
Mr. PELLETIER; Speaking to the point
of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) is not discussing credit and currency but is discussing a proposal to give the people of Canada free butter. His argument so far, as we have understood it, has been in connection with the distribution of butter free of charge in Canada.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the point of order? I think the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is well taken. The paragraph of Beauchesne quoted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) applies to this matter, which has been discussed already this session. There is also another paragraph of Beauchesne, No. 304, at page 101, which applies in this instance:
It is a wholesome restraint upon members to prevent them from reviving a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.
This matter has been discussed already this session, and there remains on the order paper a resolution which will permit hon. members
to discuss further this question of social credit.
I think the hon. member, having aired his grievance, might consider the matter ended.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Mr. Speaker, shortly before the house adjourned last night I was told that if the Speaker was allowed to leave the chair to-day we should go on with the same business we were considering yesterday and last week. Had I not been so advised I would have moved the adjournment of the debate. This afternoon I came prepared to speak on that question, and I want to get on with it as soon as possible. I do not want to stand in the way of urgent business, however, and if I may be assured that the discussion will be continued I will stand aside.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We shall continue with it.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $45,095,590.78, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1940, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1940.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $567,471.83, being one-third of the amount of each of the several following items to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1940, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, in addition to the sum mentioned in resolution No. 1. be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1940, namely:
Vote No. 109, The Senate, general administration.
Vote No. 112, The House of Commons, general administration.
Vote No. 113, The House of Commons, estimates of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Vote No. 377, Trade and Commerce, Commercial Intelligence Service.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $212,500, being one-half of the amount of the following items to be voted, as set forth in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1940, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, in addition to the sum mentioned in resolution
Interim Supply Bill

No. 1, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1940, namely:
Vote No. 367, Secretary of State, Their Majesties' visit.
Vote No. 444, Transport, Their Majesties' visit.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $20,389,783, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the special supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1940, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1940.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to
my hon. friend that at the moment we are putting through some interim supply, and as soon as that is disposed of we shall go on with the external affairs estimates.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I may be permitted to give a word of explanation as to what is involved in this interim supply. It must be remembered that April is now well along, and we have to provide for salaries and also, particularly, for certain payments under the relief acts. This resolution provides for one-sixth of all items in the main and supplementary estimates. Then an additional one-third is asked for to cover parliamentary expenditures, which as hon. members know are not on an average monthly basis but which accumulate in the months during which parliament is in session. Then we are asking an additional one-half of one vote under the Secretary of State in order to provide for general expenses in connection with the visit to Canada of their majesties, and also one-half of a transport vote in the same connection. That is what is provided for in the resolution now before the chair. I need not say of course that the passing of interim supply in no way debars the right to debate, and discussion, and decision upon any item contained in any of the estimates, of which a portion is here asked.


Mr. MANION:: The Minister of Finance
has covered the point I was going to make. So long as hon. members understand they have the right to discuss any item, and that this does not mean the approval of any individual item, I shall have no objection personally to the passing of interim supply.


Charles Avery Dunning: It involves no commitment on any individual item.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in.
LMr. Dunning.!



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I desire
to move the following resolution covering the amounts dealt with a few moments ago in committee of supply:
Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1940, the sums of $45,875,562.61 and $20,389,783 respectively be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolutions reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 73, for granting to his majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the finan-ancial year ending the 31st March, 1940.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Charles Avery Dunning: The bill follows exactly the terms of the resolutions which have just been adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Schedules A and B agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. MacINNIS:: Mr. Speaker, during the-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would point out to the hon. member that it is just a matter of making the procedure regular. If he were to speak now I should imagine he rvould be continuing the debate of yesterday, which was concluded last night. But if he waits until His Honour the Speaker leaves the chair he will have the same opportunity to speak in committee on matters relating to external affairs. It is just a matter of keeping the procedure regular.

Supply-External Affairs


Angus MacInnis: I should like to meet the right hon. gentleman's wishes, and I am not greatly concerned as to when I speak, whether when Mr. Speaker is in the chair or when the house is in committee. But it seems to me if I speak now the debate we were on last night will not be concluded until I have finished.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The debate
was concluded last night, with the understanding that my hon. friend would have a chance to speak in committee. It amounts to the same thing.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
External affairs-
Si. Departmental administration, $191,475.


Angus MacInnis: During the last three days we have had a very general and free discussion on external affairs. I believe it was really one of the best discussions on the subject I have heard since I came here some eight or nine years ago. I am sure the Prime Minister must feel pleased with it. There has been a great deal of criticism, but not in any personal sense; I do not think it has caused any trouble abroad or at home, or will be likely to do so. To-day I may have occasion to indulge in some criticisms, but I hope they will be received in the spirit in which I make them and in the spirit in which the criticism of the last few days has been accepted.
I shall have occasion to refer to the present government of Great Britain and possibly to the British empire, but I wish it to be understood that I differentiate between the people of Great Britain-the institutions which they have built up over the years and under which they live-and the British empire. I have made some study of British history, and it seems to me that that history reveals one thing very clearly, namely, that there has been a continual struggle between the ruling class and. the people of Great Britain, or between each class as it succeeded to some power and the class above. We may say that the first struggle was between the king and the nobles or barons, which ended when King John was forced to sign the Magna Charta. The struggle went on and universal suffrage was granted, under which every person in the British isles takes his part in the political government of the country. But the struggle is still going on between the people of Great Britain and the ruling class, represented at
the present time by Mr. Chamberlain and certain members of his cabinet. It is at this class that my criticism shall be levelled.
Turning to the debate which has occurred in the house on this question, the outstanding feature, as far as the leaders of the government are concerned-I think the same can be said of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion)-seems to be that we were supposed to be debating Canada's foreign policy. However, we heard very little about Canada's foreign policy, while we did hear a great deal about the foreign policy of Great Britain and about what Canada would do if Great Britain were attacked. Perhaps that is as it should be, because Canada at the moment does not seem to have a foreign policy of her own. During the past few years, when profound changes were taking place in international affairs, when undeclared wars were carried on against defenceless people, when women and children were being bombed and machine-gunned, not one word of protest came from this government. Our foreign policy, in so far as it can be called a policy, has simply been a tacit approval of the antiLeague and anti-social policies of the British government, which policies have been more responsible than anything else for the trap in which we, as well as the people of Europe, find ourselves to-day.
We are now told that if Great Britain is attacked or is at war, Canada is at war. We are told also that parliament will decide as to how far or to what extent Canada will participate. A declaration of that kind does not mean very much to me. I realize that should Great Britain be at war under such circumstances as would involve Canada, we would be in that war with every ounce of strength we possess; we -would be in it with at least every ounce of strength that the government could muster. That would be so because the enemy would be in that war with all its strength. If Canada sent but one man, there would immediately be demands that that man should have every support and every protection that the country could give. That would again be so because there would not be time, nor have we the machinery, to work out the degree of participation there should be on our part. It could be worked out under a collective system, but as we have discarded the collective system, Canada's participation in an empire war would be the utmost that Canada could give.
We have been told 'by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Leader of the Opposition, that if Great Britain is attacked,
Supply-External Affairs

Canada will come to her assistance. But the hon. gentlemen did not define what would constitute an attack on Great Britain. It is an important point. A few days ago Mr. Chamberlain, speaking for Great Britain, said that if Germany attacked Poland, Great Britain would come to her assistance. It is quite likely that under such circumstances Germany would bomb British cities. Are we then to make war on Germany? Would such action by Germany under such circumstances constitute an attack on Great Britain, in view of the fact that Great Britain had attacked Germany first? Does this government take the position that a war in which Great Britain is engaged immediately becomes a righteous war? Are we to say that no war is a righteous war, or no cause is a righteous cause, unless Great Britain is involved?
I ask these questions because I see Canada being driven into a position where war will be almost inevitable. I see this government being forced to participate in such a war without its first being made clear that there is involved a single principle in which we are vitally concerned.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who said that?


Angus MacInnis: The Prime Minister in his speech last Thursday referred to the speech made by Mr. Chamberlain on September 27 last. At page 2412 of Hansard, the Prime Minister quoted Mr. Chamberlain as follows:
I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me.
But if I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force, I should feel that it must be resisted.
All that the Prime Minister is saying there is that Great Britain is not going to war until he, the Prime Minister, has made up his mind that some nation has made up its mind to dominate the world by fear of its force.


Mr. THORSON:: Read the next paragraph.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, I shall be glad to read the next paragraph too; I do not wish to omit anything which will have a bearing on what I have just said. I quote:
I believe that life without liberty would not be worth living, but war is a fearful thing and we must be very clear, before we embark on it, that it is really very great issues that are at stake and that we should risk everything in their defence.
I do not know why the hon. member wanted me to read that paragraph, but if he wishes to draw attention to the fact that the British Prime Minister said that life without liberty would not be worth living, and that the issues would have to be very great before we should
embark on such a war, I wish to point out that the issues at stake to-day are no greater than those which were at stake in September last, and that the issues which were then at stake were no greater than those which arose in August, 1936, when Great Britain decided on the non-intervention pact in connection with the Spanish struggle. Unfortunately the actions of the Prime Minister of Great Britain contradict his words. If Mr. Chamberlain was not convinced that the aggressor nations had made up their minds to dominate the world by fear of force, it was because he would not be convinced. The official opposition, the Labour party, did its utmost to convince him that Germany and Italy not only had made up their minds but were actually engaged in dominating the world by force and fear. The Liberal party in the British parliament and the Liberal press in Great Britain tried to convince him to the same effect. Members of his own cabinet went so far as to resign to show their disapproval of his policy. Members of his own party have criticized his policy openly and vigorously. It is left to the government of Canada to follow his policy slavishly and without even a murmur of protest. And then we are told that if Great Britain is attacked we must go to war immediately in her defence. I submit that if we are to be involved in a war because of British foreign policy, we have not only the right but the duty to examine that policy and to criticize it if criticism is necessary. I claim that Mr. Chamberlain and his predecessor in office, Lord Baldwin, have not only led the British empire but Europe itself into the mess it is in to-day, and there is very little hope of peace so long as men of their mentality are at the head of affairs at the heart of the empire. They stand in mortal fear of the growing power of the working classes. They are prepared to go to any length to protect their class interests. Their class interests and not democracy; not the rights of small nations; not the welfare of the peoples are their chief concern. I shall amply prove that from their own mouths before I sit down. From the advent of the national government in 1931 to the present time the whole concern of the British government has been the maintenance of the status quo in a world in which the status quo cannot be maintained.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), speaking in this debate on Friday last, referred to the failure of Great Britain, the greatest power in the League of Nations, to give a lead in bringing about League action in the Manchuria affair. It was stated by an hon. member that it was not Great Britain

Supply-External Affairs
but the League itself that failed in that instance. That, of course, is a mere quibble. The small nations of the League could no more initiate action than they can now, but they would have been prepared to follow the lead of the powerful states. I am reminded of a speech which was made in this city less than a year ago-I believe it was in May of last year-by Doctor Myrdal, of Sweden, speaking at the annual meeting of the League of Nations Society of Canada. This account of his speech is taken from the Winnipeg Free Press of July 16, 1938, where it is pointed out that Doctor Myrdal is a leading economist of Sweden, a member of the senate, and closely associated with the government in the working out of its policies. Doctor Myrdal said:
When the League of Nations was founded after the great war it was, for us, natural to join it. We entered the League with full understanding that it meant giving up our position of neutrality and assuming our part of the responsibility for collective security. We did it with eyes open to the constructional faults, and consequently the inherent dangers, in the treaties and in the covenant of the League. We believed in the possibility of a development which, using a slogan now very often heard, although in glaring contrast to actual events, might be defined as "peaceful change." There were already in the beginning people in Scandinavia who would rather have us freed from some of the obligations of the covenant, particularly the sanctions. But the overwhelming majority of our peoples were at that time prepared to carry these obligations which they rightly considered necessary in a system of collective security. . . .
Later on we saw, however, how the degenerative factors, inherent in the development from the very beginning, were gaining ascendancy. The process of deterioration may perhaps be said definitely to have begun in September, 1931, and the turning point is associated with the name of Mukden. Since that date the history of the League of Nations in the political field has been to us a chain of vain efforts, half-hearted attempts, hypocritical demonstrations; a chain, I should almost say, of public scandal. In no other part of the world have these events been watched with more profound dejection than in Scandinavia. Nowhere else would a straight-lined policy of keeping up the principles of the League of Nations have been approved more thoroughly. The bitter feeling of disillusionment has crept into the very heart of our peoples. . . .
And what is our reaction? We do not want to be deceived, and we therefore realize that for the time being the whole system of sanctions and various other principles of the security system laid down in the covenant, have de facto ceased to function. That means, inter alia, that the League is no longer-and this is most important to us-in any appreciable degree a guarantee of our freedom and peace in Scandinavia. We have therefore had to reverse our disarmament policy. . . .
This all looks certainly like an isolationist policy. But it is an isolation pressed upon us. We do not want it. We want the general 71492-162
League of Nations. We look upon our cooperation in the north of Europe rather as the petty little bit of international cooperation which we can now keep up. In the circumstances our cooperation within Scandinavia is our most important task.
Commenting on this, the Free Press says:
The Scandinavian countries, as Doctor Myrdal said, supported the League, including sanctions, as long as there was reason to believe that the great powers, which can make or break the League and must therefore assume the responsibility for its policies, regarded the League as a guarantee of the integrity of member nations against aggression.
Coming back to the invasion of Manchuria, it was pointed out. I believe by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), that Lord Lytton, a Britisher, was the chairman of the commission which was appointed to inquire into that matter. Lord Lytton spoke with inside authority when he said, on May 17. 1934. in an address at Manchester university, that the government's failure to restrain Japan might have been justified by pleading that-
The far eastern situation is one which cannot be effectively dealt with without the cooperation of the United States of America, a country which is not a member of the League. But we have never been told that our government has proposed to the League to invite the cooperation of the United States of America or that it has itself made proposals to the government of that country which have failed to find acceptance. On the contrary, the United States have made overtures which have not been reciprocated, and the failure of our government to back up Mr. Stimson is perhaps the most regrettable of all its shortcomings.
I would remind hon. members that that statement was made by Lord Lytton, chairman of the commission that inquired into the Sino-Japanese affair in 1931 or 1932. Lord Lothian, speaking at the Royal Institute of International Affairs on December 12, 1934, and referring to the same subject, said:
I have always thought that the mistake of British policy at the time was its rejection of Mr. Stimson's offer to reverse the isolationist decision of 1920 and act with us in support of the collective system in the Pacific. This failure on our part to live up to the spirit and the letter of the Washington treaties early in 1932 drove the United States back into isolation.
The reason that the British government has never at any time, at least since 1931, made any attempt to honour her obligations under the League is that she did not consider the upholding of the reign of law incumbent upon her-that is, that the reign of law was in her national interest, that is to say, in the interests of the propertied class of Great Britain. The case for the British government was put very neatly by Mr. Amery, a

Supply-External Affairs

member of the British parliament, in a speech in the House of Commons on February 27, 1933, when he said:
When you look at the fact that Japan needs markets and that it is imperative for her, in the world in which she lives, that there should be some sort of peace and order, then who is there among us to cast the first stone and to say that Japan ought not to have acted with the object of creating peace and order in Manchuria and defending herself against the continual aggression-
I wish you to note that phrase.
-of vigorous Chinese nationalism.
Our whole policy in India and in Egypt stands condemned if we condemn Japan.
That is one of the reasons why Great Britain could not and did not as the leading power in the League of Nations take an active part in stopping aggression during the last few years. The reason for the failure of the league is the fact that no obstacles were put in the way of Japan because the ruling class of Great Britain, the strongest unit in the league, considered that the people of the backward nations were proper material for exploitation by the predatory countries. In other words, the British ruling class said to themselves, " If we stop Japan, perhaps Japan will call attention to the fact that we are doing in India and Egypt what we are condemning her for doing in China. And the people in India and Egypt are not perhaps as dumb as they once were."
-n the present invasion of China by Japan the British government has not shown up any better than it did in 1931 and 1932, nor for that matter has the government of Canada, as was clearly and ably shown by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) yesterday afternoon. In all the strife, in all the bloodshed, all the raining of bombs on helpless women and children, the present British government never rises above thinking in terms of investments, nor does the government of Canada. Mr. Chamberlain, in the House of Commons, on July 26, 1938, made this statement:
It cannot be said that we are disinterested as a country in the position in the far east, because for a hundred years our interests in China have been of great importance, and when the Japanese government claim that they are protecting their interests in China, I am sure they must recognize that we too have our interests in China and that we cannot stand by and see them sacrificed in the process.
What was troubling Mr. Chamberlain was not the death and destruction that was poured upon the defenceless people of China but the material interests of British capitalists in that country. The next day Lord Halifax followed 
Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Lords with similar remarks. He said that the government were:
Already considering possible action open to us if we do not get that consideration for our interests and rights which we have a right to expect. The noble viscount spoke of several matters, such as the navigation of the Yangtse and inland waterways, the Whangpoo conservancy, access to British property in certain districts of Shanghai, and British interests in the railways. All these matters are at the present time under discussion between his majesty's ambassador and the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs.
What are " all these matters "? British commercial interests are the matters that receive the consideration of the British government. There is not a word about the lives of the men, women and babes who were being torn asunder, blown to bits by the war machine of Japan, fed in part by material from Canada at a handsome profit to the sellers.
I have not the time to go into this question as fully as it deserves to be gone into. It is a dark blot on the history of Great Britain, and, I regret to say, on the history of Canada.
Japanese aggression in China was discussed on various occasions by the League of Nations. While the nations of Europe-Ger-many, Italy, France and Great Britain, were engaged in the Munich affair, the League of Nations was in session at Geneva. Mr. Wellington Koo, the head of the Chinese delegation at the assembly of the League, again referred to Japanese aggression. Let me quote from a verbatim report of the proceedings of the nineteenth session of the assembly, Friday, September 16, 1938: Mr. Koo said:
In this hour of Europe's acute crisis I know many of you have your minds preoccupied by the serious events near at hand, but as the first delegate of China it is my duty to address the assembly on the grave situation in the far east. I feel my task is the more imperative because the present situation in Europe is not unconnected with the war of aggression which has been allowed to continue in Asia. Precisely a year ago I had the honour to invite the attention of the assembly to Japan's invasion of China. It may be recalled that, after careful examination of all the pertinent facts, the eighteenth assembly reached the unanimous conclusion that Japan's action could be justified neither on the basis of existing legal instruments nor on that of the right of self-defence, and that it was in contravention of her obligations under the nine power treaty of Washington and the pact of Paris. By the resolution of October 6, 1937 the assembly-
And he quotes the minute of the assembly- -expresses its moral support for China, and recommends that members of the League should refrain from taking any action which might have the effect of weakening China's power of

Supply-External Ajjairs
resistance and thus of increasing her difficulties in the present conflict, and should also consider how far they can individually extend aid to China.
Canada was signatory of the nine power pact and a member of the League of Nations, and gave its support and consent to that expression from the League. Yet Canada took no steps either to prevent increasing China's difficulty by actions of bet own, or to see how she might as a nation individually assist China. We continued to ship war material to Japan to be used to destroy the Chinese people, despite the fact that our delegates went on record as saying that Japan's action could be justified neither on the basis of existing legal instruments nor on the right of selfdefence, and that it was in contravention of her obligations under the nine power treaty of Washington and the pact of Paris.
I should like to read a great deal more of what the head of the Chinese delegation said at that time. It is well worth anyone's time to read the proceedings of the assembly for that day. But time does not permit me to read further at the moment. However, I wish definitely to draw the attention of this committee to the fact that Canada has not done either in a negative way or in a positive way what she could have done to assist China in her hour of need.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), speaking last Thursday-I was not in the house, but I read his speech in Hansard- referred to the attack on Czechoslovakia and the dismemberment of that country by Germany. He referred to it as the rape of Czechoslovakia. "Rape" is a nasty word. I think in our criminal code it is an offence that is punishable by capital punishment, by death. The leader of the opposition, however, did not refer to another rape, one in my opinion even more disgraceful than that of Czechoslovakia. He did not refer to the rape of Spain. France and Great Britain held that nation down while she was being raped by Germany and Italy. To me that is the culminating disgrace in a period of disgraceful acts. I drew the attention of this house to it last year when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were being discussed. I drew attention to the fact that because of. the action taken by and forced upon the other nations of Europe by Great Britain, one of two things was bound to happen in Spain: either they would have a fascist government and thus increase the strength and scope of fascism in the world, or, if the loyalists were victorious, under the circumstances that then existed they would have communism. I am opposed to both 71492-162J
fascism and communism. By proper action at the beginning Great Britain and France to-day could have had in Spain another democracy, another powerful ally, which they so badly need at the present time.
In conclusion I wish to make four pro-, posals, acceptance of which to my mind is imperative if Canada is to have an effective foreign policy.
First, since it is conceded that Canada is. equal in status to other members of the British commonwealth of nations, this parliament at the present session should assert its equality by passing legislation along>
the lines of Bill No. 16, introduced by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) and Bills Nos. 17 and 18, introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). In regard to the desirability and necessity of those, changes, that is, of Canada taking action to, give parliament or the government full con-: trol over every phase of her affairs in peace, and war, I do not think it is necessary for me to say anything more. The hon. member for Selkirk and the hon. member for Vancouver North have already made a clear case for having that power vested in and exercised by. the parliament and government of Canada. \
Proposal No. 2 is that this country make, clear to the British government and to the world at large its adherence to the principle of collective security through the League of. Nations, and its opposition to power politics; in international affairs. I think it is abso-, lutely necessary that this country should state clearly and boldly its adherence to collective security principles. A mere declaration in that respect is not enough; we must go further. and say that we shall have nothing to do with the power politics which the present British government has forced upon Europe. Such a declaration, even though we are but, a small nation, would be welcomed by nations who still believe in collective security, and would have a deterrent effect on the mad policy of appeasing dictators and sacrificing democracy which has been adopted by the Chamberlain government.
The third proposal is that the government immediately announce its willingness, in cooperation with other countries to impose an embargo on the shipment to aggressors of essential war materials.
The fourth proposal is that the government of Canada, a member of the League, should propose an immediate session of the League of Nations to consider the present serious world situation.
I am sure that the security of Canada would be much greater under a system of collective.
Supply-External Affairs

security, and I am equally sure that the contribution required of Canada would be much Jess than it is likely ultimately to be if we continue with the anarchy of to-day


Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):: It is obvious, I think, that in discussing the question of Canada's position in the British empire and the policy of this dominion relative to external affairs we are debating the most vitally important national question concerning which we of this house are not of one mind. I should like to feel, and we should all like to feel, that public opinion on this question -is not. divided, that we could speak with one voice. However, if we face realities we must realize that this is not true, as has been so clearly shown in the course of the d&bate of the last three days. In view of the seriousness and gravity of the situation confronting the democracies of the world it behooves us, in such discussion as is conducted in this house, completely to avoid a presentation of partisan, party politics, and to project our various opinions from a national point of view. Thus I shall endeavour, in the remarks E am about to make, to deal with this matter from the broadest national viewpoint, and shall attempt to be conciliatory rather than provocative.
If the position of the government relative to foreign affairs had remained where it was left by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) at the conclusion of his remarks last Thursday, I think some of us would have felt called upon to express ourselves in terms somewhat different from those that would be appropriate to use to-day; for while the statement made by the Prime Minister was in certain respects an admirable descriptive exposition of the history of recent events and of the present position of world affairs, I do not think it could be said to have revealed the policy of the government. Since Thursday, however, we have had the benefit of the statement made by the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) whose remarks, if they did not contain any specific indication of the course the government intends to pursue in the present state of world affairs, did show a comprehensive understanding of the present world position and of Canada's place in it. It is surely reasonable to hope, then, that as the situation develops from day to day, or with almost hourly changes, the government, possessed as it must necessarily be of sources of information not available to the private .member or individual, will assume the attitude .and pursue the course best calculated to bring all the weight and authority of this dominion ibehind those whose efforts it considers most
[Mr. Maclnuis.l
likely to further the cause of peace, whoever they may be and in whatever direction those
efforts may be made.
It is obviously ineffective for those in opposition to attempt to suggest to the government the course it should follow in the particular situations that develop in our relations with other countries. Under the British system that responsibility has always been, and in the nature of things must continue to be, uniquely the responsibility of the government of the day. All that the opposition can do is wait until that course is revealed to it and then indicate in what respects, if any, it does not consider that course to have been the wisest one. Nevertheless it is eminently fitting and desirable that we should attempt to convey in general terms those broad considerations which we believe should be kept constantly in mind in the formation of the details of any policy. In stating these it is always desirable, and surely never more so than at the present time, that from whatever source these statements come they should be expressed in terms that will receive the widest possible approval, and attempt to reduce to a minimum those clashes of conflicting viewpoints that no doubt exist in every country in the world. It is in this spirit, as I have already said, that I propose to make my remarks to-day, hoping that in this spirit they will be received, even by those who in the past, and on other subjects, have found themselves in disagreement with me.
There is surely much that can be said about the present position of world affairs and Canada's position in the world, with which we can all agree. In the first place I think we all believe that the peoples of Great Britain and of France are thoroughly imbued with a hatred of war and a devotion to peace that will lead them to make almost any concession in the cause of peace short of complete submission to the threat or reality of armed force. I think we believe, too, that the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Chamberlain, and the present government of France, are the willing instruments of this fundamental conviction in the hearts of their people. I think, too, we all believe that if the time comes when those governments and those peoples feel called upon to draw a line and to say to other governments "So far and no farther," it will be because they firmly believe they have exhausted their resources of concession and conciliation, and find themselves forced to choose between resistance and the complete destruction of their ideals and their way of life. Those ideals and that way of life are shared by us in Canada, and by the word "us" I mean all of us. Because.

Supply-External Affairs
from whatever part of the country we may come; whether we live under the shelter of the common law or of the civil code; whether we express those ideals in one language or in another; whether our spiritual guidance comes from one church or from another, our basic conceptions and ideals remain the same, founded as they are upon a Christian faith in the dignity and importance of the individual.
In contrast to this point of view is the tenet of faith of the totalitarian state, where the central authority is the state itself and the one at the head of the state is the lord and master of his people. Under such ideology the state is deified, and there is complete subjugation of the individual, who is forced into a bullied mass of his fellows, the servant of his lord and dictator, and the master of none, not even himself. In what sharp contradistinction is our conception of individual worth under the ideology that has inspired our society, under a democracy where the importance of the individual is paramount, wherein we conceive the state to be made by man and for him, and not man for the state. Yes, and we go further and believe that tantamount to the successful acceptance of our Christian belief is a recognition of the supreme importance of the individual himself.
It must therefore be of the greatest possible concern to us that the people of Great Britain, who share and hold that faith as firmly as we do ourselves, should contemplate the possibility that we may have no alternative but to defend it with force. That would be the situation, it seems to me, on what might be described as purely ideological grounds. But when we consider the strong bonds of loyalty, of law, and even of selfish economic interest by which we are tied to the people of the British Isles, I find it hard to believe that any of us would fail to realize that the destruction and subjugation of that people would be a calamity for this country scarcely less serious than that of actual invasion of our shores. I can conceive of no greater catastrophe that could befall this dominion than the defeat of Great Britain by a powerful enemy, and no greater drastic damage or injury could be done this country as a nation than' would be done by such a totally catastrophic event.
During the course of the debate on foreign affairs we have heard something of the ties of loyalty and of law that bind Canada to the (ommonwealth and to the crown. We have also heard strong expressions of opinion. notably from the Minister of Justice and the Leader of the Opposition as to the grave danger inherent in any suggestion that
those ties might be weakened or destroyed. With the views to which I refer I need scarcely say I find myself in hearty accord.
I hope no one will imagine that I fail to give to such considerations the predominant importance due them, and fail to put first things first, if I turn for a moment to say something of the economic importance to Canada of our trade relationship to the other members of the commonwealth, and particularly to Great Britain. Rightly or wrongly-and I for one profoundly believe, rightly-as we all know this country has been organized economically as well as politically upon the assumed existence of a strong, wealthy and independent Britain, with whom we should be able to continue to carry on a large volume of trade. I sometimes wonder whether we all fully appreciate how fundamental this assumption of a strong, wealthy, independent Britain is to the whole structure of the Canadian economic system.
It is often pointed out that, in an economic as well as in a political sense, Canada occupies an intermediate position between Great Britain and the United States, and is extremely sensitive to changes in the economic conditions in either country. Such a position is in many respects a favourable one. but it does mean that we are peculiarly vulnerable to any grave economic disturbance in either country. Now under present-day conditions the greatest economic disturbance of all is that which results from defeat in war. And next to our own defeat, no single event can be imagined that would be so completely destructive of the economic well-being of this country as the defeat in war of Great Britain or of the United States. Imagination is not equal to the task of picturing the situation in which the people of this country would find themselves, should they suddenly be faced with the reality of a conquered and prostrate British empire.
But, one thing at least is clear: that situation would impose at once a strain and stress upon our whole business, agricultural and economic system that would make the troubles of 1932 and 1933 seem like a mild spring shower compared to a tropical tornado. Perhaps some lion, members in the debate have concentrated their attention upon the stress and strain set up within our economic system as a result of actual conflict, stress and strain occasioned by the carrying on of a war-which condition, of course, is bad enough. But have they gone farther and considered' what would be the result to us were Great Britain defeated in such a war. Yes, war itself is bad enough, but defeat in war is the

Supply-External Affairs
ultimate in disaster. Thus in our deliberations at the present time let us not be blinded by the fantastic and horrible contemplation of actual conflict and our abhorrence of it, and neglect entirely in our thinking the possible consequences of defeat in such a conflict. From such a situation no one can tell what sort of Canada would ultimately emerge, but cer tainly it would be a very different Canada from this country as we now know it. I question whether the inevitable readjustments would be made without the destruction of our most cherished institutions and liberties. There may be some communists or others who could View this prospect with equanimity or even with enthusiasm. But so far as concerns the vast mass of the Canadian people I believe that they would realize at once the extent to which their own vital interests were involved, and would not willingly contemplate the defeat and subjugation of the British people until we had exhausted every strength and resource in a determined effort to prevent such a catastrophe.
: I really believe that this is true almost to the same extent of the United States of America, that if the people of the United States ever came to believe that the freedom and integrity of Great Britain were about to be destroyed,; and the British people likely to become a subject race, they too would intervene to prevent it, with every means in their power. Can anyone doubt that if those who apparently now seek to achieve the domination of Europe were to succeed in the destruction of the power of Great Britain and of prance they would not inevitably be brought into conflict'with the vital interests of the TJnited States, whose ideals and conceptions are so essentially the same as ours?
When I express these points of view I hope and trust they will be accepted by all hon. inembers as wholly Canadian and dictated solely by the view I hold of what constitutes the vital interests of the people of Canada. Within Canada we have our minor differences and conflicts of opinion in lesser matters. We have extremists at both ends of the scale on many subjects:	There are those in all parts
of the dominion who sometimes appear to believe that no one is entitled to call himself a Canadian unless his ancestors have been in this country for two hundred years. But after all, this is not the time to debate the past, or to theorize in connection with it. We are dealing with a present situation, vivid and real, and I firmly believe that this is a time when we should as far as possible neglect internal differences of opinion on sectional or national matters and completely devote oui selves to the- welfare of this whole country,

actuated by no other determination but that of defending its vital interests. If there is any difference between us, it is only in opinions we may hold as to the limitations to be placed upon these vital interests, and as to the steps it may be necessary to take in order to defend them.
Let me say that I do not see any irreconcilable conflict of opinion as inevitable upon these matters. I do not believe there is any member of the house who, if he came to believe that without the help and support of Canada, Great Britain was about to be defeated by a major European power whose avowed intention it was to destroy the basic liberties of the British people-I do not believe, I say, that there is any one of us who in that event would still adhere to a determination that we should hold our hand and refuse our aid.
Is it not true that many of our differences are coloured by the recollection of bitterness in which many of us had no part, and which there is no reason to believe need ever be caused again? There is a temperamental unwillingness in each of us to concur in an opinion which is supported by the threat of coercion. Surely the statements made by the right hon. the Prime Minister, by the right hon. the Minister of Justice and by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should be sufficient to convince everyone that no such threat exists. In those circumstances is it too much to hope that after earnest consideration and reconsideration of the position of our country, in a state of world uncertainty that seems to amount almost to a condition of perpetual emergency, we shall as a nation be able to achieve that full measure of unanimity of opinion with respect to our own position in the world and the protection of our vital interests without which it is not possible for any country to make an effective effort to defend them?
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, may we turn our minds back to Christmas day, 1934, and Christmas day, 1935, and hear again the voice of his late majesty, King George V, speaking to us:
I would like to think that you who are listening to me now, in whatever part of the world you may be, and all the peoples of this realm and empire, are bound to me and to one another, by the spirit of one great family. My desire and hope is that the same spirit may become ever stronger in its hold and wider in its range.
The world is still restless and troubled. . . .
I am convinced that if we meet them (our anxieties) in the spirit of one family we shall overcome them. . . .
United by bonds of willing service, let us prove ourselves both strong to endure and "esolute to overcome.

Supply-External Affairs
At this time of anxiety occasioned by the most astounding threats to our liberty and freedom-yes, to our civilization itself-we can do no better than listen again to these words and embrace their meaning.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, there is no use in repeating the debate of the past two or three days. I should not have taken part in this present debate had it not been for the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The present condition of Europe is due to pacifism and the disarmament of Britain which has occurred in recent years. No section of this house is more responsible for this condition than the section made up of the hon. gentlemen who have taken part in the debate this afternoon. The end of all things came at Munich. At Munich there was a beginning of a new era in Europe. When Mr. Chamberlain and the President of France signed the pact at Munich, it was the death warrant of the League of Nations and collective security. Europe is now governed by a four-power pact signed by Germany, Italy, France and Great Britain. Collective security is dead. It has never been anything else in the history of the world but a sham. Collective security led Great Britain to disarm the finest army, the finest navy and the finest air force the world had ever seen. It almost ruined the democracies and established the dictators.
The result of all this was the state of affairs we saw in Ethiopia, in Spain, in Czechoslovakia and in many other small countries of Europe. This is due to pacifism. I thought we would have seen the end of pacifism after Munich. After Ethiopia I thought we would never hear any more about pacifism in this country. What is the policy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation? What would the members of that group have done if they had been in Mr. Chamberlain's place? They probably would have declared war. They probably would have declared war on Italy over Ethiopia. They would probably have declared war on Germany. What is their policy. What would they do? If Great Britain	had declared war	in connection with sanctions against Italy, if Great Britain had declared war on Germany because of Czechoslovakia, would the hon. gentlemen themselves of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation have enlisted to stop these dictators? No, they would not have enlisted. They would have said to our soldiers, "Get over to the war and fight for us while we stay at home and preach pacifism." That is the policy of hon. gentlemen.
Only two years ago the London, England, school board would not allow the royal air force to use the schools of that city. They said it would be considered as a military action. They would not allow Lord Jellicoe's speech to be circulated throughout the schools of London. In this country certain pacifist school boards also have abolished cadet training. That was not an agency of war; it promoted peace. It was an effort to train cadets for the militia of this country. When these trouble makers at Geneva had a chance to do something, they did not do it. The league sat by and watched continuous slave raids on the Red sea area from Ethiopia, and did nothing. Steamers, some of them as large as the Niagara boats, were being filled with slaves and sent across the Red sea to Arabia and other countries, but nothing was done about it. The league was simply a debating society. Only a few weeks before Munich a delegation from Canada was sent to the League of Nations, although we all knew that the Munich pact was the death warrant of the league and that such a mission could only be sent in vain.
Coming closer to home, let me say that the hon. member for Vancouver East made about the same speech he made this afternoon on May 26, 1938. At that time he was criticizing the government. It had imposed sanctions against Italy and then repealed them. His policy would, if put into action, have led to war with our old ally. Italy. He did not agree with the embargo which had been placed on the shipment of munitions to Spain, and all that sort of thing. I think we should take as an example what occurred yesterday in the British House of Commons. All the parties of that house decided that there should be a union of spirit in the house of all political parties, and a minimum of criticism of the new forward policy to stop Germany and her march to world domination. That is what we should have in this house to-day. We have had two days of debate on this matter and the question has been gone into very fully. Why repeat it now?
While I do not agree with some of the things the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said, I am ready to admit that he has a very hard task. I hope that this item will pass immediately. I realize that the Prime Minister and the Department of External Affairs have an onerous trust and a difficult task to perform, but I should like to see more publicity in connection with the matters covered by this debate, and in connection with external affairs. I am not claiming to know as much about these matters as the Prime
Supply-External Affairs

Minister, but I should like to see more information given to hon. members and to the country. We should not be forced to rely upon United States chain newspapers and upon some of thp affiliations of the Canadian radio stations for information about Great Britain and foreign affairs. I should like to see a policy adopted by which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) and other leaders in the house would be informed of things from day to day, as is done in the old country.
Hon. gentlemen are saying that Canada did not interfere in Spain. Why did not the United States interfere in that conflict? Why did not the United States interfere in Czechoslovakia? They did not interfere because they could not under the Johnson resolution, which resolution prohibits them from shipping arms to any belligerent. That resolution treats the attacker and the attacked in the same way. The people in Spain who have suffered so would be treated just the same as the attackers. Then there is also the Ludlow resolution, which did not pass but which set out what is really the policy of the present government. That is the policy of Andrew Jackson and George Washington, namely, that the nation shall not take part in any foreign war unless it is attacked. I see no reason why on these items in the estimates there should be any further repetition of the discussion which has taken place. True, the hon. member for Vancouver East has stated his case very fully, with his attitude to-day showing some variations which the Spanish situation has brought about. I hope that during the coming year the house and the country will be taken more into the confidence of the government and the Department of External Affairs. They are not conducting their own personal business; they have a trust

they are conducting business which is of vital importance to the defence and security of this country.


Mr. P. J. ROWE (Athabaska):: Because it is my belief that modern wars are largely economic in origin, I desire from that point of view to discuss our relationships with other nations through the Department of External Affairs. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) has criticized the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation for idealism, impractical theories, and so on. but I suggest that a time has arrived in human history when a man cannot claim to be a realist merely because he insists upon repeating the errors of his ancestors, the methods which havp been tried, weighed in the scales of human experience, and found wanting. We should become realistic, I believe, in the sense

that we undertake a scientific analysis of the existing situation and then proceed to apply measures which will really solve the problem.
To my mind most if not all of the so-called moral diseases of mankind are a result of the abnormal conditions, past and present, under which people have been and are compelled to live, and the cure for those diseases necessarily involves the removal of the cause.
Speakers so far in this debate, and, indeed, all the leaders of mankind to-day, agree in that they believe in peace and want peace; they differ only as to how peace may be achieved. Most economists to-day agree, I think, that the problem of war is largely rooted in the economic system under which we live. In other words, war is a disease, and like all other diseases it cannot be fought until the origins of the disease are discovered and it cannot be cured until they are removed. A world war to-day would be similar to an earthquake, and nobody wins an earthquake. We cannot expect to win a war any more than we can expect to win an earthquake. If war is a disease we must fight it with scientific methods.
I believe that enduring peace can never come to the world until we establish conditions in which peace can take root, grow and flourish. Those conditions do not exist at present. But they can be made to exist, not by denunciation, abuse, calling names, threats of force or organized murder, but by calmly and quietly facing the facts and then, through a series of conferences in which all nations would take part, setting about to make the necessary changes.	.
What are the principal causes of war? In my opinion, there are two. Of course there are a number of contributory causes, such as political nationalism, but the two major causes are the maldistribution of vital natural resources in the world and the economic system of producing and distributing wealth.
Six nations of the world, commonly known as the "have nations," to-day control seventy-five per cent of the earth's surface and eighty-five per cent of its raw materials, while sixty-eight other nations have to be content with twenty-five per cent of the earth's surface and fifteen per cent of its raw materials. I quote an extract from the Ottawa Citizen of March 22, 1938. reporting an address made to a service club in Montreal by Professor F. G. Stanley, of Mount Allison university, Sackville. New Brunswick:
The "have" nations of the world should get together in a friendly spirit of understanding and cooperation with the "have-nots" if peace is to he maintained. Great Britain, France and Russia control half the world's surface, and with the United States. China and Brazil they

Supply-External Affairs
control three-quarters of the world's surface, leaving sixty-eight other nations with barely one-quarter. They control eighty-five per cent of the world's mineral wealth and raw materials, leaving the other sixty-eight nations fifteen per cent, and these other nations include Germany, Italy and Japan. How long do you think that allocation of the world's wealth can be perpetuated and these active, energetic, virile people are going to tolerate that state of affairs? Certainly not indefinitely, for they are suffering economic and territorial strangulation. Why not try to make these nations our friends and try to prevent war by removing the causes of war, examining the situation and offering them a frank discussion, assuring them a reasonable certainty of there being a place in the sun for them as well as ourselves? These dictators are not unreasonable-they want peace. And a nation, whether it be a democracy or a dictatorship, will respond ultimately to a generous attitude.
In order to prove that there is no shortage of everything necessary to satisfy the physical and cultural needs of every human being on this planet, I want to quote one of our own scientists, in our own civil service, Doctor Frank Lathe, in an address which he gave to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as reported in the Ottawa Journal of July 1, 1938. He said:
All of the 91 chemical elements now known are present in the earth's crust in sufficient quantity to satisfy man's needs for all time, and the present wars, economic maladjustments, unemployment and other social ailments are merely the result of man's inability to make proper use of the plenty which surrounds him.
The world's natural resources become most significant when considered in relation to man's needs. The available foodstuffs of the world are more than sufficient for the present population, despite the extensive use of substitutes in Germany and curtailment of farm production iu the United States, and a major increase in food production throughout the world is readily possible..
Clothing can be produced in quantities adequate for all reasonable needs of mankind regardless of population numbers. Man still has large supplies of wood, iron and other building materials for the building of homes and other structures; and the available supplies of coal, oil and water power for beat and power production are still far from exhausted.
In the light of the bounty which nature has provided for man his international squabbles, economic upsets and other maladjustments appear ridiculous, Doctor Lathe declared, and "the highest standards of living can be attained only through world peace and international cooperation" instead of international contention.
The second main cause of war, which, in my opinion, is closely related to the first is a defective method or system of producing and distributing wealth. The producers- workers and farmers-are paid so little for their work that they cannot buy back the goods which they have produced. The so-called surplus, which could readily be consumed at home if there were only enough
purchasing power distributed to buy it, is then shipped abroad in an effort to sell it. But the workers and farmers of other countries are also paid so little that they cannot buy either our surplus or their own. Then, because goods cannot be sold, the factories work only part-time or are closed down, and the people with already low incomes are compelled to accept still lower standards of living.
The inherent defects and abuses of our present system, the principal one being that it can succeed only by making things scarce because an abundance of either farm products or manufactured goods forces down prices and thus destroys profits, cannot be cured except by converting the system from a competitive into a cooperative one. That is the proposal of the party to which I belong. We propose to carry this out, of course, in a constitutional manner by orderly methods. From my observation and study of the tariff question I have come to the conclusion that we cannot hope to find a cure through tariffs. The United States of America is a good illustration of the point. It is at once the richest market and the largest free-trading area in the world, there being no trade barriers between the forty-eight states; yet there are
21,000,000 people unemployed, and the average family income is only about one-quarter of what it could be, as proved by the Loeb government survey of 1934, if engineering principles were practised in production and distribution. Thus, if absolute free trade were introduced into the world to-day, the chaos would be greater than it is now because we would be compelled to compete with goods produced in oriental countries under extremely low wage conditions.
The conditions I have been describing as prevailing on this continent exist also in England, France, Germany, Italy and Japan; but in the three last named countries the problem is made worse by an acute shortage of raw materials. While Professor Wilcox, in his recent book, Nations Can Live at Home, a study in agrobiology, which may be found in the parliamentary library, proves that England. France. Germany and Italy could all produce sufficient food at home to provide for the needs of their respective populations, and while that might be a solution under a primitive, pastoral pre-machine economy, that is not the type of economy which exists in Europe to-day. All the great nations I have mentioned are relatively poor in vital raw materials in their home countries. In these circumstances they must import such raw materials and manufacture or process them into finished goods which are sold abroad If
2576
Supply-External Affairs

these manufactured goods are exported and sold abroad, people in other countries who buy them must be able to sell exports of their own to European countries in order to pay for the goods which they buy from Europe. Since the European countries cannot import large quantities of manufactured goods from overseas, because this is the very type of goods they are exporting, they are forced to import large quantities of farm products, and then farmers in the European countries are deprived of a great part of the market which they would otherwise have.
Discussing this matter in the House of Commons last January, I quoted from a book by a French author, Marcel Braibant. The title of the book is La Tragedie Paysanne. In commenting on the fact that in France from 1892 to 1929, the number of small farms of less than twenty-five acres had decreased by thirty per cent, he said:
The main cause is the condition of modern agriculture. Most peasants have been forced to leave by the economic regime of big capitalism. During the second empire the manufacturers obtained commercial treaties by which the production of important products of the French soil was either totally or partially prohibited.
This illustration also explains the ruinous plight of the farmer in Britain, Germany, Italy, as well as smaller European countries. Yet the policies now being pursued by the governments of these countries are completely failing either to recognize the causes which I have outlined or to do anything about them.
The hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman) a supporter of this government, writing in the Toronto Star of December 31, 1938, stated that Canadian farmers were in the worst position in which they had ever been in the history of Canadian agriculture, while the Monetary Times of December 10, 1938, reported that dividends paid by Canadian companies in 1938 were the highest in history, and a large part of the record profits went into the manufacture of gold and munitions, the first useless and the second useful only to destroy life. In the United States thirty-six thousand families, or one-tenth of one per cent of the population, receive average incomes of $300,000 a year, while twenty-one million people are on relief. In England the profits in thirty iron and steel companies manufacturing munitions with big armament contracts, were 239 per cent more in 1937 than in 1934. A press dispatch from London to the Calgary Herald dated March 25, 1939, by A. C. Cummings, says that Great Britain now has 539 millionaires compared with 333 in 1934, an increase of
[Mr P. J. Rowe.]
206 millionaires in five years, while five per cent of the population own seventy-five per cent of all property and one per cent own fifty-five per cent of it. While this is going-on, thirteen and a half million persons, or thirty per cent of the population, are gravely undernourished, according to Sir John Orr in his report on "Food, Health and Income".
Press dispatches of January 17, 1939, report that six thousand British farmers decided to march to the House of Commons on February 1 for a demonstration to make known their desperate plight. The French luxury manufacturers are making great fortunes while, as I have shown, thirty per cent of the smaller French farmers have lost their homes in recent years. Why is it that more and more of the wealth and large incomes are being concentrated in fewer hands, while at the same time poverty and misery grow steadily worse? The answer is in the way in which the present system operates. So much money is paid to so few people, and so little money is paid to so many people, that the many poor cannot buy the goods and services which they need. The few rich do not need the goods and services which they can buy. The rich will not buy these, to them, useless goods and services; the poor cannot buy them, so no one buys them and they can no longer be profitably produced.


Ernest Lapointe: What has that to do with external affairs?


Percy John Rowe: It has this to
do with it. In my opinion war is caused by the conditions that I am describing. This leaves the majority of the people without the necessities of life and a few wjth huge incomes and enormous bank accounts. The rich cannot invest these surpluses in new factories because, if the output of the present factories cannot be sold, how could the output of new factories be sold? How, then, can these funds be invested? The only remaining sources of investment are gold mines, which do not contribute to the pool of useful, consumable wealth, luxuries, or government bonds issued to finance war materials. Thus we see how accumulated and otherwise unin-vestable surpluses fit naturally into the. war business. Does this account for the enthusiastic patriotism of some wealthy citizens who have suddenly discovered that democracy needs defending with armaments which they are prepared to finance provided they can get the taxpayers to support them?
But there is another approach which leads us to the same conclusion. I have quoted Sir Archibald Sinclair's opinion on the effect of the Ottawa agreements. I quoted him on

Supply-External Affairs
January 27 and I propose to quote him again. He was speaking of the effect of the Ottawa agreements on the international situation. As reported in the Manchester Guardian of May 11, 1938, he said that from the point of view of peace the most fata! step ever taken by the British government was the adoption in 1932 of the policy of economic imperialism and the Ottawa agreements. And he continued:
It was not until then that the German people abandoned themselves to the frenzy of despair which we call Hitlerism: and the tariffs and quotas of Ottawa, the economic armaments of the British empire, began to breed in other countries tanks, aeroplanes and war ships, the military armaments of nations which were determined not to go on paying tribute to Britain but to acquire territories and raw materials for themselves in Abyssinia, in Spain, in China, in Austria, in Czechoslovakia, and perhaps ultimately in the British empire itself.
The Ottawa agreements are still in operation, The new treaty'is, in its effect on German exports, a deadly weapon of economic warfare.
This is an inter-dependent world, not only culturally but economically. The great German race has through the centuries so enriched civilization with its religion, science, art, music and philosophy, and emigrants from its shores have produced such worthy citizens in agriculture, industry and public life in every country to which they have gone, that I refuse to adjudge them guilty or hold them responsible for the actions of some of their present leaders. It was they who gave us the Protestant religion and the printing press, the immortal sonatas of Beethoven and the epoch-making discoveries of Einstein. Are we to treat these people like mad dogs merely because they are reacting in the way in which they are to the abnormal conditions and handicaps imposed upon them by nature and by our own mistaken policies?
Let me quote an outstanding present-day religious leader in England as reported in the London paper, Peace News, of March 10, 1939. This is Doctor F. W. Norwood of the City Temple of London, speaking to the national council of the Evangelical Free Churches at Bradford. He said that:
Whenever he felt inclined to rail against Germany he asked himself, "Who made her go mad like that?	We had the most absolute
victory in our hands in 1918 that any nation could ever dream of having, and if, twenty years afterwards, we are facing what is possibly another Armageddon, whose fault is it?
We should not get anywhere by merely slanging one another and telling Hitler to be a nice little English gentleman.
If it had not been for that man, dangerous as he is, mad as he may be, we would have kept that nation under our feet to the crack of doom," Doctor Norwood declared.
T1492-163i
To show that the views I am expressing are widely held, particularly in western Canada, I quote from a letter which appeared in the Edmonton Bulletin early in March, over the signature of Mrs. W. A. McConkey, president of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, in Edmonton:
Throughout those centuries when Britain was extending tier empire over one-quarter of the globe, it was the boast of her statesmen that wherever the British flag flew there was free* dom for the trade of the world.	*
But we said good-bye to all that! In 1932. by the Ottawa agreements we established preferential treatment for our own trade within empire borders and erected barriers against: other nations which were to their disadvantage.
Germany, Italy and Japan, all short of raw materials for their factories, teeming with a, population they could with difficulty support, were not slow to draw a conclusion from our action-surely a justified conclusion. If empire was the key to trade then they too must have empires: and so-the adventuring imperialism that shakes the world to-day. 1 am aware that the blame is not wholly on our shoulders; yet. our no doubt well intentioned trade agree-^ rnents bore bitter fruit in the international' field, and the results are on our doorstep.
If our scientists tell us that there is no shortage of wealth in the world to satisfy the needs of all, the trouble being that it is not' evenly distributed by nature; and if an examination of our methods of distribution, tariffs, exchange quotas, et cetera, discloses the causes of war and strife in the world, why should' we compete with each other for things which' may be had in abundance without competition? Why should we go to war and kill each other when there is nothing to fight about, when, according to the scientists, there is more in the world than we can possibly use for' many years to come?	,'


Thomas Reid: Tell that to Hitler.	.


Percy John Rowe: A recent article in the New York Nation by Erika Mann,' daughter of the famous German writer Thomas Mann, now in exile, describes dramatically the epic underground struggle now going on-in Germany against the present regime. Men and women are daily risking death, and some' of them are meeting it, in their determined efforts to free their country from tyranny.' One young leader, who was recently beheaded' when caught by the Gestapo, shortly before his death managed to get out of Germany," and he told his friends that in the factory:' where he worked between sixty and seventy-per cent of the workers were opposed to the * government. A concealed movable radio was-constantly denouncing the government and* urging the people not to despair, because: freedom could not be killed by dictators but' would finally live triumphant.
Supply-External Affairs

Can we not do something to help these brave and wonderful people? Why not publicly recognize the existence of the just grievances and abnormalities out of which their present situation has arisen: the injustices of the treaty of Versailles, the strangulation of discriminatory tariffs, the poverty of raw materials? Why not. as suggested by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) call a world economic conference to which the "have-not" countries would be invited with all others? This is the way of reason and common sense. Every one of the causes of the present situation could be sympathetically examined in the light of world discussion and world opinion, and a new milestone in human history might be reached. War gives not security, but insecurity. War does not preserve, but destroys. To deal with an aggressor state by means of collective force means to use more effectively than he all the inhuman and destructive methods of modern war to massacre ruthlessly men, women and children and to destroy the cultural achievements of centuries. What kind of security is this which, even if successful, would reduce vast areas, probably including those which were being "protected" to a state of barbarism and waste in which it would hardly be possible for civilization to survive?
What is needed is a policy of international justice and cooperation, the ending of imperialism, not a struggle to determine which group of nations is to be its main beneficiaries; a system under which the natural resources of the world shall be made available for the benefit of all, not monopolies of private individuals or particular national groups, to be exploited in their own interests. In such a world dictators could not flourish and aggressors would cease to be.
May I now deal for a moment with those people who in the name of what they call '*realism" attack the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation on the ground that it is purely visionary, idealistic and utopian. These so-called realists, who pride themselves on their practical politics, who rail at goodwill and what they scornfully call the sloppy sentimentality of pacifism, appear to overlook the fact that when they reject the way of peace and goodwill, which affirms the underling unity of the r'ace, the equal worth of all peoples and races, and the common blood and destiny of mankind, they reject not only all reason and common sense but also the Christianity in which they profess to believe. Is it realistic statecraft to try to change the temperature by tinkering with the thermometer; to try to rearrange the consequenses without examining the causes? Is it practical politics to advocate force and murder as a

solution of problems which arise out of ignorance, greed and stupidity? Is this realism or practical statecraft? On the contrary, it seems to me that it is a retreat from reason, a denial of all logic. Is it realistic statecraft to send a whole generation of innocent youth out to die because we have a defective economic system? On the contrary, it seems to me more like spiritual blindness, mental confusion, business incompetence and political stupidity.
President Wilson, speaking in St. Louis just before his death, gave a definition of the causes of war which ever since I have accepted. He said:
Is there a man or woman, nay, is there a child in this audience, who does not know that the seeds of war are sown in hot, successful, commercial rivalry?
These people say that we are dreamers. On the contrary, it seems'to me that the advocacy of such policies, the proposal that our affairs, matters which can be settled properly only by law, reason and justice, be settled by war, is more like spiritual blindness, mental confusion, business incompetence and political stupidity. These people say this is an unruly world, that ill-will and violence are dominant and that all we can expect from goodwill is that it shall be an occasional lovely decoration on a bad business, like flowers growing in a swamp. To this I reply that the world is not unruly but law-abiding morally as it is physically, and that what is unruly here is not the structure of the world, which is secure enough, but people who, transgressing the basic laws of life, plunge themselves, their friends and their neighbours into an earthly hell and then foolishly talk about goodwill and kindred virtues as visionary ideals. Since when has goodwill been merely a beautiful ideal? It is not so in the home. Goodwill	is the foundation	and
essential structure of a home. No goodwill, no home. It is no mere ideal in school. Effective education in an atmosphere of ill-will is a psychological impossibility. No goodwill, no school. As for international and interracial relationships, this has been said so often that I fail to see how anyone can mistake the truth. Is goodwill a superficial decoration on international relationships, when, because of its lack, we saw millions of young men slaughtered in a single war? Is goodwill merely a beautiful ideal when, because we transgressed it, we have lived for twenty years in a shaken world? Ours is a world of moral law; the foundations of the earth a.'e laid in truth and justice, and no nation or civilization can survive disobedience to the structural conditions of its peace.

Supply-External Affairs
In closing, I should like to quote Professor Jha, vice-chancellor of Allahabad university. This quotation was taken from the Times oj India of December 30, 1938:
The future welfare of mankind depends on the increasing recognition of the truth that the principles of right action are identical for individuals as well as for states and that the philosopher alone can be trusted to lay down what these principles are.
To be universally resorting to gas masks and shelters underground; to 'be calmly preparing half a million beds for those who will be broken in war, as they are doing in England, while in our factories we fashion the instruments that will similarly devastate life elsewhere; to foe doing all this when no one, statesman, soldier or civilian, is able to assert that the way of equity has been tried, seems to me a flight from both reason and common sense. We have become so naturalized in our insanities of hate, competition, unbrotherliness and injustice, that we are afraid of the sanity of planning, cooperation, brotherliness and justice. Could anything foe more insane that the spectacle of half the world overfed and the other half underfed, with enough for everybody in our very hands? And yet we are afraid of the sanity of a just distribution. Is there anything more insane than dog-eat-dog competition? Yet we are afraid of the sanity of cooperation. The most insane thing in this insane world of ours is to foe afraid of sanity.


Mr. L. D. TREMBLAY (Dorchester):: Mr. Chairman, the debate to which we have been listening since Thursday last, when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) enunciated to the house the views of the government on the international situation and explained with such great clarity Canada's position among the countries of the British commonwealth of nations, seems to me by far more important than any I have witnessed since I have had the honour of sitting in this chamber. Its importance lies in the fact that it deals with problems on which depend the happiness of every citizen and every family of Canada, in fact the very existence of our country and its people.
The present discussion has given me the comforting feeling that hon. members have exemplified the truth of the axiom that a man is as big as the cause he represents. To the dignity, the ponderation and the enlightened patriotism which the Prime Minister revealed in his masterly speech, the representatives of the people have responded with a frank, courageous and dignified expression of their own views. The general tenor of the discussion has luminously revealed, in my opinion,
the nobility and real superiority of the parliamentary institutions by which we are governed.
I may be pardoned, sir, for thus prefacing the remarks I have the honour to make by an expression of my appreciation of all hon. members who have so far taken part in the debate. Perhaps I may be also pardoned and understood if I express my admiration for the leader of the government. His generosity, broad-mindedness and deep humanity would qualify him to be a French-Canadian if he did not	belong	to	another	race equallyendowed	with these noble	characteristics.While listening to him the other day, I could not help thinking of those peoples whose leaders obtain and maintain their popularity by their	ability	to	plan and achieve thesubjection of other peoples. A different ideal animates the leader of the Canadian government, an ideal which does him honour, a high ideal of	which	his	people	recognize the
beneficent influence, the ideal to ensure in this world the peace promised twenty centuries ago to men of goodwill. To this task he has devoted his life, and in expounding the government's policy in international matters he has revealed once more to his fellow citizens his irrevocable will to pursue the accomplishment of his undertaking. We wish to assure him of our undying gratitude.
While listening on Friday last to my old comrade who has become the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Lapointe), I could not repress a feeling of deep emotion. Inoffensive in appearance, nervous in temperament, rather small in size, but gifted with a firm jaw and sparkling eyes, more than twenty years ago like thousands of other French Canadians young Arthur Lapointe- I may call him by name since he was not a member then-enlisted to fight against barbarism and for civilization. Those who have read his book "Soldier of Quebec" know what he went through. His experience was, with slight differences, that of all those of our generation who fought during the last war. I do not, however, wish to dwell upon the subject.
My point is this:	We have been told,
"You are fighting for civilization against barbarism; you are waging war against war; it is your noble task to bring to your brothers and sisters, to your families and to your country everlasting peace. If you win this war there will be no further wars, and those whom you leave in Canada, those whom you will perhaps never see again, will bless you for all eternity."
Supply-External Affairs

We believed those things, sir, and we went tio war. Those who were spared by providence returned, happy to see again their dear Canada for which over there their hearts had thrilled' in a way they had never thought possible before. Their eyes may have been dry when they landed on Canadian soil, but they sparkled with noble pride; for had they not fought for the most noble of causes? Had they not conquered glory with peace and freedom? In peace they would be able to resume their former tasks and live happily in the midst of their loved ones. They could perhaps even fulfil the dream, interrupted by their departure for abroad; they could get married and build a home. Now, Mr. Chairman, twenty years later, are those men who offered their lives in order to bring peace fo the world, who bravely performed their duty as they saw it, and who, ever since, have modestly accomplished their duty as citizens and fathers, to be called upon to send their sons-and I have five-abroad to settle once more on the same battlefields the inextricable affairs of Europe? I say no, Mr. Chairman, and I render thanks to providence that the viewpoint of the leaders of the Canadian nation, and that of the Canadian people themselves has changed. Last Thursday the Prime lyiinister said this on the subject, as reported at page 2419 of Hansard:
The idea that every twenty years this country should automatically and as a matter of course take part in a war overseas for democracy or self-determination of other small nations, that a country which has all it can do to run itself should feel called upon to save, periodically, a continent that cannot run itself, and to these ends risk the lives of its people, risk bankruptcy and political disunion, seems to many a nightmare and sheer madness.
I assert without hestitation that I belong to that class which is also, I am firmly convinced, that of the immense majority of the Canadian people, and I believe from the bottom of my heart that the first duty of every citizen of this country is to Canada.
May I quote some further words of the Prime Minister as recorded at page 2419 of Hansard: *
A strong and dominant national feeling is not a luxury in Canada, it is a necessity. Without it this country could not exist. A divided Canada can be of little help to any country, and least of all to itself. The national feeling has found political expression in the steady growth of self-government, at first in domestic, later in external affairs. It has stood the test a'nd the strain of economic depression and of the local differences to which depression gives a temporary importance. We are and will remain Canadians, devoted, first and last, to the interests of Canada, but Canadians, I hope, who will be able to take a long range as well as a short range view of what Canada's interests require.

If it is true that a national sense is developing among Canadians, it is a matter for rejoicing, and I say, "So much the better for Canada." But that sense must be guided; it must be channeled; for it is a force that is capable of destroying as well as building up a nation. Thus, if it is confined to one's village, to one's county or to one's province, it is not true nationalism but rather a stunted nationalism. Our nationalism should be broad and generous; it should take account of the general interest of Canada and of all Canadians.
Allow me to quote the words of Reverend Father George Simard, dean of the faculty of theology of Ottawa university, whose booklet Canada To-day and To-morrow or, in French, Le Canada d'aujourd'hui et de demain" is the best exposition there is of Canadian nationalism. The following is a translation:
Our federal state is a bilingual state, as is attested by section 133 of the British North America Act, which makes Canada juridically the country of all Canadians. This would be impossible if the provinces, unfederated, constituted so many separate political entities. It must be noted however that it is not the races that are federated in Canada. Their relations are much better than that. Both, as a result of the constitution, are joint owners of the soil and territory of the same country. Therefore our patriotism is Canadian; strictly and substantially it is one and the same in the hearts of Freneh-Canadians and English-Cana-dians alike.
Twenty-two years ago a profound division endangered Canadian unity, because in the general panic it was forgotten that Canada was composed of two great races of different origin and viewpoint. To-day this reality is better understood, and in 1939 when we hear a Canadian of whichever race appeal to prejudice we have the impression that he is a rather rare bird. Ridicule will get him, in any event, but in the meantime it is the duty of all of us to help "ridicule" in its patriotic work.
Through my father and my college education I belong to that noble French-Canadian race which, dwells peacefully in the valley of the St. Lawrence. It is a sober and industrious race, a race of believers, profoundly attached to their faith, their customs and their language; a proud race, proud of the discoverers, colonizers and evangelizers who implanted French civilization in this country, banishing the darkness of paganism and barbarism; a race of people deeply rooted in the soil of their ancestors, a Canadian race three centuries old.
My mother was of English descent. She belonged to that race which, in the words of

Supply-External Affairs
the Prime Minister, commands the admiration of all. His reference was in the following words:
. . . for what Britain is and what she has given the world, the free institutions she has developed, the tolerance and ability to reconcile opposing points of view which mark her political life, the insistence upon individual liberty, the devotion to public duty and the readiness to do public service without regimentation or reward.
I was born and brought up in the atmosphere of a happy and united home. My French father and English mother taught us to be proud of the two races which share the land of Canada, and loyal to our country, our only country, Canada. Therefore, I can say, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said in Paris in 1S97:
Our dual fidelity to distinct ideas and aspirations is a matter of pride with us. We are loyal to the great nation which gave us birth and also to that other great nation which gave us freedom.
If we are to achieve complete national unity, let us develop a truly Canadian brand of patriotism. Let us be Canadians after the manner of the Prime Minister. Let us be Canadians like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who a few weeks ago received from his fellow citizens of Quebec such a striking mark of admiration and affection. Let me close with the words of Reverend Father George Simard, who said:
Since provincialism and nationalism are simply modalities essentially inherent in the substance of true patriotism, they cannot take precedence over the citizens' duty to their common country. Should ever the parts prevail over the integrity qf the whole to which they are subordinate, a new country would arise from the ruins of the fallen one. Let us not forget that fact if we do not want Canada to cease being our Canada.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Chairman, here is a file about two or three inches thick which contains correspondence in connection with a difficulty that has arisen in the southern part of my constituency. Will the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) be kind enough to have a summary made by the department and get in touch with the President of the United States in order that this difficulty which has been rather annoying to my electors may be settled. When hon. members see what a voluminous file this is, they will agree that it is not reasonable to expect a member of parliament to carry on so much correspondence when the matter could have been settled very easily through the cooperation of the Department of External Affairs and the Canadian legation at Washington. Hon. members have other things to do than writing letters, and we
should have the assistance of the officials in the various departments. The Prime Minister is an able diplomat, and a word from him to Mr. Roosevelt would do more than the most lengthy correspondence.
Now that hon. members have seen this file they will perhaps understand why at times the member for Temiseouata complains about the way in which he is dealt with iby the officials in the various departments. The Prime Minister knows very well that I do not blame him. We all realize that he has much to do, but at times we must turn to him to have a wrong redressed. I have the fullest confidence in him. In a matter like this, one must have faith, and this reminds me of a little story I heard not long ago. It was midsummer in one of the southern states and the people were in great need of rain. A preacher told his congregation to meet in the church to pray for rain. The congregation met, sang a spiritual, and the minister entered his pulpit. He looked at the congregation and he told them he would not preach. When they asked him why, he told them they had not sufficient faith. He said, " Not one of you has brought an umbrella; if you had more faith, each one would have brought an umbrella for the rain." I did not carry an umbrella to-day, but I have great faith in the Prime Minister's ability to settle this case to the satisfaction of all concerned.
This is simply a question of property rights. One of my electors owns land on both sides of the border. He has been in the habit of sending his cattle and horses on that land to pasture. Then United States customs officers seized his cattle and horses because of supposed smuggling. Smuggling entails wilful intention, and I cannot see how horses or cattle in pasture could have such wilful intention. This man owned the land and he had unquestioned rights on it. The only smuggling that occurred was in connection with the Canadian grass eaten by the horses and cattle. The hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) says that is perhaps more a matter of internal affairs than external affairs. The whole controversy was organized by a republican candidate for congress who hoped to make a little agitation at the expense of the Frenchspeaking people in the northern part of the state of Maine.
Hon. members will realize how ridiculous is this whole matter. This honest farmer was formerly mayor of the municipality. A letter was sent to the present mayor of Estcourt by the Department of External Affairs. This was a sort of appeasement letter. Mr. Norman Robertson seemed to think that this matter might interfere with the signing of the trade
Private Bills

treaty. He told this gentleman that everyone understood the details of the difficulty, but that the matter should be allowed to stand for a short time, when everything would be settled. My elector should be helped. I am sure the Prime Minister will be ready to give him his valuable assistance. I can see by his expression that he has been convinced of the rights of my constituent, Mr. Richard, who along with other people in my constituency, has had this trouble.
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]
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Edythe Marjorie Burke Atkinson.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Marie Louise Rosetti Di Rosa.-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Stefano Guilio Luciano Roncari.

Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Gertrude Saul Baker.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Mary Frances Todd Lister Cardwell.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Herbert John Butler.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Anna Lasnier Blain.-Mr. Tomlinson.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Annie March Breakey Coburn.

Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City).
Bill No. 50, for the relief of Mabel Gertrude Marks Lamoureux.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Earl Keith Drennan.-Mr. Bercovitch.
Bill No. 52, for the relief of Per Ernst Martinsson.-Mr. Thompson.
Bill No. 57, respecting The United Church of Canada.-Mr. Motherwell.
Bill No. 58, to incorporate The Trustee Board of The Presbyterian Church in Canada. -Mr. Cameron.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 55, to change the name of Ancient Foresters' Mutual Life Insurance Company to Toronto Mutual Life Insurance Company.- Mr. Cleaver.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Jean Winifred Hunter Urquhart.-Mr. Walsh.

Bill No. 69, for the relief of Sarah Theresa Norman.-Mr. Ahearn.
Bill No. 70. for the relief of Helen Kathleen Yuill.-Mr. Hyndman.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Zdenka Pauline Ottilie Josefine von Ehrenfeld-Pop Drummond, otherwise known as Yvonne Drummond.- Mr. Hill.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North) moved the second reading of Bill No. 18, to amend the Militia Act.
He said:	We have, been assured over and
over again by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that parliament will decide on all those matters that relate to participation in war. An examination of the existing provisions of the Militia Act reveals that under certain circumstances parliament may not decide anything beyond the amounts to be voted in fulfilment of commitments previously made by the executive.
The amendments to the Militia Act which I propose are designed to give reality to assurances made by the Prime Minister that parliament and parliament only will actually make those decisions that lead to participation in war abroad or that would impose compulsory military service on the people of Canada. If a comparison is made between the text of my amendments and the words uttered by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) last week, it will be found that I have not gone one step beyond the solemn assurances given this house.
In any hour of crisis we shall not refer to the pages of Hansard to discover what was the will of parliament; we shall refer to our statutes; and it is the responsibility of parliament, in my opinion, to place upon the statute books as clear a definition as possible of the intention of parliament. Resounding phrases do not provide or compensate for any defective or obsolete law. In the face of a definite threat of war there is on the statute books no act that should receive more rigorous scrutiny than the Militia Act. It is under that act that orders may be issued demanding that Canadians lay down their lives in defence of their country. We have revised almost annually other acts of much less consequence, in order to keep abreast of the changing times. The Militia Act now in force is of the 1904 model. Since 1904, changes of profound significance have taken place within

Militia Act Amendment
and without Canada, compelling adaptations in domestic administrative policies as well as in external relations.
It is now plainly evident that we urgently need a militia act of the 1939 model. Obviously the 1904 model is quite unsafe from the point of view of the preservation of Canadian unity. As a matter of fact, some parts of this legal vehicle date back to 1868. Canada is no longer a colony but a self-governing dominion within the British commonwealth of nations, and we should no longer tolerate a law that maintains colonial traditions with regard to vital issues. I submit that now is the time to overhaul this legislation and not when we are in the midst of a war crisis.
I have four purposes in mind with regard to the amendments I propose. The first is to ensure parliamentary control of the armed forces of the dominion. The second is to ensure prior parliamentary sanction for any act of participation in external war or in any military commitment relating thereto. The third is to restrict the power now vested in the governor general of imposing compulsory service on all the male inhabitants of Canada, and to ensure prior sanction of parliament for compulsory mobilization. Tire fourth is to ensure that the government of Canada shall have the undisputed right to appoint senior officers in command of Canadian forces on active service.
Section 4 of the act as it now reads declares that the command in chief of the armed forces of Canada, or of the militia, shall be vested in his majesty. In that respect it complies with the constitutional requirements of the British North America Act. But the section goes beyond that. It declares that this authority shall be exercised and administered by his majesty or by the governor general as his representative. My amendment simply proposes that the command in chief shall continue to be vested in his majesty but shall be exercised and administered by the governor general acting by and with the advice of the king's privy council for Canada.
I submit that the prerogatives of the crown in Great Britain have been restricted by the Army (Annual) Act of Great Britain. As a matter of fact, it is a fundamental requirement of the British constitution that the prerogatives of the crown with respect to the armed forces shall be under the control of parliament. In the preamble of the Army (Annual) Act it is declared that it shall be unlawful for the sovereign to maintain armed forces in the United Kingdom except by sanction of parliament. I again direct the attention of the
house to the fact that the intention of parliament in regard to this section was made very clear in 1904. Parliament then rejected an amendment similar to that which I propose. Because of the constitutional status, parliament refused then to make a clear-cut declaration of the right of the government of Canada or the ministers of his majesty in the dominion to exercise authority and control over the armed forces of the dominion.
It is, of course, absurd to suppose that the sovereign would personally exercise command. It is equally absurd under our present constitutional status to suppose that His Excellency the Governor General would personally exercise command. The only reason I can discover for retaining the section in its present form is to permit the crown to recruit in the dominion for service abroad. That was done during the South African war; the South African contingent was recruited under order of the crown by voluntary enlistment, although some contribution was made by the government of Canada 'towards the expenses of the Canadian contingent.
This practice was followed in the great war. As I stated last night, it is recorded in 'the official war history that his majesty ordered that his royal highness the then governor general might recruit by voluntary enlistment in Canada for service abroad. If the Canadian expeditionary force was not authorized under the provisions of the Militia Act-and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) raised this point last year -it certainly became possible because of the interpretation of this particular section. Such action, if followed, leads inevitably to participation in external war without the prior sanction of parliament. For the moment I am not arguing whether it is right or wrong; I am submitting that under our present constitutional status there should be a clear-cut declaration in the act that the authority of the crown is exercised in the dominion with respect to the armed forces of the dominion only by his majesty acting on the advice of his ministers in the dominion.
This section must be considered also with regard to the provisions of the Naval Service Act, because under that act the governor in council is authorized or given power to place the naval services of the dominion at the disposal of his majesty for service abroad with the royal navy. It must also be noted in this connection that the Army Act of Great Britain is made applicable to Canada. Again I am going to read this section, and I am
[Stage Direction]
25S4
Militia Act Amendment
[Stage Direction]
going to keep on reading it until I secure some attention for this extraordinary section. Section 69 reads:
The Armv 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.
I have tried !o get a copy of the Army Act as amended to date. I have applied to all the usual sources, the king's printer and the library of parliament, to get a copy of this act which is incorporated in the statutes of Canada, and I cannot get a copy. The only Army Act I can learn about is that of 1881. That act has been amended annually by the Army (Annual) Act of Great Britain. It is most extraordinary that an act under which sentence of death may be passed upon a Canadian is not made available to members of the Canadian House of Commons. I notice in the Canada. Gazette of January 14, 1939, that the Minister of National Defence promulgates the king's regulations and orders of the Canadian militia under P.C. 2974, dated November 29, 1939, and in those sections relating to discipline or the enforcement of discipline in the Canadian militia they quote sections 45, 46, 49, 50, 138 and 181 of the Army Act of the United Kingdom. It is most extraordinary that the exact terms and provisions of the Army Act thus made applicable to the Canadian forces are not openly stated. Whatever action may be contemplated under the provisions of that act should be clearly made known at this time. I submit that the existence of a section of that kind is quite incompatible with our constitutional status as declared at the imperial conference of 1926 and by the statute of Westminster. I am not arguing for the moment whether it is right or wrong for the crown to recruit in this dominion for the British forces; but whatever action is taken in that regard should receive the sanction of parliament and should be determined solely by his majesty's ministers in the dominion.
Section 8 of the act contains the feature of compulsory military service. Again I am going to read it. It says:
All the 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 levde en masse.

My amendment proposes that authority for general mobilization in the event of a levee en masse shall be exercised by the governor in council, and only after parliament has passed an act authorizing such action.
Referring to the existing sections of the act, I point out that for the purpose of military service the entire male population of Canada, is divided into four classes, the first class being those between the ages of eighteen and thirty who are unmarried or widowers without children. The act goes on to say that the militia of Canada shall be divided into active and reserve; that the active militia shall consist of (a) corps raised by voluntary enlistment and (b) corps raised by ballot. I refer to section 14.
Section 23 provides that the governor in council shall have power to make regulations necessary for the enrolment of persons liable to military service. Section 24 states:
When men are required to organize or complete a corps at any time, either for training or for an emergency, and enough men do not volunteer to complete the quota required, the men liable to serve shall be drafted by ballot.
Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Does the hon. member's bill amend that section?


Mr. MacNEIL:: No, I do not deal with that; I deal with the governing section, the section relating to general mobilization.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is the hon. gentleman's bill exactly the same as his bill of last year, No. 84?


Charles Grant MacNeil: Exactly the same.
In section 25 the governor in council is given power to make regulations, among other things to determine "every other matter and thing not inconsistent with this act, and necessary to be done in the enrolling, balloting, warning and bringing into service of such number of men as are required at any time."
Then it goes on to say that any man balloted and notified for service may be exempt under certain conditions.


William Ross Macdonald: May I ask the hon. member if he has any objection
to these sections?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am certainly pointing out that they are obsolete; that they were designed and drafted in 1868 and 1883, and again in 1904. In my amendment I propose to deal with the matter in the simplest possible way, by amending section 8 dealing with compulsory general mobilization. I point out also that in the act upon which this act was based, which perpetuates the principle of the act of

Militia Act Amendment
1868 in some degree, the military officers were actually given authority to conduct a door-to-door canvass in order to determine who should be eligible for military service, and could drag men out for such service. I think something should be done by the government to effect a clear understanding with regard to this section. I can place no other interpretation upon the act than that we have now in force in Canada compulsory military service. It has been the law of the land for seventy-one years. In 1S68 this principle was introduced by Sir George Cartier, who at that time rejected an amendment proposing that the militia of Canada should be recruited by voluntary enlistment. That was again made clear in' 1917 when the Prime Minister of the day was introducing the Military Service Act. He then said that this clearly was the law of the land and had been the law prior to that time; and because it was the law of the land the authority of that law was invoked in order to bring in the Military Service Act, which simply temporarily substituted the selective draft for the draft iby ballot. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is correct when he says the Military Service Act of 1917 lapsed at the conclusion of the war, these provisions of the Militia Act are in force to-day, and to-day men may be drafted by ballot.
The other day the Prime Minister was definite in his assurance that conscription would not be enforced. I fail to comprehend his, attitude in view of the nature of the legislation now in force. It seems to me repugnant to Canadian tradition that we should be placed in a position inferior to that of our cousins in Great Britain, who at this time are quite frankly and openly discussing the features of compulsory military service. We have in Canada to-day compulsory military service of an even more obnoxious character than that which is objected to by many who openly oppose conscription in this country. I can readily prove that it is more obnoxious, because it is a draft by ballot. For purposes of enrolment and drafting by ballot Canada is divided into definite military districts, and as I interpret the act the district officers commanding may conduct a sort of glorified sweepstake in order to provide drawings for men who may be required to serve, men whose lives may be at stake.


William Ross Macdonald: There is always a prize in a sweepstake.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I suppose it is open to argument whether this is a prize; but it seems to me absurd in the extreme that in this
day and generation we should be relying on compulsory draft by ballot in order to bring the strength of our military establishment up to the point that may be determined by the governor in council.


Mr. MacNICOL:: May I ask the hon. member whether the United States, on entering the great war, did not follow the method of drafting ftien for their army by lot or ballot.


Charles Grant MacNeil: As I understand it, in the United States they had a system similar to that outlined in our Military Service Act of 1917, which established the principle of selective draft. I understand that the principle of selective draft was adopted in the United States in 1917.


William Ross Macdonald: Is the
hon. member suggesting any alternative or better way than doing it by ballot?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am suggesting in my
amendment the general principle that there should be no compulsory mobilization until parliament has sanctioned that action by law, in the hope that parliament by law may enact such provisions as will more adequately express the will of the Canadian people.
Mr. MACDONALD	(Brantford):	The
hon. member is not complaining about the ballot system?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am pointing to the fact
that the draft by ballot is inefficient and an obsolete form of enlisting men for the active militia.


William Ross Macdonald: But
the hon. member is not suggesting any different form?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am suggesting that parliament should deal with the matter. I am saying that under the provisions of this act not the governor in council but the governor general is mentioned as the authority who by proclamation may summon to the colours those liable for military service. The features of this act are similar to the press-gang features of a bygone day because, as I say, it perpetuates the features of the act of 1868 which authorized military officers to search houses or canvass from door to door to determine who should be liable for military service. I cannot conceive of any government to-day attempting to adopt press-gang methods of recruiting for the Canadian forces, and for that reason I suggest it is obnoxious to have
Militia Act Amendment

on our statute books at this time legislation suggesting a press-gang tactic. These matters should be remedied by act of parliament; the whole question should be brought under the control of parliament and not left directly * under the control of the crown.
I shall not deal further with this matter, but I wish to suggest certain amendments to see*-tion 64 of the act, under which it is provided 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. I propose that this section should be amended to read as follows:
The governor in council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency and on active service beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, after parliament has passed an act authorizing such action.
A further section relating to this point was drafted in 1904, and restricts the power of the executive with regard to the dispatch of troops beyond the frontiers of Canada. That section provides that if the forces are placed on active service, parliament shall be summoned within fifteen days. I suggest that this spction be also amended to read:
66. Whenever the governor in council places the militia, or any part thereof, on active service in Canada, and before he places the militia, or any part thereof, on active service beyond Canada, if parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of parliament within fifteen days-
That is, there should be prior sanction by parliament- of any act or commitment with regard to the dispatch of troops beyond the frontiers of Canada.


William Ross Macdonald: May I ask what the hon. member proposes to do about the defence of Canada during those fifteen days?


Charles Grant MacNeil: I wish to make it quite clear that in my amendments I do not propose anything that interferes with or hampers the executive, that is, the cabinet, in placing the country instantly and without delay in a state of defence. I do not suggest any interference with that at all; I recognize that it may be necessary in a time of emergency. My amendments deal solely with the control of decisions leading to the dispatch of Canadian troops beyond the confines of Canada. I think the intention in this regard was

made quite clear by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick in 1904, when he was collaborating with Sir Frederick Borden, the then Minister of Militia, in drafting this act. In reply to the remarks of the then hon. member for King's he said:
The hon. member for King's did not want the governor in council to have the power to send troops beyond Canada even for the defence of Canada. That was his position. What is ours? It is that we are prepared to give the governor in council a blank power of attorney extending over fifteen days. The governor in council may send the militia of Canada out of Canada at any time, when deemed necessary for the defence of Canada. If, in the opinion of the governor in council, it should be necessary, because of a war going on in India, to send our militia out there for the defence of Canada, they may, in the exercise of their discretion, do it, because they are the sole judges of what is necessary to be done in defence of Canada. But we do not think it advisable that that power should be absolutely and unrestrictedly in the hands of the governor in council.
We think it advisable that the period during which they may exercise that power should be restricted and that parliament should be called together and be consulted at the earliest opportunity. Parliament must be summoned in fifteen days and then the whole matter will be in the hands of the people's representatives.
That clearly expresses the intention of this section, when it was drafted in 1904.
There are other sections of the act relating to the command of the militia. One states that in the event of a vacancy in the position of general officer commanding, or in the event of the absence of that officer from Canada, the governor may detail an officer of the headquarters staff to be charged with military command of the militia. My amendment proposes that that decision shall be subject to the approval of the governor in council. Then, section 67 of the act as it now stands reads:
In time of war, when the militia is called out for active service to serve conjointly with his majesty's regular forces, his majesty may place in command thereof a senior general of his regular army.
I consider that section a relic of colonial days. It should be repealed, and the repeal is suggested in my amending bill. I consider that we can in Canada provide senior officers competent to command Canadian troops on active service. I suggest that by reason of our experience in the great war it may be inadvisable to state that his majesty, acting on the advice of his ministers in the United Kingdom, should have power, when our troops are serving in cooperation with the regular forces on active service, to place in command of Canadian forces a senior general from his majesty's regular army. I suggest

Militia Act Amendment
that the government of Canada should be entirely free to select for purposes of senior command that individual considered most competent.
I do not intend longer to take up the time of the house. I return to my original suggestion, that parliament should actually decide with regard to the dispatch of troops beyond Canada. My amendments provide that when a state of emergency is declared, parliament shall be summoned within fifteen days, and shall then decide whether or not troops shall be sent abroad. Meantime all reasonable precautions should be taken by the executive, as is provided under the act, for the defence of Canada, and for suitable action by the militia within the frontiers of Canada.
It has been suggested that parliament has the control of the situation because it votes the supply. May I point out that under this act the executive may take certain steps similar to those which were taken in August, 1914, and which would commit Canada irrevocably to participation in an external war.
Last night I mentioned these steps in chronological order. Step by step, under the authority of the existing legislation-the Army Act, the Naval Service Act and the Militia Act of Canada-we were committed, without any sanction by parliament, to participation in an external war. Parliament assembled on August 18. 1914. It had no alternative but to give blanket ratification, by the War Measures Act, to those steps which had previously been taken. Tf hon. members peruse the provisions of the War Measures Act, they will see it was drafted very carefully to give blanket ratification to all commitments entered into prior to the assembling of parliament.
1 suggest to the house that those steps would make it impossible for parliament either with safety or with honour to attempt any decision with regard to those vital issues. If the executive had accepted a state of belligerency; if it had engaged in acts of war-as it did when the command was issued to H.M.C.S Rainbow on August 5 and 6. 1914, parliament could not withdraw from that position with safety. It would not have an opportunity to decide as to participation in an external war.
The essential purpose of my amendment is that with regard to the command and control of our armed forces, with regard to the imposition of compulsory military service, now in the law of the land, and with regard to an overseas expeditionary force, parliament should have complete control. That is my conception of Canadian democracy.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview); Mr. Speaker, the bill which the hon. member has introduced constitutes an amendment to the Militia Act. As a supporter of the militia for many years may I say that I do not like this kind of legislation. I was sorry I was not here last year when a similar bill was introduced. The present law regarding the militia of Canada served before confederation. It served well at the time of the Fenian raid, the northwest rebellion, the South African war and the great war. We hope now that we shall have no more war. The Militia Act has come down from the old days of 1855 of the province of Canada, and it has been tested by performance.
The militia in Canada has been a volunteer organization. In the days of the northwest rebellion Canada was saved from serious dislocation by a large number of units from Toronto and the maritimes and some from Quebec and Winnipeg. They saved the west from dislocation.
I should like to call the attention of the house to the law of Canada as it appears to-day in section 63 of chapter 132 of the revised statutes. That section states;
63.	The militia or any part thereof, or any officer or man thereof, may be called out for any military purpose other than drill or training, at such times and in such manner as is prescribed.
And section 64 states:
64.	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.
Then we have to add section 66, which states:
66. Whenever the governor in council places the militia, or any part thereof, on active service, if parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of parliament within fifteen days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.
That is the law of Canada to-day. I do not like to oppose a returned soldier's bill any more than I liked last Friday night to oppose the bill of a very fine returned soldier. But I would say to the hon. member who has introduced this bill that, as I see it, I do not think it is in the interests of the militia of Canada. I should like to have the attention particularly of the mover of the bill, the leader of his party, and my colleague the
Militia Act Amendment

hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol)- because I know the hon. member for Davenport is a great friend of the militia. I should also like to have the attention of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Heon), because he is announced in the press as the leader of our party so far as defence matters are concerned, but he is not my leader and I doubt if he is the leader of the people in his constituency or province. He certainly does not lead me anyway in regard to these matters. I have had some conversation with militia men in Toronto, and they do not approve the principle of this bill.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Militia Act so as to make it conform with the status of Canada. As I said in the debate in this house on Monday, June 21, 1926, on Canada's foreign relations, the status of Canada was good enough for Sir John A. Macdonald. He was satisfied with the status of this country. He did not ask the British government to improve the status of Canada. In the great war five hundred thousand soldiers went to the front and fought in France for civilization. They were satisfied with Canada's status. Fifty thousand of those young men lie buried on the battlefield. They were content to fight even unto death for Canada's status. They did not ask for any increase in status. And I do not think that we civilians, who stayed at home, should be dissatisfied with the status of the dominion.
The war did not change Canada's status, and I am opposed to any change at the present time. We are proud of Canada as a country which played an important part in the greatest war the world has known. What Canada did in the past thirty-five years in the militia she did voluntarily and would do over again, namely, she would go to the aid of the mother country in her hour of peril.
In my opinion this legislation will -not be in the interests of the militia of this country. Hon. members know there is no demand for this legislation. I know of no militia organization which is asking for it. Reference has been made to the imperial conference of 1926 and the statute of Westminster-of 1938. I fail to see that that particular statute was in the interests of this country. New Zealand and Australia have expressly contracted -themselves out of the most important provisions of the statute of Westminster. I have before me a text-book by K. C. Wheare entitled The Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status in which reference is made to the fact that Mr. Howard Ferguson had stated that

the status of Canada could not be changed without the consent of the provinces. Reference is made at page 183 to a memorandum which had been prepared by Mr. Ferguson. I quote:
In particular the two clauses quoted above were criticized as vague and inconclusive, and it was asserted "that no restatement of the procedure for amending the constitution of Canada can be accepted by the province of Ontario that does not fully and frankly acknowledge the right of all the provinces to be consulted and to become parties to the decision arrived at."
In my opinion, this particular bill and the statute of Westminster are not in the interests of the people of Canada. The people should be asked to vote on it. They have not sanctioned this. The explanatory note states, among other things:
Its object is further to provide that Canada shall not become involved in any war beyond Canada without the sanction of parliament.
That is in effect and practice the law at the present time. Parliament was consulted in 1914. Sir Robert Borden acted promptly and called parliament to sanction his acts. Not only did parliament back him up, but the country backed him up. There was no delay. The country came with all its resources to the aid of the motherland. In my opinion, this bill is not in the interests of the militia. In any event, parliament would be called. Both the mover of this bill (Mr. MacNeil) and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party (Mr. Woodsworth) voted for the third reading of a similar bill the other day. This was what I call a political treaty, the Canada-United States trade agreement, and parliament was not consulted in connection with it. It is true that parliament discussed the bill, but we were conducting only a postmortem. We could not change one line in that bill. Why did the hon. gentleman who introduces this bill vote for that one?
I do not believe that such a bill will help the militia in raising recruits. Before the great war the late Lord Roberts went up and down Great Britain trying to induce men to join the territorials, an organization something like our own militia. He was laughed at; the people said there was no crisis, but war came in 1914, the very day he predicted it. We know there is a crisis at the present time. Canada is a rich land. Canada is coveted by the dictators because of her great natural resources and large supplies of raw materials. We would not have time to call parliament, so there is not much use in talking about that, I doubt if members of parliament would have

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
time to receive their notices before the dictators would be in the country. They would be here in Ottawa and in all our eastern cities.
So far as this bill is concerned, I do not believe it is in the interests of the militia of this country. After all is said and done, we are back to where we were in 1812. We have no army, we have no navy, we have no air force. I wonder what kind of army the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation want? What is their policy? I believe they want the kind of army that would not be able to fire off a pinwheel, a firecracker or a sky-rocket. Is that the kind of army these hon. gentlemen want? They have been the leading pacifists in this country. They have gone up and down the land shouting pacifism and isolation from the housetops. We all know what happened at Munich. The League of Nations was buried forever when Mr. Chamberlain and the French premier signed the pact at Munich, and they started Europe on a new plan and policy.
The history of the Militia Act goes back to 1855. I reviewed some of the sections in the speech I made on March 24, 1938. This act dates back to about the time of the Crimean war. Even at that time there were rumours of war with our kinsmen in the United States. From 1815 on Great Britain had had forty years of peace. There had been no civil war, there had been no trouble of any kind from 1815 up to the time of the Crimean war. In 1855 they were beginning to talk confederation down in .the maritime provinces, and the then province of Canada passed a statute known as chapter 77 of the statutes for 1855. This statute is the basis of our present Militia Act. Some changes were made before confederation, but the act dates from then up to the suggested amendment by the hon. member. Under that act of 1855 the militia was classified as active or sedentary. The active milita was a voluntary organization, but section 4 provided that the sedentary militia should consist of all the male inhabitants of the province of the age of eighteen years and upward, and under sixty, not exempted or disqualified by law. Section 52 provided:
The commander in chief (the governor) shall have full power to call out the militia, or any part thereof, whenever it shall in his opinion be advisable so to do by reason of war, invasion or insurrection or imminent danger of any of them.



PRIVILEGE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before Your Honour leaves the chair, there is a question of privilege which I should like to raise at the moment. I delayed doing so earlier because I did not wish to interject what I have to say into the debate on foreign affairs. The house will recall that on Thursday last I spoke in reference to external affairs. What I said at that time I read from a carefully prepared statement which I had in my hand and which I understand was available to the press, so there can be no doubt as to the accessibility of the exact words- used. In the Toronto Globe and Mail of March 31, reporting on what I said, appears the following report headed as follows:
Premier King withholds pledge of war aid; stands for "Canada first" policy house told.
"Cannot accept view of some that, regardless of circumstances, this country must say here and now Canada to support any action that may be decided upon at Westminster."
Bars conscription for overseas war.
And then in brackets:
(Abstract of Mr. King's speech on page 31.)
(By Harold Dingman.)
(Staff writer, the Globe and Mail.)
Then follows the dispatch:
Ottawa, March 30.-In the face of reports from Europe of a rapid development of a new and grave situation and intense activity in London, Prime Minister Mackenzie King told the House of Commons to-dav:
"I cannot accept the view of some that regardless of circumstances this country must say here and now that Canada is prepared to support any action that may be decided upon by the government at Westminster."
The report then goes on to speak of something else. What I said appears in Hansard at page 2418, and is as follows:
I cannot accept the view which is being urged in some quarters to-day, that regardless of what government or party may be in office, regardless of what its policy may be, regardless of what the issue itself may come to be, this country-should say here and now that Canada is prepared to support whatever may be proposed by the government at Westminster.
It will be noticed that the correspondent of the Globe, Mr. Dingman, in sending the report to his paper, has left out certain veiy relevant parts of what I have said, has substituted other words for certain words that

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
I used, and has given the whole as a complete paragraph without quoting the paragraph as I gave it to this house at the time. After:
I cannot accept the view-
He leaves out the words:
-which is being urged in some quarters to-day-
Substituting the words "of some."
-that regardless of-[DOT]
Then he leaves out the following words:
-what government or party may be in office, regardless of what its policy may be, regardless of what the issue itself may come to be, this country should say here and now-
He leaves all of that out; my statement continues:
-that Canada is prepared to support whatever may be proposed by the government at Westminster.
He changes the word "whatever" to read "any action that," and he substitutes, for "proposed by the government at Westminster," "decided upon by the government at Westminster," giving an entirely different meaning and significance to what was said, and particularly in the face of a situation such as was existing in England at the time that I made my speech in this house, and of which I was fully cognizant at the time that I spoke, in fact so cognizant that I was careful not to trust to words spoken extemporaneously but carefully wrote out what I had to say.
Standing order No. 16 of the rules of this house, citation 154, deals with the matter of privilege. I quote the following from May, twelfth edition, page 74:
The publication of the debates of either house has been repeatedly declared to be a breach of privilege, and especially false and perverted reports of them.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that this report which I have referred to is a false and perverted report, a wilfully false and perverted report having regard to all the circumstances, and particularly to the fact that the perverted statement is preceded by the words that it was given in the face of reports of the rapid development of a new and grave situation in London.
I leave it to the house as to what it thinks should be done with a correspondent who deals in that fashion with statements of hon. members, particularly the Prime Minister of the country in announcing a statement of policy which would be cabled immediately to all parts of the world. For my own part I

think he should be denied the privileges which are accorded to members of the press in the press gallery. I *would not have referred to it, but so often there have been these misleading statements from the same correspondent that I have felt this time, seeing that a number of members have spoken to me about it and others have written to me about it, that I owed it to hon. members generally in the house, and particularly to the government and its policies, to see that the matter was placed in its true light before this house and before the country.

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


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
34- Departmental administration, $191,475.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): I wish to congratulate the government upon the appointment of Colonel Vanier to Paris and of Mr. Jean D&y to Brussels. They have some experience in the diplomatic service and will represent Canada abroad very well. Of course in doing so they will become involved in a great deal of responsibility, but the official representative of a country like ours should be familiar with the problems of the nation he represents and should be equal to the situations with which he will have to deal. Canada is under a certain handicap because it is not similarly represented in the capitals of all the main countries of the world, but at least it is a very good thing to have such representatives in countries with which our diplomatic and commercial relations are so close. What I regret is that some of the official representatives of Canada attach much more importance to official receptions than to their own business. That should not be so. Of course anyone who is a gentleman can represent Canada well at an official function where he has nothing to say, but when it comes to the point of doing something for the welfare of this country it is important to- have a well-trained man. I therefore congratulate the government upon the appointment of these two gentlemen, one to Paris and the other to Brussels.
A thing that strikes me is that here at Ottawa the members of the personnel of all legations speak at least one if not both of the official languages of this country, but I wonder how many Canadian-born citizens in the Canadian legation at Tokyo speak the official language of Japan. That constitutes a handicap

Supply-External Affairs
to the Canadian legation. Members of the personnel who are Canadian born have to rely upon Japanese clerks or translators to tell them what appears in the press and to enable them to get in touch with those in Japan who do not speak either English or French. I suggest that if an appointment is contemplated to the post of Canadian minister at Tokyo, at least a Canadian gentleman should be appointed who has a sufficient knowledge of the official language of Japan to read and speak it fluently.
That having been said, may I refer for a moment to some items which are included in the estimates of the department, and so simplify what is going to be said.
One of the following items concerns the League of Nations. In her memoirs, Mrs. Wilson says that her husband, President Woodrow Wilson, stated that apparently the treaty of Versailles was a good treaty because everybody seemed dissatisfied with it; and that treaty, as everybody knows, was the origin of the League of Nations. Some years later Sir Robert Borden stated, on November 9, 1936, "World perils to-day result of defection from league"; and on May 18, 1937, in a speech delivered to the Empire Rally of Youth at the Royal Albert Hall in London, Lord Baldwin said:
The twenty post-war years have shown that war does not settle the account. There is a balance brought forward. When emancipation is achieved a new slavery may begin. The moment of victory may be the beginning of defeat. The days which saw the framing of the League of Nations saw the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Should both be entered on the credit side?
Twenty years ago we should all have said, "Yes"; to-day the reply would be doubtful, for both have belied the hopes of mankind and given place to disillusion. Freedom for common men, which was to have been the fruit of victory, is once more in jeopardy in our own land because it has been taken away from the common men of other lands.
Lord Baldwin's successor as Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, on February 22 of last year demanded that Geneva throw off the sham of the league, which he called a delusion.
This is the view held by two prime ministers of Great Britain, one of whom still holds office. On December 6 last there was an associated press dispatch as follows:
League may be forced to leave Switzerland. Fresh outburst of bitterness between France and Italy may cause offices of League of Nations to he established in some other country.
Another Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett, blamed the United States for the failure of the league. Here we have the views
of four Conservative prime ministers, two of Great Britain and two of Canada, who express themselves definitely about the failure of the League of Nations. What was very well stated in two words was given to the special representative of the largest French newspaper in America, La Presse, at the end of April, 1937. It was published by that paper on the front page on May 3 of that year. It consisted of two words, " European Machiavell-ism." It was given in these terms, that " Canada refused to be ensnared in the European Machiavellism." That interview was given by my good friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), and it was widely circulated in this country. We have to be very careful about that European Machiavellism.
With regard to British policies, a distinction should be made between the British people and their government. At the present time it is pretty hard for a good Liberal to follow all the policies of England, because the Liberal party is mostly outside Westminster. Mr. Asquith was the last great leader of the Liberal party in England. Mr. Lloyd George was in his cabinet before the National government, but when he became head of the National government it meant the end of Liberalism. As a Liberal I admit that Mr. Chamberlain is full of good intentions, but I cannot always agree with his policies, which in some respects are entirely different from those I should like to support.
It is a dangerous policy to rely on the information given by the foreign office. Sometimes it may be right, sometimes it may be all wrong. An interesting publication, which some hon. members may know, is published by Mr. Claud Cockburn, a former editor of the editorial staff of the London Times. It is entitled The Week. In the issue of March 22 there appeared these words:
Early in the week before the invasion, the French government informed the British government of the news in its possession showing imminence of attack. The British government immediately inquired from Sir Nevile Henderson, ambassador Berlin, whether this was the fact or not. Sir Nevile Henderson replied that the news was entirely false. (It has to be recalled in this connection that Sir Nevile- when he was recalled from South America to go to Berlin-very frankly and honestly admitted his strong pro-Nazi sympathies, and was iater active in the plan for the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia). Although the foreign office had every reason to suppose that the news was true, the report of the ambassador was used as a reason by the Chamberlain-Simon-Hoare group to delay action.
British policies were based at times on false information, and when they received the right information they did not believe it-most
Supply-External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
extraordinary. But even there, some refreshing news appears occasionally in the press. There is, for instance, one statement by Sir Maurice Hankey, which appeared on January 7 last: "Do not underrate the dominions," said Sir Maurice Hankey. In that he was right.
Two years ago. in the summer of 1937, Canada's ambassador, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) went to Germany where he visited Herr Hitler. That visit had, of course, a very good effect for two years. During that time nothing extraordinary was done by Herr Hitler and he tried to get all the trade he could. On October 22, 1937, the Prime Minister made a lofty speech on the principles underlying peace; on July 30, 1938, he made another pronouncement on the struggle for enduring peace; and on August 18. 1938, he spoke quite eloquently on the bridge builders, when President Roosevelt opened the bridge between Ivy Lea in the province of Ontario and Collins Landing in the state of New York. It would be a good thing for Mr. Chamberlain to read speeches like those which have been delivered by the Prime Minister and to learn them by heart. He could not quote them too often.
On Monday the press carried a dispatch to the effect that British papers were suspicious of Hitler's speech. The statement appeared:
See trap in comparative mildness of Nazi fuehrer.
It must be remembered that on Wednesday last an important pronouncement was made by M. Daladier, Premier of France, and on Thursday the Prime Minister of Canada spoke on the international situation. Perhaps those speeches are reasons why Herr Hitler was much milder in his speech on Sunday last at Wilhelmshaven than he was in other pronouncements.
Now there is the question of conscription which is very much discussed at the present time. On December 7 Sir John Anderson proposed a registration plan, wanted an extension of it and gave a hint to the British commons. On December 21 the commons at Westminster voted for a voluntary register in the United Kingdom. The division in favour was 270 to 9. with over half the members abstaining, but afterwards Mr. Chamberlain declared there would be no conscription in England.
On January 11. 1917, the hon. member for Temiscouata, who was then a young barrister, *wrote an article on the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and I will give an extract from that quotation in French.
Mr. Borden's flunkies who to-day loudly preach unlimited enlistment, but do not practise it, offered Mr. Lapointe an election by aecla-
mation if he would agree to vote for the repeal of the Naval Service Act. A political climber would have immediately accepted such an enticing offer; he flatly refused it and, continuing the battle, won a signal victory. The Conservative leaders themselves admitted that he had shown on that day that he had the courage of his convictions and was not merely a politician but a man endowed with the attributes of a _ statesman. The people, who decided in Lapointe's favour, admit the need of a navy to protect us against enemy cruisers and submarines.
That was published in the best weekly in Canada, Le Saint Laurent of Riviere du Loup.
The Minister of Justice stated the other day that so long as he was in the cabinet there would be no conscription. I believe in his word as I believe in the word of the Prime Minister, although I do not always agree with them in every detail; that, of course, is a privilege of a member of the Liberal party, in which freedom exists. As a Canadian I trust them more than any other leader of the house.
With regard to Czechoslovakia one cannot ignore the fact that there was commercial penetration by Germany in the Balkan states for many years before the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Herr Hitler's troops. It is interesting to go back a little. On November 2, 1938 Mr. Chamberlain admitted that Herr Hitler was boss on the Danube, according to the head-line of a front page item in the Montreal Gazette. In 1936 and 1937 Czechoslovakia's imports from Germany were three and a half times larger than from Great Britain, and exports from Czechoslovakia to Germany were four times greater than those to Great Britain. That penetration is evident if we remember that the large munition plants which existed in Czechoslovakia were not destroyed before the arrival of the German troops to take possession of the country. It is something that surprises. If it were not that, it would show the power of the international armament trust; they might have protected their plant there if there were some connection between the owners of the munition plant in Czechoslovakia and those who own the Krupp plant in Germany. But I leave that to the military experts.
On February 10 last Sir Samuel Hoare said that Britain's duty was to delete causes of war, and that there was no reason why every trade question should not be settled by negotiation. On March 11 the same gentleman, who is Home Secretary in England, urged a five year peace plan and suggested that the three dictators and the premiers of Britain and France draft a plan to change the history of the world, saying that a period without war

Supply-External Affairs
or rumours of war holds out a glowing prospect of a golden age with little or no poverty. This confirms what was published by The Week about the ignorance of Sir Neville Henderson of what was going on in Germany at the time he was ambassador. Of course there was a decline of trade in Great Britain as well as in the United States, for a very good reason, and it was explained also by two prominent gentlemen, one from the British isles and the other from a neighbouring country. In the Citizen of December 14, 1938 there was a Canadian Press dispatch headed:
Charge British marine was allowed to decay.
"Sheer negligence" on part of government is alleged by Lord Lloyd, president of Navy League, who fears for safety of war-time food supplies.
I shall not take time to read it, but I draw the attention of the committee to this statement with regard to the United States. I have an article from the New York Times of Sunday, February 5, 1939, headed:
U.S. sea training turned backward.
Admiral Land asserts nation has been "most derelict" of maritime powers.
Present program lauded.
State merchant marine school seen as source of well trained officers.
It goes on to say:
The United States, of all the world's maritime nations, has been "the most derelict" in training personnel for the merchant marine, but it is now embarked on a directed program seeking to remedy the deficiency, Rear Admiral Emory S. Land, chairman of the United States maritime commission, said last night.
The basis of many wars is just trade difficulties. At the present time it is to our interest not to overlook the importance of our trade with all countries of the world, including the totalitarian states. Of course I remember that last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) went himself to Germany to see what possibility there was of improving trade between the two countries, and of course trade with that country is better now than it was before. Nations are like individuals, they are happier and in better mood when they are prosperous. Trade is the key to prosperity. In one of our contemporaries this morning I read this Canadian Press dispatch:
Foresees flow of money from Europe to Canada.
Toronto, April 3-Money from Europe will come to Canada in "large quantities" as a result of the present unsettlement, Gilbert Jackson, former economic adviser to the governor of the Bank of England, told the Canadian club here to-day.
"There is no country more secure, perhaps none as secure as Canada," said Mr. Jackson. "What a position this dominion has:	Four
thousand miles away from the dictators, possessing no navy but guarded by the two greatest navies in the world.
That money from Europe will come here in large quantities, I myself have little doubt."
There had been a flight of funds from London, but most of the money was foreign and Britain was the stronger through losing it.
"It is not good selling England the jitters," said Mr. Jackson. "You couldn't approach a worse market. If you wish to sell something, sell Canada."
A dear old gentleman on the other side of the house often repeated that he knew the province of Quebec very well. One day I asked him whom he knew in my constituency, and he regarded the question as impertinent. Not long ago, however, we heard from an hon. gentleman from Montreal who declared that he was speaking on behalf of the province of Quebec, because he represented one constituency in that province. That is rather presumptuous. One must live with the people, go among them and speak with them in order to repeat what they think. It is a great mistake to believe that the French-Canadians have any grouch against their English-speaking fellow citizens. That is proved by the fact that very often in constituencies in which there is a majority of French-Canadians they elect a member of English, Irish or Scotch ancestry. That shows the broadness of mind of our people, because it has been done very often in the province of Quebec. There is no animosity against our fellow citizens of other religious or ethnical affiliations. French-Canadians pay very little attention to such matters, provided that they are treated fairly and with due consideration, and considered as members of the great Canadian family.
Soon we shall have nice weather, I hope, which will permit hon. members to visit my province. They may stop at any farmer's home and they will be very well received. They will be surprised at the number of good French-Canadians who speak the English language, some very well and a few fairly well. Everywhere they will enjoy warm hospitality, and they will learn who are the good habitants. I have the greatest respect for the country people, who enjoy a great advantage, of which those who live in urban centres are deprived. Country people live quietly: they do not get excited; they have time to think; they are very much, interested in reading the papers, and they read them thoroughly, not just the advertisements. They read all the news that is published, and they are clever enough to read between the lines. They are of Norman descent; sometimes they have little difficulties between themselves; but those difficulties do not last very long, and all that sort of thing is compensated for by their higher qualities.
2594	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs
They love the land on which they live, but they are not so parochial as to love only their own land. They love their land; they love their parish; they love their institutions; they love their province, and they love their country. Once a friend of mine from the Pacific coast asked me what the French-Canadians would do if there were an attack on Vancouver, and what they would do if conscription were applied. The answer came very quickly from a good French-Canadian habitant, who said, " If one part of our country is attacked we shall be ready to go there, so there will be no need of conscription."
That is the understanding of the farmer. He has made sacrifices to acquire his land or to retain the ancestral property. He is at home on his land and is friendly to all those who come to see him. He is willing to help them. There is nothing so nice as the spirit of cooperation that exists in the French-Canadian parishes, and when I visited some parts of Ontario and New Brunswick I was pleasantly surprised to find the same spirit prevailing among the country people of Scotch, Irish and English descent. They are the same; they have the same needs and the same understanding. You may translate into English what is published in the French newspapers and submit it to English-speaking farmers; you may translate into French what is published in the English press and submit it to French-speaking farmers, and you will have the same comments from both. They have the same way of understanding things, and any divergences of opinion are only as to details. They condemn two things, and the first is blind imperialism. They do not agree to that and for a very good reason. They are sentimental with their neighbours and friends, but when it comes to business they reason things out and are sagacious. In the first place, as I have said, they are against blind imperialism ; in the second place they are against extreme nationalism. They are just good Canadians; they love their country and want it to be prosperous. That is their understanding.
They have another quality which is almost a virtue. It is pride in Canada. They are proud of their country; they are happy to live in it, and for them Canada is the first country of the world. That sentiment is very good; the young children in our schools should be taught to love Canada more than any other country, and to be prepared to make sacrifices for Canada. The French-Canadians make sacrifices in the first place for those round them, for their families; then for those in their parish who are not so fortunate; and afterwards they are ready to

help those of the province who are suffering. But if someone should attack Canada they are ready to defend it, because they love this country. But they do not have the same love for the people of central Africa that they have for their fellow citizens of Canada. That is an entirely different matter. If a man like Sir Henry Page-Croft has a coffee plantation in Tanganyika, or some similar place, which he may lose, it makes no difference at all to them. They will not sacrifice anything for the welfare of Sir Henry Page-Croft or any other member of the federation, league or anything like that. They may be interested from a humanitarian point of view that people who live in central Africa or South America should not suffer, but they would otherwise be indifferent to what happens in central Africa, Fiji or other distant parts of the world. They love this country. They have nothing against England; they love their fellow citizens of English, Irish and Scotch ancestry, and they are ready to defend our soil against any aggressors. They are friendly with all.
They do not desire to break empire ties, as has been said, but they want Canada to be considered a self-governing dominion, as has been said many times. It would be much better for us to have an opportunity to decide what we are going to do in external affairs.
I am referring of course to commitments. That would be much better than to be tied to the policy of Great Britain or that of any other country. They decide for themselves; why should we not decide for ourselves as to any assistance we may give to them in due course?
In my humble view, if an emergency occurred, it would be so serious a matter that it would be a hardship to be tied to all the commitments made at Westminster. We should have an opportunity of weighing the pros and cons and of deciding what, if anything, is to be done. Under those circumstances the assistance given by Canada or any other dominion would be prized all the more by Great Britain.
That, sir, is my humble view. If we are indeed a self-governing nation within the empire, then let us act as such. Let us decide what is best for us. I believe it would be much better for Great Britain to follow the example of Canada than for Canada to follow the example of Great Britain. The old countries have much to learn from the new-and this statement is made in the best possible spirit. At times they are subject to prejudice. As I said earlier, an important distinction must be drawn between the British people and the British government. In all those matters I rely on the present government, particularly

Supply-External Affairs
on the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, both of whom are good Canadians, to see that in the first place no coercion is exercised against any Canadian citizen by way of conscription or otherwise; that in all external matters the interests of Canada should be the first and the only ones considered, and that the amount appearing in the estimates for the League of Nations should be transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce for the promotion of trade, in order to get away from European Machiavellism. And there should be something more-
The CHAIRMAN:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but he has spoken forty minutes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a word to say.


Mr. SPENCE:: Let him continue; he has said nothing yet, anyway.


Jean-François Pouliot: I say that facilities should be extended to Canadians of all provinces so that they may become better acquainted. [DOT]


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to say a word with respect to item 35, which, I believe, would include the representation at Paris, London and Brussels?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Robert James Manion: I wish to extend my congrat- [DOT] ulations to the government upon the appointment of the two men, Lieutenant Colonel George P. Vanier to Paris, and Jean Desy to Brussels. They are two men whom I have had the good fortune to know for many years, and for whom I have a very high opinion. I do not think the government, which I frequently criticize, could have done anything which would have appealed to me more fully than the appointment of those two men. Their appointment has the double effect of giving reward where reward is merited, and also of advancing men in the service for which they have been trained. Although Jean Desy, it is true, was counsellor, at the same time he was in a sense in the diplomatic service.
Without delaying the item, I wish to say that I have had contacts with Colonel George Vanier for well over twenty years. Those contacts have been both personal and official.
I have also had contacts with Jean Desy for five or six years-at least six years. For both of those men I have a high opinion, and I doubt very much if the government had searched throughout Canada it could have found two men who so well deserve the promotion they have received, or two men who would have given to the country and the government better service. I am sure they
have years ahead of them in the diplomatic service, a fact for which the country will be glad. They themselves will be well deserving of the encomiums I am heaping upon them because of the splendid service they will give to the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to thank the hon. leader of the opposition for what he has just said. It is deeply gratifying to the government to have the expressions of approval which have been given to the appointments. But it is doubly gratifying, I am sure, when we realize how well they are merited. As my hon. friend knows, the government has sought to make appointments from within the service, with the hope of encouraging the right type of men to go into the service, and of encouraging men within the service to do their best, encouraged by the promotion which may be before them. From all sides there appears to be general agreement as to the wisdom and excellence of the choice of Colonel Vanier and Mr. Desy.


Mr. GREEN:: Will the Prime Minister tell the committee the present position with regard to the Canadian legation at Tokyo? I understand we have had no minister there for some time. When may we expect the appointment of a Canadian minister to Japan?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is true that at the present time there is not a minister, but rather a charge d'affaires in the person of Mr. McGreer. who was first secretary of the legation. The government will be making an appointment a little later on, but we have thought that at the present time it was as wise to have the legation represented by Mr. McGreer as to make a new appointment.


Robert James Manion: May I ask the Prime Minister to turn to one of the items dealing with the League of Nations, because I may have to leave the chamber and I should like to say a few words respecting the league.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada's contributions to maintenance of external organizations.
!,l. To the expenses of the League of Nations for 1939, including secretariat, international labour organization and permanent court of international justice, $150,410.
Robert James Manion: Would the Prime Minister explain this item, if he does not mind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The contribution to the League of Nations secretariat proposed for the year 1939-40 is $150,410, whereas the amount for the year just past was $150,565, representing a decrease this year of $155. In
Supply-External Affairs


Robert James Manion: How much is that in
dollars?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The total
budget would be $5,500,000, and Canada's share, $253,000 odd.


Robert James Manion: Is the $150,000 in item
41 to cover the upkeep of the office that Canada maintains at Geneva?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, that is
the contribution by Canada toward the expenses of the league itself.


Robert James Manion: Under what item will we
find the expenses of keeping up our office at Geneva?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That would
come,under item 35, which deals with the expenses of all the representations abroad. I can give that to my hon. friend in just a moment. The total amount for Geneva is $32,500.


Robert James Manion: Is that the total cost of
the office at Geneva?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
total cost.


Robert James Manion: What is the staff at
Geneva?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Hume
Wrong is the permanent delegate of Canada to the League of Nations; Mr.. Rive is the second secretary, while the office of third secretary is vacant at the present time. Miss Greenwood, Miss Robson and Miss Rolph constitute the stenographic staff, and there is a janitor.


Robert James Manion: What other countries
have permanent offices at Geneva?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am informed there are about eighteen or twenty countries having permanent offices.


Robert James Manion: The figure given by the
Prime Minister is so small that it rather takes away any reason for criticism. I must confess frankly that when I was over there some years ago it struck me that it was rather an unnecessary extravagance for Canada to have an office at Geneva. As the
[Mr. Mackenzie King.)
Prime Minister says, there are seventeen or eighteen countries having offices at Geneva- I had thought the figure was round that- out of the sixty-five or more countries which are members of the league. I thought the cost of operating this office would be between $150,000 and $200,000, because there was quite a large staff when I was there. In making these remarks, I want it understood that I am not reflecting in any way upon the staff, or upon Doctor Riddell, who was a most able representative. But I do doubt the necessity of Canada having a permanent office at Geneva.
I 'am not criticizing the League of Nations which has done a certain amount of worthy work, particularly along cooperative lines. However, as far as its being a peace institution is concerned, unfortunately it has not been very successful. While I would be the last one to suggest that we should withdraw from the league, at the same time I do not think there is any great reason for our having a permanent office under the present circumstances. As long as there is a league. I believe it would be a bad example for Canada to set to withdraw. As the amount is so small, I do not wish to extend my remarks any further. Without in any way suggesting that the services of the occupants of that office should be dispensed with, I do suggest that perhaps they might be used to better advantage in some office here at home. The services of Mr. Hume Wrong and the others could perhaps be used here in Canada or in other diplomatic posts where they would be of more service. I do not know of any particular use for this office. I am not intending to be critical of the office in any way, nor am I intending to be critical of those in the office, but ever since I was in Geneva I have doubted the necessity of Canada maintaining an office among the seventeen or eighteen countries who do maintain similar offices at Geneva.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One reason why there is such a relatively small number of offices is the fact that many nations have embassies or legations in Switzerland and, therefore, have no need of maintaining offices at Geneva. When the league is meeting, representatives are sent from the legations or embassies. The services rendered by Canada's office at Geneva are greater than would appear from a glimpse at the work being done there when the league itself is meeting. There are many organizations that meet at Geneva for one purpose or another, and very full reports of their work are received from our office and distributed to the different departments of

Supply-External Affairs
government. There is also a distinct advantage in having an efficient officer like Mr. Wrong at Geneva because of the impressions he is able to gain from representatives of other countries of European affairs generally. Having them in mind, I would say that the dispatches which come from Mr. Wrong with regard to the European situation are exceedingly helpful, and I do not believe the information could be obtained in a more effective way than by his being in touch at Geneva with representatives of other countries.
I shall not take up the time of the committee to mention the other aspects of the league's work at Geneva, most of the details of which will be found in the reports of the meetings of the assembly as well as the annual reports of the Department of External Affairs in relation to Geneva. However, I would mention in particular the work of the international labour office. As my hon. friend knows, delegates go from Canada each year to attend meetings at Geneva. Having an officer at Geneva who can bring Canada into touch with the international labour office or other organizations meeting at Geneva is a distinct help.


Robert James Manion: I do not want my remarks to be interpreted as criticism of Mr. Hume Wrong, because I have great admiration for v that gentleman. I know him fairly well, but without labouring the point or pressing it any further, I think Canada could get along just as well as Australia, which, I understand, has no permanent office at Geneva. I am simply .bringing this forward for consideration. I do not want to be penurious in connection with an office which is not costing very much. When I first thought of speaking about this, I was under the impression that the cost was a great deal more.


Mr. HAYHURST:: Most of the information I wanted has been given by the Prime Minister, but I should like to know the countries in Central and South America which have permanent offices at Geneva.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid I cannot give that information offhand, but I shall secure it and let my hon. friend have it at another time.


Mr. HEAPS:: Has the Prime Minister a list of the countries which are now members of the league?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These are the countries which as members are assessed for contributions for 1939: Afghanistan, Union of South Africa, Albania, Argentina, Australia,
Belgium, Bolivia, United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China. Colombia. Cuba, Denmark, Dominican republic, Egypt, Ecuador, Spain. Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Greece, Haiti, Hungary, India, Iraq, Iran, Ireland. Italy, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Norway, New Zealand, Panama, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Roumania. Salvador, Siam. Sweden, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, UB.S.R., Uruguay, Venezuela and Yugoslavia. It is apparent from the reading of it that this list was made some time ago. The European situation is changing rapidly, and one or two states that are mentioned there have, I think, slipped out since.


Angus MacInnis: Were the Canadian employees in the international labour office included in the number which the Prime Minister gave a moment ago to the leader of the opposition?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, they were not. The international labour office is separate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
1/0. Amount required to meet loss on exchange, $115,000.
William Hayhurst: For what sum of money is this amount required to meet loss on exchange?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend well knows, currencies fluctuate; some have been devalued. I can give my hon friend the figures. The accounts are made payable in gold dollars, and as our dollar has been devalued the difference has to be made up. Payments made from April 1, 1938, to February 28, 1939, were:
League of Nations contribution,
1938	
$103,131	73Wheat advisory committee.. ..	883	71
International commission for
air navigation	 843	68
Canada's share of cost of secretariat of intergovernmental committee meeting at
Evian, July 8, 1938	 224	03
Expenses at Geneva of Mrs.
Nellie McClung, Miss C.
Whitton, and Colonel Sharman	
208	50Geneva salaries and allowances	
2,508	44Total	$107,800 09


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to call an item, if I might, in the Department of Labour, just to get in on that.
Pension Act Amendment


[Stage Direction]
99. Departmental administration, $117,276.
Abraham Albert Heaps: I understand there is no intention of proceeding with this item this evening.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have no objection to the item being called to-night so that we can proceed with it later on in the week.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure amending the Pension Act to extend the provisions under which pension may be awarded to the widow' of a member of the forces after his death.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Mr. POWER:: This is the amendment to which I referred a week or so ago when we were discussing the Pension Act. It is an amendment whereby widows of persons who were in receipt of pensions for classes one to eleven instead of one to five, that is to say, in receipt of pensions of fifty per cent or over, instead of, as formerly, of eighty per cent or over, shall benefit by the provisions of the resent Pension Act and receive pensions. I /lave the bill here and am prepared to introduce it as soon as the resolution is carried.


Howard Charles Green: Did the minister take into consideration giving the pension commission power to pay a widow's pension to the widow of a pensioner who was drawing under fifty per cent, where that widow is in needy circumstances, or in any event, giving the pension commission power to continue payments to the widow for the period of a year after her husband's death, which power, as the minister knows, is now given to the war veterans' allowance board under the War Veterans' Allowance Act.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think I would be prepared to do that at this time.


Mr. QUELCH:: Will this be made retroactive at all?


Charles Gavan Power: My intention, if the committee agrees with me, would be to introduce this bill at once and to join it up with the pension bill. It could be discussed at the same time, practically as one of the sections I hope it will be one of the sections of the pension bill which we were discussing some time ago. If the house will permit me to introduce the bill, I shall have them both considered together. Perhaps it could be regarded as the last clause of the Pension Act, and we could have a discussion on botn at the same time.


Mr. BROOKS:: Why could this not have been an amendment to Bill No. 6? Why is it necessary to introduce a new bill?


Charles Gavan Power: For the reason that Bill No.
6 was not preceded by a resolution, whereas the bill to be based upon this resolution had to follow that procedure inasmuch as it involves an expenditure of money.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Power thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 74 to amend the Pension Act respecting widows' pensions.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Charles Gavan Power: With the consent of the house I would move the second reading of the bill on the undertaking that it will not be taken . up to-night, so that hon. members may have ample opportunity to study it. It would reach the same stage in the proceedings as Bill No. 6.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Charles Gavan Power: In accordance with the undertaking I have given, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



ABOLITION OF PENSION APPEAL BOARD AND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR PENSION APPLICATIONS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 27, consideration in committee of Bill No. 6, to amend the Pension Act-Mr. Power-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Sections 13 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On section 16-Request for hearing.
Howard Charles Green: What provision is made in this bill for the continuation of appeals which are now pending before the pension appeal

Pension Act Amendment
court? There will be certain appeals which will not have been decided by the pension appeal court when this measure comes into force. What provision is made for disposing of those appeals?


Charles Gavan Power: I am glad my hon. friend has brought that to my attention. I have an amendment which I shall ask my colleague (Mr. Crerar) to move:
That section 16 of Bill No. 6 be amended by inserting after the word "commission," in the fourth line thereof, the words "and remaining undisposed of."
The amended section will read:
Any request made by an applicant, either before or after the coming into force of the amending act of 1939, for a hearing in respect of an application for entitlement before a quorum of the commission and remaining undisposed of, shall be deemed to be a request for a hearing before an appeal board of the commission and shall be dealt with by an appeal board of the commission in accordance with the provisions of the amending act of 1939.


Howard Charles Green: I was referring to cases that are pending before the pension appeal court as distinct from those before a quorum of the commission.


Charles Gavan Power: Those are the cases I wish to deal with. The section has to do with any request made by an applicant, either before or after the coming into force of the amending act, and remaining undisposed of. That, I think, is broad enough to take them all in.


Howard Charles Green: Would it cover the case of an applicant who has appealed from a decision of a quorum as at present constituted?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Would it cover cases pending before the present pension appeal court?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, that is what is intended.


Howard Charles Green: I am satisfied if the section is wide enough to cover that.


Charles Gavan Power: The amendment was prepared by the legal adviser of the department and submitted to the Department of Justice with that very point in mind which my hon friend raises. I shall have the amendment looked into carefully again, but I am under the impression that it covers the point. The only case I am not sure of would be one which had been actually heard by the appeal court and on which a decision had not been given. The point raised Iby my hon. friend brings that to my mind. In the absence of the legal officer who drafted the clause I should not like to state definitely whether this particular case is covered uy the words of the 71492-164
amendment. However, if the amendment were allowed to pass we could come back to it, because we are not proposing to pass the whole bill this evening. We have that section referring to widows which must be passed. I shall have it checked up by the law officers.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I suggest that the minister would make it clearer if he added the words "or before the pension appeal court and remaining undisposed of."


Charles Gavan Power: I think that suggestion has
some merit, and I shall be glad to consider it. I should not like to disturb this amendment, in view of the fact that the man who drafted it is not here this evening, but I think what my hon. friend says is perhaps right. It might be just as well to hold this amendment.
Section stands.
On section 15-When application granted in whole or in part.


Charles Gavan Power: I should like to revert to
clause 15 to which there is an amendment. If the committee does not care to adopt it now, we can have it read into Hansard and adopted later. The proposed amendment to clause 15 reads:
That section 15 of Bill No. 6 be amended to read as follows:
15. Subsections 3, 6 and 7 of section 52 of the said act, as enacted by section 21 of ohapter 44 of the statutes of 1936, are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
(3) If requested in writing so to do within a period of ninety days of the date of mailing notification as set forth in subsection 2 of this section, the commission will arrange for a second hearing, subject to the following conditions :
(a)	That additional evidence may be submitted;
(b)	That prior to a second hearing, the applicant has submitted to the commission a statement, signed by himself, setting forth all disabilities or disabling conditions which he claims to be the result of injury or disease or aggravation thereof attributable to or incurred during military service, in regard to which he may desire to claim pension;
(c)	That after a decision has been rendered by the commission on such second hearing, the commission may entertain no further application in respect of any disability whatsoever other than an application before an appeal board of the commission as hereinafter provided.
The words that are changed are "before an appeal board of the commission" at the end of paragraph (c).


Howard Charles Green: Simply substituting the
appeal board for the appeal court.

Pension Act Amendment


Charles Gavan Power: I will ask my colleague to
move the amendment.


Mr. CRERAR:: I move accordingly.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Charles Gavan Power: Section 16 stands.
On section 17-Sittings of appeal boards.


Howard Charles Green: As I read the new section
55 of the act, it would be possible for the members of the appeal boards to have sat as members of the commission when a claim was being dealt with on the first or second hearing. Would it not be well to have some provision prohibiting a pension commissioner who sat on the original application for pension, or on the second hearing, from sitting on an appeal board hearing that same case? I am certain that if the act allows the same man to sit both on the original court and on an appeal board, there will be great dissatisfaction among applicants for pension. That should be guarded against.


Charles Gavan Power: I think the point raised by my hon. friend is well taken. I should imagine, however, that the chairman of the commission would see to it that the same man who sat on the original claim would not sit on an appeal board hearing the same case. That is the common sense of it; I do not know that it is necessary to have special provision in the legislation. I am however, willing to let the section stand and go into it further.


Howard Charles Green: I think there is a similar provision in the act at the present time, is there not? I think it is important.


Charles Gavan Power: It is important that the danger to which my hon. friend refers be nbviated. I am just wondering whether it is not sufficient to leave it to the chairman. I am willing, however, to allow this section to stand and go into it with that in view.
Section stands.
Section 18 agreed to.
On section 19-Notice to applicant of decision of board.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would the minister explain the conditions under which cases may be re-opened, and, where the applicant or appellant has evidence of new and substantial character that should be considered by the appeal board, what exactly are the conditions under which that may be brought before the appeal board?


Charles Gavan Power: I take it the conditions are exactly as they stand to-day. There is no change in the act as far as that is concerned.


Charles Grant MacNeil: It says that a case can be opened up only by leave of the appeal board of the commission. Subsection 4 states:
An application based upon any error in such decision or in any decision of the court, by reason of evidence not having been presented or otherwise, may be entertained by the commission with the leave of an appeal board of the commission . . . and such appeal board shall have jurisdiction to grant leave in any case in which it appears proper to grant it.
Will that mean a special appeal board? What has the minister in mind in regard to regulations governing such appeals?


Charles Gavan Power: I understand these powers are the same as are at present vested in the appeal court. The appeal board will have jurisdiction to grant leave in any case in which it appears proper for them to grant it, by reason of new evidence not having been presented, or otherwise. Any application which would have been entertained by the appeal court can be entertained by an appeal board. I do not think there is any difference; it is not intended that there should be.


Mr. MUTCH:: Do I understand the minister to say that by subsection 4 a man who lost an appeal to the appeal court can have a rehearing only by consent of the appeal board?


Charles Gavan Power: Right.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: Is it now the intention that instead of going to the appeal court for leave to appeal again, it is to the commission? Does that give all those people who have applied for leave to re-open their case before the appeal court, a chance to come again before this appeal board of the commission?


Charles Gavan Power: On the same terms as they could have submitted their case to the appeal court.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: I take the last sentence literally.


Charles Gavan Power: It does not mean that every case turned down by the appeal court can now be re-opened, but it does mean that the applicant shall have exactly the same right as he previously had to ask for a re-opening of his case on the presentation of new evidence.


Mr. STEVENS:: He must get consent.

Pension Act Amendment


Mr. ESLING:: That is what I was going to ask. It is pretty difficult for applicants to secure new evidence. It must be remembered that when they appeared before the quorum, represented by an advocate, they had their cases just as well prepared as it was possible to do. We had the quorum, represented by two members of the pension commission, which passed favourably upon this case. They had the applicant before them. Not only did they have the advocate presenting the applicant's case; they had the applicant in person. They saw his condition, and certainly in many instances the personal appearance of an applicant would suggest sympathetic action. After the quorum had decided favourably on that application, it came back to Ottawa and was appealed by the crown. Then a decision was rendered by a court of appeal two or three thousand miles away, who knew nothing as to the condition of the applicant beyond what was contained in his record or what was presented by the advocate, in fact not as much as was presented by the soldier's representative. When one considers that sixty-two per cent of appeals by the crown were allowed, while practically only two per cent of appeals by applicants were granted, it will be seen that the applicant is placed in a pretty unfortunate position. The question is whether the men on these appeal boards will be the same men who heard the application, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Charles Gavan Power: They will not.


William Kemble Esling: Will there be any change in the members of the board of pension commissioners? There will be three of them this time instead of two; and if by chance one of these cases came before the appeal board on which were two members of the old quorum, together with one new member, hearing the application, they would be placed in rather an embarrassing position; they could not do other than confirm their previous opinion.
I think the minister might reconsider his decision not to permit these cases to come before the appeal board again without new evidence. They have been passed upon once, when all the evidence was presented. The contention may be made that it will cost a great deal of money. Well, it will cost a great deal of money in the future if these men reach a stage where they may be able to present new evidence. The fact remains, it seems to me, that we are hardly doing justice to those men whose cases have been heard and favourably reported upon by a quorum, but who lost out on appeals being taken by 71492-1641
the crown. After all, it is intended that we should do justice to all applicants for pensions. The quorum was created for that purpose; the quorum had these applicants appear in person, and it does not seem unreasonable to ask the minister to permit those applicants to appear once more with such evidence as they presented at the initial hearing.


Charles Gavan Power: There is really no change in this section, which is the old section 70 as brought forward in section 19 of this bill. I think we shall be able to see to it before the bill gets through committee that there will be no doubt whatever that the members of the board who sit in appeal will not be the same people who gave the decision in the first instance. 1 think we can satisfy my hon. friend about that.


William Kemble Esling: Does it not stand to reason that the two members of that commission who formed that quorum were just as likely to be right as three members might be now? It is the same question that is being considered-the man's application for pension because of a disability which he claims he has suffered. He was represented by his advocate, and the quorum rendered a favourable decision. My contention is that a quorum before which a man appears in person is better able to decide upon the merit of that application than are three or four members of a court of appeal who have never seen the man, and who would have nothing more to go on than the evidence which was presented by the advocate.


Howard Charles Green: As I understand the hon. member for Kootenay West, he is suggesting that an opportunity should be given to rehear successful appeals by the crown. Is that the intention under this bill?


Charles Gavan Power: That is not at all contemplated by this legislation. I would rather withdraw the bill entirely than do that.


Howard Charles Green: With regard to subsection 4 of this section, is it the intention that there will be an appeal board sitting at Ottawa dealing exclusively with applications to reopen.


Charles Gavan Power: I hardly think that would be necessary. This had not struck me before, but just looking at some'figures I have here I am rather astonished to find that of the applications to the pension commission to entertain fresh applications-that is, to the appeal court which is being abolished-there were 572 allowed and 968 disallowed, so that really the pension appeal court, comparatively speaking, if I may put it in that way, was
Pension Act Amendment

generous in granting leave to appeal, perhaps much more so than a great many of us thought until we had the figures before us.


Howard Charles Green: Is that in connection with granting rehearings?


Charles Gavan Power: No, that was leave to go before the commission again with a fresh application, apparently based on new evidence. As my hon. friend knows, there were quite a number remitted for rehearing during the period while the appeal court functioned. These were cases in which leave was granted to reopen the applications, apparently on the production of fresh evidence. Of these 572 cases were allowed and 968 disallowed, which is a fairly good batting average.


Howard Charles Green: Will the permission to rehear be given only at Ottawa, or is it the intention that boards sitting across the country will have power to grant that request?


Charles Gavan Power: It is wide open; I do not see that there would be any restriction. There is no provision that they shall be heard only at Ottawa; that will be a matter of procedure for the commission itself to deal with. Personally I see no reason why permission should not be granted upon personal application by the applicant in his own district.


Howard Charles Green: Then would it not be wiser to cut out the words "such appeal board to be designated by the chairman of the commission from time to time for this purpose?'' The effect would be to give any appeal board the right to order remission.


Charles Gavan Power: That provision is inserted in order that the same people who originally heard the case will not sit on the appeal board.


Charles Grant MacNeil: As I read the bill, the only opportunity for rehearing is when the appellant is able to establish an error in the previous decision. Would it not be possible for the minister to consider providing an opportunity for rehearing where the appellant is able to produce new evdence of a substantial nature? I have under my hand at the moment a meritorious case, as is evidenced by the fact that the commission has granted the man a pension under section 24. This man had meritorious service overseas, with a history of nephritis. He was wounded, but at the time of the hearing he was unable to establish the fact that he suffered from trench feet. Since his discharge he has suffered amputation of the right leg, as a result of Buerger's disease. During the evidence a prominent specialist stated that if the history of trench feet could be established it would be related definitely

to the progress of what is known as Buerger's disease and thereby his entitlement to pension would be established. Subsequently this man produced an affidavit from those who served with him and from officers and non-commissioner officers in the battalion stating that at Passchendaele he was definitely treated for trench feet, taken out of the line, given treatment on account of that condition, and so on That is the evidence of a substantial nature which would aid him in establishing entitlement, in view of the medical specialist's opinion given in the case. I suggest cases of outstanding merit, such as the one to which I have referred, where new evidence of a substantial kind is produced, are cases where men should be given leave to enter appeal.


Charles Gavan Power: The subsection reads:
An application based-
One.
-upon any error in such decision or-
Two.
-in any decision of the court, by reason of evidence not having been presented or otherwise, may be entertained by the commission with the leave of an appeal board of the commission.
Therefore application could be based on new evidence, or evidence which has not already been presented. That covers the point raised.


Howard Charles Green: I should like the minister to consider subsection 4 again, if he is to allow appeal boards outside Ottawa to grant rehearings. Apparently there will be quite a few applications, and it seems to me that great confusion will arise unless each appeal board has power to grant a rehearing, rather than having every application first referred back to Ottawa, then having a particular appeal board-say, in Vancouver-designated by the chairman of the commission as an appeal board to hear the particular application.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend had almost convinced me the first time he spoke, but now I am beginning to change my mind. I can see all kinds of practical difficulties in the way if we are to declare in the statute that the appeal board sitting in a district would at all times have the right to re-open a case, because it would be almost physically impossible to have men in the districts who had not already had something to do with that case. We would continually have to be sending men back and forth from Ottawa to Vancouver. I am beginning to think that perhaps the draftsman did not intend to fix the hearing in the district.

Pension Act Amendment


Howard Charles Green: That is why I asked the minister at the beginning whether the subsection meant that he was going to set up only one appeal board here at Ottawa to grant leave for rehearing.


Charles Gavan Power: It was not our intention, but I am beginning to think that is probably the only way to deal with the matter.


Howard Charles Green: We wish only to have it workable.	'


Charles Gavan Power: Without having given the matter particular thought, it strikes me it would be almost impossible, unless we had a constant interchange of what used to be the court, or what is now the appeal board in the district, to provide that there would always be in any district three men who had not as yet dealt with a particular case. We would have to be constantly interrupting the hearings of what were formerly quorums but are now appeal boards.


Howard Charles Green: It would be very difficult.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, it would be difficult. However, I have no objection to holding the section and inquiring of the officers of the commission as to how it would work out. Perhaps we might pass the section, and I can discuss the matter with the hon. member, or have some of the officers of the department speak to him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is nothing to preclude the chairman of the commission from naming the local board, if he so wishes?


Charles Gavan Power: No, nothing whatever. But I would not like to insert a section in the act making it obligatory for the board when it was sitting in any locality to hear applications to re-open, because that might have a tendency to confuse matters to a degree which might make it altogether unworkable.


Leslie Alexander Mutch: It seems to me the important point with respect to the section is the dissatisfaction which arises on account of the fact that the appeal court does not actually see the applicant. With the phraseology of the bill as it stands at present, it seems to me that so long as it is the intention of the department and the commission wherever possible to see to it that the man appealing is actually seen by the board, we shall get away from most of our difficulty. Most of the difficulty comes from the fact that they never see the man with whom they deal.


Howard Charles Green: I cannot find any provision in the bill to give the new appeal board power to remit a case to the commission for further consideration, as is provided in section 69 of the act.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall check up on that
point. I imagine there is power, but it does not appear to be stated specifically in the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 20-Repeal.
Charles Gavan Power: Section 20 will certainly be carried, without opposition.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
On section 22-Repeal.
Howard Charles Green: Section 22 strikes out section 62 of the Act. Is provision made in the bill for the pensions advocates of the veterans bureau to help applicants before the appeal board?


Charles Gavan Power: That is his function everywhere throughout the act. He helps them before the commission and before the appeal board. And, after all, this is only an appeal board of the commission.


Howard Charles Green: I see that section 62 is
stricken out, and I cannot find where it is replaced.


Charles Gavan Power: Section 62 referred to
preparation of the appeal before the appeal court. It is part of the duties of the pensions advocate to assist the applicant in his application before the pension commission. After all, the appeal board is only a board of the commission. I do not think there is any intention to withdraw that assistance.


Howard Charles Green: So long as it is clear that
the assistance will still be there, there can be no objection.


Charles Gavan Power: There is no doubt about it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 23 agreed to.
On section 24-Undisposed appeals at date of coming into force of act of 1939.
Howard Charles Green: Would the minister explain
the first subsection of the new section 61?


Charles Gavan Power: May I point out to the
hon. member that subsection 3 covers the point the hon. member made some time ago? It states:
(3) No member of an appeal board of the commission designated by the chairman for the purposes of the last two preceding subsections shall adjudicate upon any case upon which he previously sat as a member of a quorum of the commission.
That covers the objection raised some time ago by the hon. member. Rut the appeals
Pension Act Amendment

remaining undisposed of by the court at the date of the coming into force of the amending act shall be heard and determined by an appeal board of the commission, which board shall be designated by the chairman of the commission. The board will take the place of the court. That is all it is intended to do. The personnel of the board will consist of three members of the present commission who have not already sat on the case.


Howard Charles Green: Then subsection 3 of the
new section 61 applies only to the case of a commissioner who has sat as a member of a quorum. It does not apply where he has sat as a commissioner-that is, on the first or second hearing.


Charles Gavan Power: Correct.


Howard Charles Green: Should that not be made
clear? Should we not add the words, "or as a commissioner?"


Charles Gavan Power: I think the point is well
taken, and I shall look into it.
Section 24 stands.
On section 25-Repeal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This covers section 69.


Howard Charles Green: Where is provision made in the bill for notifying an applicant of a decision, which provision was formerly contained in subsection 4 of section 70?


Charles Gavan Power: I shall look into it.


Howard Charles Green: Section 68, subsection 1, was passed in 1936, and I cannot find anything in this bill to replace the provision which gave the appeal court powers as to amendment and further evidence. I should think the appeal board should have the same power.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not think there is any doubt that it will have all the powers of the quorum.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If you repeal them, it will not have them.


Charles Gavan Power: The section repealed contains the powers which the court had, but the quorum, which has been sitting with the man when he makes his personal application, has had all these powers in the past. In addition to the powers of the quorum, the appeal board will have whatever powers we give it as an appeal board. I do not think there is any doubt whatsoever about that.


Howard Charles Green: Will it have power to call medical evidence and obtain medical opinions?


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, yes; the quorum has had that power right along.
Section stands.
Sections 26 to 28 inclusive agreed to.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would suggest that the minister indicate the form the new section is going to take, and then allow it to stand along with the other sections.


Charles Gavan Power: We shall probably have to renumber the sections. In the original Pension Act it is an amendment to section 32.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They will all have to be renumbered.


Charles Gavan Power: It should really come between sections 11 and 12 of this bill. I suppose I could move that section 1 of the bill with respect to widows' pensions be considered as section 11 of Bill No. 6.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think the minister had better take advantage of the intervening time to get that point straight because the procedure is a little unusual.


Charles Gavan Power: I think that is what should be done, but I am not quite sure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There might have to be a motion to recommit it.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.57 p.m.
Wednesday, April 5, 1959