1939-03-30

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this house adjourns on Thursday, 6th April, it stand adjourned until Tuesday, 11th April, 1939.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, I have asked the
whips about the views of hon. members with respect to the Easter vacation, and I gather that they have had difficulty in reaching any agreement. The general opinion seems to favour the shorter rather than the longer recess. In the circumstances I believe I should allow the motion to stand as it appears on the order paper.
I have observed there seems to be an impression in certain quarters-I do not know how correct the report was-that the government is anxious to continue the session on until the summer. I should like to assure hon. members that governments are usually anxious to get through sessions as quickly as possible, and this government is no exception in that particular.


Mr. MANION:: You were not yesterday, on the vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The length of a session usually rests more with the opposition than with the government. I wish to point out, however, that this year the house was called at a date earlier than it has been called in the last twelve years-and, I believe, with one exception a long time ago, earlier than it has been called' in many more years; this was done in the hope that we might not have to continue on into the summer.
In allowing this motion to stand as it is on the order paper I believe I am meeting the wishes of hon. members that every means be taken to expedite the work of the session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table the following annual reports in English and French for the year ended December 31, 1938: The annual report of the Canadian National Railways; the annual report of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited; the annual report of the Trans-Canada Air Lines; the annual report of the Canadian National Securities Trust and the annual report to parliament of George A. Touche and Company, auditors of the accounts of the Canadian National Railway system. .
I desire to move that these annual reports, together with the railway, steamship and air line estimates, be referred as usual to the standing committee on railways and shipping; also the following items of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940, which were specifically excepted from the reference to the committee of supply of the main estimates by the Minister of Finance in the resolution adopted by the house on Thursday, February 2, viz:
Vote 442. Maritime Freight Rates Act, Canadian National Railways Eastern Lines, $2,000,000.
Vote 443. Maritime Freight Rates Act, railways other than Canadian National Railways, $800,000.
Vote 454. Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, capital advance, $20,000.


Mr. STEVENS:: Has this committee been set up? I do not find it on the list of standing committees.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Notice of motion will appear in the votes and proceedings to-morrow.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How can you refer anything to a committee which has not been set up?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The motion can stand.
Motion stands.

240S
Questions



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
purchases of feed and fodder in the united STATES
['635,452 bushels to March\n29th, 1939.']
Mr. GARDINER:: I suggest that this question should either be changed or that I should answer it orally. The oral answer would be that the dominion government did not purchase any of the products mentioned, that no feed or fodder was purchased by the provinces of Manitoba and Alberta, and that all the hay, feed and fodder used in Saskatchewan was purchased by the government of Saskatchewan. The answer to the second question would be that, so far as I know, no feed or fodder was purchased by any government in the maritime provinces.



Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Did the Department of National Revenue receive protests against magazines of a subversive, immoral or obscene nature during the year 1938?
2.	If so, were such protests oral or written?
3.	If oral, how many did the department receive ?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Written.
3.	Approximately 1,400 letters were received from collectors of customs and excise, other persons and organizations.


Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Did the Department of National Revenue confiscate obscene magazines, reviews, books and photographs during the year 1938?
2.	If so, what quantity of each were seized?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Magazines, 26,639; newspapers, 3,897; pamphlets, 16,040; books, 581; photographs, 155.


Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Did the Department of National Revenue seize any publications of a subversive nature during the year 1938?
2.	If so, how many of such publications were
seized ?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	3,917.


RUST RESISTING WHEAT
Mr. PERLEY:: How many bushels of rust resisting wheat were exchanged with the producers for spring wheat, for seeding requirements of 1939 under order No. 15 issued by the Canadian wheat board to all grain companies under date of August 31, 1938?


Mr. EULER:: 635,452 bushels to March
29th, 1939.



PENSION ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed 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.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked me if, when I came to deal with foreign affairs, I would give the exact terms of the message to which reference was made in the press last October as having been sent by myself to Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain congratulating him upon the Munich agreement. I desire to- lay a copy of this telegram on the table, and am sending an additional copy to my hon. friend.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
1940 to have been ready to plunge the world into war in 1938. Most inevitable wars have .never happened, and of those that happened, the ultimate consequences were usually most unexpected. There is timely counsel in the declaration of a former British Foreign Secretary:
Let us reject both the doctrine of the inevitability of war and the theory of the effectiveness of bluff.
There seemed to be good reasons for hoping that war had not merely been postponed, but had been averted. The crisis itself helped; it revealed how near Europe again had come to the brink of the precipice. More significant, it revealed how deep and how widespread is the desire for peace, and how deep the fear and hatred of war. That desire for peace was not confined to any one country. There was as great relief in Italy as in France. The genuine and moving welcome given Mr. Chamberlain in Germany was given him because the people believed he was striving for peace. And not only had the peoples felt a common interest: the rulers of great states had met in personal contact. If one had not persuaded the other, they at least, it was hoped, understood better one another's point of view, understood more clearly the limits of pressure. Whatever, to the contrary, appearance might have been, it was increasingly recognized that countries with wholly different social systems could live together in the same world:
How far these hopes were justified in the light of later events is a point I shall take up presently, but before doing so I wish to examine some other phases of the September situation.
Thus far I have been dealing with the European phases of the September crisis. I now refer to their repercussions upon Canada. Both for the people and for the government of Canada it was a time of deep anxiety. With the situation as it changed from day to day, the government kept throughout in continuous and close touch, mainly through the information received from the British government, but from other sources as well. A complete review was made of economic and military safeguards, and all other measures, which would have to be considered, if open conflict developed and was not confined to central Europe. We were not in a position to take a direct part in the mediation efforts. We could, as we did, support the mediation efforts Mr. Chamberlain was making.
The government's position was clearly set forth in a public statement I made on September 17:
The Canadian government have been giving unremitting consideration to the European
' Mr. Mackenzie King.]
situation, in the light of the confidential information which they are receiving. The position is changing from day to day. The present and essential task is to avert recourse to force by finding a peaceful and agreed solution of the present clash of interests in central Europe. The government of the United Kingdom have undertaken this task with a courage and vision which I have stated the people of Canada unanimously appreciate.
If unfortunately that effort and other efforts to preserve the peace of central Europe fail, it will become necessary for the governments and parliaments of all countries which may be directly or indirectly concerned to determine the course to be followed. The Canadian government are examining all possible contingencies and will be prepared in accordance with the undertakings repeatedly given in parliament, if occasion arises, to summon parliament forthwith and submit their recommendations to it. In the meantime we do not consider in the light of all the circumstances known to us that public controversy as to action in hypothetical contingencies would serve the interest of peace or of Canadian or commonwealth unity. It will have been noted that the government of the United Kingdom, striving for peace, and knowing the situation, have considered it desirable to exercise restraint in any public statements at this stage regarding the course to be taken if peace fails.
I am sure that all Canadians will join with me in the fervent hope that the fine endeavours of the British government to preserve peace will be crowned with complete success.
On September 27, the day before the reassembling of the British parliament, Mr. Chamberlain spoke over the radio. His address was heard and press reports received in full in this city in the early -afternoon. In the course of his address, the Prime Minister said:
However much one may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful nation, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British empire in a war simply on that account.
If we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that.
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.
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.
After a meeting of our cabinet, held that afternoon, which had before it the words of Mr. Chamberlain, I handed .the following statement to the, press:
The Canadian government is continuing to keep in the closest touch with the grave developments in the European situation.
The government is making preparations for any contingency, and for the immediate sum-

Foreign Policy-Mr, Mackenzie King
moning of parliament if the efforts which are still being made to preserve the peace of Europe should fail.
For our country to keep united is allimportant. To this end, in whatever we say or do, we must seek to avoid creating controversies and divisions that might seriously impair effective and concerted action when parliament meets.
The government is in complete accord with the statement Mr. Chamberlain has made to the world to-day.
Those statements, I am perfectly certain, met with the approval of the great majority of the people of Canada at the time. They were clearly justified by the facts, later made known to the public, as to the policy and attitude of the countries mainly concerned. There were, however, from some quarters in Canada vociferous demands for red-blooded ultimatums, for statements that Canada was prepared to fight for democracy and Czechoslovakia, for statements that Canada would support Britain without limit in war on this issue, for pledges of support such as other dominions were alleged to be giving. A little later on I shall show, with respect to the governments of each of the other dominions, how far in fact pledges of support were actually given by any one of them.
The criticisms, it must now be clear, were very wide of the mark. They wholly misconceived the actual situation. Some of the loudest of the demands for lining up with Britain and France in defence of Czechoslovakia were made on the very day the French and British governments, in order to avert bloodshed, were applying what Lord Halifax termed "strong pressure" to induce the Czech government to hand over the Sudeten areas to Germany.
It is essential to analyse objectively the character of the negotiations and operations in which the British government were engaged, and in the light of which we as a government in Ottawa had to decide from time to time whether we could usefully intervene by means of public declarations or otherwise. Mr. Chamberlain explained very clearly the char-*acter of the action of the British government in the speech he made in the House of Commons on the . afternoon of September the 28th, his last speech before flying to Munich on the following morning. After recalling that in July a deadlock had arisen in the negotiations then going on between the Czechoslovakian government and the Sudeten Germans, and that fears were already entertained that if it were not speedily broken the German government might presently intervene in the dispute, he pointed out that there were three alternative courses of action open to his government. What these alternatives were
can best be explained by using his own words. His words were as follows:
For his majesty's government there were three alternative courses that we might have adopted. Either we could have threatened to go to war with Germany if she attacked Czechoslovakia, or we could have stood aside and allowed matters to take their course, or, finally, we could attempt to find a peaceful settlement by way of mediation. The first of those courses we rejected. We had no treaty liabilities to Czechoslovakia. We always refused to accept any such obligation. Indeed, this country, which does not readily resort to war, would not have followed us if we had tried to lead it into war to prevent a minority from obtaining autonomy, or even from choosing to pass under some other government.
The second alternative was also repugnant to us. However remote this territory may be, we knew, of course, that a spark once lighted there, might give rise to a general conflagration, and we felt it our duty to do anything in our power to help the contending parties to find agreement. We addressed ourselves to the third course, the task of mediation. We knew that the task would be difficult, perhaps even perilous, but we felt that the object was good enough to justify the risk. . . .
In this connection it is pertinent to quote from the speech of the Home Secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare, on October the 3rd, in the course of the first House of Commons debate following the Munich agreement. Describing the action of Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Samuel said:
He undertook the duty of a mediator. We had no treaty obligations to Czechoslovakia other than our general obligations under the covenant of the League. My right hon. friend the member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) has made this position quite clear in the well-known speech that he made some time ago in his own constituency. We have no treaty obligations. None the less, I hold that it was right and proper for the Prime Minister of this country, the one country that was in a position to hold the scales between the two sides, to undertake this heavy responsibility; and I claim that, having undertaken the responsibility of mediation, it would have been courting certain failure if at one and the same time when he was attempting to mediate he engaged himself upon a policy of threats and ultimata. ... I go further, and I say that, if we had made an ultimatum in the days immediately before the Nuremberg speech Europe would to-day have been plunged into a world war.
In the light of this analysis, the house will be able to understand clearly the position confronting the Canadian government during the crisis, and the considerations which necessarily governed anything we might say or do. Hon. members will please note the full significance of Mr. Chamberlain's words:
Indeed, this country, which does not readily resort to war, would not have followed us if we had tried to lead it into war to prevent a minority from obtaining autonomy, or even from choosing to pass under some other government.
2414	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
Also the words of Sir Samuel Hoare:
If we had made an ultimatum before the Nuremberg speech, Europe would to-day have been plunged into a world war.
We considered the position carefully and continuously. It was clear to us from the course of events-and I think it would have been clear to anyone who was accustomed to observe international relations and who took pains to read and analyse carefully the public statements and events at the time-that the British government regarded themselves as acting in the capacity of a mediator, and were anxious to avoid any course of action, or statement which might prejudice the success of these efforts.
We were thousands of miles away from the scene of action; we knew that the situation was changing daily and even hourly. We received a great deal of confidential information from the British government, but it will be realized that such communications could not, in fact, keep up with the hourly changes in the actual situation.
In such circumstances what, I ask, was the proper attitude of the Canadian government toward the question of making public declarations? It must be abundantly apparent that in such a situation when the British government on the spot were taking the lead in a purely mediatory capacity, the last thing we could properly do was to make any public declaration having the character or giving the impression of a belligerent statement. Any such statement taken in conjunction with other possible developments of which we could know nothing at the time, might have had the effect of causing fatal suspicions by persuading one side of the dispute under mediation that, in spite of what the responsible mediator himself was saying as to his position, the real intentions were something different. In this connection it is well to recall that if these delicate negotiations had broken down, if the mediation had failed, the brunt of the disaster, and of the unimaginable sufferings, would have fallen, not upon our people and cities, but upon the peoples and the cities of those countries on the spot whose governments were responsible for the conduct of the negotiations, and were trying so hard to find the way out.
Some of those who were calling upon the Canadian government in September to throw its military weight into the scale, laid great emphasis upon the example other dominions were giving. Even yet, scarcely a day passes without some emphatic assertion that the other dominion governments had expressed to their own people and to the United King-

dom their readiness to back the British government in war for Czechoslovakia, and that Canada alone lagged behind. What are the facts? The question raises issues of such permanent importance, the flagrant misrepresentations that have occurred in the past may so easily occur again, that I think it well worth our while to examine the actual position taken by the governments in question.
In South Africa parliament was in session, though it adjourned on September 24. The session was marked by a good deal of debate on the general question of South Africa's position in war. The Minister of Justice, General Smuts, declared towards the end of August, that in 1914 parliament had decided to what extent South Africa would participate in the war, but the fact that they went to war then happened automatically, in accordance with their status at that time. To-day, the government's policy was that South Africa would not be forced into war automatically in any way, but would participate in any war only when its parliament took that decision in the interests of South Africa. He added that it was his personal opinion that if Great Britain should be herself attacked and involved in actual danger- not when she became involved in war in central Europe as an ally of France-South Africa would come to her aid, rather than withdraw from the friendly bonds which united them to that country on which their own safety at sea depended. The Prime Minister, General Hertzog, thereupon stated that the Minister of Justice was entitled to say so, but the government did not anticipate things, and it was not their duty to prepare hypothetical cases and to answer them. When the time came, the people would decide, and it would all depend on who had the most authority and whom the people trusted most. The Minister of Defence, Mr. Pirow, later said the views that South Africa would never under any circumstances fight side by side with Great Britain, or that when Britain was at war they were automatically compelled to participate, were both fallacious.
On the specific Czechoslovak issue, General Hertzog on September 6 said the South African government had not consulted or negotiated with the British government to determine what policy Great Britain should pursue over the Czechoslovak dispute, and had not become obliged to support Great Britain if she became involved in war as a result of her policy. On September 24, he repeated that parliament would decide the country's course when the need arose, and

Foreign Policy

Mr. Mackenzie King
that it would be mischievous to make any premature statement of policy. He emphasized that General Smuts' assurances that South Africa would stand by Britain were specifically intended to apply to an aggressive attack on herself by which she was endangered, and declared that he himself would agree with that, "if only because South Africa was a member of the league". He would see to it that when it became necessary South Africa's obligations towards the league would be carried out.
An article in the Round Table, summed up the situation, at the close of the South African parliamentary session, as follows:
It seemed clear that, despite past differences of opinion, the government would be united in the view that South Africa would not automatically be at war if Great Britain went to war, that no decision would be taken without first summoning parliament, and that in the meantime South Africa would be regarded as neutral.
On behalf of the Irish government, Mr. De Valera strongly supported the efforts for peace. On September 27, he telegraphed Mr. Chamberlain as follows:
Let nothing daunt or defeat you in your effort to secure peace. The tens of millions of innocent people on both sides who have no cause against each other but who are in danger of being hurled against each other, with no alternative to mutual slaughter, are praying that your efforts may find a way of saving them from this terrible doom.
There was at that. time no governmental statement or discussion of Irish policy in the event of war breaking out.
New Zealand at the time was on the eve of a general election. The traditional attitude of New Zealand in following British policy is well known. It is equally well known that of recent years the New Zealand government has differed from and vigorously criticized the policy of the government of the United Kingdom as to collective security. The Round Table referred to the New Zealand attitude in the following words:
During the crisis expression of opinion was almost entirely lacking. Leader writers treated the Czech situation in a curiously detached way. They did not discuss whether or not the commonwealth should in this instance propose collective action on behalf of the Czechs.
Apparently there was little discussion of the situation by party leaders. Mr. Savage is quoted as making a statement on September 15, "Wherever Britain is, we must be." A fortnight later the government sent a message to the British government earnestly supporting Mr. Chamberlain's "continued and determined efforts for the peace of Europe and the world, which it sincerely trusts will be crowned with success."
It remains to consider Australia. In September, the commonwealth parliament was in session. Mr. Brennan, a former labour minister, reviewing the government's attitude early in October, asked:
What was the policy of the government during this trying time? Its foreign policy, if it had one, and I doubt it, was never expressed. Other dominions and Great Britain herself as a sister dominion, freely expressed their views through their leaders. The public men of all countries expressed their opinion, except here in Australia. The Australian government, in what it conceived to be a grave crisis, had nothing to say but hush, hush.
Apparently, the world over, opponents of governments are not unlike in their criticisms.
Speaking in parliament on September 28, the Prime Minister, Mr. Lyons, declared that what the government of Great Britain had been doing, with the support of the government of Australia, had been to make every effort to preserve the world's peace. Every British nation had done its best to keep the peace. It was still hoped that peace might be preserved.
A week later, a lengthy debate on the situation took place in the house of representatives. As regards general policy, different points of view were expressed. The leader of the opposition, Mr. Curtin, declared:
The Labour party in Australia is opposed in principle and in practice to Australians being recruited as soldiers in the battlefields of Europe ... We believe that the best service which Australia can render to the British Empire is to attend to its own business, to make certain that we manage Australia effectively, so that we shall have the necessary population and be able to rely upon ourselves in the event of an emergency.
Speaking for the government, Mr. Menzies emphasized the desirability of a common foreign policy, and the difficulty of an isolation policy.
My doctrine is that so long as the British empire is constituted as it is to-day, it is not possible for Australia to be neutral in a British war. Some people disagree with that view, yet it is my conviction and I express it without hesitation. But the extent to which Australia may participate in a war, the means by which she may participate, and the question whether Australian soldiers shall fight on Australian territory or on foreign soil, are matters for determination by Australia, or may I say, by the enemy. Sometimes the enemy may settle the argument for us without much ado. if he does not do so, this country, in the exercise of its undoubted powers of self-government, will be able to determine the extent of its own participation in these -and such other ancillary matters as I have referred to.
On the specific question raised by the opposition, as to whether the government had committed Australia to war in the event of

2416	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
a struggle in Europe, as to whether the government had offered to send troops to Czechoslovakia, or to place the resources of Australia at the disposal of the British government, Mr. Menzies replied very definitely:
Take the present case. This Czechoslovak
business called, in my respectful submission, not for any rigidity of mind on the part of either the British government or the Commonwealth government, or for passion or prejudice, but for a very sensitive intelligence. It called for a real desire, on the part of the intervening British Prime Minister, for peace and a willingness to re-examine any position in order to secure it, and secure it honourably. I have an unqualified regard for the whole method of approach of the British Prime Minister in this case. Consequently, this was not one of those occasions on which any British prime minister was disposed to say to the Australian government-nor, in fact did he say-"Do you agree to A, B, C, D, and E? . . .
The leader of the opposition appreciated that we cannot begin to contradict or qualify everything that is said in the newspapers. We all know the kind of kite flying- the newspapers indulge in, but we were far too busily employed to be unduly concerned about it. The simple fact is that at no time from the beginning to the end of these discussions did the British government ever ask us to say whether we would send troops out of Australia. At no time did it ever ask any question at all about troops. At no time during the discussions, from the beginning to end of them, was any commitment made in relation to these matters by the Australian government.
Questions of a hypothetical character have been raised as to what would have happened in the event of war. I urge upon honourable members that they should not put or propose to answer hypothetical questions. That is very sound advice on matters Which concern the relations of this country with other countries and ajso on matters which concern the conduct of this country in the international field. It is, in my opinion, the rankest folly either to put hypothetical questions or to make hypothetical statements in this connection ... I repeat, that no single commitment of the slightest kind has been made during the last ten days in respect to the European crisis.


Robert James Manion: What date is that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was immediately after the crisis. The text will show it, I think.
That is a very clear and authoritative statement. It illustrates the necessity in times of tension of distinguishing between news and propaganda, of the danger of confusing a cabled report of some newspaper's editorial statement with a statement of governmental or parliamentary policy.
None of the governments of the commonwealth, it will be seen, was issuing ultimatums or seeking or giving undertakings as to the course to be followed in the event of war. In the light of the information available, they realized it was a question of seeking peace rather than of making war.
(Mr. Mackenzie Kine.l
Lest it may be assumed that the quotations I have given do not fully represent the position of the governments of the other dominions with respect to the pledges of support which at the time it was so emphatically asserted by many individuals and a section of the press were being given by some of the dominions, but not by Canada, I should like to quote from a source and an authority which admit of no question.
I have in my hand a copy of the British Hansard, House of Commons debates of November the 21st, 1938. At page 1337 will be found a specific question addressed to Mr. Chamberlain, the Prime Minister, and answered by him. The question and answer appear under the heading, " Defence, Dominions and Colonies." The question was evidently No. 49 on the Order Paper of the day. The record is as follows:
49. Mr. Lee asked the Prime Minister whether any pledge or guarantee, written or implied, has been given by the dominions and colonies, either severally or collectively, that, in case of an attack upon the United Kingdom by any country, they would come to the assistance of Great Britain?
The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
That reply should silence once and for all those who seem to delight in having it appear that, while other nations of the British commonwealth had been giving pledges of military assistance to Great Britain during the September crisis, Canada had failed to take a similar course.
Unfortunately the easing of European tension after Munich proved only temporary. Germany continued to be the main centre of uncertainty. The repression of Catholic and Protestant liberties and the ruthless reprisals directed against the whole Jewish population because of the murder of a German diplomat by an irresponsible youth, alienated world opinion and threw barriers in the road of those who were working for reconciliation and cooperation. Germany's production of armaments continued at a feverish pace. It was clear no country in the world had any thought or design of attacking Germany, and clear also that her armament had already reached the point of adequate defence against attack by any outside power or group of powers, if such a mad design had existed.
Rumours spread of drives against the smaller western powers, but the chief apprehension arose in the east, in the block of buffer states lying between Germany and Russia, and the Balkan states stretching southward. Here between the Baltic and the Mediterranean lie some ten states, large and small, which together can marshal a hundred million of people, but which are divided by race and creed, old feuds and new ambitions, all watching ceaselessly

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
their great neighbours to west or east. Nearly all are undeveloped industrially, but possess great agricultural and timber or mineral resources. They presented, as such, an opportunity for a Germany in need of materials for industry, and feeling the urge to' extend her power and prestige. Still further eastward lie the rich fields of the Ukraine. It seemed quite possible that an eastward drive would be made toward one or other of the many possible objectives. There remained also of course the demand for colonies, as a real aim or a bargaining factor.
The other uncertainty was as to the extent to which the southern member of the Berlin-Rome axis planned to press its Mediterranean ambitions. The relations	between Great
Britain and Italy, ancient friends, improved, only to be offset by increasingly sharp press and personal demands directed against France. Much seemed to depend on the developments in Spain, following the overthrow of the republican forces. '
The actual thrust came in perhaps the least expected	quarter,	once more in
Czechoslovakia. That hapless country was striving in its tenacious way to make the best of its fate, while realistically accepting the fact that with allies and border defences gone, it had no option but to keep in line with its powerful neighbour. It came more and more within the German orbit. Its foreign policy, its political organization, its economic relations, its railway and road system, were increasingly controlled from Berlin.
There was no possibility of Czechoslovakia constituting a threat to Germany. But apparently it still constituted a temptation. The new familiar technique was followed; local grievances developed suddenly, appeals for protection were made to Germany, the head of the government was summoned to the presence of the Fuehrer, troops crossed the border, meeting no resistance, and a triumphal entry was made into the capital. Slovakia was made a protectorate of Germany, Bohemia and Moravia were given a somewhat similar but not yet definitely determined status, while the easternmost province, Carpatho-Ruthenia, was quickly overrun by Hungary, which had controlled it as well as what is now termed Slovakia, before the war. All this has come about within the present month.
Rumour marked Rumania as the next objective, and circumstantial reports were circulated that an ultimatum had been served demanding a transformation of her political and economic structure and a monopoly position for Germany in her trade. These reports were con-71492- 153 h
firmed by the Rumanian Minister in London, but emphatically denied by both the German and the Rumanian governments. The Rumanian minister has now returned to Bucharest to report, and this minor mystery may eventually be cleared up. Since then, a commercial agreement far-reaching in its terms but with no explicit political provisions, has been concluded between Germany and Rumania. It provides for large German purchases of agricultural products in exchange for machinery, war materials, and technical assistance, and German activity in developing oilfields and building roads and power plants. It is declared that similar opportunities are available to other countries.
The sequel of Czechoslovakia came in the north, not the south, with the not unexpected cession by Lithuania of the valuable port of Memel and the surrounding Memel territory. This was a week ago yesterday. Memel, which formed part of Germany before the war, had been ceded to the allies by the treaty of Versailles in 1919. It was seized by a Lithuanian revolutionary group in 1923, and formally awarded to Lithuania in 1924 under a convention assuring it a wide measure of local autonomy.
The occupation of Czechoslovakia, contrary to firm pledges and contrary to assertions that it was only men of German blood in the neighbouring countries whom it was sought to incorporate in the German Reich, inevitably brought shock and alarm in its train. The western powers, now convinced that unilateral concessions would not aid peace, have begun consultations as to means of averting further seizures. The eastern border and Balkan states have found it equally necessary to take stock of their individual situation, and to seek to prevent a conflict between Hungary and Rumania over the once Hungarian territory the latter received as part of the peace settlement. The Soviet Union keeps watch on both its western and its far-eastern borders.
These general consultations and local activities are not yet concluded, and it is too early to surmise with any certainty what proposals or procedure will evolve.
I come now to matters which are at the moment and which for some time to come are likely to be of deepest concern to us all. Fortunately neither the September crisis nor the crisis of the present month resulted in war. But there may be occasions when war will not be averted, when a great conflict may break out in Europe. It is asked, what will be Canada's attitude in that case?
So far as the present government is concerned, the position has been made clear repeatedly, and there is no change in that

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
position to-day. If Canada is faced by the necessity of making a decision on the most serious and momentous issue that can face a nation, whether or not to take part in war, the principle of responsible government which has been our guide and our goal for a century past, demands that that decision be made by the parliament of Canada. Equally, the system of government we have inherited from Britain, of the close and essential relations between the legislature and the executive, makes it the duty of the government to propose to parliament the course which in regard to particular issues it considers should be adopted, and to stand or fall by the decision.
It has been contended in some quarters that this policy is not sufficiently definite and absolute. What government to-day, may I ask, is making absolute and irrevocable statements of the policy it will follow, its people will follow, regardless of the contingency, the issues at stake, the position of other countries? I had occasion only a few days ago to refer in this house to the statement made by Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham as recently as March 17th, in which the Prime Minister said:
I am not prepared to engage this country by new and unspecified commitments, operating under conditions which cannot now be foreseen.
Speaking as the Prime Minister of Canada, I wish to say that I am not prepared any more than is the Prime Minister of Great Britain to engage this country by new and unspecified commitments operating under conditions which cannot now be foreseen.
Canada's attitude as to automatic commitments involving possible or actual participation in war has been asserted time and again both in this parliament and at Geneva. Whether it has been in reference to the application of sanctions under Article 16 of the covenant of the league or to participation in wars apart altogether from the league, Canada's position has been the same, namely, that in either case the approval of parliament will be required.
At the seventeenth session of the Assembly of the League of Nations, in September, 1936, in the presence of British ministers and representatives of other nations of the British commonwealth, and of other member countries of the league, I stated the position as I then understood it, very clearly. No exception so far as I am aware was taken at Geneva, at the time, to that statement nor has exception been taken to it since, by any political party 
at Ottawa, though the statement of Canada's position as therein set forth has been drawn to the attention of parliament at each subsequent session.
I feel I cannot do better at this time than to quote once more essential paragraphs of the statement making clear that they define, as accurately as I believe it is possible to define it, the position of the present government in the matter of Canada's participation in war whether it arises out of our membership in the league of nations or our membership in the British commonwealth of nations.
The paragraphs I regard as pertinent are the following:
There is another factor which inevitably influences Canadian opinion on many league policies, and particularly on the question of automatic obligations to the use of force in international disputes. I have in mind our experience as a member of the British commonwealth of nations. The nations of the British commonwealth are held together by ties of friendship, by similar political institutions, and by common attachment to democratic ideals, rather than by commitments to join together in war. The Canadian parliament reserves to itself the right to declare, in the light of the circumstances existing at the time, to what extent, if at all, Canada will participate in conflicts in which other members of the commonwealth may be engaged.
There is a general unwillingness of peoples to incur obligations which they realize they may not be able in time of crisis to fulfil, obligations to use force and to use it at any place, any time, in circumstances unforeseen, and in disputes over whose origin or whose development they have had little or no control. This difficulty of automatic intervention increases rather than decreases -when conflicts tend to become struggles between classes, between economic systems, between social philosophies and, in some instances between religious faiths, as well as between states.
The Canadian House of Commons hy unanimous resolution has made the adoption of undertakings to apply either military or economic sanctions subject to the approval of parliament.
What I have said and quoted does not mean that in no circumstances would the Canadian people be prepared to share in action against an aggressor; there have been no absolute commitments either for or against participation in war or other forms of force. It does mean that any decision on the part of Canada to participate in war will have to be taken by the parliament or people of Canada in the light of all existing circumstances; circumstances of the day as they exist in Canada, as well as in the areas involved.
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.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
The international situation changes from year to year, sometimes from week to week; governments change, their personnel changes, policies change. Absolute statements of policy, absolute undertakings to follow other governments, whatever the situation, are out of the question. At the same time the decisions that would be made by our government and parliament, like those of other governments and other parliaments, are not incalculable, not matters of chance and whim. Much of course would depend on the special circumstances of the day. But equally important in determining our attitude are certain permanent factors of interest, of sentiment, of opinion, which set the limits within any feasible and united policy must be determined.
May I refer to some of these known, in fact, obvious factors.
The first factor is the one that is present and dominant in the policy of every other country, from Britain and Sweden to Argentina and the United States. I mean the existence of a national feeling and the assumption that first place will be given to the interests, immediate, or long range, of the country itself. The growth of national feeling in Canada has been inevitable at a time when nationalism has come to dominate every quarter of the world. It is a more defensible and enduring growth than in many other lands. It is not based on any desire for expansion or revenge. This half continent affords ample room and the material basis for the building of a great nation. It is clear that this widely scattered dominion can only be welded together by the action of a positive and distinctive Canadian patriotism. 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 m external affairs. It has stood the test and 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.
In many, but certainly not in all cases, this growth of national feeling has strengthened the desire for a policy which its defenders call minding one's own business and which its critics call isolationism. Assuming, it is urged, that Canadians like other people will
put their own interests first, what r'n our interests demand, what amount of 1 night errantry abroad do our resources permit? Canada, it is contended is not a country of unlimited powers; it has not the capacity to stand indefinite strains. We have tremendous tasks to do at home, in housing the people, in caring for the aged and helpless, in relieving drought and unemployment, in building roads, in meeting our heavy burden of debt, in making provision for Canada's defence, and in bringing our standards of living and civilization to the levels our knowledge now makes possible. There is no great margin of realizable wealth for this purpose; we must, to a greater or less extent, choose between keeping our own house in order, and trying to save Europe and Asia. 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 selfdetermination 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.
A second enduring factor is our position as a north American nation, and particularly our neighbourhood to the United States. Geographically, that position has not changed in the past thirty or forty years, but our appreciation of the position has changed. There was a time in the memory of all of us when friction was more in the picture than friendship, when memories of old conflicts, line fence disputes on tariffs or on boundaries or on fisheries, together with the irresponsible colonial position of Canada, and the misconceptions and sectional interests that flourished in the United States, prevented our being the good neighbours we should have been. In the past generation, and particularly in the past ten years, there has come a great and heartening change in that relationship. We have come to know one another better. Individual contacts have increased by business intercourse, by tourist travel, by the agencies of press and radio. Government contacts have increased by the exchange of legations and visits of members of governments. The changing position in the world outside has put both'our occasional and slight differences, and our great and enduring common interests, in their proper perspective. It is a realization of the wider implications of self-interest.
AVe have been considering at length this session, as we did at the first session of the piesent parliament, one of the most notable and practical evidences of that new under-
2420	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
standing, the new trade agreement with the United States. I shall not do more than refer to that achievement as one of the main objectives of our foreign policy, a definite contribution to stability and goodwill. Some people seem to imagine that foreign policy has to do only with war, and is carried on only with countries overseas. It is well to remember its main objective is peace, and its greatest concern is to have a good neighbour.
There is another phase of that relationship which was crystallized in a notable speech last summer. August, 193S, is as important in north American annals as September was in the annals of Europe. In that month, speaking in Kingston, the president of the United States declared:
Happily, you and we, in friendship and in entire understanding, can look clear-eyed at these possibilities, resolving to leave no pathway unexplored and no technique undeveloped which may, if our hopes are realized, contribute to the peace of the world. Even if those hopes are disappointed, we can assure each other that this hemisphere at least shall remain a strong citadel wherein civilization can flourish unimpaired.
The Dominion of Canada is part of the sisterhood of the British empire. I give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened by any other empire.
These significant words met with instant and appreciative response from press and public in Canada. As presenting what I believed to be the Canadian attitude, may I quote part of the remarks I made at Woodbridge shortly afterwards:
We know that these words of assurance are the words of a friendly people and neighbour. We are glad that our common affairs have been so managed, and our mutual confidence so established, that such words can be frankly^ spoken and received without reserve. We realize that there is here no thought of military alliances, which are not a part of the tradition of the people of the United States nor of our own. We recognize the president's words as fresh evidence of the special neighbourly relations which have grown up between Canada and the United States, and we are glad that we are valued as a neighbour . . .
The people of Canada deeply appreciate all that is implied by the president's visit. At the same time they know^ they have their own responsibilities for maintaining Canadian soil as a homeland for free men in the western hemisphere. They will recognize that there is no room to-day for shirking these responsibilities. Indeed, the times being what they are, they will be quick to see that the assurance given by the president, has, if anything, increased rather than lessened our responsibilities.
We, too, have our obligations as_ a good friendly neighbour, and one of them is to see that, at our own instance, our country is made as immune from attack or possible invasion as we can reasonably be expected to make it, and that, should the occasion ever arise, enemy forces should not be able to pursue their way, either by land, sea or air to the United States, across Canadian territory.

What I should like particularly to emphasize is that these closer and more responsible relations with the United States have not in any way lessened the intimacy of our relations with the United Kingdom. On the contrary, this development has been paralleled by a clearer understanding by those two great countries of the ideals and interests they share together. This has found notable illustration in the paralleling of a Canada-United States trade agreement by a United Kingdom-United States agreement. There has been not merely a north American, there has been a growing north Atlantic understanding, though inevitably one involving less definite and crystallized relations and obligations. In this we in Canada have played some part; from it we have certainly derived great benefit. It is not a movement that can be hurried. It is a situation where it is for each country to decide upon its own interest, in the long run, as well as in the immediate phases.
This would appear to be an appropriate place to say a word as to Canada's relations with the countries of south America and the other members of the Pan-American Union.
In these times of lessening distances, between continents as well as countries, there is a larger America in which Canadians are becoming increasingly interested. During recent months it was in fact suggested in many quarters that Canada should be represented at the eighth international conference of American states, held in Lima, Peru, in December. I can assure the house that the government shares the view of the importance of our relations with the score of other nations which have become established in this western hemisphere. On geographical grounds alone, we could not be uninterested in developments affecting their welfare and security. We realize that in many cases these peoples are facing problems similar to those that Canadians have to meet, and that the solutions they have found, or are striving for, have significance for us. In the economic field, our trade relations are important and are capable of extensive increase.
So far as the specific suggestion of participation in the Lima conference is concerned, I may recall that we are not a member of the Pan-American union, and consequently could not have been invited to attend, since in accordance with established rules, the president of Peru sent invitations only to members of the union. Moreover, as hon. members are aware, Canada could not become a member of the Pan-American union unless and until the constitution of that body was altered, since at present its membership is restricted to "American republics." It was, however, sug-

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
gested that we should send an official observer. That procedure, also, I may point out, is not feasible under the existing practice of the union. Some question as to official observers arose at the Montevideo conference in 1933, and the matter was later considered by the governing board. The board, after referring to the fact that since the Havana conference of 1928 both plenary and committee sessions have been open to the general public, concluded that "there seems to be no reason for establishing a category of 'official observers'."
These are, however, somewhat technical considerations. It would be possible to propose or have a friendly member propose that the necessary adjustments should be made in the constitution and procedure of the union to make our membership possible. Public opinion in favour of some such course has undoubtedly increased in recent years. I do not, however, consider that it has yet become sufficiently widespread, or sufficiently informed and matured, to warrant immediate steps in that direction. It is a possibility which should be given consideration in the future, along with other means, trade and governmental, of bringing about closer relationships between our country and these countries which are destined to play an increasingly significant part in the world's affairs.
Another important factor in determining Canada's attitude and policies is our increasing interest in the affairs of Europe. Europe has become a part of the average man's life and thinking in a way that was never true before, except during the great war, and even then in more specialized ways. The old continent has presented in recent years a dramatic and absorbing, if, withal, at times, a terrifying spectacle, with great issues as the theme. New forces, or old passions in new clothing have been driving whole peoples onward to unknown ends, with striking figures personifying their desires. War and the marching of troops, social revolution and religious conflict, have held our attention. Controversies have not been confined to council chambers or diplomatic congresses; challenges are hurled across frontiers in all men's sight and hearing. Increased press services, the films of foreign happenings, the radio and radio commentators, the books of intimate confessions written by a score of European correspondents, have brought the drama to new audiences of millions. In many cases the impact has been too strong. The flaming headline, the daily sensation, the voices and pictures from the scene of conflict, the commentators' dramatization have been too much for some people. It is perhaps fortunate that television has not yet come into popular use.
Spectators frequently do not remain wholly spectators. Their interest is engaged. They may take sides, more or less informed: human sympathies, racial sympathies, religious sympathies, class sympathies, political creeds, apprehensions of the results for their own country, may carry them into opposition or advocacy. It is not an idealistic and detached interest such as the League of Nations awakened in its prime; it is a more passionate interest, the interest of people moved to fear or to hate. And inevitably persons who feel deeply, desire to have their own country's policy directed to support or oppose one or other of these contending forces. This explains how it is in our own country there have been some who wanted support for Madrid, others for Burgos; why one defends Stalin, another Trotsky-and overwhelming numbers condemn them both; why occasionally voices are heard in defence of fascism, while many urge that we take up arms on behalf of all democratic countries; and why we have appeals to aid this oppressed religious group, or that struggling racial minority. In many cases these demands are largely an emotional release, but in so far as they do not cancel out, they constitute a force for intervention in European affairs.
I have referred to the difference between the present interest in Europe and the interest which, in earlier years, centered in the League of Nations. For a good many years we on this side of the Atlantic looked at Europe through the -window of Geneva. When we thought of its problems and controversies, most of us took it for granted they would be settled by the machinery of the league and on league principles. It was assumed by the supporters of collective security through collective coercion, that if force were needed the force at the league's command would be overwhelming. The case for league action was further simplified by the abstract and general manner in which the contingency was presented; it was no particular issue with its indefinite tones, but an abstract issue, in blacks and whites, between an aggressor and his victim. Naturally everyone was against the "aggressor." But when the theory came to the testing, the league was found to lack the universality that had been assumed, and the specific disputes presented difficulties of divided national interest, or hesitation to risk war, that had not arisen in the hypo' thetical case of an abstract aggressor.
In the momentous incidents of the past year, the league has played little part. The assembly was in session at the height of the September crisis, but no one in Geneva or elsewhere thought of it as the effective instru-
2422	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
ment for maintaining peace. Europe had reverted to open power politics, to dominance by the great powers. There is and will remain a divergence of views as to the responsibility for that situation. I am inclined to agree with the judgment of the Marquess of Crewe, in a recent speech in London:
The League of Nations has been blamed, and the nations who were supposed to be able to direct the policy of the League of Nations were individually blamed, for not having taken strong action against aggressors on one or two occasions, but I am inclined to think that posterity will be disposed to blame the League of Nations infinitely more for having devoted attention almost exclusively to the penalties it could exact from those that made war rather than giving time and attention to removing the causes for which war is made. That is to say, article 16, the penalties article, was so to speak, perpetually on the agenda of the League, although, as we know, it was not brought into play in the way many people wished, whereas article 19 remained in a dusty pigeonhole. I cannot help feeling that the present situation might have been entirely different if a different course had been taken. It might even have happened that the name of Herr Hitler would never have been heard, because the occasions which brought him into such prominence as the recreator of his country never need have arisen.
But because the league failed in this high task of world control to which it was prematurely set, it does not follow that it has failed completely. The conception of the peoples of the world sitting in council together to achieve their common interests and solve their current problems is too splendid, too indispensable in this jostling world, to be allowed to die. In the anarchy and passion of to-day, such a centre of co-ordination, such a focus of good-will, is more needed than ever. It will have to operate on a more limited and less spectacular stage, building up its technical and social and economic activities, accustoming peoples and governments to work together, until eventually they may find it possible to use this tried and tested instrument for greater ends.	[DOT]
In this connection it is of special interest to observe a note which the United States government sent to the secretary general of the League of Nations last month:
The league has been responsible for the development of mutual exchange and discussion of ideas and methods to a greater extent, and in more fields of humanitarian and scientific endeavour, than any other organization in history. The United States government are keenly aware of the value of this type of general interchange, and desire to see it extended.
Encouraging as has been the progress already made, much remains to be done for the promotion of human welfare in health, social, economic, and financial fields. . . .

The United States government look forward to the development and expansion of the league's machinery for dealing with the problems in these fields, and to the participation by all nations in active efforts to solve them. . . . They will continue to collaborate in those activities and will consider, in a sympathetic spirit, means of making their collaboration more effective.
A deeper interest and a vital factor in the determining of Canadian policies is our concern for the strength and welfare of the United Kingdom. It has its foundation in ties of kinship and personal contact. It is probably true that, for most people, as years pass, the centre of political gravity tends to shift from the land of their fathers to the land of their children. Probably most of those of us whose ancestors came from the British Isles stand midway in this respect between our French-speaking fellow-citizens whose ancestors have been established here for three hundred years, and newer comers who, in some instances, naturally think still in terms of the life and ways of the land they have left. But the feeling of personal interest on the part of Canadians generally in what is affectionately termed the old country is still a very strong and determining factor.
It is, of course, not the only reason why the fate of Britain gives us special concern. Ties of trade are strong. Still stronger is the admiration, which is not confined to those of British ancestry, 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.
In times like these there is a special recognition of the fact that Great Britain, to-day, whatever may have been the case in the past, has no territorial ambitions, no designs on any other people's land or liberty, and that her influence is the main force in the world for maintaining peace. A world in which Britain was weak would be greatly worse for small countries than a world in which she was strong. Finally there are the historical and political ties-the allegiance to the same king; the common human interest in the holders of the crown; the free association in the same commonwealth. With Britain's strength is also associated a sense of our own security. Particularly at a time like the present, where there are evidences of a desire of world domination by force, have we reason to feel that an act of an aggressor aimed at the destruction of Britain would constitute a menace to the freedom of every nation of the British commonwealth. All these forces com-

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
bine to make concern for the security of Britain a deep-felt and powerful factor in the shaping of Canadian policy.
Any realistic survey of the Canadian scene will make it clear that these varying factors play their part in the shaping of opinion and policy in Canada. No one of them can be ignored. No one can be taken as the sole directing force. They do not necessarily conflict; they may increasingly work together. That depends on the special circumstances and on the policies of other countries than ours. That is why it is impossible in the case of our country, as of others, to give what some people seem to desire, a hard and fast statement in advance as to the action that will be taken in hypothetical future cases that may arise in this rapidly shifting world.
Within the limits I have indicated, a decision on each issue must be made. As I have said, it is for the government to recommend and for parliament to decide upon the course to follow. It is, however, objected that in some cases, and particularly in the event of another member of the British commonwealth, which in present conditions means the United Kingdom, being at war, parliament has no freedom to decide, that Canada is automatically a belligerent whenever the United Kingdom is. In some quarters it is further urged that assuming this to be true, we should, in order to make freedom of choice a reality, take formal steps here and now to remove any doubt on the matter, to make it clear to the world that Canada has the right to remain neutral, not a belligerent, whether passive or active, when the United Kingdom is at war.
The constitutional relationship of the several members of the commonwealth in the event of war is not a simple question. It is not one that can be determined by quoting detached phrases from resolutions or speeches.
Here I may take the opportunity to refer to obvious misrepresentations or misconceptions based on a reference I myself made in this house in the course of the debate on the address to a statement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier on February 3, 1910, as follows:
If England is at war we are at war and liable to attack. I do not say that we shall always he attacked, neither do I say that we would take part in all the wars of England. That is a matter that must he guided by circumstances, upon which the Canadian parliament will have to pronounce and will have to decide in its own best judgment.
With regard to the use which has been made of this paragraph since it was quoted, I should like, first of all, to take strong exception to the failure, either accidental or deliberate, of some who have referred to it, to make use of the entire quotation and
thereby make clear exactly what was meant. In justice not less to the memory of Sir Wilfrid Laurier than to myself, I wish to take strong exception to divorcing a single sentence from the statement of which it is an integral part, and still stronger exception to deleting altogether a part of a single sentence, thereby giving to the remainder a meaning which was never intended.
When Sir Wilfrid Laurier used the expression: "If England is at war, we are at war and liable to attack," he was not propounding some political or constitutional theory with respect to the powers and limitations of the government or parliament of Canada in time of war. The remainder of the paragraph makes clear that the very opposite was what was in his mind. What he was seeking to make clear and what it is necessary should be made abundantly clear to-day, is the danger of attack upon Canada itself which is inseparable from an attack upon Britain by an aggressor. Sir Wilfrid Laurier wished to make clear to the Canada of his day, as I feel it equally my duty to make it abundantly clear to the Canada of the present day, that when for any reason there is cause to believe that one or more nations are determined upon aggression, and may have in mind domination of other countries by force, it may be that enemy, not the parliament of this country or even its people, who will decide whether it best serves its purpose to regard Canada as liable to attack in any conflict in which it may be engaged with any other part of the British commonwealth of nations.
My immediate purpose in quoting the statement, as will be apparent from the context, was to emphasize the continuity of Liberal policy as regards parliamentary control, the view which was held then and which we as a government hold to-day, that in the great as in the small issues of a nation's policy, the policy of self-government which we have followed for a century makes it essential that parliament and no other body should decide. If at that time I had been directing particular attention to that portion of Sir Wilfrid's remarks, to which I have just referred, I should have quoted, as indicating still more clearly the causal connection, between the two parts of that remark, a more explicit statement Sir Wilfird had previously made in the same debate on January 12, 1910:
When Britain is at war, Canada is at war; there is no distinction. If Great Britain, to which we are subject, is at war with any nation, Canada becomes liable to invasion, and so Canada is at war.
This statement indicates that Sir Wilfrid's conclusion was based on two assumptions
2424	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
The first is set forth in the phrase, "Great Britain, to which we- are subject"; in other words the assumption was that political subordination existed. The second assumption was, as I have indicated, that, given this political subordination, or conceivably, any political connection between Great Britain and Canada, the enemy, if he so desired and could do so, was entitled to attack Canada, and so Canada was at war.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not a man to set bounds to a nation's growth. He would have been the last to say that its future destinies must be guided by facts or phrases belonging to a political and constitutional position of a generation before, just as he would have been the last to say we should remain indifferent to Britain's destruction or the destruction of freedom in the world.
There have been great changes since 1910. The constitutional changes are most familiar. There has been an advance from colonial subordination to equal status, the substantial achievement of responsible government in external as well as in domestic affairs. It is a development which has saved the British empire and given a fruitful example to other peoples: it is a permanent tribute to the political genius, the practical sense, the ability to adapt and compromise, which characterize the peoples of the commonwealth, and it is, I think, generally recognized that it is a development in which Canadians have played the initiating and decisive part.
I need not do more than refer to the oft-quoted reference in the declaration of the imperial conference of 1926, to the position of Great Britain and the Dominions as "equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs," and to the specific developments which in recent years have illustrated and made definite that declaration-the changed position of the governor general, the right of extra-territorial legislation, the removal of the legislative control of the parliament of the United Kingdom save for constitutional changes so long as we desire that limitation, the modifications as to judicial appeals, the establishment of legations, representation at international conferences and in the League of Nations, the understanding that treaties between the king in respect of any part of the commonwealth and a foreign country are made on the advice of his ministers in that part.
But it is not only the constitutional position that has changed. Canada has grown from a country of seven to a country of eleven millions; its industries have expanded beyond anything earlier imagined; the devel-

opment of the mining areas of the north has turned what was a dividing waste into a source of national strength.
The world war has intervened, a war that set a boundary line between two periods in the life of mankind. Now we all know better what war means. No intelligent man or woman can assume that the world stands where it did in 1910 or in 1914-18. The war profoundly modified the balance of power both in the old world and in the new.
The development of aviation, and changes in industrial structure, have further modified the strategic situation. For the British commonwealth they have meant a diffusion of responsibility, a decentralization in defence, the greater importance of local defence and of alternative sources of raw materials, industrial supplies, and defence equipment. Perhaps the chief significance of the imperial conference of 1937 was the general recognition of that development.
But these momentous changes, changes in the world position, changes in political relationships, changes in the defence situation, even the changes in the constitutional relations between the members of the commonwealth, do not necessarily alter the formal and legal position, the position which undoubtedly existed a generation ago, that Canada was automatically a belligerent if the United Kingdom was.
A legal situation can be changed in one of two ways, by the gradual and decisive overriding of the old letter of the law by established constitutional conventions, or by definite action by the legislative authorities which have the power to act. There are many points upon which the old legal position has been modified and made obsolete by the gradual development of divergent practice, by the steady accumulation of precedent, until the new situation has been decisively established by tacit recognition or as in 1926 by formal recital.
There is no general agreement that such is the case as regards war time relationship. Legal experts still differ as to the conclusions that may be drawn as to the divisibility or indivisibility of the crown, and as to the range of the effect of advice tendered to the sovereign by his ministers in the United Kingdom alone. The reason why constitutional conventions have not brought clarity and agreement in this matter of war relationship is the simple and fortunate reason that no part of the commonwealth has engaged in any war in the past twenty years, aside from minor border raids, and consequently there has been no testing of practice, no accumulation of precedent.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
Given this position, it is frequently suggested that action should be taken at once, whether by the parliament of Canada alone, or by the parliaments of Canada and the United Kingdom acting jointly, to establish the right of Canada, in the event of war to choose between the status of belligerency and the status of neutrality. Or as it is sometimes put, it is urged it should be established that the sole advisers of his majesty who can advise him to issue a declaration of war as regards Canada are his majesty's Canadian advisers.
In considering this question it is essential to bear in mind the limitations of any parliamentary action that might be taken regarding the exercise of ministerial advice to the crown; for example, that action should be taken by parliament to provide that a declaration by his majesty on the advice of his Canadian ministers will be necessary to give Canada the legal status of belligerency.
It would not be consistent with the actual facts to conclude that the original legal position in this regard had not been modified in any degree by the long and far-reaching trend of constitutional development. Equally it would be closing one's eyes to facts to imagine that action of the character suggested would solve all the anomalies or contradictions in the commonwealth relationship. It should certainly not be overlooked that declarations of war have in some measure gone out of fashion. The proposal would obviously not meet the case where no declaration of war was made. Nor can it be assumed that any such declaration would necessarily deter the , enemy from taking immediate hostile action on the ground that the general relationship between the several members of the commonwealth warranted it in regarding all parts as belligerents. In this respect, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's statement still expresses a reality which we cannot ignore and for which we must make due preparation in defence.
I recognize that those who are advocating and supporting the proposal to which I have referred regard it as a logical consequence, a necessary implication, of our long evolution toward self-government. It registers the conclusion that it would not be consistent with the present relationship of the members of the commonwealth to hold that the king would act for Canada as regards war and peace on the advice of any other one of his governments, but not on the advice of his government in Canada itself. It is put forward as a recognition of the necessity of the people, the parliament, the government of this country accepting adult responsibility for a course that
so vitally affects them, rather than throwing that responsibility on other members of the commonwealth or their governments.
I do not myself think that at the present time it is either necessary or desirable to seek the enactment of such legislation. I shall not go into the legal question to which I have already referred, or into the further question on which there is also a difference among the legal experts, as to whether action by the parliament of Canhda alone would suffice to establish a new position, or whether action by the parliament of the United Kingdom would also be necessary. I have already referred to the fact that to seek legal action now might be taken to mean that it had been definitely concluded that the old legal posi-. tion has not been affected by constitutional development, and to mean that to-day it would not be His Majesty's Government of Canada upon whose advice His Majesty the King would issue a declaration of war affecting Canada. I shall confine myself to the brief statement of two further considerations which in my mind render it undesirable to follow the suggested course.
In the first place, action to that effect, if legislatively possible, would be carried through only at the cost of passionate controversy and acute differences of opinion. Why, I ask, divide Canada to provide against a contingency that may not arise, or if it does arise, may not come until the situation has materially changed? The same consideration of the overwhelming importance of national unity which has led this government to decline to make premature and inappropriate statements of possible belligerency prevent it from recommending action to declare possible neutrality.
But this is not the only consideration. Action of this nature at this time would be aid and comfort to any country which might be inclined to aggressive action against the democratic peoples or against the United Kingdom specifically. Such a country would inevitably draw the conclusion, whether logically well founded or not, that our seeking, under the present conditions of the world, the legal power to remain neutral, implied a definite decision to remain neutral in any and every conflict that country might precipitate. That would be a most unwarranted conclusion, a most unfortunate result. No country now has or should be given any ground for counting that in the event of aggression against the United Kingdom this country has decided to stand aloof, decided against taking an appropriate part if such a struggle were thrust upon her.
2426	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
The action suggested is really not to the point. I appreciate the motives of those who urge such action, but I think they exaggerate the importance of legal forms and formulas. Canada's decision in any case that can now be envisaged will not be determined by the legal position. We would not go into a war merely because of legal uncertainty as to our power to stay out. We would not stay out of a war merely because we had provided unquestioned technical freedom to do so. Our country's decisions on such vital matters, now or later, will depend on deeper forces, they will depend on the thoughts and feelings of our people.
While another world war will, I trust, never recur, it is desirable nevertheless to consider some questions which would arise in the event of our participation in such a conflict. That participation could not be passive or formal, nor could it be unplanned or irresponsible. It would be necessary to consider in consultation with others involved and with regard to the objectives and operations of the enemy, what would be the most effective form our action and our cooperation could take.
It is clear that the conditions determining the nature of participation in such a conflict have undergone a great change since the last war. The balance of world power has shifted, and Canada has to keep its Pacific as well as its Atlantic coast in mind. Prom both the military and the economic aspect, the attitude of the United States would be immensely more important for the world and for us, than twenty years ago. The weapons and tactics of war have materially changed; naval conditions have perhaps not greatly altered, so far as the sea reaches, but armies have become mechanized, great Maginot or Siegfried lines bar the possibility of rapid infantry advance. Aeroplanes have brought new resources and scope to other arms in joint operations, and have in themselves given war new range, new flexibility and new terrors. Mechanization on land and in the air, and the colossal demands for supplies and renewed equipment, demands which would begin far beyond where the demands of the last war left off, greatly increase the importance of the economic factor, the indispensability of adequate supplies and staying power-factors in which the democratic countries are overwhelmingly strong.
The change in the world balance of power, the change in the strategic conditions, the change in economic needs and in relative industrial capacity, have brought about a marked decentralization of defence activities 
in the British commonwealth. They have brought about a greater preoccupation of each part with its own defence, a greater responsibility for that defence, a greater self-containment in the provision of the means of defence. Anyone who has followed the discussion of defence not only in the United Kingdom but in Australia and South Africa, is familiar with that fact. One strategic fact is clear: the days of great expeditionary forces of infantry crossing the oceans are not likely to recur. Two years ago, I expressed in this house the view that it was extremely doubtful if any of the British dominions would ever send another expeditionary force to Europe.
One political fact is equally clear: in a war to save the liberty of others, and thus our own, we should not sacrifice our own liberty or our own unity. Planning and coordination would be essential, but the necessary coordination could be made, and if this government were in power it would be made, without sacrificing those vital ends and conditions of our existence. Profits could and would be rigidly controlled, and profiteering suppressed. But men's lives and men's wills cannot be put on the same basis as goods and profits. The present government believes that conscription of men for overseas service would not be a necessary or an effective step. Let me say that so long as this government may be in power, no such measure will be enacted. We have full faith in the readiness of Canadian men and women to rally for the defence of their country and their liberties, and to resist aggression by any country seeking to dominate the world by force. There is in our people, in every part of Canada, a deep sense of duty, a power of facing realities, a tenacious courage, that would rise to any emergency.
I have spoken a good deal of war and the possibility of war. In a review of foreign affairs, under present world conditions, it is necessary to give that subject special emphasis.
I do not wish, however, to go further in that direction than is absolutely necessary. There is no doubt that the outlook is disturbed. The heaping up of rival armaments, the clash of new doctrines, the concentration of power in a few hands, are factors which make it necessary to become prepared for whatever may happen. It is not possible to ignore that situation. But while there is no ground for an easy-going optimism, neither, I believe, is there ground for persistent pessimism. We should be on our guard against reckless rumours and the credulous acceptance of rumours. I do not believe in the prophecies of inevitable wars and forecasts of the inevit-

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
able collapse of civilization and a return to the dark ages or worse. We must not permit ourselves to drift into a fatalist and defeatist mood, which more than all else, hampers business recovery and political stability, and puts people in a mood to accept any end to prolonged tension.
It is not a breakdown of civilization with which the world is faced; it is a period of profound readjustments, both domestic and international. We are living in one of those decisive periods of human history when new forces gather momentum and break through the crust of custom, when new tendencies develop with startling speed. The relations between peoples have been upset by scientific developments which have brought them suddenly into immensely closer daily contact, before they had developed the new political machinery, the new political attitude, the new political experience and capacity that are required for living together in such close quarters. After centuries of economic struggle, we have largely conquered nature, we have succeeded in developing the material equipment for more abundant living, but while progress is being made, and made much more rapidly than many with short memories realize, the world has not yet adjusted its economic machinery to secure the full utilization of its new opportunities. These developments should be viewed as opportunities, not as calamities; any disturbances they involve may well be growing pains, not signs of decay.
May I repeat my belief that, despite the strife and turmoil and reaction of to-day, human society is moving forward. In our short-time judgments we are sometimes misled by a lack of perspective. We may forget or never have known what were the real conditions of a generation or a century ago, or may have idealized the past, seen it through a romantic and obscuring haze. We overlook the fact that many of the things that trouble us always existed, existed in worse degree, but were not known at all, or not known till long after the event, were merely local issues, whereas to-day fact and rumour and propaganda from every quarter are thrust into our eyes and ears hourly and incessantly, insisting upon our attention. And we forget also that to-day we judge both international conduct and social conditions with more awakened consciences, more advanced standards of measurement. It is only when we are perfectly contented with things as they are, that we will be going backwards.
These developments involve clashes between conflicting ideas, ideals, and ambitions. The conflict is being fought out in the open; all the world's the stage, and all the peoples
have become close spectators. But, while there is the danger, it does not necessarily follow that these clashes must lead to world war. As I have said earlier, there is among the peoples a passionate desire for peace, based on a wider knowledge of what war would involve. There are objectives the people have come to believe are worth striving for, but they do not necessarily consider them worth dying for. There may be nations which are prepared to take great risks to attain national ends. There is the danger of getting too near the edge of the precipice in the expectation that the opposing country will draw back first. But that danger is lessened as peoples become aware of how near to the edge they have been brought by their leaders, and as armaments are equalized and pressure creates new resistance.
There is a deep difference between the democratic and the totalitarian states. Neither type can at present expect the other to abandon the way of life that seems good to it. That difference, fundamental and important as it is, that rivalry, inevitable as it may be, does not mean that a decision must be sought on the field of battle. War would settle nothing, prove nothing, help nothing. The decisive test which faces both democracies and dictatorships is the task that faces them at home.
Countries, like our own, which have chosen the democratic way, must be prepared to stand up for their ideals, to resist the contagion or the attack of totalitarian isms of whatever colour. But it is first and foremost at home that that defence must be made. Democracy is not an easy system of government to establish or to maintain. It is a system that makes great demands on the intelligence, on the tolerance, on the patriotism of the whole people. It is an active, not a passive way of life. It demands an appreciation of the value of freedom and a resolution to defend it from all encroachments. It calls for the hardest and, at the same time, most enduring form of discipline, self-discipline; for the most difficult form of cooperation, free cooperation, born of devotion to common ends. That is why not all peoples have been able to achieve it. That is also why we or any other democratic people cannot be certain of maintaining it, unless we are prepared to give to public affairs the interest and the attention that the activities of the modern community demand. We cannot hope to maintain democratic institutions unless we are ready to refrain from the temptations to intolerance, to cheap cynicism and indiscriminate criticism. and from regarding the state simply as something to be squeezed. That way lies
2428	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King
disunion and demoralization. Often times criticism may seem too free, too reckless, too malicious, but I believe democracies will survive too free criticism much more effectively than dictatorships will survive the lack of criticism.
So far as rivalry exists, it may be hoped that it will take a more constructive, a more conclusive form. Let it be a rivalry in doing most for one's own people, not most against another people. Let it be a contest in determining which way of life does the most for the ordinary man and woman, which can best give both opportunity and security, which can most effectively raise standards of living, and standards of thinking, which can most effectively lessen human suffering and human want, which can best reconcile individual liberty and community obligation.
Recognizing that the present is one of the great epochs of transition in the history of the world, there is need, as well as opportunity, for every country to play a distinctive part. It will take time for the waves of emotion, set up by war and revolution, to calm down. Of this we may be assured, and it is something in which the humblest equally with the greatest may play an effective part; peace and security for all will be attained only as each country strives to add nothing to the dangerous flood of hate and hysteria, but seeks to add something to the world's stock of understanding, confidence and goodwill.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
whole house has listened with a great deal of interest to the full and complete review given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) of the facts in connection with the two crises, the one of September last and the one of a few weeks ago, in March. I must say at once that I have not the facilities or perhaps the experience in external affairs to go as fully into the matter as did the Prime Minister. I fear I shall repeat some of the statements which he made, and I hope the house will overlook my doing so.
In general I agree with many of the statements made by the Prime Minister. For example, I agree with his approval of Mr. Chamberlain's conduct last September, with his belief in the inadvisability of bluffing in international affairs, with his statement that there is no inevitability of war, and with his desire for a united Canada. With all these expressions of opinion on the part of the Prime Minister I agree absolutely. I do believe that he has done some service to the country, and particularly to the members

of this house, in giving the attitude of the other dominions in connection with the two crises through which we have passed. I sincerely hope that some of his critics, who perhaps have also been crities of mine, will read his remarks, digest them and remember them.
In discussing the external affairs of this country at the present time I should like to point out that the position of world affairs has changed very materially in the last few years. World conditions have changed since the rise of Hitler and his union with Mussolini and the Japanese. I think it is safe to say that in the early 1930's, perhaps up to the middle of the 1930's, it was the opinion of the world generally, perhaps an opinion governed by hope, that the world would never again experience such a catastrophe as it went through from 1914 to 1918. At that time disarmament was thought to be a possibility, and that feeling continued up to 1935 or later. I had the honour to attend the disarmament conference which met in Geneva in 1933. I headed the delegation from Canada, and I well remember that at that conference everyone, with the possible exception of the Germans, was of the hope that something in the way of world disarmament could be accomplished. From the early 1930's up to perhaps last year, Great Britain, Canada and many other countries, particularly the democratic countries, felt that they could safely go in for a greater degree of disarmament. That is the reason why the United Kingdom and Canada are to-day in the position of lacking armaments which, upon looking back, rve now believe it would have been wiser to possess.
The change in world conditions to which I have referred is due largely to the rise of Hitler. It was during my attendance at the League of Nations in 1933 that Hitler, on behalf of Germany, retired from the league. Later he denounced the Versailles treaty, fortified the Rhine, rearmed Germany, and, in 1938, took Austria. Then the Sudetenland was ceded to Germany, as referred to by the Prime Minister, and finally within the last few weeks he took Czechoslovakia by force, and was ceded Memel because of a threat of force. It must be borne in mind that the ambition of Hitler, particularly, as shown in the last few weeks, would seem to point to his desiring world domination, to his desiring to take a position threatening to the liberties of all democratic governments. His mentality is different from that of the leaders in the democratic countries. His is a mentality which has led him to persecute the Jews in Ger-

Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion
many to an extent which has been shocking to all decent people. His is a mentality which is antagonistic to Christian sects of all denominations. His is a mentality which believes in the supremacy of the state over the individual, in making the state all-powerful and the individual of no importance. These circumstances have changed the whole world scene.	*
We have to think as well of the fact that the Dominion of Canada is more vulnerable to-day than it ever was. It is becoming more vulnerable every day because of the advances being made in modern science, particularly military science. We are vulnerable to attack on three fronts, the Atlantic, the Pacific and the north. We are vulnerable to attack on the Atlantic by two main routes. One is by attack on such ports as Halifax and Saint John, and the other, and probably much more dangerous, is by attack up the St. Lawrence river. I know of no reason-I have given the matter some little thought although I have no expert knowledge-why in war-time an enemy ship that might have escaped from the control of the British navy, or the United States navy, if you like, could not come up the St. Lawrence river as far as the city of Quebec, bomb that city, bomb other cities in the neighbourhood, send out aeroplanes from its deck and attack Montreal and cities as far west as Toronto. I know of no method of defence at present available to stop such an attack.
The same is true to a large extent of the Pacific coast. We have no adequate defence on the Pacific coast. As I pointed out in the house on another occasion, Canada is still more vulnerable to attack by way of Hudson bay and James bay. I then quoted an article, written by Lieutenant Carter, in the Canadian Defence Quarterly, pointing out that an enemy ship could come down into James bay, anchor at Charlton island, and there it would be within six hundred miles bombing distance of the cities of Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, and other large industrial centres. Ottawa would be within less than that distance. Niagara Falls, with its great power development, would also be exposed to attack; the Sudbury area would be a much shorter distance away. The plant of the International Nickel Company, situated there, producing ninety per cent of the world's nickel supply, would be vulnerable to attack. The Abitibi power development; the gold producing sections of Noranda in Quebec; and in Ontario, Timmins and Kirkland Lake; the canals at Sault Ste. Marie; Fort William and Port Arthur, our great grain centres, and as far west as the city of Winnipeg, would also be
vulnerable to attack. All these places, by actual measurements which I made myself because I could not believe at first what was pointed out by Lieutenant Carter-all these important hearts, if you like, of this great country of ours, would be vulnerable to attack from the base of an enemy ship in James bay only 600 miles from any of them, and I know of no way by which we could stop that ship from coming in the summer-time through the Hudson strait into Hudson bay, and then on down into James bay.
We must remember, in addition, that Canada is the greatest prize in the world. I do not think anybody will question that statement when one takes into consideration our huge area, our very rich resources, our almost negligible population in comparison with the area of our country, a population of only eleven millions with ample room for ten times that number, judged by standards in European countries, where in half our area, if one leaves out Russia, one will find three hundred million people. I repeat that we have no adequate defence to protect this great land of ours from the covetous eyes of world dictators in congested countries.
Not only are we exposed to the military danger, but there is also the extension of the offensive, as mentioned by the Prime Minister, that has been made possible by scientific advancements in the air, well evidenced in the last few days by the flights between Ottawa and Vancouver made by a number of members of parliament. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but our whole liberties are in danger. And so I say that the most ardent peace lover in the world to-day must change his views and his outlook on world conditions. He must broaden his views because of the necessity of considering our own self-preservation.
Having said that as a background, I want to deal briefly with the two crises which the Prime Minister mentioned, the one in September last, and the other only a few short weeks ago, in this very month. The Prime Minister has explained more fully than I shall attempt to do, the September crisis-the demand of the Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia for greater autonomy. Then, there was pressure by Germany on behalf of the Sudeten Germans; there was the danger of war being made by France if Germany atacked Czechoslovakia, and the danger of England taking part in that war as an ally of France, although, so far as I know, while France was more or less bound to come to the aid of Czechoslovakia, England was bound only by her alliance with France. Those
Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion

were hectic days. Then there was Mr. Chamberlain's visit to Berchtesgaden on September 15. as the Prime Minister mentioned, his visit to Godesberg on September 22, and then the final visit to and settlement at Munich on September 29, a settlement which was without doubt distasteful to all lovers of freedom but one which undoubtedly prevented a world war at that time. It implemented the principles behind the Kellogg-Briand pact of settling, by peaceful means rather than by war, international differences. It was the principle of settlement of international differences by conference round the council table rather than on the battlefield, and frankly I believe that the vast majority of the people not only of Great Britain but of all the British dominions supported Mr. Chamberlain in the action he took at that time.
I was much impressed by a statement of Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, who said that if the peace that was brought about by the Munich settlement had only a five per cent chance of being maintained, he would support it, and that I believe was the feeling of most people. The horrors of war, the danger of a world-wide conflagration, a catastrophe much greater than that which took place between 1914 and 1918-all these considerations made the whole world to a certain extent at any rate satisfied with what Mr. Chamberlain. M. Daladier, and even Mussolini, to do him justice, did to assure peace for the time being even at the expense of poor little Czechoslovakia.
But the recent attack on Czechoslovakia in mid-March, the rape of Czechoslovakia as it has been described by many, was so illegal, so brutal and so barbarous that all decent, liberty-loving people condemned it as an international crime, indeed as international gangsterism.
Those are the two crises which we have to discuss. I want to point out now-and I say this in no spirit of criticism; I just mention it as a fact-that I have to view these crises from the point of view of the man in the street. I was not called into consultation by the government. I was dependent, as all members of the house were except the ministers of the crown upon the press and the radio. I am not complaining. I simply point out that in Great Britain they took a different course. In both crises they did call into consultation, according to press reports, the leaders of all parties, and some who were not leaders of parties. I think that was the proper course, and without atempting to criticize I must say that I think it was the wise course. But the government here did not consider it
{Mr. Manion.]
necessary to do this. I do think, however, that such a crisis as that of September or of March was a time for joint action, for cooperation, for a united country, for a truce in party warfare. But I repeat-and I am not attempting to find fault-the government did not choose to act in this way. I do nothing more than mention the attitude of the government as it affected myself as leader of the National Conservative party.
The crises have passed for the time being, and we may speak freely, without descending to party politics. I shall endeavour to keep as far away as possible from any political criticism because this is a question far above politics, and I shall try to take a position above anything in the way of partisanship.
I realize that the government's position, in such critical times as September and March, is both difficult and serious. Canada is not like Australia or New Zealand, not only because we have not the same geography, but because of racial considerations and sectional reasons. Canada can be more justly compared, I think, with South Africa. Our two countries have two races, two mentalities, many different sections. I had no desire in such critical times and in such a critical matter, in any way to embarrass the government, and therefore in September I followed the English example. I felt it to be the patriotic course to offer nothing in the way of criticism. For I entirely agree, and I have said this many times, that it is the first duty of public men in this country to hold Canada together. I admit that this is not very easy under present conditions, and yet I submit to those unthinking people who too freely take a different attitude, who too freely ignore the duty of a public man, that it would be no advantage to the empire for Great Britain, we will say, to win a war in Europe or Asia if it were at the cost of smashing the Dominion of Canada into its original pieces. Quite frankly, I believe that too many have forgotten that duty which devolves upon public men.
Now, sir, during the September crisis I made no statements until after the Prime Minister had made two. During the early part of the crisis the Prime Minister issued, on September 17, the statement to which he referred to-day. I will paraphrase it, and if I am wrong I shall be glad to be corrected by the Prime Minister. He endorsed the British government's attempt to preserve peace, but added that, if these efforts failed, the Canadian government would be prepared to call parliament and to submit proposals

Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion
to it. He then deprecated public controversy in regard to what he called "hypothetical contingencies".
Ten days later, on September 27, he issued another statement which, since it is brief, I shall quote in full. He has quoted it, but I will repeat it as part of my speech:
The Canadian government is continuing to keep in closest touch with the grave developments in the European situation.
The government is making preparations for any contingency and for the immediate summoning of parliament, if efforts, which are still being made to preserve the peace of Europe, should fail.
For our country to keep united is allimportant. To that end in whatever we say or do we must seek to avoid controversies and divisions that might seriously impair effective and concerted action when parliament meets.
The government is in complete accord with the statement Prime Minister Chamberlain made to the world to-day.
The Prime Minister quoted Mr. Chamberlain at some length. I am going to quote one paragraph of Mr. Chamberlain's address. He said:
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.
When asked by a newspaperman as to whether he meant that his government supported Mr. Chamberlain when the latter said that any nation which sought to dominate "by fear of its force" would be resisted, the Prime Minister replied:
I mean just what I have said. Mr. Chamberlain's statement is before the world for all to read.
That is quoted from the Toronto Globe and Mail.
Up to that time I had not issued any statement, but the following day, September 28, I issued a statement which I wish to quote because it was published in the press only.
During the terribly critical situation in Europe there have been those who felt that my attitude towards that situation, as leader of the National Conservative party in Canada, should be made known. I have thus far refused to make any statement, on the ground that, not only because of his huge majority, but because he is the head of the government, the Prime Minister of Canada alone can speak with any authority for this country. Certainly no word of mine could be helpful, either to him or to the empire.
At such a time as this the duty of the government in a country such as ours, is very difficult and very serious, and I have no intention, for the sake of gaining any petty political advantage, of adding to its difficulties. In a wide reading of the press, I have observed that in England during this crisis no political leader or other prominent public man (except a few communists) has done aught but cooperate with Britain's Prime Minister, though
undoubtedly there are some who disagree with Mr. Chamberlain's actions, but, for patriotic reasons, there is a total absence of any criticism.
I may add that up to that point there was no criticism in England. After the crisis passed there was a good deal. I went on:
All stand shoulder to shoulder, avoiding political or other differences so far as possible. That is as it should be, and we can do no better here than follow the example that the people of Britain set us. That is my conception of my duty at the moment-particularly in view of the fact that I have not been called into consultation by the Canadian government, and therefore am dependent upon the newspapers and the radio for my information.
Undoubtedly the government has much fuller information than it is possible for any of the rest of us to possess. Indeed, outside the government itself no one in Canada can know the full details of Britain's own position.
In Mr. King's press release of last evening, he said that the Canadian government "is in complete accord with the statement Prime Minister Chamberlain made to the world to-day."
With that position I am in full agreement. I can assure Mr. King that whatever steps he and the government take in support of Mr. Chamberlain and the empire will have the full cooperation of the National Conservative party and its leader.
That was my statement at that time. During the recent crisis of March, a few weeks ago, when the Prime Minister made no statement, I was again pressed very strongly by members of my own party and by various sections of this country to make my position known. Czechoslovakia was taken by Germany on, I believe, Wednesday night or Thursday night. On the following Saturday and Sunday, March 18 and 19,1 waited, expecting-frankly-that the Prime Minister would call in the leaders of the various parties. On Sunday evening, as he had not called us in, I issued a statement which I intend to read. It is not very lengthy. I am sorry I have to read so much, but it is to keep the record straight. My statement, issued on March 19, Sunday evening, was as follows:
As leader of the National Conservative party, I have been strongly urged to express my views on the present world situation.
At such a time it should be our sole desire to serve our country in a manner that will help all our Canadian people to remain united in thought and action; and I have no intention of adding to the difficulties of the government, or of embarrassing them in any manner. This situation is far above political manoeuvring. It should be made quite clear also that only the Canadian Prime Minister can speak with authority for Canada, particularly in view of the fact that I have no confidential information of any kind.
I feel that to-day world conditions are even more critical than they w-ere in June, 1914, because now an unscrupulous, militaristic dictator is attempting to get possession of world power, thus endangering the democratic liberties which are part of our very life.
Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. friend, but I do so in order that the record may be clear. My hon. friend mentioned that I had made no statement up to that time. I should like it to be made clear that I made a statement to parliament on Monday. My reason for not having made a statement at that time was that I was waiting to make my statement to parliament, which is the practice I adopt whenever possible when parliament is in session.


Robert James Manion: That is true, but even
the Prime Minister occasionally makes statements outside parliament. However, I was just going to refer to his statement. On Monday, the twentieth, the Prime Minister
fMr. Manion 1
made a statement to the House of Commons. May I point out that Mr. Chamberlain's most important statement was made outside parliament, in the city of Birmingham. While parliament was in session he went to Birmingham to deliver what was perhaps the most important declaration made by him during that crisis. However, I am not wishing to get into any controversy. I am going to refer to the Prime Minister's statement on Monday. It is on record, and I shall not read it, but the points he made-and I am subject to correction if I am wrong-were: first, he was ready to consult with the United Kingdom; second, if London were bombed Canada could consider it an act of aggression.
I believe I have correctly synopsized the statement. The points I made in my remarks the same day were: first, that I should offer no criticism of the government; I said I did not believe in political manoeuvring at a time like this; second, I mentioned the need of maintaining a united Canada; third,
I called for a united front of the empire and other democracies; fourth, I concluded-and these are my words:
As leader of the National Conservative party I offer now to join loyally and Wholeheartedly with the government in making it clear to all the world that a united Canadian people-with one mind and one heart-is determined, come what may, to preserve its liberties and its nationhood. And may God assist us in our efforts!
I have no word to change in that statement. That is the record, so far as I have it-and I think it is correctly given-of the situation in this parliament and outside it on the part of this government and myself. Since then, on March 27, three days ago, I gave an interview to a Toronto newspaper regarding the resolution of the Ontario legislature. I do not mind adding that it received a great deal more publicity than I had expected. Later on I shall elaborate my statement, but I mentioned the following points; and since the statement has been made public, while I should like to put it on Hansard, I will not do so in view of the fact that it is somewhat lengthy.
The points I made were these: first, there should be no profiteering in war time; second, . there must be full cooperation with Britain in war time, because we cannot be neutral and remain in the empire, as everyone wishes us to do; third, there was to be no conscription of Canadians to fight outside our borders in any war. That was the gist of my statement three days ago.
Now, sir, the crises have all passed and for the time being I think we can, all of us, discuss calmly the situation as a whole. After

Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion
all, it is our right to discuss this situation in Canada, just as much as it is the right of people in Great Britain to do the same. To my mind it is a strange mentality that suggests, as some seem to do, that we should act blindly, that we should ask no questions, that we should take part in no discussions. Indeed, there are those who seem to deny to us the right to think at all. The British, without being subject to any charge of disloyalty, may do all these things, and I suggest that we might well learn from Great Britain in this regard.
Let me cite a few examples that may recall to the minds of all hon. members some incidents which illustrates the point I am here making. At the outbreak of the great war John Morley and John Bums resigned from the British cabinet because they did not believe in going to war at that time, but no one thought of imputing disloyalty to them. Throughout the war, Ramsay MacDonald was antagonistic, so much so indeed, that he was actually called a traitor. But the people of England at a later date made him Prime Minister. Recently I have come across articles, one in the Atlantic Monthly by Graham Hutton, one of the editors of The London Economist, very severely criticizing Mr. Chamberlain, and I read in some other magazine at about the same time an extremely critical article by Wickham Steed, the late editor of the London Times. There have been criticisms, freely made, by others-Churchill, Lloyd George, and Duff-Cooper, for example. But no one attacks any of them as disloyal. I do not include Anthony Eden in the same class as these others, because he has taken a higher and more dignified stand. But these men whom I have mentioned have taken critical attitudes as to the position of the British government and no one attacks them. Their right as British citizens is admitted. It is an exemplification of that freedom of thought and of expression which exists to such an admirable extent in the British isles.
In Canada, on the other hand, we are criticized very often if we seem to have opinions of our own. It must be remembered that the humblest voter in Glasgow or Belfast or London has, by his vote, more control over the foreign policy of Great Britain than have any of the voters in this country. So far as I am concerned I demand for us in Canada the same right to form and express opinions as is possessed by the citizens of the British isles. I refuse to subscribe to any doctrine of inferiority which would cast us in the role of pawns on the international chessboard.
This is the first occasion on which there has been a real attempt to discuss in the House of Commons the international situation, the first opportunity for any real consideration of the crisis of September of last year. I will admit that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne made a brief reference to it, and he has referred to Jhe matter again to-day. Without intending to argue the point with him, I must say that I certainly did not gather from his remarks to-day the same idea that I got when he expressed his views in January. However, that is his affair, not mine. Let me quote his own words. On January 16, at page 52 of Hansard, the Prime Minister is reported as having said:
It might as well be said now, at the beginning of this session, because it will be the attitude of this government for its time, that before this country goes into any war this parliament will be consulted.
He goes on to quote "The Recollections" of the Hon. E. M. Macdonald, in which connection he said:
In reading Mr. Macdonald's book I came across a statement of the Liberal position with respect to participation by Canada in conflicts which might take place in other parts of the world .and the attitude taken thereon hy the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier as long as thirty years ago. I should like to read that statement to-night because at the time it was made it was expressive of Liberal policy concerning the relation of this country to other countries at a time of war. It was a statement . of the Liberal policy which was accepted then, a statement which sets forth the Liberal policy as it has been followed ever since. I wish to give it as a statement of the Liberal policy as it is to-day and as it will continue to be under the present Liberal administration.
Then he goes on:
At page 331 of Mr. Macdonald's book, referring to the debate that took place in this House of Commons on the Naval Service Act in 1910, the author quotes Sir Wilfrid Laurier speaking in that debate as follows: Here are the words of Sir Wilfrid.
"I am a Canadian first, last, and all the time. I am a British subject by birth, by tradition, by conviction; by the conviction that under British institutions my native land has found a measure of security and freedom it could not have found under any other regime."
Then in another place at that time:
"Ilf England is at war we are at war and liable to attack. I do not say we will always be attacked; neither do I say that we would take part in all the wars of England. That is a matter that must be guided by circumstances, upon which the Canadian parliament will have to pronounce and will have to decide in its own best judgment."
It seemed to me then, as it does now, that that was a very clear-cut opinion as expressed by the Prime Minister, and I interpreted it at that time as most people did. If the right
Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion

hon. gentleman was misinterpreted he has endeavoured to correct the misinterpretation to-day.
I should like to quote a few other leaders that Canada has had, both Liberal and Conservative, with respect to Canada's position in the empire. Before and since 1910 different leaders have taken different views on various occasions and I will review some of them. Please do not think I am going to cover the whole field. I will mention the grand old Conservative leader, Sir John A. Macdonald, in regard to the Soudan war in 1885. Writing at that time to Sir Charles Tupper, on March 12, 1885, Sir John Macdonald stated his views with regard to the sending of troops to the Soudan. He expressed opposition to sending Canadian troops there. I quote:
. . . we think the time has not arrived, nor the occasion, for our volunteering military aid to the mother country.
We do not stand at -all in the same position as Australasia. The Suez canal is nothing to us and we do not ask England to quarrel with France or Germany for our sakes . . . Why should we waste money and men in this wretched business?
A little lower down in the same letter he states:
Again, the reciprocal aid to be given by the colonies and England should be a matter of treaty, deliberately entered into and settled on a permanent basis. The spasmodic offers of our militia colonels, anxious for excitement or notoriety, have aroused unreasonable expectations in England, and are so far unfortunate.
It might be argued, of course, that this was an unimportant affair; yet principles are principles, whether expressed in grave or small matters. Sir John A. Macdonald was a great Canadian, and it was he who said:
A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die.
I quote that for the sake of the record. And now I move on fifteen years to the time of Sir Charles Tupper, another Conservative leader. I was not able to lay my hand on his exact statement but while he was present in the House of Commons in 1900, as leader of the opposition, he was quoted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in Hansard of that day, column 64, volume 1. With reference to Sir Charles Tupper, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said on that occasion:
He repeated this afternoon the words I spoke in England two years ago, when I said that Canada was a nation perfectly independent, that the lien of the empire over us did not weigh the weight of one feather, but that we were just as independent to-day, under the suzerainty of England, as we couid be if absolutely independent. And I said likewise that if England at any time were engaged in struggle for life and death, the moment the bugle "was 
sounded or the fire was lit on the hills, the colonies would rush to the aid of the mother country. When I said this, I did not speak only my own mind or the mind of my hon. friend, but the_ mind of every Canadian. There are no two opinions on that point. But while every Canadian admits that he would be ready to contribute our treasure and our blood, and the resources of Canada at the disposal of this country for the rescue of England, were she engaged in a life and death struggle, there are many Canadians who are not ready to take part in the secondary wars of England or to contribute to the defence of the empire in any part of it. Amongst the men who have taken that view, amongst those who have stated, time and time again, that it would not be fit for Canada to take part in the secondary wars of England or to contribute to the defence of the empire at large, one of the most, if not the most eminent is my hon. friend who leads the opposition.
That is, Sir Charles Tupper.
My hon. friend has spoken more than once upon this subject. He has written upon this subject. He has not been content to wait to discuss this question until it arose, but went to the trouble of writing to the press and the higher magazines in order to educate public opinion and to show what should be the true position of Canada in this respect.
Now I pass over fourteen years to 1914, to the great war and Canada's attitude at the outbreak of that war.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Was this said in the debate on the South African war?


Robert James Manion: I am sorry I have not that information at the moment-the South African war began in 1899, did it not? And this was in 1900, so it would be.
Now in regard to Canada's attitude when the great war first became imminent. On August 1, 1914, three days before war was declared by Britain, the acting governor general sent the following message to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. He was speaking of course for the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, so this is really Sir Robert Borden's opinion. The acting governor general said:
My advisers, while expressing their most earnest hope that a peaceful solution of existing international difficulties may be achieved and their strong desire to cooperate in every possible way for that purpose, wish me to convey to his majesty's government the firm assurance that if, unhappily, war should ensue the Canadian people will be united in a common resolve to put forth every effort and to make every sacrifice necessary to insure the integrity and maintain the honour of our empire.
Three days later, on August 4, just before war was declared, Sir Wilfrid Laurier made a statement. Prior to that, so far as I know, he had made no statement. He then said:
We all hope and pray that the efforts of Sir Edward Grey may yet be successful in persuading the nations of the continent to the

Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion
restoration of peace. I confess that the prospects are very doubtful. It is probable and almost certain that England will have to take her share in the conflict not only for the protection of her own interests but for the protection of France and the higher civilization of which these two _ nations are the noblest expression. The policy of the Liberal party under such painful circumstances is well known. I have often declared that if the mother country [DOT]were ever in danger, or if danger ever threatened, Canada would render assistance to the fullest extent of her power. In view of the critical nature of the situation I have cancelled all my meetings. Pending such great questions, there should be a truce to party strife.
With that last statement I entirely agree, and I am endeavouring so far as I am able to avoid any political qualifications or actions.
Later that day war was declared. Difficulties arose later between Sir Wilfrid and Sir Robert Borden, but they are not relevant to this discussion.
When peace was declared in 1918 all hoped it would continue. There were some incidents, some threats, between 1918 and the next date to which I shall refer, but they were not very important.
Among Conservative leaders some changes of viewpoint took place, but up to the 1930's no one feared another catastrophe. In 1933 while I was at the League of Nations and the disarmament conference in Geneva real hopes were entertained by everyone there for world peace to continue and disarmament to be effected. I well remember the representatives of Great Britain were, among others, Sir John Simon and Anthony Eden, and there were other world figures present, like poor little Dollfuss who was murdered a few days later; Benes, Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia, Paul Boncour for France; Colonel Beck for Poland; C. T. Te Water for South Africa and Stanley Bruce for Australia. All these men seemed at that time to have a real hope that world peace would continue, and that something would be accomplished towards world disarmament. I see Stanley Bruce quoted second-hand in this morning's Ottawa Journal, taking the same attitude in regard to conscription in Australia and as to cooperation by Australia with the empire, as I took in the interview to which I have referred. Others of interest there that I recall were Madariaga of Spain, whom all of those who early attended the League of Nations will remember, a very brilliant Spaniard who has now disappeared from the world scene with many other prominent Spaniards. Von Neurath who is to-day I think in charge of conquered Czechoslovakia, and Goebbels, for Germany were there, although I do not remember meeting the latter. I mention their
names merely to emphasize that there were many outstanding men of all countries, and they were all hopeful at that time, 1933, that world peace would continue and disarmament be brought about. Even when Germany quit the League of Nations-I remember it exceedingly well because of the depression it caused in the whole conference-there was still hope that something might be accomplished. Because of that hope Great Britain and Canada and other democracies cut down their defence estimates. I remember even the meagre defence estimates that we proposed during those days from 1930 to 1935 were vehemently protested against by many different sections in the house because the speakers thought there was no danger of any world war. That was the spirit abroad in the land.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock, I was dealing with the hope that even late in the middle 1930's still existed in the minds of the peoples of all countries that peace would continue in the world. I pointed out that the world was still hoping for peace, that the world felt that only a madman would throw the whole of humanity into an inferno such as we had already experienced from 1914 to 1918. I say that was the opinion, that was the hope, based on observations at that time, and on the conviction that no country which had gone through the terrible catastrophe of war would dare to cast its people into such a catastrophe again. I think that opinion prevailed to the end of 1935, and even into 1936.
But none of the people who held that view -and I submit it was held in all democracies, whether they were British or American, or the smaller democratic countries of Europe-realized the power of one man with a vision, with a dream, with a power of oratory, on a country which was beaten, humiliated, down in the depths of despair, with no hope, and with an old man at the head of government. It is true the great Hindenburg was at the head of government, but it was realized that he was at an age where his mental powers were not great. There was a people with a hatred towards all the world, due to a sense of injustice. Whether that sense of injustice was by right is, of course, debatable. But at any rate the German people in those early days before Hitler came in and, in a sense, from their point of view, came to their rescue, had that sense of injustice.
Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion

Even in March, 1936, when Hitler reoccupied the Rhine, the world still hoped that would be the last move of this new rising star of Germany. Once he had taken back the Rhine territory, refortified it and reasserted the pride of Germany and its position as a nation, people generally throughout the world hoped that might end his advances and limit his ambitions. I think, sir, that if you cared to read the debates of the House of Commons here or the House of Commons in England you would find that there was no realization whatever of the impending danger.
I now pass on another two or three years in this House of Commons, to last year, 1938. In that year I did not have the honour of being a member of the house. My predecessor, Mr. Bennett, was the leader of the Conservative party at that time. Xn the 1938 session there was a long discussoin, in which many hon. members took part, of the whole international situation. Mr. Bennett at that time, in his last pronouncement in the House of Commons on international affairs, took the same position as did Sir Wilfrid Laurier, already quoted by the Prime Minister and by myself. On May 24 of last year, less than a year ago, as reported at page 3194 of Hansard, Mr. Bennett quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier as holding the view that when any part of the British commonwealth of nations is at war, Canada also is at war. And he added "it was a view which was accepted by constitutionalists in every part of the world." Farther on, regarding participation in any war, Mr. Bennett said:
But whether or not Canada should participate in that wTar is a matter to be determined by the Canadian people and the Canadian parliament.
Following that statement, the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who was Minister of Justice at that time also, made the remark, "That is right." Mr. Bennett then said, "There never has been a doubt about that." Then, still farther on Mr. Bennett stated:
For while we may not participate in a war, let it always be remembered that the nation or nations opposed will participate against us.
And farther on:
I am not thinking about our participation; that is for parliament to decide.
So that Mr. Bennett, my predecessor in office, made it very clear that our participation is entirely for parliament to decide.
I have quoted a number of leaders, going back as far as 1885. But I have quoted particularly Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett, the present Prime Minister, and I might quote the present Min-
TMr. Manion.]
ister of Justice and the present Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) as all subscribing tO' the doctrine that while Great Britain is at war Canada is at war, but that the extent of participation must be decided by parliament. That is my interpretation of the' speeches of the hon. gentlemen, and the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and Secretary of State are here at the present time. Certainly that was my interpretation of the words of the Prime Minister put very clearly on January 16 of this year when speaking on the address in reply.
May I add also that that is my own position.
Now, sir, I come to another question, and. it is this; Could Canada be neutral, and yet remain in the empire? Perhaps it is effrontery, if you like-some other word may be suitable-for one like myself, who is not a lawyer, to discuss such a question. I have, however, read on the subject very widely for over twenty years. I well remember that in the Kam club in Fort William to which I belong many of us used to sit round the club rooms and discuss such questions as this. At that time, twenty years ago-and I am not sure whether it was before or immediately after I came to this house-I came definitely to the conclusion that there was only one way for Canada to declare neutrality in war, and that would be by declaring her independence of the British empire. It is a very important question. There are those in this country-lawyers, some of them-who take the view that we could be neutral and yet remain in the empire. Others take the negative point of view. On this question I belong to those who hold the negative point of view. I feel it is impossible for Canada to be neutral and still remain in the empire. My conviction is that the only way in which Canada could declare neutrality in a British war would be to declare her independence of the empire.
I feel-and I think it is the feeling of most Canadians who have given tho"ght to this subject-that we cannot be in and out of the empire at the same time. It seems to me that it would be just as impossible for us to be neutral in a war in which Great Britain participated as it would be for my right arm to be defending my body against an assailant wishing to take my life, while my left arm remained friendly with the assailant. It seems very clear, to me at any rate, that that is just as logical as would be the idea of neutrality for Canada while remaining in the empire. We cannot be neutral and at the same time remain part of a great empire, with its advantages of empire trade, with its defence of our trade routes to the rest of the

Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion
British empire, and so on. What is perhaps even more important, we cannot declare neutrality and be independent, without throwing away the advantages of the British North America Act, with the minority rights, on religion, race and language, which that act gives to the people of this country.
The British North America Act is a British statute. It would go, it seems to me, unquestionably, if we declared independence. I think that should be emphasized. Those who maintain that we could be neutral should take the stand that they want independence in Canada. That is my opinion. If there are those who wish Canada to be independent of the empire, then they should say so. But I believe we should brush aside as impossible any other method of becoming neutral.
Let me ask this: Who, in all this country, want Canada's independence from the empire? I know of no large group anywhere which does not want to remain in the empire. If I remember rightly, only the other evening, right here in the House of Commons, the Minister of Justice rose in his place and in an eloquent manner told of our -pride in remaining in the empire, and our desire to continue in it. I think I am not misquoting his expressed idea although I am not attempting to give his exact words. That, to my mind, is the attitude of practically everybody in Canada to-day. They are all proud to belong to the empire: they are all loyal to the king. I thought I had here some quotations by an hon. member of French-speaking ancestry. He spoke in the house the other evening and he made that loyal position very clear. Apparently I have mislaid his remarks, although I thought I had them in my papers. I believe that is the viewpoint of all thoughtful Canadians of French-speaking ancestry. As it is, I think, of all thoughtful Canadians of English-speaking ancestry. They want to remain part of this empire, loyal to our king.
It is confused thinking to propose any such thing as neutrality while yet remaining in the empire. To my mind it is not a legal question, and that is why I have attempted to offer my opinion upon it. It is not a question of legal hair-splitting or sophistry; it seems to me it is a question of common sense, justice and fair dealing toward the whole British commonwealth of nations. May I repeat that in a perhaps more concise form. I know of no considerable group in Canada which desires that Canada should not remain part of the empire. There is no doubt in my mind that while we are part of the empire, if Great Britain becomes engaged in war at any time, the enemies of Great Britain will consider themselves at war with Canada as well
as with other parts of the empire. Therefore, if Great Britain is at war, Canada is liable to attack and so we are also at war, whether we are attacked or participate in the war. which participation, of course, must be decided by the Canadian parliament.
In order to reinforce the ideas which I have expressed I am going to take the liberty of quoting a few authorities on this matter. First, I go back again to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's statement, which has been quoted so frequently in the house. It was quoted this afternoon by the Prime Minister; it has been quoted by myself, by my predecessor and by many others. In this instance I shall quote only the first sentence which Sir Wilfrid expressed in 1910:	He said:
_ If England is at war we are at war and liable to attack.
I think that is clear-cut. I do not think there is any qualifying of that statement. It is true that participation is another matter, but as far as the position of all parts of the empire is concerned, it seems to me that is clear-cut and definite. I say again that has been repeated in this house by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Justice, and by the Secretary of State. These hon. gentlemen are all on record in Hansard of 1937. So far as I can read their statements they are saying definitely and clearly that we cannot be neutral and remain in the empire. That seems to me to sum up the whole question. In other words, the enemy decides whether or not we shall be neutral. He will attack us if he is able, and he will conquer us if he can. That is the position. It is perfectly clear, and anyone who endeavours to take any other position, it seems to me is like the proverbial camel which attempts to put his head in the sand.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Ostrich.


Robert James Manion: That is a badly mixed metaphor. I shall turn back and say, "ostrich which attempts to put his head in the sand." Sometimes it is hard to distinguish between the intelligence of a camel and an ostrich.


Ernest Lapointe: One is just as stupid as the other.


Robert James Manion: Unfortunately the camel does not stick his head in the sand, whereas they say the ostrich does. I am not so sure that the ostrich is stupid enough to do that, although I was stupid enough to misquote both the camel and the ostrich. I suppose this will be held against me for the next twenty years. I think I shall cut it out of Hansard. If the editor of debates will permit me, I shall cut out a couple of pages at that spot.
Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion


Ernest Lapointe: Carried unanimously.


Robert James Manion: I shall have to get serious again, because this is rather a serious question. This afternoon it seemed to me that the Prime Minister attempted to argue that parliament could decide as to our neutrality. I do not think parliament has any power to decide that question. I repeat, the enemy will decide it if Great Britain is at war.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said I thought the enemy would decide it.


Robert James Manion: Then the Prime Minister and I are on quite the same ground. I thought the Prime Minister argued a little differently this afternoon, but I probably misunderstood him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He argued both ways.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for
Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) suggests that the Prime Minister left a couple of doors open by which he might leave. I do not want to get off my thought.
If I were to go outside the House of Commons, I might quote Professor W. P. M. Kennedy, of the university of Toronto. His Constitution of Canada has been quoted before in this house. He is considered one of the best constitutional authorities in this country, and I should like to quote from page 452 of that book:
Once the imperial government declares war, Canada is at war, and once a foreign state declares war against Great Britain, Canada is at war. In either case, Canada need not fight, need not supply a man or a ship or assist in any way. Canada might be prepared to preserve the most meticulous neutrality, but as international law now stands, Canada would be at war, and its territory and citizens liable to attack.
And at page 540 he says:
It remains as true in 1937 as it did in 1914 that when the crown is at war, Canada is legally at war.


Ernest Lapointe: Who is the author?


Robert James Manion: W.P.M.Kennedy, professor of law, university of Toronto.


Ernest Lapointe: I knew him well.


Robert James Manion: He and Mr. Schlosberg wrote another book on the constitution of South Africa, and I quote from page 484 as follows:
With regard to the right of a dominion to remain neutral while the rest of the empire is at war, it is sufficient to state that when the king declares war, all his territories and

dominions are at war. There is no recognition of the divisibility of the legal position of the king.
General Jan Smuts took the same position, namely, that the crown is not divisible. I repeat that those who feel there should be neutrality should come out frankly and declare for independence. I have another quotation here which appeals to me a great deal because it comes from a part of the empire which in a sense has declared its independence. Prime Minister Eamon de Valera of the Irish Free State, now called Eire, declared, according to a dispatch dated February 17, a little over six weeks ago, that " Eire could not remain neutral in a war between Great Britain and another state." He went on to say:
In the event of a war, it is essential for the economic position of Eire that she should continue her trade with England in cattle and other products. That would undoubtedly be taken to put us in a position of combatants by any nation at war with England, who would think it a vital part of its campaign to prevent food from reaching England.
He goes on:
Its object would then be to bomb our ports and make it impossible for us to carry on our trade. It is to defend our territory against such possible attack that we consider it advisable to bring in increased estimates for defence.
Surely Canada is in exactly the same position as the Irish Free State as to shipping and as to trade, as to supplies of food and as to the possibilities of being attacked.
Then what would we have to do if we were neutral? There are certain duties which devolve upon a neutral by international law, which duties would naturally devolve upon us. I am going to mention three or four of them, and I submit that not one could be carried out by Canada in her dealings with Great Britain if Great Britain were at war and Canada remained neutral. For instance, we could not supply munitions or food as referred to by Mr. de Valera in the quotation I have just given. An enemy would do his best to prevent any food from going to Great Britain, because no country in the world is so vulnerable as Great Britain as to its food supply. Great Britain cannot keep sufficient food supplies on hand to last any great length of time. That was the attempt made in the last war by German submarines, to starve out Great Britain, and if they could have prevented for a period of three weeks ships from entering the ports of Great Britain they would probably have succeeded.
Second, if a British ship, pursued by a powerful enemy fleet, took refuge in Halifax

Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion
harbour, it would either have to get out of the harbour at the end of twenty-four hours or be interned.
Third, British troops could not cross Canada on our railways if Great Britain were fighting in the Pacific.
Fourth, we would have to show strict impartiality between Great Britain and its enemy. But does anybody in this house imagine that Canada could show strict impartiality between Great Britain and Hitler at the present time?


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: It is absolutely impossible to conceive of such an attitude on the part of the Canadian people.
Fifth, if a British fleet were outside Halifax harbour we could not supply it with food taken out by some of our own ships.
Finally, there are certain conditions under which we would have to intern British ships and their crews. These are half a dozen examples of different types of action that Canada would have to take were Great Britain involved in a war and we remained neutral. To me the thing is inconceivable; it is not possible; and therefore again I say that as I understand the situation, neutrality is impossible for us. In other words, when Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war, with the degree of our participation left to the parliament of Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nor is it desired.


Robert James Manion: One of my colleagues
suggests that it is not even desired by any great body of our people in Canada, and I believe that is true.
I come now to another phase of the question, our participation in wars outside Canadian territory. There are some facts that we should remember when discussing this contingency. Canada is not the same type of country as New Zealand or Australia, whose populations are racially compact, that is, compact not in occupation of area but in their nationality. They are practically a uniform people so far as nationality is concerned. In Canada, on the other hand, we are in much the same position as South Africa in that we have different races, a widespread territory, and widely separated viewpoints among our people. Those are facts, not theories, and it is something we must bear in mind when considering this matter and endeavouring always to hold this country together.
The Prime Minister put on record to-day- and I am pleased that he did-the position taken by the different dominions of the empire
during the crisis of September, and he quoted Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons at Westminster-to put it briefly-that none of the dominions had offered more than had Canada at that time. That was the statement put on record this afternoon by the Prime Minister. I have here an authoritative statement made in the South African parliament during the week of March 20 to 27, 1939, which was just after the last crisis. I quote it, not to reflect in any sense upon South Africa, but rather to show that South Africa, divided as to race as Canada is, is in the difficult position of endeavouring to hold the country together, just as we are, and the attitude it took was certainly no stronger than that taken by the government here; indeed, I think not so strong. But perhaps I had better read it without comment and leave hon. members to draw their own conclusions. This is the policy of South Africa, as declared in parliament during the week of March 20 to 27 last:
The policy oft the union has always been and will be to live in peace with other nations and to safeguard the peace of the union. Our attitude to-day is still peaceful relationship with everyone. In regard to the present events in central Europe-
This was three or four days after Czechoslovakia had been taken over.


Ernest Lapointe: Is this General Hertzog's statement?


Robert James Manion: It is the official declaration to the parliament of South Africa in the week of March 20 to 27. It goes on:
In regard to the present events in central Europe it will be in the interests of the union to remain disinterested. When, however, the activities of any European country assume such nature and proportion as to justify conclusions that their aim is domination over other free countries and peoples and that also the freedom and interests of the union are threatened the time will have arrived for the government to warn their people and to request parliament to give attention to European affairs. In this sense the time for such interference has not yet arrived.
That wholly agrees with the statement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon in regard to the other dominions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the source of that?


Robert James Manion: I am quite sure that it is the official statement made in the parliament of South Africa. I cannot tell just where I got it. I got it from someone whom I do not care to mention. But it is a public statement, an absolutely official statement made by the government of South Africa in the parliament of South Africa during the week March 20 to 27. I believe it was published in the press.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion


Mr. MARTIN:: It was in the New York Times of Sunday last.


Robert James Manion: That confirms what I say. Another interesting extract dealing with this very point is from Professor W. P. M. Kennedy's book, The Constitution of Canada, where at page 543 he makes this observation:
Canada is not only a federation but an exceedingly delicately balanced one; and it is well, in the tremendous world in which we live, to remember with something of the practical wisdom so dear to the Greeks, that this delicate situation exists, that foreign policy is ultimately a projection of domestic policy, that the final awful decision of war is npt a fit subject for division on purely party lines, and that there is wide room for differences of opinion without such question-begging epithets as "disloyalty" or "traitor."
That is a very wise observation. If we are to hold the Dominion of Canada together we must realize the facts that I have been pointing out, and we must learn to tolerate the viewpoints of those who do not agree with us. There are in this dominion at the present time two extreme viewpoints on participation in war. There is the extreme view that we should, that we must, participate in all the wars of Great Britain to the last man and the last dollar, without question or discussion. That is condensing the viewpoint to a definite statement, but I think I am stating it fairly. The other extreme view is that we must participate in no war unless we are directly attacked.
These are two extreme viewpoints, diametrically opposed, and I think I have put them fairly: first, that we must participate to the last dollar and the last man. That is what I would call, not offensively, the ultra-British attitude, an attitude more British than Britain herself takes. Those who hold that view rightly point out the value of our _ empire connection, the fact that Great Britain is to-day in a position to defend our trade routes and protect our shores, that we are in a word, as expressed a year ago in this house by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), dependent for our defence on Great Britain. Then there is the other extreme viewpoint, that we should not participate in any war unless we are directly attacked. Those who maintain that position point out that we have three thousand miles of sea between us and Europe, and a greater distance from any possible menace on the Pacific; that the United States would help us; that we lost sixty thousand men in the last war besides the great number of wounded and crippled; that we incurred heavy debts and pension charges; that the ideals of "a war to preserve democracy " and " a war to end war " have been shattered; that we have, as was expressed 
this afternoon by the Prime Minister in connection with another matter, half a continent to develop, and that we should like to develop it in peace. Therefore they say that we should take no participation at all in the wars of Great Britain. Yet, so far as I know, they all want to remain within the empire.
Let me say that I abhor war as much as they, indeed as much as any man or woman in this great dominion of ours. No one can abhor it more than I do. But, Mr. Speaker,
I am a realist. I believe in the empire.
I believe in its civilization. I believe in its toleration of the many races and creeds which are a part of that empire. I believe in its liberties, parliamentary and personal. I believe in its traditions and institutions. I say, sir, that so long as we are part of that empire, Britain's enemies would consider us at war, and attack us; and I repeat what I have already said and what others have said, that the whole matter is decided by the enemy.
Considering all these facts, and remembering the strong views held iby both extreme sides, I see a very grave danger to the dominion unless some fair compromise policy is adopted. It seems to me that persistence in either of these extreme views, to the ignoring of the very large group who have the other extreme view, means the disruption of Canada, possibly civil war in case there was an international war in which Britain Was engaged, perhaps the ultimate break-up of the British empire. In the last war the conscription of men to go to the front caused violent racial antagonisms, much disharmony, bitterness and misunderstanding-conditions from which as yet we have not wholly recovered; and on top of that I believe I am expressing the opinion of authorities when I say that it was of no real military value so far as the empire was concerned. Not long ago I made it my business to ask an outstanding military authority how mlany men got into the line from Canada through conscription. He said that there were no absolutely authentic or indisputable figures, but he estimated the number at the outside as 10,000.


Ernest Lapointe: I made the same inquiry.


Robert James Manion: And the right hon. gentleman got the same figures?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Robert James Manion: I am glad to know that,
because it supports my position. The recruitment of 10,000 men out of the half million

Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion
Canadians who went overseas shows that, with all the ill effects conscription had in our country, it exercised but a small effect upon the war.	.
On the other hand, neutrality, or independence, or even failure to cooperate with Great Britain, is as repugnant to a large section of Canadians as is conscription to another large section. It seems to me, therefore, that we must adopt a sane middle course in order to preserve a united Canada and, indeed, to maintain this empire. The policy that I suggest is the one which I gave three days ago in an interview: first, that there should be no conscription of Canadians to serve outside the borders of Canada; second, that we should have full cooperation with the British empire short of the conscription of men to serve outside our borders. We should fully cooperate by means of-for example

volunteer units, whether air forces or any other units which voluntarily choose to go. I mention particularly air forces because some months ago another outstanding military authority in Canada, who held an important position overseas during the great war, told me that at the end of that war almost forty per cent of the whole air force of the empire consisted of Canadians.


Mr. POWER:: Seventy-five per cent.


Robert James Manion: That would make my
argument very much stronger, but I should not like to adopt that figure; I quote what he gave me. But even forty per cent coming from the Dominion of Canada would be a huge proportion, considering the population of the empire. It was pointed out to me at that time, and I believe the fact is admitted in view of the magnificent records of so many Canadians in the Royal Air Force, that Canadians have a special aptitude for that arm of the service. We can also cooperate by acting as a training ground for Great Britain and, if desired, for other parts of the empire; by supplying munitions, food and so forth, and by fully protecting our own territory.
In regard to conscription, Mr. Chamberlain's view is indicated in a dispatch dated March 29 from London to yesterday's Ottawa Evening Journal, as follows:
The strength of Great Britain's territorial army will be raised to 340,000 officers and men, it was announced in the House of Commons to-day by Prime Minister Chamberlain.
. At the same time the Prime Minister turned his back on conscription and pinned his faith to the voluntary system to get the men needed for the territorial field army which now numbers 130,000 on peacetime establishment.
So we have the British example to follow, as well. I could quote, although I shall not
71492-154J
do so at length, the proceedings of the imperial conferences of 1923 and 1926, in which is emphasized what is the chief duty of each of the dominions, of each part- of the empire.
The primary responsibility of each portion pf the empire represented at the conference for its own local defence.
Perhaps I had better quote the previous few paragraphs to put the statement in its proper sequence:
At the imperial conference of 1923, a resolution on defence was passed, of Which the following is a part:
1.	The conference affirms that it is necessary to provide for the adequate defence of the territories and trade of the several countries comprising the British empire.
2.	In this connection the conference expressly recognizes that it is for the parliaments of the several parts of the empire, upon the recommendations of their respective governments, to decide the nature- and extent of any action which should be taken by them.
3.	Subject to this provision, the conference suggests the following as guiding principles:-
_ (a) The primary responsibility of each portion of the _ empire represented at the conference for its own local defence.
In 1926, after discussion of the defence policies with the different parts of the empire, the conference went on record as reaffirming the resolutions adopted at the last session, the imperial conference of 1923 from which I have just quoted.
I have other reasons for thinking it is improbable that an expeditionary force on anything like the scale which existed in the last war will ever again be expected of Canada. I am going to take the liberty of quoting the words of the Prime Minister himself, who, in a speech on March 25, 1937, spoke as follows:
I may be entirely wrong, but I doubt very much if the British government itself will ever send another expeditionary force to Europe. I think it is extremely doubtful if -any of the British dominions will ever send anotber expeditionary force to Europe. Were war to come on suddenly, I think we would find that the conditions of a world conflict would be so different from what they were in the last war, that anything in the nature of expeditionary forces to be sent from one continent to another would occasion a good deal more than second thought.
My thought is that the Prime Minister surely based this statement on some information given him by Great Britain, because neither he nor I can claim to be an expert, and I assume he must have had some authority for making such a statement as that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: British ministers said the same thing a couple of years ago.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: The Prime Minister points out that some of the British ministers said the same thing. I believe that is correct, but I thought the Prime Minister had, perhaps, more confidential advice than what was said on that matter by some members of the British cabinet. However, I am quoting his words. I could also quote the statement of the former Prime Minister, Mr. Bennett, on his recent western tour. He expressed exactly the same opinion in one of his speeches at some point in the western country. He also must have had some authority for making such a statement. At any rate, the statement has been made by two prime ministers of Canada. I have been told by a number of military authorities that expeditionary forces such as we had in the last war are not expected and probably are not wanted by Britain.
Finally-and I think this has been overlooked-it strikes me that we may need our own men in Canada if we should be attacked, as we might be, on either the east or the west. It is conceivable that Great Britain might be so thoroughly engaged in defending herself that she could not offer us assistance. It is true that under the Monroe doctrine, enunciated over a hundred years ago, the United States took the position at that time that no other European country should be allowed to take possession of any part of this continent. It is also true that President Roosevelt, speaking at Queen's a few months ago, took the position to which the Prime Minister referred this afternoon. Therefore it is true that we might expect support from the United States. But who knows what enemies might combine against both Britain and the United States? We know to-day of the power of three great countries which have a triangular arrangement-Germany, Italy and Japan-and even if Great Britain were not conquered we might be attacked on east and west and might need all our defence forces in the dominion. Some weeks ago I quoted in the house a statement by a congressman in the house of representatives at Washington. He said, "Americans are safe only so long as England and France stand"; "that the British and French democracies are a major bulwark for the United States"; and he added that "the United States first line of defence is Great Britain and France."
Surely, if that is the feeling-and I think we may conclude that it is-of thoughtful American people, it must be to a still greater degree the feeling of the people of our country, no matter from what section or race or creed they spring. It illustrates the change of opinion to which I referred in my open-
ing remarks this afternoon-the remarkable change of opinion that has been taking place throughout the world, particularly in the last four or- five years since the rise of Hitler.
Could anyone imagine a greater change of opinion than the quotation which I have just given demonstrates as having taken place in the minds of the people of the United States in the past few years? That that change is general is obvious to anyone familiar with opinions in the United States. It is demonstrated continually by President Roosevelt and those who speak for him.
In my opening words I pointed out the remarkable change in public opinion, not only in Canada but in Britain and all the democracies, since the rise of the world-menacing Hitler. I suppose I shall be taunted with having changed my viewpoint in regard to these matters. I admit frankly that I have, as have all other thoughtful men in the world to-day, in view of these epoch-making, world-shaking events in the midst of which we live. Indeed, everyone who is at all familiar with the menacing actions of the dictator countries to-day must alter his viewpoint on many matters, or be indeed immune to change. Circumstances are so vastly different to-day from what they were, even four or five years ago, that all of us must recognize the need of change.
In addition, therefore, to the suggested policies which I have outlined, I say that we must also have adequate home defences to defend our own territory and to maintain our institutions. It is regrettable that such huge sums should be spent on destruction instead of construction, but world conditions and national danger demand it.
There should be as well an understanding with the United States and cooperation with that country, because they face the same dangers that we do, except that they are more powerful, and less vulnerable geographically. Anyone can see that who cares to examine the distances between the United States and possible enemies on both east and west. They have greater riches and, for that reason, greater defences. Finally, the United States would not begin to be the prize that Canada would be to a world-dominating dictator of a congested country such as any of those of which we might think.
I am not an alarmist. I am a realist. I believe it is necessary to face the facts. Moreover, there should be, as I said in this house some days ago, a united front of all democracies against world domination by dictators in order to preserve our parliamentary and personal liberties, our free British insti-

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
tutions, our very national existence; and to help the empire and other democracies to do likewise. That, it seems to me, is the surest way to preserve world peace.
This is a time when the sane course is also the only course open to us, and when, at the same time, it is the patriotic course for all of us to take.
One closing thought which I have expressed before is this. If we ever again have to participate in any war, all our citizens, whether in the lines or at home, must give their services to this country on the same basis; so that while some offer their lives others must not be permitted to enrich themselves through the tragedy of war.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will, I am sure, make us all very happy. The Canadian nationalist, the imperialist, the League of Nations collectivist, the pacifist, the isolationist, the North American, the belligerent militarist-each will find some crumbs of comfort in it. I must confess that although I listened carefully throughout the two hours of his speech I really do not know, in the event of war, what action this government would take.


Ernest Lapointe: I should have been surprised if my hon. friend had found any comfort in it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think it is some comfort to me, because I am very much opposed to war, and I am inclined to think that in these circumstances we might keep out. I must also congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon his new type of Toryism. His sturdy Canadianism almost puts the Liberals to shame.	[DOT]
With all the nations, Canada faces a serious international situation which, it seems to me, calls for the clearest thinking of which we are capable. On some things we are all agreed. I believe we are all opposed to war. I do not believe there are any Mussolinis or Hitlers in Canada. We all cling to what we call British traditions and liberty, and we all, I take it, are loyal Canadians. We have a right to differ without having our sincerity questioned.
I would submit in summary form several considerations which must be taken into account in determining our foreign policy. I take it first of all that the maintenance of Canadian unity is perhaps the greatest contribution Canada can make to the peace of the world. We have here two great races and a score of other nationalities whom we have invited to throw in their lot with us. While loyal to Canada, many of these still retain affection for the land of their birth, just as we do. When war comes, it would seem as if all the plagues were let loose. I repeat, we ought to try to maintain our Canadian unity.
Again, Canada's policy need not necessarily be that of Great Britain, certainly not that of the ruling classes of Great Britain. I think that is important. Canada, as a self-governing nation, has a right, I think a duty, to decide upon her own policy. Of this I intend to speak more fully a little later.
The Prime Minister paid tribute to British ideals and institutions, and we all agree with him. I believe that these rather than the British navy have been Great Britain's real strength, and we ought not to be diverted into thinking it-is merely her armed strength that has given her power. As a matter of fact, the British empire was won largely by force and has been maintained largely by force. It may be claimed that our British military expeditions have not been as ruthless as those of certain other great empires. It may be claimed that British rule has been beneficent, but that does not alter the fact that the empire was won largely by force and has been maintained largely by force. In form at least "Britannia rules the waves" is not so very different from "Deutschland uber alles." It ill behooves us to denounce others for using in this day methods not so different from those used by our empire in an earlier day. The Prime Minister said to-day that Great Britain has no territorial ambitions; no, she is one of the satisfied nations; but the struggle between the so-called "have" nations and the "have nots" will continue until the nations of the world learn their essential community of interest, and adopt some kind of cooperative administration.
We thought we had in the League of Nations at least the beginning of a world organization. But alas, the United States withdrew; the great nations would not subordinate their interests or even recognize a supemational authority, and so the league has largely failed. Back then came the world of power politics, power politics dominated by class interests; the result, Manchuria, Ethiopia, Austria, China, Munich, Czechoslovakia, Spain. A leading Britisher said in my hearing not so many weeks ago that the propertied classes in Great Britain feared that republican Spain was too much under the influence of the left, and hence had not opposed Franco,-a revealing point of view. Now Madrid has fallen and there is established a block of authoritarian states. In my judgment the policies of the present

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
British government have been a series of blunders. Yet Chamberlain is still at the helm. Why should Canada be dragged in?
Canada must assume her share of responsibility for the existing situation. I think we must admit that we did not take our responsibilities under the league very seriously.
There are other matters. I have a clipping here from London, Canadian Press, dated February 21. Mr. A. Edwards, M.P., in the House of Commons complained that "two days before Hitler threatened to march into Czechoslovakia 400 tons of copper arrived at German ports from Canada." Mr. Edwards assumed that the dominions are as loyal to the empire as Great Britain, and he proposed to have the dominions secretary take the matter up. And here is the comment which came from our revenue department officials on this cbmplaint:
Canada is in the same position in this respect is all other countries with raw materials to sell. The dominion has no embargo against Germany with regard to any product. It has an embargo against shipping munitions to Spain but not to Germany.
This makes me hang my head in shame, and then burn with indignation. A few days ago I urged, and I urge again, an immediate prohibition of the shipment of war materials to Germany and Japan. It is all very well to settle back in smug contentment; I know there are certain administrative difficulties which may be pointed out, but we should try our utmost, as we would have to try if war broke out, to prohibit war materials from going to Germany or Japan.
I also advocated, and advocate again, following the lead of the United States, that we place a supertax on German imports.
Apparently both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are opposed to conscription. But I venture to say that if we really became seriously involved in war, conscription would be bound to come.


Mr. WERMENLINGER:: In what way?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The same way as last time, we would be forced into it.


Edgard Jules Wermenlinger: I take the
responsibility of my statement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not going
to discuss that. I am expressing an opinion. It came before and has come in other countries. If we are seriously involved, conscription is bound to come.


Mr. YIEN:: Last time it was largely political.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If conscription
"omes, then conscription should be preceded
(Mr. Woodsworth.]
by conscription of wealth. I do not want that left vague as it was left the other day in that curious resolution passed in the Ontario house; I mean all wealth: bank accounts, investments, factories, mines and so on. We are told, "All that a man hath will he give for his life," but we asked our soldiers to go to the front in the late war; we gave them $1.10 a day to risk their lives, while other Canadians remained here and profiteered. That must never take place again.


Paul Joseph James Martin: This government is going
to correct that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not sure.
They are not starting out very well.
Beyond all else is the growing conviction on the part of thousands of our people of the futility and beastliness of war. War settles nothing. It ruins the victor as well as the vanquished.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Yet the hon.
member wants to start an economic war against Germany.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some hon. member interrupts, says I want to start an economic war. I did not say an economic war against Germany; I said we should put a super tax on goods from Germany and we should refuse to send them materials of war. If the hon. gentleman will rise in his place later in the debate and say that is not a sane policy, I think the country will be glad to hear it.


Malcolm McLean: I will rise now.
The hon. member is certainly at this moment advocating economic war against Germany.


Mr. HEAPS:: Does the hon. member object to it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: What I am trying to say is that a growing number of people are becoming convinced of the absolute futility of war, and that armaments are no protection against war. Even at this late hour some other way out must be found. I urge collective peace action among as many nations as can be induced to come in, including of course the United States. I think that even at this late date Canada, small nation as she is, ought to take some steps to throw her influence for the reestablishment of something in the nature of the League of Nations.
Here I should like to put on record the position on foreign policy adopted at the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation national convention of July, 1938:
To bring into being a foreign policy based upon the following objectives and principles:
(a) Canada must free herself from her present commitments (based upon the conception of Canada as a colony rather than as a

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
free and self-governing nation) which would automatically involve her in a war to which another member of the commonwealth is a party. At present, in addition to legal ties with the empire which have not yet been clarified, guarantees to Great Britain of naval bases and cooperation in war preparedness make active participation inevitable.
While these conditions continue, the oft repeated promise of the government that "parliament will decide" is meaningless. Canada should declare her right to freedom of action in case of war whoever the belligerents may be. Cooperative Commonwealth Federation therefore urges that all steps necessary to attain such freedom of action be taken immediately.
(b) The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation further emphasizes the fact that the large scale manufacture of armaments in Canada so vitally affects our foreign policy that it should be strictly controlled by parliament and not undertaken at the will of private interests. In order to free Canada from these economic entanglements which lead to war and to prevent profiteering in armaments, we advocate the nationalization of the manufacture of arms, munitions and war equipment.
(e) The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation believes that war is not inevitable even at this date, and that genuine collective peace action may still avert the present headlong rush to war. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation urges that Canada support and cooperate in any such collective action whose aim is the prevention of war and the peaceful settlement of existing disputes.
(d) If collective action should fail and war break out, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation believes that our decision as to participation must be based on the determination to keep Canada out of any war whose purpose is really the defence of imperialist interests; recognizing that in the future, as in the past, an attempt will be made to dress up imperialist wars in a guise acceptable to the general public.
I should like to speak for a few moments on Canada's right to decide her own foreign policy. This is along the lines of a resolution which has been on the order paper since the beginning of the session, but which will not be reached. The principle underlying it is the same as that underlying Bill No. 16, in the name of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson). This proposal has already been discussed by the Prime Minister. I think my own point of view is succinctly stated in the resolution on the order paper, which reads:
Whereas at the imperial conference of 1926, the British dominions were defined as being "autonomous communities within the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations";
Therefore be it resolved, that this parliament hereby declares to the other members of the commonwealth and to the world that the power to make a declaration of war binding upon Canada is vested solely in the crown on the advice of its Canadian ministers, and calls upon the government to introduce at the present
session such legislation as may be necessary to give full effect and force to this declaration.
Two years ago I stated my position in these words, as they appear at pages 240 and 241 of Hansard-and I would call these words to the attention of the leader of the opposition who has just been discussing this matter from his own point of view:
Canada should claim at once the right to declare war or peace. I brought this matter up last year. I suggested that Canada is said to be autonomous under the Statute of Westminster, but we are also told that when Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war. It would appear that while Canada has now full control of her own legislation, she has not full control over tile executive functions of government. South Africa by her Status of Union Act and Royal Executive Functions and Seals Act sought to attain such control over her own affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: But it is doubtful if she did.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Someone may object that if that policy is carried out it will mean independence. If that is so, then I say, by all means, let us have independence. On the other hand, as one who desires to preserve the British connection, I would suggest quite seriously that it_ is only in so far as we in Canada have effective control over the policies which concern our people, and the other dominions have similar control, that we shall be able to maintain the British commonwealth.
Means must be found to clarify existing anomalies and the dangerous situation which essentially is the result of developing from colonial to national status. I say " dangerous." Let me quote this from one of our imperial statesmen.
London, December 15, (Canadian Press- Havas, French Agency). The British _ empire's voice in foreign affairs would be increased manifold if, for example, Canada had a population of 40,000,000 instead of its present 10.000,000, the Duke of Devonshire, dominion's undersecretary, declared in a speech Wednesday night.
"Battleships, tanks, guns and rifles are no good unless you have men," he declared.
That is the news item. Well, what is the suggestion? It is that we dump immigrants into the colonies, encourage them to breed, and then use them for empire raw material. I suggest that Canada is going to have something to say about that.
I urge further that the present policy is "dangerous," because British imperial or even domestic policy may involve Canada, or even imperil her domestic welfare. The leader of the opposition has suggested that, in his opinion, neutrality is impossible without independence. He would then apparently be willing that Canada should tag along at the tail of all British decisions. Surely that is the very abnegation of representative government. If I were in Great Britain I would have some

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
voice in saying who the government of Great Britain would be. Living in Canada I have no such voice. And yet, according to the logic of the leader of the opposition, although my life in Canada may be seriously affected, I must obey whatever decision is made by a government in Great Britain, over whose election I have no control at all.
Further, I said it was "anomalous" because statutes tend to lag behind declared principles. This question was discussed by the British Commonwealth Relations Conference meeting which was recently held in Australia. The principal Canadian paper was prepared by Professor F. R. Scott of McGill university. It has been published under the title "Canada To-day." Mr. Scott said:
The overwhelming weight of authority takes the _ view- that legally the state of technical belligerency is created in the dominion by a British declaration of war.
That is apparently the present situation. We cannot help ourselves. But the Prime Minister of course maintains that Canada will decide. In practice, all that means is that Canada will decide to what degree she will participate. That is very largely a farcical position. We were said to decide whether or not we would have a new king. A special session of parliament was called to decide whether or not we would have a new king- and yet when we arrived in Ottawa we found that we had to take the oath of allegiance to the new king before we were permitted to take our seats in the house to decide whether or not he would be our king. I hope that one of these days we shall get away from some of these legal fictions and openly face facts as they are.
Let me state the legal position as I have it from some of my friends who know more than I do about constitutional law. I quote from a memorandum, but I accept the position taken:	;ffj
Until full control over matters of peace and irar^ affecting Canada is vested in Canada, this lominion cannot be said to be fully autonomous ')r equal in status with Great Britain.
The new constitution of Ireland provides that, except in the case of actual invasion, war shall not be declared and the state shall not participate in any war save by the assent of Dail Eireann, and the British government announced that "they are prepared to treat the new constitution as not affecting a fundamental alteration of the position of the Irish Free State ... as a member of the British commonwealth of nations;"
The Union of South Africa by legislation adopted in 1934 has acquired full internal control over the exercise of the royal prerogative on behalf of the union:
Since the Statute of Westminster Canada also has the right to deal with the royal prerogative over external affairs in any way that the parliament of Canada may desire.

Then, Berriedale Keith in the Journal of Comparative Legislation, 1935, is reported to have said, at page 274, that certain decisions seem to establish that any royal prerogative in respect of a dominion may under suitable legislation, be controlled by that dominion. I am here actually quoting from page 263 of Hansard for 1937.
Then, there is one further quotation from Professor Soott which I should like to give somewhat as an antidote to what was said by the leader of the opposition. Professor Scott said:
The same spirit which made Englishmen behead one king and expel another in the seventeenth century, turned the colonies into autonomous dominions in the twentieth century. Independence of action proved that the dominions were British in spirit, not that they were anti-British. It was failure to recognize their own characteristics when displayed by Englishmen outside England which lost the English their American colonies.
How celebrate the visit of the king and his consort to Canada? It is proposed that he dedicate a memorial to a war which ended twenty years ago when, as a matter of fact, the fear is that the threat of another may prevent his visit? Why not celebrate by asking him officially to declare Canada's coming of age, our entrance upon the full rights and responsibilities of responsible government?
Let me turn to another aspect. We are nominally a Christian nation. Prayers are said daily in this house, I suppose as an acknowledgment of that fact. In the Gazette of yesterday there was a rather striking report of a speech by the Reverend Canon Raven, Master of Christ's College, Cambridge, and chaplain to His Majesty the King. He is reported as saying:
It is impossible to reconcile the teachings of Christianity with modern warfare.
And again:
The world is ripe for a new age of mutual understanding and for an almost world-wide cooperative civilization. If a sufficient lead were given I believe there is sufficient common sense and devotion in the world to follow that lead.
I should like to quote from the record of proceedings of the eighth general council of the United Church of Canada held in Toronto in September, 1938. From the section devoted to Christian principles, I read:
The United Church of Canada, in general council assembled, declares its unchanging conviction that war is contrary to the mind of Christ. We believe armed warfare to be contrary to the spirit and teaching of Christ. As Christians we positively reject war, because war rejects love, defies the will of Christ and denies the work of man. We declare the basic Christian principle of the supreme worth of human personality, the economic inter-

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
dependence of the peoples of the world and the inherent oneness of mankind. War is the repudiation of these principles and of love and reason. It is a resort to hatred and violence-to barbarism.
I should like to make one more brief quotation from this document which advocates what amounts practically to civil disobedience under certain circumstances. I quote:
Neither the state nor any other power has the right to compel a person to engage in what his conscience declares to be a sinful act. We pray there may never be a clash of loyalties in this regard, but should there be, we hold with the early church that a Christian must obey God rather than man," for only by so doing can we best serve man.
Perhaps it is not good form to quote a church body in this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why not?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some people do not consider it to be. However, I venture to do so because I believe that what I have just read is fundamentally sound. It seems to me that we have reached a stage in the development of our civilization where we shall have to take our stand and decide whether war is compatible with Christianity or even with civilization itself. We must remember that history teaches us that many evils were once condoned by the church and once had the full sanction of the state. Take slavery, for example. However, there came a time when both state and church realized that slavery must go. Possibly we have reached the stage where we must decide as to whether war is to be abolished as an instrument of national policy and, indeed, whether war is at all compatible with civilization. I know I shall immediately be asked: If there is a mad dog abroad in Europe, what are you going to do?


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) says " hear, hear." Immediately we are swept off our feet. We say we must be prepared to fight the devil with fire. Immediately we must put forth every endeavour to be stronger than he is from the military point of view.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some hon. members say " hear, hear." I hear that all over the house. That is the accepted view.


Ernest Lapointe: If a man attacks me I have to defend myself.


James Shaver Woodsworth: You say so.


Ernest Lapointe: Which is only right.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There was one
historical example: one very eminent person who is regarded as being divine who did not think so. You say he perished-yes. But I often think of those lines of James Russeil Lowell:
Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,-
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
You may say that is absolutely skyJblue idealism.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is what we all believe.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If it is what we all believe, some of us ought to be willing to try to put it into practice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely the hon. member would not be prepared to leave the world to the attacks of a mad dog.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We come back to that every time.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend defends himself pretty well when he is
attacked.


Robert James Manion: He does some attacking too.


Ernest Lapointe: He never turns the other cheek.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have never yet carried a gun to defend myself, but perhaps you will say there are police and all that kind of thing. The house laughs, but I am serious about this because I think it is a big issue. I think we shall have to work out this principle in hitherto untried applications. I do not think we can go on as our fathers have done, as all nations have done, and civilization maintain itself much longer. Some other way will have to be found. If the civilization of western Europe is to be reduced to that of ancient Rome and Greece, as may easily be the case, then laboriously and patiently we shall have to rebuild. Why should we not be willing to make for peace some of the sacrifices that are required for war? That is my point. We cannot expect that everything is going to flow along smoothly and we remain smug and content.
I have no use for war, but I confess that I have more respect for the soldier who goes to the front than I have for the man who stays at home and profiteers. I have more use for the nation that goes into war to defend a principle than I have for the craven nation that stays at home simply to keep its hide whole. If as a Canadian nation we are going to take our place in world affairs on



Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth
another basis than that of war, we shall have to be prepared to make at least as great sacrifices as we would if we went into war.
My time is almost up, but before I close I should like to put on the record two or three paragraphs from the recent speech of Mussolini, which I fancy all hon. members have read:
First, as regards the professional pacifists- He is speaking, I take it, not of those whom we regard as pacifists, but rather of those who advocate peace and who have allied themselves so largely with the League of Nations and agencies of that kind.
First, as regards the professional pacifists, they are particularly detestable individuals. And as regards the word peace, it is by now virtually^ worn out from much use and rings falsely like counterfeit money.
Again he says:	.
No matter how things go we wish to hear no more about brotherhood, sisterhood, cousins and such other bastard relationships because relationships between states are relations of force, and these relations of force are the determining elements of their policy.
Again :
We must arm. The watchword is this: More cannon, more ships, more airplanes, at whatever cost, with whatever means, even if it should mean wiping out all that is called civil life.
When one is strong one is dear to one's friends and feared by one's enemies. Since prehistoric times one shout has come down on the waves of the centuries and the series of generations: Woe to the weak!
There you have the doctrine of stark, brutal force.


Ernest Lapointe: But what can men of peace do when there are rulers of that kind at large in the world?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mussolini is correct. Since prehistoric times it has been, "Woe to the weak." We as a race began down in the slime, yet in some way or another we have risen to the stage which we call civilization, and this in spite of the brutes that our ancestors were. The race has risen because there were a few men of each generation who caught a gleam of something greater ahead. There are such things in my judgment as truth and justice and love.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And in my better moments I have the courage to believe that truth will prevail even though there is falsehood on every side.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And I have the courage to believe at times that we shall have justice even though one is almost over-IMr. Woodsworth.!
whelmed by injustices on every side. I never read a book of poetry or attend a fine drama without believing that love has some real force in it and that some day it will touch the hearts even of the hardest. I like to think that. I do not live up to it always, but I like to think it.


Ernest Lapointe: We all do.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And I say that this creed of Mussolini's is little less than blasphemy.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear. Mr. MACKENZIE KING: We all agree.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And yet the tendency is for us to lower ourselves to his level.


Ernest Lapointe: No, that is slander.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The tendency is, in my judgment, that we adopt the very means that he is using. We see these authoritarian states set up in power and flourishing like a green bay tree. But they have within them the seeds of decay, and even without the intervention of some outside power they will one day crumble of their own inherent rottenness. But if we set up the same thing, what then? Why, we begin to follow the same course.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, the motive is not the same.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes? Never mind the motive. I would call the attention of the Prime Minister to a book that I have not myself read carefully, Aldous Huxley's Ends and Means. We cannot adopt wrongful means even to gain good ends. Instead of the end justifying the means, the means debase the ends.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right, but can my hon. friend tell me how those anti-Christian forces are going to be prevented from sweeping over the whole world unless Christian forces array themselves against them?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not call these
present arrangements such as armaments, Christian forces at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are not the forces. The people behind them are the forces.


Mr. TUCKER:: Is it wrong to be armed against bandits?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think on the whole the police and the soldiers are not nearly so powerful in this world as some people believe. Further, may I say I am firmly convinced that in this scientific world we are learning

Foreign Policy-Mr. Hay hurst
that we are not getting very far in dealing with effects, we must learn-to deal with causes.
I do not know that I am prepared to say we should open every penitentiary and gaol and all that sort of thing. I do not know that I would go that far, although. I do say it seems to me that under our penal arrangements almost as many innocent people suffer as guilty people. But I go further and suggest that two-thirds of the crimes committed could have been, prevented if we had dealt properly with the young people. I firmly believe that; I know I am on good scientific ground, and to the extent to which it is possible I urge that we must begin and keep curative processes at work.
If we are asked, why Hitler? I say unhesitatingly, because of the peace treaty-a victor's treaty. I said that at the time, and I say it again. That was the cause of Hitler. The last time I was in Germany I remember very clearly talking to one of the officials in the department of foreign affairs of the government then in control. As he reviewed the situation in east Berlin, where the communists were rioting, and in Munich, where Hitler was at that time beginning to rise to power, I asked him, "What of the future?" He shook his head and said, "I do not know, but anything is better than this." It was the desperation of the German people, caused very largely by the allies, which, in my judgment, gave birth to Hitler, and we are not going to accomplish very much by going round again in the same old cycle.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I regret to
interrupt, but the hon. member has exhausted his time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let the hon.
member finish.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I shall be only a
moment, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that intelligence, idealism, cooperation, if you will, and high moral appeal, are greater in this world even as it is than the application of brute force, and what I would ask of my own nation is that more and more we should think not so much in terms of military defence but rather in terms of the promotion of justice. Here in our own midst we have not justice by any means. Then there is the policy of the good neighbour. We have not followed that by any means. Above all, let us place the higher values of humanity against the greed and the profit-seeking which so frequently dominate our commercial life as well as our international relations.


Mr. WILLIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville):: In following the hon. member for Winnipeg 71492-155i
North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), may I say that there are some things he said with which I agree, and probably some others with which I disagree. When he mentioned brute force,
I thought of the law of the jungle and the remark of students of the science of behaviour, "Make a man sufficiently angry or envious and the dull red eyes of the cave man will glare and stare at you."
I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the adroitness of his speech this afternoon, a speech which covers pretty well Liberal policy in the field of international relations. We realize that democracy needs leadership, and that the policy of the good neighbour as enunciated by the president of the great republic to the south of us is a good one to adopt at this time. Looking at Europe, we see a great part of that continent, particularly the southeast, in "an atmosphere misty with tears." When the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) was speaking this evening, he mentioned the leader of the Irish Free State. I thought of a story told of Doctor Hyde, president of Eire, At a meeting he attended he was speaking of England, when a man in the audience said, "To hell with England." Doctor Hyde replied, "No, my friend, not 'to hell with England' but 'to heaven with Ireland'." So perhaps, Mr. Speaker, in our discussions we have regarded some of these nations with a certain amount of envy because of the great accomplishments which they have brought about, even under the type of government which they have to-day. When the Prime Minister mentioned that we in Canada should rival them in doing the most for our own people, in giving them more opportunity and greater security, in raising their standards of living, in increasing individual liberty, peace and security to take the place of hate and hysteria, he was comparing Canada and the other democracies with nations which, although labouring under a different type of government, have probably shown more efficiency in some respects than have our own democracies.
So to-day we have a challenge to democracy. We need more people who love liberty, more men of the type of the grandfather of the present Prime Minister. We need reform- Now. The Prime Minister mentioned this afternoon some of the alternatives. He said that in the proceedings of the League of Nations too much stress had been placed on penalties; he mentioned the alternatives of the Pan-American union and of the empire. It is true that to-day we are living in a new age. The security of Britain and the security
Foreign Policy-Mr. Hay hurst

of Canada depend greatly upon our achievements in the field of science and knowledge compared with the accomplishments of other peoples. We are now neighbours of any European nation. Canada is a neighbour of Germany. The range of the aeroplane has outmoded national boundaries-boundaries which, as we have seen them on the map of Europe in the past few years, were drawn in a horse-and-cart age, before mankind became conscious of the power of aeroplanes and modern machinery.
I realize that foreign relations is a great subject, one to be discussed with dignity and fairness. We were therefore delighted to hear some clear-cut statements by the Prime Minister regarding the position of Canada in relation to the empire and the United States, and with regard to conscription. Canada contains many different classes and races. My own constituency probably contains representatives of more different European countries than any other constituency in this great country. Quite a member of letters I receive come from Germans in my district. If the Prime Minister wants to give "happiness and sweet content" to the Canadian people, jealousy and misunderstanding on the part of the English and French-speaking people with regard to our new Canadians, and especially our citizens of German origin, must be removed. Many of these German citizens are excellent farmers and are good citizens of Canada, yet newspapers and sometimes their neighbours criticize them unduly because they happen to be Germans.
While Canada is territorially a large country, to-day it has become quite small. Engraved on the portals of this building are the lines:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both east and west.
And to-day a man can leave the Pacific coast and be in Montreal in twelve hours.
We need more vision if we are to give our Canadian youth of all nationalities the opportunity for which they seek.
In a democracy a person should be able to say without hinderance what he thinks of the government, bearing in mind that the happiness of the individual citizen is a paramount consideration. It will be remembered that Voltaire said:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Remember how he died.


William Hayhurst: Foreign Policy-Mr. Hay hurst
Slovaks and Ukrainians, but it was hoped the Czechs would meet the problem as Switzerland had done by setting up states or cantons. This was intended to give the minorities a large measure of home rule, but damnosa hereditas of Austria-Hungary still haunts the world. Czechoslovakia had the example of Austria-Hungary before her, but no attempt was made to set matters right. Instead, the Czechs insisted on being the body in control. This caused a large amount of discontent. The minorities insisted on more autonomy, with the result that the seeds of dissension easily germinated and outside help quickly came. Austria-Hungary never accomplished the task of welding these people together, and it is doubtful if any other power will be any more successful.
A nation cannot be welded together unless it has a common means of discussion, or in other words, a common language, a common heritage. The statesmen who drafted the treaty of Versailles overlooked this fact and consequently created a state which was an economic and geographic and ethnographic mistake. The question now is, have these minorities leaped from the frying pan into the fire? Democracy lives only in a spirit of tolerance and individual freedom. It is tolerance and individual freedom which serve to cement the national aspirations of a people. Democracy develops a spirit of kindliness. It has ever been the claim of autocracies that kindliness is a source of weakness, but the spirit of tolerance which develops the freedom of each individual should develop a kindly feeling towards your neighbour if democracy is to survive.
Originally democracy was a form of direct government as found in city states like Athens. Strictly interpreted, democracy means the rule of the people. Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I do not know that there is any kind of government, whether totalitarian -or whatever else, but is government for the people. The essential question is whether the government is by the people. Democracy believes in the individual; the totalitarian states believe that the individual exists for the sake of the power and glory of the state. The state encourages discipline, obedience, courage and self-sacrifice in an effort to be efficient. In a democracy the state exists to enable every individual to develop his own initiative and his own personality as a member of the community. The creed of the dictator relieves men of the drudgery of hard thinking demanded by democracy. Democracy is the only political method by which economic equality will ultimately be achieved. Construc-

tive criticism is the greatest service a citizen can render any community. Doctor L. P. Jakes said that whereas there is no such thing as governing men, there is such a thing as preventing them from governing themselves. So we believe that we must make democracy work.
The dominant civilization on earth is western in character, but unfortunately there is a great cleavage in this civilization. Some believe that man the individual should be supreme; others, that the state should be supreme. Some believe that man should be free; others, that men's liberties should be subordinated to the state. One side says that the state exists for man; and the other, that man exists for the state. One side believes in democracy; the other, in autocracy. Some say that force will win; others, that morality will win.. Surely free men can be happier than those whose liberties have been taken from them. The freedom of the individual cannot be subordinated to the myth of a living state. Political and personal liberty must be preserved to prevent us from traveling the path towards an insect civilization.
Familiarity breeds contempt. We grumble at our political institutions in this country, when we should be extolling their virtues. We have Canadians in this country who were not brought up in the nurture of our institutions, and when we attack thdse institutions contemptuously we are undermining their loyalty to Canada. Scepticism and cynicism regarding our political life break down our ideals of democracy. We must rally to the fight to preserve the liberties we have. Derision of democratic principles has become common, with the result that people look to communism and fascism. People's sympathies are being driven away from parliamentary methods of government because of an impression of vigour and efficiency and determination of dictators. So we must renew our own confidence in democratic principles if we wish to encourage others to share those principles. Democracy cannot buy peace by selling its conscience. The challenge to democracy must become the challenge of democracy. Even in a democracy personal ambitions appear inevitable. We oppose Marxism, but we must retain the fighting spirit without which no generation, certainly no young generation, considers life worth living.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: The introduction of foreign affairs in this debate to-day will do a great deal of good and clarify the situation as far as Canada is concerned. The country expects that all parties in this house will want to see the maximum of

Foreign Policy-Mr. Church
unity and the minimum of criticism on such an important matter as this, in such dark days as these, and especially because Canada is such a difficult country to govern.
The great war showed in this country that all the loyalty is not in one party. All classes of people on the whole did the best they could in the great war. God forbid that we should ever see another one in this country, or ever suffer on our own soil the awful horrors of war which the poor people of some other countries have suffered and are suffering to-day through the dictators. The feeling of some people in Canada is that so far as the mother country is concerned, "We are just as good as you are." But the real sentiment of the Canadian people is that while that may be said, they believe in their hearts and know that all they enjoy in the world to-day of liberty, freedom, and civilization they owe to the mother country for protection. In their hearts they know that to be true.
I have known the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for many years. I have a very high regard for him and also for the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Manion.)
I believe the statements they made to-day will do a great deal to clarify the situation as far as Canada is concerned. Dispatches were read showing that South Africa, Australia and New Zealand did not speak to the mother country more loyally than Canada. That is the trouble in this country, there is too much lip-loyalty. What is needed in Canada to-day is courage, prudence and leadership. That is the great need to-day of our statesmen and those in control. The fate of our empire, of civilization and of freedom is at stake; the fate of all the dominions and countries the world over is wrapped up in the success or failure of Great Britain. If Britain falls, the world will go down into outer darkness, and Canada in common with all other countries will lose the freedom, liberty and civilization which she enjoys.
This is the fifty-sixth day of this session, and at last the house has an opportunity to discuss the trust reposed in the Prime Minister, as head of the Department of External Affairs, in the administration of Canada's foreign policy. I have read many speeches delivered by the Prime Minister, statements he has made in the house and in other parts of Canada. I have read his statement in Paris, and the statement he made when he arrived at Quebec. At no time in the history of the empire has it been more necessary than it is to-day to stand beside the mother country. After all is said and done, in my humble opinion all the money spent on defence by this country,
defence on the land, sea and in the air, will be wasted and thrown away unless that policy is coordinated and in cooperation with that of the mother country.
The Prime Minister has stated that, should an emergency arise, parliament will decide upon what course the country will take, having in view all the circumstances of the case. He has referred to what the other dominions have done and said along the same line. So far as I can see, there is no declaration in his address such as the great majority of people in Canada would like to see, namely a declaration that we stand behind the mother country. In days now past, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier did make statements. Sir Wilfrid said that when Great Britain is at war, Canada is at war also.
As was said this afternoon by both leaders, the dictators are the ones who are going to decide whether or not Canada will be at war. To-day dictatorships have what they call shock diplomacy. Those dictators do not give a country any chance. They take everything by shock, with suddenness, ruthlessly and brutally. We talk about parliament deciding whether or not we should participate in a war. Why, before parliament could sit, before we could get to this building, the dictators could sail up the St. Lawrence and, with modern aircraft, destroy every public utility in Canada before anything was done to stop them. There would not be time to do anything. The idea of waiting to call parliament before deciding on a policy does not appeal to wisdom or judgment of the people of Canada.
In 1914 Sir Robert Borden gave leadership and acted promptly, and the country backed him up. In my opinion it would do so again, under our system of responsible government if the emergency should again arise. With all due respect to the statements which were made to-day, Canada, as I view the situation, still has a policy of isolation. We make our own treaties. Except through the ties of allegiance to the mother country, we are a separate country. I have taken notice of what has been done since 1921 with respect to separatism in this country and a week ago gave a summary of how far we had gone. The very idea of war is hated and detested by everybody; nevertheless preparation is necessary. No one wants war. It is right to hate war, but we have to face the facts. There is at stake the question of the defence of Canada and the empire, and also of our liberty and freedom and the principles of civilization.
In England they have been slow to get started, but now they realize the mistake they made in disarming. They are now rearming.
Foreign Policy-Mr. Church

At Norwich the labour unions voted by
2,500,000	to less than 200,000 for an armed Britain. This has been forced upon Great Britain; she has been compelled to make heavy expenditures on armaments. The government does not want it; the opposition does not want it-nolbody wants all those expenditures of money. But they are necessary, in view of the condition in which the world finds itself to-day. An unarmed Britain only invites insult and invasion and, in the end, extinction. She scrapped the finest army, navy and air force the world ever saw, to please the pacifists.
Adequate armaments are necessary, but adequate armaments without adequate manpower are inadequate. We know by chapter 132 of the Militia Act that the militia can be called out for active service in Canada and also, when advisable, for the defence of Canada. In connection with Canada's stand I should like to see more clarity than we have had in the past. Let us get rid of this metaphysical language about foreign affairs and defence; let the country know plainly what Canada's defence policy is.
Where is Canada? She seems to be at the cross roads on defence policy. Where is she drifting? She seems to be depending for defence on the Monroe doctrine, Pan-Americanism, and protection by the United States fleet in the Pacific and Atlantic. Canada, which was first in the Diamond Jubilee procession of 1897, refused to take any part in protective measures for Great Britain in the Pacific or aid to the Singapore base. She has refused to cooperate with New Zealand and Australia for the protection of the Pacific, or to attend the Pacific conference. All the powers who were interested were at the opening in February, 1938, of the Singapore base or attended the Pacific conference, but Canada was not there. At the opening of the Singapore base Britain, the United States, New Zealand and Australia were represented, but Canada was not there.
It seems to me, if we may judge from what happened yesterday and the day before in the Quebec legislature, that there is something radically wrong with education in this country. May I say that education consists of more than mere book-learning. A man may win a triple first at the university of Toronto, at McGill or at some other university, and yet be uneducated. Conversely, a man may be educated and not be able to read or write. George Stephenson could not read or write when he was eighteen years of aSe, yet he discovered the steam engine and perfected it.
There is something wrong with modern education; there is something lacking. There
(Mr. Church.]
are more important things which should be learned in education, namely service and sacrifice, discipline, love of country, duty to one's country and service to humanity and the cause of freedom. That is one of the weaknesses in Canadian education. May I say that the provocative pacifism which has been going on in this country is something to be deplored. One of the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England, article 37, says that it shall be lawful for Christian men at the commandment of the magistrate to bear weapons and to serve in the wars. Since when has it become a crime for the young people of Canada to defend one's country. Let me say that on many occasions the militia of Toronto has done its duty. They went to northwestern Canada, that section of Canada from which some of the leading pacifists in this house have come-and they saved in 1885 the prairie provinces and Canada from being dislocated. They took a very active part in the northwest rebellion. In my opinion, national service in Canada must be adapted to conditions.
At the opening of the session I asked these questions:
1.	Have any steps been taken by the government to secure a national register for Canada tor delenee or economic or industrial or labour purposes ?
ou, vviictL are
3. Will a census or modern doomsday book, or national register be ordered or compiled of (a) industrial power, (b) economic power, (e) food power, (d) manpower, (e) military and defence power and (f) unemployed?
After a lot of running round I have not yet received a proper reply. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) was the only one who gave a return to my question. There has been no national register. What is being done in Australia with regard to national defence? She is voting two and a half billion dollars for defence purposes over a number of years. She voted for the Singapore base, and for a fleet of warships of her own and union for defence with Britain. She has decided on a compulsory national register of all from fifteen to sixty-four. It may not be for war purposes, but it is necessary. Are we going to wait for another war before we have a national register in Canada? Now is the time for it; do not wait until it is too late, as was done in 1914. Shall we ever have a generation of Canadians who will believe in preparation and avoid the awful sacrifices of 1914? We must remember the terrible situation which we had in 1914 was on account of lack of preparation. I believe national service in Canada must be adapted to the conditions of the times. We should be prepared.

If it is a social and moral duty for love of country to save our dominion, then we may depend that our youth will rise to any leadership. Youth will be ready to admit that they have a duty and an obligation to their country, if they have leadership. The Prime Minister should aid each school board to tell the youth that Canada expects each of them to do his or her duty. Canada is looking for leadership in domestic affairs and in foreign and defence affairs. If we have leaders who will rise to the situation, then they may be sure that Canada will willingly accept any action taken. The youth of Canada will not fight for the league, for appeasement, or in another country, against fascism or communism.
In my _ opinion the greatest mistake the Prime Minister has made is in adopting a policy of silence, in adopting what I consider a policy of provocative silence. Mr. Chamberlain has placed all his cards on the table. He made a statement in the British house the other day because he considered that parliament and the country should know all the facts.
Second, I think the government has failed to collaborate and to coordinate the defences of Canada with those of Great Britain. There should be less of this separatism and pacifism. This government has made one great mistake. It is the worst of all; it has failed to give leadership. It has underestimated the great patriotism of the Canadian people. The problem of defence is a most important one. This whole question has been altered by the improved weapons of attack. There has been a great improvement in aircraft. We have Ethiopia as an example of what can be accomplished in air attacks. A warship could sail up the St. Lawrence fully equipped with aeroplanes and anti-aircraft pompom guns. This is the type of defence that should be provided for.
As I said in a debate in this house on March 24, 1938, on the defence estimates, Abyssinia was recently a theatre of war and we all know the destruction of civilian population that occurred through that means of attack. Abyssinia is an open country with only a small density of population compared with the island of Montreal, the cities of Quebec, Ottawa and Toronto and other parts of Canada. Air raids can work great havoc in time of war, and the menace will be a very real one in Canada, especially to the people of Quebec, the maritime provinces and British Columbia. What are we doing to take care of the civilian population? Nothing. Aircraft could come up the Ottawa river at a moment's notice. I should like to direct the
Foreign Policy-Mr. Church
attention of the Social Credit members to what might happen. An air attack might occur and the whole social credit system be destroyed at a moment's notice. It was not many years ago that a few men from Toronto went out to the northwest and saved the whole prairies for Canada. Aircraft could come up the Ottawa and destroy this building, the railway station and all the public utilities in eastern Canada.
An aerial bombardment is one of the dangers most to be apprehended in time of war, particularly in large cities with their dense populations. The protection of cities from aerial bombardment should be one of the chief objectives of the national defence department, and proper equipment for defence against this menace should be provided. Large quantities of poisonous gas could easily be spread over a large area, as was done in Abyssinia. Incendiary bombs could be dropped on our large cities with great destruction and slaughter, and the enemy aircraft could get back to their base in practically no time. These attacks would not only bring ruin to our cities and towns, but break the morale of our people and prevent us from developing a proper defence and mobilizing our man power and armaments.
That is what I said on March 24, 1938, but nothing has been done. What has been done to protect the civilian population in Canada from awful air raids? One of these days there will be a rude awakening in this country. Hon. members sit in' this chamber and listen to one or two speeches by their leaders, and then all they do is say, "me too." So far as they are concerned, the people can continue to suffer or lack the security which is better than opulence. I consider that hon. gentlemen opposite and in other corners, who are not here to-night are not doing their duty.
I do not want to criticize them or anyone because I am sometimes away myself. My point is that they do not realize the importance and magnitude of this question of national defence, and our lack of any security whatever. Security is more important than social credit or all the trade treaties and trade pacts put together. We have had many of these trade pacts, but what is supposed to be their function? It was thought that when we had trade pacts and favoured nation treaties in twenty-six countries, they would lead to peace, but they have led toward more strife and war than to peace.
The government has not yet made a definite announcement as to the security of Canada. As far as I can see, the defences of Canada are where they were in 1812. We are com-
.2456
Foreign Policy-Mr. Church

pletely dependent upon the mother country for our defence in the air, on the land or on the sea, just as we were then. Canada is not going to be talked out of the British empire.
If Canada could have been talked out of the British empire, it would have been talked out long ago by the pacifists both in and out of this house. Canada will have to be fought out of the British empire. We have these pacifists and foreign commentators engaged by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, one of the most mischievous institutions we have, allowing attacks on Mr. Chamberlain and Great Britain and her foreign policies. Why should these foreigners and commentators and pacifists be engaged in debates or be allowed to link up different radio stations for an attack on Mr. Chamberlain and the British empire?
What is the British empire for? The British empire does not want war. Great Britain does not want war. She is trustee for the peace of the world. Great Britain protects Quebec and the maritimes, and indeed, all Canada. Were it not for the protection of Great Britain, Quebec, the maritimes and eastern Canada could be blotted out in twenty-four hours by the supremacy of the dictators in the air. That is what might have happened if they had decided to go west instead of east. Germany with her modern war preparations started as a small country and built up a vaster Germany through armaments obtained by loans from the democracies. While Germany was at war, she was surrounded by pacifist neighbours. Peace was on the lips of her statesmen, but war was in the hearts of the minorities. War has been the moral custom of Prussia from the time she was a petty state until the time she was a powerful empire. To-day she plans cruelly, deliberately, ruthlessly and with terrible ferocity; she executes her plans and policy at the appointed time and hour, after the victims have been lulled cleverly into a false sense of security. She cleverly isolates the wells of public opinion by crafty, poisonous publicity to the point of making the attacked appear in the eyes of the world as the aggressor. That is what happened in the case of Czechoslovakia.
Germany has an air supremacy of three to one. France with 40,000,000 people cannot stand against an invasion by 120,000,000 Germans and Italians, and now Spain is with the dictators as well. Dictators have lined up in southwest Europe 40,000,000 more against France. They have a supremacy in the air of three to one; they have a supremacy in man power, and they claim a supremacy in military services. They claim to be superior to all other people of the world in their

readiness to sacrifice. Pitt faced in the Napoleonic wars a similar state of affairs to that which England has to face in 1939. In 1803 Pitt, who strove for peace, was up against a dictator, Napoleon, and at that time he said that England must adopt precautions which were formerly thought unnecessary.
In my opinion this House of Commons should have before it all the telegrams, all the agreements and all the orders in council which I asked for last Monday. When this question was called the Speaker said, ' dropped." But the public are not going to drop this. Mr. Chamberlain laid all his cards on the table, and all the papers I asked for last fall. He rose in his place in the house and gave the details and defects of the defences of London. He told the people how Germany was three to one as far as air force was concerned, and that Britain would have been destroyed owing to the inadequacy of London's defences. They started digging trenches in the parks, but the people knew all the facts.
What have we in this country? On the fifty-sixth day of this session we have long statements made about peace and foreign affairs, and no clarity or a plain statement as to where Canada stands. One would almost think Canada's defence policy was the reading of speeches and documents and statements, and the making of trade agreements; that the pen is mightier than the sword. We shall have to go over all this again. Imagine what the soldiers with the memories of 1914 to 1918 will think! Munich was brought about by the pacifists and by the isolationist policy of this government. The pacifists in England persuaded Ramsay MacDonald to scrap the finest army, navy and air force in the world, with the result that an unarmed Britain simply invited invasion. The dominions, after all is said and done, have been somewhat of a drag on the mother country for the past twenty years since the great war.
Mr. Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, in his unforgettable radio speech before the final conference in Munich, said:
How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and fitting gas masks because of a quarrel in a far-away
It seems still more impossible that a quarrel which is already settled in principle should be the subject of war.
However much one may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful nation, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire m a war simply on that account.
If we have to fight, it must be on larger issues than that.
I am myself a man of peace to the depths of my soul. Armed conflict between nations is a nightmare to me.

Chamberlain was in command on the bridge, and it devolved upon him to begin to repair all the damage that had been done by the pacifists and which brought about Munich. Chamberlain is on the bridge for weeks, twenty-four hours a day, but it is recognized now that his appeasement policy has failed. Canada stands to-day at the parting of the ways. So far as Canada is concerned, all we have done has been to make a series of international treaties, pacts and agreements, and we are now giving privileges to Germany under the most favoured nation clause. We have a trade agreement with Germany. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we should withdraw our trade envoys from Germany. Why should Germany be favoured with a trade treaty after the way in which she has been acting since the great war? Why was Germany singled out for such favours or an agreement? We should have taught them a lesson long ago. The United States raised her tariffs against Germany as a penalty of displeasure. The United States is using the weapon of the tariff to show its disbelief in the frightful policy of Germany.
It is deplorable that the League of Nations has done more to promote strife than peace. The league now lies in ruins, and it has left Britain the goat, alone with France, against the dictators. The pacifists have brought about Munich and all it stood for.
It was deplorable that in order to please the United States in 1922 we drove Japan into Germany's arms. Japan had been our loyal and dependable ally for twenty years, and with the exception of France was of more value to Britain than any other nation.
By the policy practised at Ottawa in passing sanctions against Italy, and then turning right-about-face and revoking them, we drove Italy into the German orbit. Had Britain not been engaged in a quarrel with Italy, Germany would not have violated the treaty of Versailles and made it a scrap of paper and crossed the Rhine. It would not have captured Austria, gone on to Czechoslovakia and now be going on to the Black Sea and making a dash also for the Baltic.
_ The duty of Canada is to notify Britain immediately that she stands behind her and will cooperate with her, place all her power and all her natural resources behind Great Britain and her allies to the utmost of our strength and _ capacity, that she will stand with the empire to resist any further aggression by Germany and the dictators.
The statute of Westminster is largely to blame for a great deal of our trouble to-day. One of its provisions is that each dominion is made responsible for its own defence.
Foreign Policy-Mr. Church
Canada is a dominion and has no defence. New Zealand and Australia would not agree to that provision, and only a few weeks ago I read out to the house six or eight clauses which Australia and New Zealand would not adhere to or bind themselves to. These two dominions are cooperating with Great Britain against the dictators more than Canada is.
I believe that the Ontario legislature represents public opinion in this country better than does this honourable house. They passed a resolution that they were loyal to Great Britain, and the resolution called for immediate action by the component parts of Canada in support of the British government in the present international crisis, and for mobilization of wealth and man power. There are to-day six thousand men from my own city lying buried in Flanders, but most of all in glorious France, that country towards whom the eyes of the whole civilized world were turned in the great war. The suffering and tribulations which France endured in the great war for civilization and liberty will live in history as an example of the most sublime heroism.
I believe that by a system of education properly undertaken, the youth of the province of Quebec would learn to see what Britain stands for. Sixty thousand of our glorious dead lie in France where they sleep their last sleep. That land of France is forever sacred to us, and we can never forget our glorious ally Iby whose side they fought. What we need in this country to-day is leadership in government, and that all parties in this house should unite for a maximum of unity and a minimum of discord. The people of the province of Quebec by leadership will see that they have more to fear from dictators, whose warships, with their powerful pompom guns may come up the St. Lawrence, fire a few hundreds of miles inland to the extent of their range and destroy the entire countryside.
I deplore the attacks that have been made by some of the Canadian French press on Britain and her leadership and also on a beloved member of this house and a very fine citizen of this country, the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). I believe that his heart is always for freedom and with Britain. We all know him to be a great Canadian and that he is assisting the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition in trying to bring about unity in this country.
I think the Ontario legislature did a very fine thing when they passed a resolution the other day for the mobilization of Canada's wealth and man power for the defence of freedom and liberty in the event of a future war. Britain has not asked Canada for any
Foreign Policy-Mr. Church

contribution, tout she does expect that Canada will give her moral support and let the dictators know that the dominions are safe and sound, if needed. Speaking in the Ontario legislature on the resolution, Doctor Aurelien Belanger of Prescott, whose ancestor came to Canada in one of Champlain's ships and married a French girl at Quebec in 1642, said:
We are loyal because we are grateful. We are loyal because we think our interests are tied to Great Britain. We are loyal because we think the rights we enjoy are better guaranteed under the British flag than under any other allegiance. We are loyal, I say, speaking for the majority, because we are a part of the British Empire.
The resolution, which was passed unanimously, reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government of Ontario should take cognizance of the fact that the present international crisis in Europe calls for immediate action on the part of the component parts of the British Empire, in support of any action which it may be necessary for the imperial government to take.
And that this legislative assembly of Ontario hereby petitions the federal parliament of Canada, now in session, to immediately pass legislation providing that in the event of a war emergency, the wealth and man power of Canada shall be mobilized by proclamation of the governor general in council, for the duration of the war, in defence of our free institutions.
All leaders, and the whole legislature, are to be congratulated upon their wisdom and patriotism.
If democracies are to be preserved, Canada must do its part. Do we realize what the weakness of last September meant to Canada? Canada must let the dictators know that Canada will do its duty as it did in 1914. The youth of the country do not want to fight for such shams as the League of Nations, or for paper sanctions, or for "war to end war," or against mere fascism or communism imposed on some foreign countries three thousand miles away from Canada; they will fight-with leadership-for God and king and country, if the government will give them the facts and let them know. If they have the real facts and it is found necessary for the defence of the country I believe they will do what they did in 1914, if they have leadership and know what Britain stands for. After all is said and done, as the eleventh Psalm, verse 3, puts it: "If the foundations be destroyed, what then shall the righteous do?" And what will the people of Canada do if their foundations are destroyed, as they may be destroyed by a visit of the dictators here? As Adam Smith said, security is better than opulence.
There has been, in my opinion, a lack of prudence and wisdom in the part which 
Canada has been playing in foreign affairs since the great war. It has been a policy of drift, of inaction, of coma, of inertia, of doubt and fear, of straddling the fence. Canada's foreign policy has lost in eighteen years much that was won by the valour of Canadian soldiers. We renounced the great position we held in the eyes of Great Britain, the dominions and the world, won at great loss and cost by our armies in the fields. We have thrown all these away and have relied on conferences, pacts, protocols, the League of Nations and all kinds of provocative pacifism such as led Britain to disarm. Courage, prudence and leadership are the needs of to-day for those who control our affairs in Canada. There is too much talk of small trade advantages and a general contempt for security. Security is disregarded and trade agreements are relied on for defence, although everyone who knows the facts realizes that in the end the lack of defence will lead to war and the sacrifice of not only the external but the internal safety of the country. The people of England are sick and tired of the weak surrender which was made by the socialist government, and they are rearming for the good of civilization. When they are fully armed we shall see the end of dictators.
The other day Lord Baldwin made a speech at Worcester, in which he said:
While I believe all that, I know that unless the will to peace exists in the hearts and souls of all the leaders in Europe, there may come a time when war will be inevitable. But if that time comes, I know this . . . Whether it be long or short, there can be but one result; and this country with a cause to fight for, the liberty of the human spirit, will fight with a unanimity of all classes and all ranks that has never been seen in any war that has yet taken place.
No one is better entitled to speak than Lord Baldwin; no one is better entitled to make that declaration of faith. But why wait for war? Can we not have to-day unanimity of all classes and all ranks in Canada in conjunction with Britain so that we shall be prepared? Any Canadian defence policy is inseparable from empire defence. We must give full cooperation and support to the British army, navy and air force in any plan we have for cooperation for defence purposes.
Reference was made to the disarmed neutrality which Canada has been practising. It is a luxury which no country can permit itself in the neighbourhood of the great aggressor; for there is still the possibility to be considered of Herr Hitler or one of the dictators with designs on Canada's natural resources coming over here. It is not only a possibility but a probability. The other day we had

Foreign Policy-Mr. Pelletier
some mysterious visitors here looking over our lumber. A year ago there was discussion about German aeroplanes flying over Canada. They know a great deal more about Canada than a good many Canadians; they know more than many absentee members of this house, and some day there may be a rude awakening.
I hope that the British government will tell Germany once and for all that so far as giving them back the colonies is concerned, that is out of the question.
Reference has been made here to the people of the United States. It is of tremendous importance to the people of this country to be on good terms with them, and we thank them for all they have done. But remember they have enough to do to look after their own country. I doubt if, were they attacked, they could do anything further. As to the policy of that country, the United States always speaks with two voices. One is the president's voice, the other is the voice of congress. Under the terms of the Johnson act, which is binding upon the president, they cannot give any equipment or supplies for the armies of the allies; and under the Ludlow resolution they are completely out of foreign commitments, they are back to the days of Andrew Jackson and George Washington, whose object was to keep out of all wars the world over, Canada included. We cannot depend upon them for protection. I say this while realizing it is of the utmost importance that we have their cooperation and goodwill, and we rejoice at the recent meeting of the Prime Minister of this country with the president, when they told the dictators a few things which commended themselves to the wisdom and judgment of the country.
Nevertheless, in attempting to please the United States, we can see what has happened since 1920. By the treaty of Washington the empire lost its Japanese ally. In 1926 the government of the day, thinking the British empire was too strong, committed the imperial conference to the statute of Westminster. Friendship with the United States is obviously of great importance to the people of Canada, but it is like anything else worth having-more likely to be obtained by taking a firm line than by giving way. on every occasion. For example, several states of the union owe British investors a large sum of money, but successive governments have refused to raise the issue for fear of wounding United States susceptibilities. In fact there are times when it seems that the British foreign policy is more careful of the United States than of British security. On the other hand numerous attacks were made by United States newspapers on Mr. Chamberlain because of the Munich treaty. I have been able to find only three or four newspapers which did not attack Britain and Chamberlain on that issue. I believe that the time has come when we shall have to rely, as we did in 1812, on Britain for protection. I see a cartoon here which puts it bluntly:
Uncle Sam:	If anything should happen to
John Bull it will be a case of me helping you.
Jack Canuck:	Yep, an' may Heaven help
us both.
It is a picture of our old friend Uncle Sam talking to Jack Canuck, and Jack says, "If we are going to depend on you, we are down and out," or in the words of the cartoon, "Heaven help us both." Both are protected by Britain from the dictators.
The Prime Minister was not slow to tell the people of the United States what he would do. He would never allow an enemy to go through the dominion to invade the United States. What about helping Britain? The Prime Minister proclaims Canada's responsibility for her own protection.


Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: As I rise to take part in this serious and important debate, I do so with the realization that the statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on Monday, March 20, must now seem like a dim and faraway nightmare to certain members of this house whom the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) often has called "troubles close at home." On that date he said this:
If ever there were a prospect of an aggressor launching an attack on Britain, with bombers raining death on London, I have no doubt what the decision of the Canadian people and parliament would be.
Of course, since that time we know what that statement caused. It caused a great deal of discussion in the legislature of Ontario, which was immediately replied to by some demonstration or another in the legislative assembly of Quebec. I would point out to the Prime Minister that he did not say that if there was an aggressor raining bombs on Great Britain, Canada would go to her assistance. He said simply that if there were even a prospect of an aggressor launching an attack on Great Britain, he had no doubt what the decision of the Canadian people and parliament would be. It is for that reason I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that to-day's attitude on the part of the Prime Minister is so complete a reversal that it must have brought a great deal of pleasure to those hon. members
Foreign Policy-Mr. Pelletier

to whom I have referred as called by the Minister of Justice his "little troubles very close at home."
I believe that the Prime Minister's speech to-day, because of its length and importance, is very hard to digest and could not be commented upon satisfactorily without due consideration and proper study. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister and was struck with the departure in Canada's foreign policy as he announced it to-day. He said that this government is not prepared to commit this country by new and unspecified commitments operating under conditions which cannot now be foreseen. With that statement I quite agree, but I am sure that the interpretation which will be put upon his speech, and which he has conveyed to the house, is that between Canada and the United States there has been brought about a closer rapprochement with an evident trend away from Great Britain. I am sure that interpretation will be placed on the Prime Minister's statement, and because I take a realistic view of the situation I believe he was quite right in assuming that position. As I say, however, I feel sure that interpretation will be given his speech-a rapprochement to the United States rather than to Great Britain. For example, after stating that the government is not prepared to commit the country by new and unspecified commitments operating under conditions which cannot now be foreseen, he proceeded to make it clear that so far as Canada was concerned everything in our power would be done to prevent the dominion from allowing any aggressor ever to approach the territorial boundaries of the United States.
Consider what that means. Suppose Belgium were to say, "We will not allow any aggressor to cross our territory in order to attack France;" that would be analogous to what the Prime Minister stated-that Canada would not permit any aggressor to cross Canadian soil in order to reach the United States. How can that be interpreted other than as a closer rapprochement to the United States and a departure from the former desire to have the British people believe that Canada was as close to Great Britain as she is to the United States. I say this without disloyalty and because I firmly believe that it is the interpretation which must be put upon the statements of the Prime Minister to-day, because the action he has taken is self-evident. Perhaps the rest of the world will view his speech as I have done.
The Prime Minister began by referring to the crisis that came to a head in Munich last year, and he went on to survey the posi-

tion of the various nations at that time. Perhaps what I shall say will be the first note of discord which so far has been introduced into the debate, but I firmly believe that I am not alone in the view I am about to express. Indeed, I will substantiate my statements with the views of others who are far greater than I am. We find that the Prime Minister absolved Mr. Chamberlain completely of blame for what happened at Munich. He said he was glad that Mr. Chamberlain had been able to preserve the peace of the world. With that statement I agree entirely. Moreover, I agree that there was no sound reason why Great Britain should go to war at that time. Much as I regret the unhappy plight of certain central European countries, nevertheless I ask, what earthly use would have been served if thousands of lives had been sacrificed in warfare? Have we such an intense fellow feeling for other people that we should play the knight in shining armour and rush off to the assistance of all and sundry who find themselves in difficulties for the time being? If that is so, what are the people of Czechoslovakia suffering to-day that the people of China are not called upon to suffer?
I could mention other examples. There are dozens of other peoples who are suffering under aggressor nations. Was it for the Prime Minister of Great Britain, supported by the Prime Minister of Canada, to rush off, and as I say, play the knight in shining armour on behalf of all these countries that are suffering to-day in central Europe? Should that course have been followed simply on sentimental grounds, because those peoples happen to have the same ideals that we hold with respect to democracy? It would have been ridiculous and I do not think anything of the sort could have been done. Geographically we could not do it; we are so far removed from that theatre of war that it would not have been possible.
The point I want to make is this. I do not believe that Mr. Chamberlain ever had any intention of going to war even at the time of the Czechoslovak crisis. If anyone thinks he had, it is easy to go back, over the record and find a dozen reasons why such an intention, if he had it, should have been carried into practice prior to that time. Let us look at the history of Hitler's regime and try to find situations similar to that in which Czechoslovakia found itself in September of last year. Going over that record this is what we find in chronological order:
October 14, 1933-Hitler announces Germany's withdrawal from the League of Nations and world disarmament conference.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Pelletier
_ June 30, 1934-Crushed mutiny of opponents in " blood purge."
January 14,	1935-Germany wins Saar
plebiscite.
March	12

Germany officially announces
Reich's military air force-forbidden by Versailles-already in existence.
March 16-Hitler announces universal military training and approximate quadrupling of regular army "because Germany is no longer obligated by Versailles."
April 27-German defence ministry confirms submarine construction part of Reich's armament program despite Versailles restrictions.
June 18-British-German agreement reached limiting German navy to 35 per cent of Great Britain's; later modified by Germany.
March 7, 1936-Defying Locarno Pact, Nazi legions march into demilitarized Rhineland; Hitler offers to sign 25-year non-aggression pact.
September 8-Hitler demands return of war-lost colonies.
November 14-Germany discards Versailles treaty limitations concerning German rivers.
January 30, 1938-Hitler declares himself protector of Germans beyond the Reich's borders.
February 14-Hitler takes command of all German armed forces.
March 13, 1938

Germany annexes Austria two days after troops cross Austrian frontier.
September 2-Hitler pledges Nazi Sudeten Leader Konrad Henlein full support.
September 15-Received Prime Minister Chamberlain of Britain about growing Czechoslovak tension, the first of several international negotiations,
September 29-Four-power conference in Munich averts threatened European war by agreeing to give Sudetenland to Germany; later conferences gave parts of Czecho-Slovakia to Poland and Hungary.
October 1-Nazi troops cross Czech frontier; Chamberlain and Hitler sign statement never to fight again.
October 29-Hitler's deputy says Germany will claim all pre-war colonies-a total area of J .127.0951 square miles including former German East Africa, Southwest Africa, Togoland, five groups of Pacific ocean islands.
November 2-Germany and Italian foreign ministers at Vienna award more Czechoslovak territory to Hungary.
March 10, 1939-Slovak independence issue becomes acute; Hitler confers with his lieutenants.
March 14-Czechoslovakia falls to pieces; Hitler becomes more than ever master of central Europe.
Since that time Memel has become German territory.
Does anyone mean to tell me that in what I have related there were not several instances of events that might have caused the same kind of crisis which occurred in Czechoslovakia last September; which meant just as much to Great Britain as did the impending fall of Czechoslovakia? The point I should like to make is this: I believe that the Prime Minister knew definitely during the last crisis in September that there was not going to be any

war, and that Herr Hitler never had any intention of going to war. There was no reason I could see, simply the desire on his part to play the shining knight and to rush off and assist some central European country which might happen to have a democratic tendency, the same as Great Britain.
Now we say to ourselves, is this march likely to continue? I simply have to pick up to-night's paper and find this; German army reported along Polish border. It might simply be said that this army has been massed there to scare, or to attempt to blackmail certain negotiations going on at the present time in Europe. Nevertheless no one can make me believe that the Prime Minister of Great Britain through his foreign office and secret service was so poorly informed as not to know two weeks ahead of time what was going to happen in Europe. I feel sure they are in a position, and always have been, to foresee events not merely two weeks ahead of time but a great many months ahead, because that has been British policy ever since Great Britain has been the mighty power she is to-day. They believe in being informed; they plan ahead of time knowing full well the consequences of their plans, and seek to achieve their goal by whatever means they may find it necessary to use. This bears out the belief I have that it was never the intention of the Prime Minister of Great Britain to go to war. That is why I say the remarks I have made this evening might strike some note of discord in the harmony we have had in this house to-day. But it is a shameful thing, a despicable thing, to play with the feelings of the people and to use an imaginary situation to build up an atmosphere to support a vast rearmament program either in this country or in Great Britain.
What happened here? We heard the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) time and time again complain bitterly that he was not called in during the crisis, that the Prime Minister had not called him in at the time when the state of affairs in Europe appeared so serious. The answer simply is that the Prime Minister knew there was not going to be any war, and there was no need to call in the leaders of the various parties. Why call in the leaders when you know definitely there is not going to be any war? I find the attitude of the leader of the opposition rather unusual, because his channels of information should be at least as good as mine.
An hon. MEMBER; What do you suggest?


René-Antoine Pelletier: The record is there. It clearly shows that a series of things such as happened in Czechoslovakia happened over a
Foreign Policy-Mr. Pelletier

period of time. What happened in Spain, for instance? What about the non-intervention pact? Why was it not equally right to fight for democracy elsewhere as to fight for democracy in Czechoslovakia? The British Prime Minister made it quite clear that the role Great Britain played was simply that of mediator, and that the only commitment Great Britain had in Europe was simply to support France in case France found it necessary to send troops to help Czechoslovakia. There was no direct commitment on the part of Great Britain; he was acting simply and solely as mediator in that dispute. Undoubtedly his services might have been required; but inasmuch as he knew ahead of time exactly what the outcome would be, why was it necessary to play upon the fears of the people to support a rearmament program? That is exactly what happened. Great Britain was not ready at that time to engage in war, according to various declarations made in the British House of Commons, but was it right that they should use an excuse of that kind to build up armaments? Did anyone ever hear or see anything more ridiculous than the digging of trenches in Hyde park? What good would they be in case bombers rained death on the city of London? None at all, of course. In my opinion it was a part of that build-up undertaken to stir up the spirit of the British people to support an armament program, and a much needed one.
I do not believe it is necessary to do things like that. The leaders both in this country and in Great Britain should have more faith in the loyalty of the people. They should tell them what is necessary; simply say, "We need to defend ourselves; we do not know how far these people are going in Europe, we need to arm ourselves to protect ourselves"; and I believe the people of this country and of Great Britain would have been loyal enough to support their leaders to the utmost of their ability. And the Canadian people would have agreed to place their resources at the disposal of this country in order to defend and protect our shores.
I said I would substantiate my statement by statements made by leaders in other countries. One man whom the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), for example, often wants to quote, who, I think, is well known as a solid Britisher, John Maynard Keynes, gives his view quite clearly. This is what he wrote in The New Statesman and Nation of October 8, 1938, shortly after the crisis:
The Prime Minister was never preparing for the actuality of war. The total omission of any referenee_ even to the possibility of military action by this country in the correspondence published in the white paper, the avoidance

of conversations with Russia, the reluctance and extraordinary delay in ordering the mobilization of the fleet are not consistent with any other explanation. Neither the Prime Minister nor Herr Hitler ever intended for one moment that the play acting should devolve into reality. For it would be a mistake to attribute extreme carelessness to the one or insanity to the other of these two astute politicians. The actual course of events has been dictated by the fact that the objectives of Herr Hitler and Mr. Chamberlain were not different, but the same;
He concludes the article by saying:
The Prime Minister thinks it a small price to pay and can swallow with a good conscience a week's play acting, beginning with gas masks and ending with bouquets, even if it involved a brief moment of harsh plucking at mothers' heartstrings.
The record is there, and the record is clear. What happened during the September crisis was a thing which has occurred time and time again. Did Great Britain think of going to war on the other occasions? Of course not. Why, therefore, should she have departed from her policy because of Czechoslovakia? The Czech people are just as human as the people of China or of Ethiopia, whose countries were members of the League of Nations. But what was the truth? The truth was that Great Britain was not prepared at that time to put up the front which she would have done under different circumstances. I criticize both the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the Prime Minister of this country for not telling their people the truth of the matter, because I know full well that they can rely on the loyalty of the people they govern.
There is another aspect of the case which I think is interesting. Time and again, on many occasions, the Prime Minister has stated that a policy of trade agreements was just as great a defence against war as any armaments that we might build.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When? Get down to the facts.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I will put it in this way, that the Prime Minister believes firmly that he is contributing to the cause of peace when he is entering into trade agreements with other nations. I believe that in expressing it in that way I am actually conveying the impression the Prime Minister has given the house from time to time. I believe that for various reasons that is quite true concerning the United States trade agreement. I believe it could be called a natural agreement, because the peoples of these two countries are similar in habits. They live closely together, and their customs are very much the same. I believe it could be labeled a natural agreement because of the geographical location which we enjoy on the north American

Foreign Policy-Mr. Pelletier
continent. Because of this I believe the trade agreement between the United States of America and Canada does enhance our interests in each other, and thereby strengthens the stand we have taken to-day, which is a closer rapprochement to the United States of America, made quite clear by the policy enuniciated to-day by the Prime Minister himself.
However, there is something else we must consider in connection with various trade agreements. It is this, that, distinctly different from the kind of trade agreement which we recently concluded with the United States are other agreements which we have concluded with other nations far removed from our own country. I have no doubt those agreements are quite necessary. I know that once in a while the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) goes on pilgrimages to secure new markets. But the way in which things are going to-day under our present economic set-up and financial system, it does not make much difference to him where he finds those markets, so long as they are markets for the Canadian people. That is where in my opinion the danger creeps in, because every time a country is able to secure a market, that market is secured only after there has been intensely heated international competition for it. Surely it is not conducive to harmony among nations.
While at the moment I do not recall the exact words of the late President Wilson, I believe he did say something to the effect that the seeds of war are sown in the hotbed of heated and intense international commercial competition. That should be evident to all, because when we secure a market we must necessarily take it away from somebody else who is trying to secure that same market.
What is the result? The result is that the nation which formerly supplied that market and is no longer able to do so is going to adopt new ways and means to get back the market it had originally. Its action may take the form of subsidies to industries. That was done in Japan, and what happened? The countries of the world were forced to erect tariff barriers to keep out Japanese goods, to keep them from competing with the goods made in those respective countries. That was done because Japan had adopted the method of subsidizing its manufacturers so that they could compete in the world markets.
There are other ways of securing markets which nations have lost. One of them is, of course, by lowering the standard of living in the country affected, by bringing about a reduction of wage levels of the workers in that country. That is done in various countries.
We say that we cannot compete with such and such a nation because our standard of living and our wage level are higher than they are elsewhere. But the important point to remember is that those countries used the method of lowering the standard of living of their own people to regain markets.
Then, there is another way of doing it- and in my opinion this is the most horrible of them all. When nations find that they are surrounded, and cannot find the markets they require, what do they do? Too often they resort to force of arms. That has been so on many occasions, and I am sure that if the true history of past wars could be told we would find at the bottom of them the same excuse, namely intense international competition for markets.
I see you are getting restless, Mr. Speaker. I realize it is after eleven o'clock, but I have only a few more words and, with the consent of the house, I should like to conclude.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Go on.


An hon. MEMBER:: Make up your suggestion.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I shall. The Prime Minister to-day referred in a rather sarcastic vein when he said that he resented-I am not quite sure I have the word at the moment- that he objected strongly to the type of newspapers which carried scare head-lines across the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Where did my hon. friend hear that? Where did he see or hear that?


René-Antoine Pelletier: I believe the Prime Minister to-day made some reference to articles carried by newspapers in this country in times of crisis, or at other times, meant to convey the wrong impression of a situation, simply to obtain more circulation or to play on the sensationalism attitude which we have heard elsewhere.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just a minute. Where did I, directly or indirectly, give my hon. friend any reason to believe that I was imputing motives to newspapers which wanted to increase circulation?


René-Antoine Pelletier: Well, before I said that, I said I did not quite recall the exact words.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend ought to be very careful what he says, and should not talk of things he does not know anything about.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I beg to differ with the right hon. gentleman. That is the impression which I got. I do not think I am imputing motives to anyone. The Prime Minister did
Foreign Policy-Mr. Pelletier

make some sort of statement resenting the type of scare propaganda which might go on from time to time in this country. Now, I have said it was done for the purpose of increasing their circulation. Perhaps I should not have said that, because I do agree that the right hon. gentleman did not say it, himself. Nevertheless there is something in what I said. May I just point out that even in his own telegram congratulating the right hon. the Prime Minister of Great Britain, this is the type of words he used: "On the very brink of chaos". That is one of his expressions. Picture how that would sound if it were read from the headlines of various newspapers across Canada. The Prime Minister has used those words. But that is not all; here is another expression he used: "With passions flaming"-and he was referring, of coui'se, to the passions of the people in European countries. What would the newspapers do with those very words contained in his own telegram of congratulations? What would they with those words, if they did not arouse the feeling of the people of Canada? Then, farther on, he referred to 'armies marching"

again emphasizing the danger of the situation, and attempting to show that the danger was great and that we have need to prepare ourselves.
In conclusion, I say that I believe in the loyalty of the Canadian people-perhaps even to a greater degree, if that is possible, than does the Prime Minister himself. I believe the proper attitude to take would have been to tell the people what the situation was, and not to try to scare them into supporting an armament program, simply because they are not prepared to face the eventualities of the time.
We do need armaments, and I believe this country is going to provide them. I believe, too, that we should provide defence armament, for defence purposes, before we do anything else. I say that so far as Canada's attitude is concerned, I approve the stand taken to-day by the Prime Minister when he referred to building up more armaments, defending our own country, having a stronger alliance and closer relationship with the United States and promising Great Britain that we shall do all in our power to help by offering the raw materials and resources at our command, thereby fulfilling our obligations.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East) the debate was adjourned.
It being ten minutes after eleven o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
FMr. Mackenzie King.]
Friday, March 31, 1939