1939-03-31

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1939-40

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1940, was presented by Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. McPhee.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): I desire to table the report of an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act into an alleged combine in the manufacture and sale of paperboard shipping containers and related products.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply.
Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this debate is of very great importance, and the difficulties it raises are the greater because of various conflicting views and opinions with regard to certain of its aspects. I was pleased yesterday that the keynote of the speeches which were delivered here was the imperative necessity of maintaining Canadian unity as our greatest objective. Speaking in this house at the time of the Rhineland crisis, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said on March 23, 1936, as reported at page 1333 of Hansard:
I believe that Canada's first duty to the league and to the British empire, with respect to all the great issues that come up, is, if possible, to keep this country united.
In his statement of October 29, 1935, he maintained that the foreign policies which Canada should pursue must "ensure the unity and common consent in Canada as well as the advancement of peace abroad."

Foreign Policy-
,	2465
-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
Another distinguished member of this house on the other side, my good and learned and hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), speaking in the house on June 21, 1926, said at page 4770 of Hansard:
May we not reasonably hope that those who succeed us in filling the highest offices in the gifts of the people of Canada shall only undertake such inter-imperial and international responsibilities as may be undertaken with the general approval of all sections of the country, and so ensure that the action of parliament, and of the government which this parliament maintains and sustains, shall have the approval not only of a majority of the electoral constituencies throughout Canada, but also have the substantial support and cooperation of the constituencies in every important section, district or province of the dominion? I am confident, Mr. Speaker-and my sole excuse for speaking is that I feel so strongly about this matter-that it is only by restricting all our external commitments and obligations within such limits as to merit and obtain the general approval, as I said, of each and every section of Canada, that we can ever hope to have such cordial cooperation between the peoples who compose the Canadian electorate as will enable us to solve our domestic problems in such a manner and so successfully as to maintain the continued solidarity and unity of the great Canadian nation, and thereby promote for all time the peace, progress and prosperity of this country, in which we were born, in which we will die and which will be the home of our children and our children's children for all future time.
I commend those words of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George to all my colleagues and to the people of Canada. Whatever decision is reached on a question of this kind must be on the basis of putting Canada first in our national policies, as Canada should be also first in the hearts of her people. The policies of Canada must carry with them as much as possible the general support of her people. I believe that the shaping of our foreign policies is a phase of the problem of maintaining national unity.
I desire to discuss this question and to say what I have to say quite dispassionately and calmly, and, I hope, with strict impartiality. I shall not base my views on sentiment. I do not think that sentiment should be the main consideration in the discussion of a question of this kind. Reason, common sense and the interests of the country should prevail.
First let me say a word on the question of neutrality, which was discussed yesterday. There is all the difference in the world between the right to neutrality, and the exercise of that right-between the right to neutrality and a policy of neutrality. Canada, everybody knows, has gone far ahead in the march towards nationhood. She is no longer a selfgoverning colony. She is a nation in the British commonwealth. I need hardly remind
the house of the declaration of 1926 in the Balfour report:
Every self-governing member of the empire is now the master of its destiny.
And this other phrase:
Autonomous communities united by a common allegiance to the crown and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
The crown is the bond that unites those nations. The crown is stamped on all the dominions' constitutions. It follows that the associations of the peoples of the commonwealth and their common allegiance make war between themselves impossible. The king cannot declare war upon himself. On the outbreak of such a war the commonweatlh would cease to be.
But can a dominion remain neutral in a war in which the other members of the commonwealth are engaged? The question has not been definitely settled, and opinions vary as to its solution. By far the larger number of authorities are to the effect that a dominion could not be neutral. Of course it could, because a dominion can do anything it likes now; but doing so would mean secession from the commonwealth. The weight of the authorities is on that line, and this is based on the doctrine of the indivisibility of the crown. But I must say that there are conflicting views. There are some constitutional authors and writers who state that the crown under the present circumstances is divisible. That view is entertained more particularly in South Africa and in the Irish Free State, and a certain official sanction was given to that view when the Irish Free State appointed a minister to Italy, with the recognition of Ethiopia as an empire under the king of Italy. Britain and the other dominions had refused to do so, and the Irish Free State minister was presented with his credentials to the king of Italy and as emperor of Ethiopia in the name of His Britannic Majesty; but only for the Irish Free State. This shows that the report of the constitutional committee of 1926 was right when it said that the commonwealth of British nations defies classification and is altogether different from any political organization which has ever existed. The main thing is that it has existed as such, and will continue to exist; and that after all is a sign of life.
It was rightly stated yesterday that recognition by foreign governments in a case of this kind is of the utmost importance, and, as far as I can ascertain, the opinion of all foreign authorities and foreign governments is to the effect that a dominion cannot be
2466	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
neutral when Britain is engaged in- a war. Foreigners say, in a pretty illustrative phrase, that the dominions "cannot have it both ways." Certain writers assimilate the situation of a dominion with regard to Britain to that of a personal union similar to that of Britain and Hanover at a certain time. My late distinguished friend, Mr. John S. Ewart, was of that opinion, and I remember having discussed that matter with him on a few occasions. It must be remembered, however, that no subject in the United Kingdom could owe allegiance or give obedience to the elector of Hanover as such; his allegiance attached only to the king of England. While British subjects in Canada possess British nationality and owe allegiance to the king, I do not think that the relations between the citizens of England and those of Hanover could very well be compared, under all the circumstances, to the relations between the citizens of Canada and the commonwealth and those of Great Britain.
The statute of Westminster never purported to dissolve -the bond between the nations of the commonwealth. Indeed, it was intended to strengthen and maintain that bond, which is the principle of unity. I have elaborated on many occasions in this house the view that the statute of Westminster, instead of being an agency of division, is an agency for unity,-unity in liberty,-without which no British nation can exist and progress.
For the purpose of reference, and rather to show what the views of others are, may I quote one extract from Keith, perhaps the leading authority on the question, in a recent book, The King and the Imperial Crown. At page 445 Professor Keith says:
Two questions, of course, arise on this theory. Is the right of neutrality possible under the constitution of the empire? Would a declaration of neutrality entitle the Union (of South Africa) to neutral rights at the hands of other powers? To the first question the only answer is that the preponderant weight of empire opinion denies the right of neutrality. It would insist on the tie of common allegiance to the crown and the voluntary association in the British commonwealth, together with the agreement to exchange information on foreign affairs, as negativing the right to remain neutral. It would stress the fact that Hanover and Britain were held by quite different titles, and that there was no common allegiance to the king. It is true that Hanoverians were deemed British subjects, but not vice versa, and the source of allegiance was quite different; moreover allegiance terminated on the accession of a female sovereign to the British crown and was always precarious.
To the second question there is available a very definite answer. The rights of neutrality can be claimed only by a power which is able and willing to perform the duties of a neutral.
IMr. E. Lapointe.l
Professor Corbett, of McGill university, in an address broadcast over the radio a few weeks ago, admitted frankly that for Canada to stand netural in a specific crisis might mean the end of our membership in the commonwealth; and he is willing to take that risk. But are most Canadians willing to take it? Let me give a few considerations which have weight on this matter.
We have, though it is of our own free will, kept the amending of our constitution in the hands of the Westminster parliament. We have not done away with appeals to the judicial committee of the privy council. I cannot say that two parliaments are quite sovereign and equal the one to the other when one of them has to go to the other to enact its most important legislation, that which relates to its own power of legislating. The same applies to the judicial appeals to the privy council. I myself have always been in favour of Canada's amending its own constitution when it sees fit. I have always been in favour, also, of having in Canada the last court of appeal for Canadian decisions. But many people in Canada are inclined the other way; and may I say that in my own province those who are most eager to declare that we would have nothing to do with any war of Britain or of the commonwealth are those who refuse peremptorily to have the right to amend their own constitution or to abolish appeals to the privy council. Surely the concept of neutrality is linked with that of a sovereign state. It is contrary to international principles to recognize the possibility of one country being neutral and another a belligerent when they are not separate sovereignties and when one is linked with the other in respect of its own power of legislation. Of course this could be changed, but it has not been changed, and I hope that some people in my province who are so peremptory in their declaration of views on the present question will help me in the future in doing away with those two things which they themselves want to keep.
We have a common national status. A British subject in Canada is a British subject in Britain. We have the use of the diplomatic and consular functions of Britain. Our criminal code would preclude, in many sections of it, any notion of neutrality. Many sections are based on the principle that Canada is engaged in a conflict when Britain is so engaged. The Foreign Enlistment Act of the United Kingdom which was in force in Canada until 1937, made it an offence to enlist Canadians for service in armies of countries at war with the king. We enacted similar legislation in Canada two years ago. In a case of neutrality

Foreign Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
this would have to be changed. We could not make it an offence to enlist in the armies of other countries while Canadians could enlist in the armies of Britain.
The British preference would be another obstacle. It is a family arrangement, and if we were no longer a member of the family I do not see how foreign countries could accept a continuance of the preference.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is the matter of shipping legislation. If Canada was neutral the entire British merchant marine could shift its registration to Canadian ports, which would be inconsistent with the concept of neutrality.
Of course, all this could be removed by the parliament of Canada if we wanted to be neutral. But would Canadians desire it? Would it be in the interests of Canada to do it? A declaration of neutrality would make it necessary to close Canadian ports to all armed vessels, including armed merchantmen. Well, the citizens of Quebec would have to close the port of Quebec to the Empress oj Britain if she carries guns during a war, and even fight her if she wanted to come in against their will.
A declaration of neutrality would make it necessary to take control of all communications which might be used for war purposes, to forbid enlistment on Canadian soil and the raising of money for war relief, and all loans to belligerents. Would Canadians be willing to do that? That is the realistic rather than the legalistic side of the question. Would they be willing to protect their neutrality even against British vessels and British sailors and practically wage war against their own king? And if they do not do that, how can they have their neutrality recognized by the enemy? This might not happen in a war which would be limited and circumscribed to a distant territory, but in any of the wars which are possible and are looming up on the horizon just now it would, of course, be unavoidable.
There is more than that. We are bound by contract with Britain to give Britain the full use of the dry docks at Halifax and Esquimalt for British vessels. These dry docks were the property of the imperial government, and when, during the time of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1907, I believe, they were transferred to Canadian control, a contract was entered into by the two governments-a contract that still exists. May I read one clause of it:
The dominion government will arrange for the storing of coal or other fuel at Halifax in a suitable manner for the use of his majesty's ships and will allow their local representatives to take charge of it, the necessary arrangements being settled as occasion requires by the Admiralty and the dominion government. . . .
And so on. Of course, there again we could put an end to that contract. Would
Canadians be willing to do that? And if we did not, during a war in which we claimed neutrality, British vessels and British soldiers would come to Halifax or Esquimalt and it would be the duty of Canadians there to prevent their coming and to intern them if they came. Even if some people in some part of Canada would like to do that, do you think the citizens of Halifax and Esquimalt would fight against British sailors and intern British vessels?
This question has to be considered in the light of all the conditions that exist. Could the dominion make a treaty with a country at war with the king? Moreover, in international law, neutrality depends partly, as in practice it depends essentially, upon its recognition by belligerents; and surely a state at war with Britain would recognize the neutrality of one of the king's dominions only if it suited its interest to do so. In the present attitude and temper of dictatorial states, considerations of mere constitutional power will not count much in their decisions. Only their interest as they see it will govern.
Perhaps I might give the definition of neutrality as laid down by Oppenheim, a leading author on international law:
Neutrality may be defined as the attitude of impartiality adopted by a third state towards belligerents and recognized by belligerents, such attitude creating rights and duties between the impartial state and the belligerents.
Can such an attitude of impartiality be possible in Canada during a war in our present international situation? A neutral state, as I said, would have to intern British troops or war vessels. I ask any one of my fellow countrymen whether they believe seriously that this could be done without a civil war in Canada. A neutral state would have to possess forces sufficient to deter any belligerent power from violating these neutrality rights, which Canada would have to uphold even against Britain if it were neutral.
It is clear that under the circumstances the right itself is meaningless. There is only the policy of neutrality, which would be rather a hazardous policy, hardly compatible with the national situation of Canada.
I have sympathy, I must admit, with the bill of my good friend the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson), that if Canada takes part in a war the government of Canada should itself declare accordingly. Anyway, it will be for parliament to decide what part Canada should have in the war. The present situation, I confess, is perhaps not satisfactory. It is one of the problems that remain to be
2468	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
solved and it will be solved as all the other problems of the commonwealth have been solved.
I read in the Magazine Digest of January, 1939, a translation of an article that appeared in the great newspaper Candide of Paris, by one of the ministers of Austria under the former Chancellor von Schuschnigg, a confidante of Schuschnigg, who gave details of a conversation that took place between the former chancellor and Herr Hitler at the famous interview at Berchtesgaden before the invasion of Austria. May I be permitted to quote these words, which appear at page 64:
Hitler spoke plainly of the danger and the eventuality of a European war. He sketched briefly the external situation of the Reich and that of the other European states. The British empire, in his opinion, is a colossus with clay feet. The dominions would not take part in an empire war. The break-up of the empire is not only possible, but extremely likely, should war come.
I have said that this problem, this last problem, would be solved. May I say to the world that it will be solved in such a way that the British commonwealth of nations will resist all attempts to break it; and if any dictator in the world has made up his mind that the British commonwealth is going to be disrupted he is basing his future projects on utter fallacy.
No text of law, no resolution, could stand before public opinion. What really counts is the attitude that Canada would adopt in the event of war, legislation or no legislation. Could Canadians in one section of the country compel other Canadians to remain neutral and take the necessary steps to protect their neutrality even against Britain?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been criticized in some newspapers for his statement that if London were bombarded he had no doubt what the decision of Canada would be. Well, was he not right? I have been a long time in parliament; I have gone through all sorts of experiences, and I think there are not many who know the mentality and feelings of their fellow citizens in all sections of Canada better than I do. Those writers do not know the situation if they think that in such circumstances there would not be in Canada immediately a wave of public sentiment which would force any government to intervene. What is the use of closing our eyes to stern realities? I am willing to go to every town in my own province and ask if there is one of my fellow countrymen who would deny the soundness of this conclusion.
Now may I also appeal to my fellow citizens of the other provinces and ask them to understand the feelings, the mentality, the views of the French Canadians of Quebec?

Their mind is altogether different. They have only one country, one home. None of them would say that he is " going home " when he leaves Canada. It requires exceptional power of self-discipline and restraint to tolerate and understand those who are different in mind and heart from ourselves.' Magnanimity in politics is always the truest wisdom, and a great nation and little minds go ill together. Mr. E. J. Tarr, K.C., of Winnipeg, in an address on Canada some time ago, said-I will not say he is right, but there is something in it-
The loyalty of French Canadians is concentrated too narrowly, and that of many English Canadians is spread too broadly.
But if it is so, can we not be tolerant of the views entertained by our fellow Canadians of the other sections of Canada? Their mentality is different. You would never find a French Canadian of Quebec who would have the idea at any time that at the close of his life he would go abroad to end his days. I do not blame my fellow Canadians who do that, but I mention it just to exemplify the difference of mentality and of view.
In a recent book, Professor F. R. Scott writes that the relation between the French and English Canadians will prove of paramount importance in the attempt to secure unity of purpose. He says that either the two major races must cooperate in solving national problems, or they will not be solved at all.
Now I am going to touch a subject which is a delicate one. The French Canadians will never agree that any government has the right to force them to military service on the other side of the ocean. In 1917 that was my view, and I have never altered it. I believe that conscription in 1917 was a blunder of frightful magnitude, and that we are still reaping the sad and sorry results of that ill-conceived policy. I was pleased that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) said yesterday, what I have myself learned, that the results did not in any way justify the taking of the risk; because in the end very few conscripts ever saw the front lines during the war. All should be reconciled to the doctrine which I have just expounded. The best way, the most effective way of helping is not the way that would divide our country and tear it asunder.
We are not alone in that view. Australia has always been against conscription, South Africa will never have conscription, Ireland would never have conscription. I think I am true to my concept of Canadian unity when I say that I shall always fight against this policy; I would not be a member of a government that would enact it; and not only that,

Foreign Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
but I say with all my responsibility to the people of Canada that I would oppose any government that would enforce it. I agree with what was said yesterday by the leader of the opposition and the Prime Minister, and what was said by Mr. Bruce of Australia, that the time for expeditionary forces overseas is certainly past, and it would not be the most effective way to help our allies. The men would be needed here; and in any event it is parliament which will decide about it.
I am sorry to observe that my time has expired-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Ernest Lapointe: The last part of my remarks relates to what is the interest of Canada to-day. Realities have to be faced. The ostrich policy of refusing to face dangers will not keep them away. Indeed, a deliberate policy of drift may involve a greater risk. The folly of mistaking shams for reality has been written large in the tragic history of many unfortunate countries. Canada is part of the world, and this planet unfortunately cannot be considered to-day as an earthly paradise inhabited only by benevolent and rational beings of an altruistic turn of mind. It is not an oasis rich in natural resources used only to benefit mankind but never to excite the covetousness of predatory powers. The seven thousand mile flight from Egypt to Australia of three British service bombers is fresh in the memory of everyone. It is quite evident that Canada is now well within the possible sphere of action of any military power of the first rank, should that power deem the action worth while. In this troubled period of history Canadians cannot be mere spectators; they are vitally interested in the outcome of the tragedies enacted before their very eyes. Much of the bloodshed and misery that history records has been the direct result of honest, idealistic but impractical wishful thinking. There is no reason on earth why pious aspirations, unsupported by anything more substantial, should be more effective protection for us than they proved to be for Abyssinia or China; and we must remember that even the excellent Czech army proved inadequate when left without support. So I say this, and I want my colleagues to hear and understand me: if there is one chance in a thousand that what our experts say could happen may occur, I should be a traitor to Canada, to my own people, if I would not help to provide against it.
I wish the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) were here; I would give him this review, La Paix par le Droit, the great pacifist magazine, in which
one of the greatest pacifists of the world, M. Marcel A. Bloch, of the Institute of Paris, gives his reasons why, pacifist though he is, he thinks the countries which do not want war must necessarily be equal in power to those that want war if there is to be a possible solution of the present difficulty. We cannot lull ourselves into a false security simply by making fine speeches, uttering great sentiments on the beauty of having no military expenditures, and being strong for peace. No one, I think, has worked for peace more than I have during most of my lifetime. May I quote what President Roosevelt stated in his message to congress when it opened last January:
For if any government bristling with implements of war insists on policies of force, weapons of defence give the only safety.
And he added:
Since 1931 world events of thunderous import have moved with lightning speed. During these eight years many of our people clung to the hope that the innate decency of mankind would protect the unprepared who showed their innate trust in mankind. To-day we are all wiser-and sadder.
In the present world situation the choice in matters of foreign policy is not betweei what is good and what is bad; the choice is between what we ourselves consider bac and what would be mightily worse if we took the other alternative. The real issue in Canada is security, even world security; because we cannot expect to be an oasis surrounded by troubles and disasters which we alone could escape. Who could predict how a victorious totalitarian power would deal with Canada? We are increasing our armaments, as the United States are increasing theirs, not to make war but to restrain aggressors from waging war on us. We have given our support to the League of Nations. Since the league apparently has become impotent, we are convinced, like other democratic and peaceful countries, that the most satisfactory way to keep out of war is to do our bit to ensure that no great war takes place. If Canada were neutral, if Canada were independent, it would need security; it would need greater means of defence, and that is what some people seem to forget. Canada would need alliances, more particularly with England and the United States; but if Canada has to rely on allies the natural result must be that these allies would have to rely also on Canada.
How can anyone say that to us the British commonwealth is an entanglement? In the first place there is no conceivable alliance that we could make that would protect us against the United States if that country
2470	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
decided upon a policy of aggression. Therefore one of the keystones of our policy must be the maintenance of friendship with the United States. But we should take reasonable measures, within our means, to protect ourselves from possible attack, at least while we are waiting for outside help; we must have some means of helping ourselves. It is true that the United States is interested in resisting any invasion of Canada, in the same way that England is interested in resisting any invasion of the coast of France, Belgium or Holland. But Canada, like France, like Belgium, like Holland, has to protect herself, to help in her own defence. And do not make any mistake about it; in case of a war in which an enemy country came to attack the United States, cooperation from Canada would be vital, and would be demanded if it were not offered. Officers of the United States air force are said to be concerned about the Canadian attitude in regard to defence in the event of an enemy attempting to enter the United States through Canada. So it is urgent in the interests of Canada that there should be a full understanding between Britain and the United States, and cooperation in coastal defence on the Pacific. But again I say, is not the British sea power an asset to be preserved in our own sacred Canadian interests?
We have to consider the situation as it is, and to cooperate with those in whom we trust, for the security of our territory and the preservation of our resources. I do not understand the mentality of those who think Canada should be neutral and who at the same time oppose military expenditure. Neutral countries are the most heavily armed and protected. The military laws of Holland and Switzerland are considered the most rigid among those of all nations. South Africa, which is a dominion in perhaps somewhat the same circumstances as Canada, is increasing its defences tremendously, much more than we are doing. Two or three weeeks ago I read the speech from the throne delivered at the opening of the parliament of South Africa, in which reference was made to the heavy increase in armaments for that country. The same applies to the Irish Free State. I have here a copy of-I cannot pronounce the name as well as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion)- Diospoireachtai Pairliminte, which is the Hansard of the parliament of the Irish Free State, for February 16, 1939, in which I find that Mr. Dillon asked Mr. de Valera-
Did I understand the Prime Minister correctly when I believe him to have said that

if we continue to send foodstuffs to Great Britain in time of war it would be folly to pretend that we can maintain our neutrality?
To this Mr. de Valera replied:
I fear it would be so-
And mark these words:
The truth is, of course, that in a modern war there is no neutrality.
I should like to read some other quotations from Mr. de Valera, at page 719 of this volume:
Remember, however that the maintenance of neutrality is most difficult of all, and perhaps the most costly of all, because, in trying to maintain a neutral position, you have to try to envisage an attack from any quarter. If you are going to take the side of one of them -I am talking now from the point of view of expense in equipment-your problem would be easier from the point of view of envisaging the possibilities, the part you were to play would be limited, and, possibly, the expense you would have to incur would be less. It is precisely because we are not committed, and do not want to be committed, to war of that sort that we have to make the provisions we are making.
The provisions in that case were greater in proportion than the provisions which are to be made by Canada. In conclusion I should like to read part of an editorial which appeared in a great Roman Catholic newspaper published in Quebec city, L'Action Catholique. It was written by the late chief editor of this paper, Jules Dorion, who died only a week or so ago. He was a great journalist, independent in mind. He was not a supporter of this government, nor was he, as far as I know, a supporter of the party opposite. He was a great patriot and a high-minded gentleman. I consider these words of his as his last words to his fellow countrymen who are facing the issue we have to face to-day. I shall read this in French so that it will be more readily understandable to those who speak my language. The editorial appeared in the January 21 edition of L'Action Catholique, and it reads:
(Translation)
Our country is developing and growing: that is in the natural order of events.
That we should seek to determine its exact standing, to ascertain whether it is out of its leading-strings and free to direct its own destinies: nothing is more natural.
But, in this matter as in all others, we should come out of the clouds and cease dwelling in abstractions.
We are the masters of our own destinies. Agreed. But that does not obliterate the fact that we have a neighbour to the south, icebound solitudes to the north and, to the east and west, much travelled oceans beyond which dwell populous and active nations with which we cannot avoid having relations-with which we have to deal, to negotiate, to agree or to fight.


[Stage Direction]
Foreign Policy-Mr. Lawson
This is a reality which we cannot ignore without exposing ourselves to a terrible awakening.
We are our own masters. Agreed. But that does not prevent us from asking ourselves what are to be our relations with England, to wonder whether we can do without her or whether it would not be better for us to remain associated with her.
Canada has become a nation. We must, however, recognize the fact that a nation has other obligations, other duties and other cares than a colony has, and place ourselves in a position to meet them. We must remember that nations evolve and are sometimes faced with situations not of their own making. We must understand that the shores of Asia are not sufficiently remote to justify us in showing no interest in the tremendous game which is being played there, and whose repercussions may come home to us, perhaps sooner than we think.
Since we claim to be serious citizens, let us not look upon political developments in our country as mere objects of curiosity or amusement; let us rather seek to understand them and form sound and intelligent opinions about them. Let us direct our thoughts in this domain to higher levels than petty patronage or post office matters; and the interval between the sessions of 1939 will have been usefully employed.
Jules Dorion.
(Text) I commend these words of one who has gone to -those who, regarding themselves as having been his associates, his friends and his allies, in the face of the difficulties we have to face to-day are intent upon passing judgment on those who have the responsibility of arriving at decisions in this matter.
Another word and I shall take my seat. One respectable newspaper-I never look at the little sheets which no decent Canadian would even read-has said that I seem to have modified my attitude on this great question. I challenge the writer of that dispatch, I challenge any newspaper, I challenge anyone in Canada to find in any of my statements or declarations, either during the late war or since, anything which is inconsistent with the position I am taking to-day. If anyone can find one word or one statement, then he will be entitled to criticize me. No, I have always been consistent: I am taking to-day the attitude which I have always taken. Since the war I have consistently tried to impress upon my fellow Canadians the necessity of the League of Nations and other institutions of peace. I have always told them that the only way to avoid war is t-o make it impossible, because in the present circumstances throughout the world a conflagration originating anywhere cannot fail to spread and to bring upon us considerable disaster. I have worked for peace when those who criticized me were hostile or indifferent. I shall continue to work for peace, and I contend that I am working for peace when I try to protect 71492-156
my own country. We should be ready to show the world upon which side this country stands in the international fight for freedom and liberty. I shall continue to try to impress upon my fellow countrymen the necessity of working for peace. I shall continue to try to see that our great country has those opportunities for development which she must have to fulfil her great destiny. I hope that in the future those who are criticizing to-day will help me a little more in my efforts to work for peace.
Hon. J. E. LAWSON (York South):: Mr. Speaker, with much of what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said in his speech delivered to the house yesterday I agree. As I listened intently to his very carefully prepared statement of Canada's foreign policy, there was borne in upon me at one stage of his address the realization that he made no distinction between that degree of responsibility which Canada has to the empire-no distinction between our foreign policy with respect to the British empire-and the policy we have or should have as a member of the League of Nations as applied to any other member of that league. For me that is the parting of our ways so far as foreign policy is concerned. At the outset I state my disagreement in that regard; I shall finish with the same theme after I have travelled the road of reasoning which leads to my conclusions.
The Prime Minister outlined adequately and well the history of disarmament by the democratic nations and rearmament by the dictatorships. I suggest that out of that policy of disarmament there grew up in this country, and indeed in many other countries, a spirit of pacifism which in a large measure is responsible for the position in which the democracies find themselves to-day.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I did not say
anything about disarmament.


James Earl Lawson: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I thought it was the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was the
Leader of the Opposition.


James Earl Lawson: Very well. I am not going to speak of disarmament. But I should like to make it clear when I speak of the spirit of pacifism that I distinguish clearly between those who have the spirit of peace, and those who have the spirit of pacifism. By peace I mean the spirit which was so eloquently enunciated this afternoon by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). By pacifism I mean the spirit of those who believe and have advocated that the greatest security for peace



Foreign Policy-Mr. Lawson
under all conditions in this world is to have no arms, no means of defence, to be helpless and useless in the face of an aggressor. Unfortunately pacifism is no factor in the consideration of a dictator. But the spirit of pacifism grew in this country until it permeated into our private and public schools, and we had the abandonment of cadet corps. Though the crises of the past year have changed that attitude of mind or that spirit of pacifism in this country, we still find it prevalent, and one very strong evidence of it, I suggest, was the speech made in this house yesterday by our youngest member, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier), when he accused Prime Minister Chamberlain of playing with the people's emotions to gain support for an armament program. In that speech, sir, he utterly failed to realize the threat to peace-loving nations which the dictators of this world constitute.
I must confess that I have sometimes been weary of the talk I have listened to from the pacifists. None is more ready in support of his argument to call upon British freedom and British principles. I would find it extremely refreshing to hear a declaration occasionally from some of them that instead of standing for British freedom and British principles they were willing to stand, at least once in a while, for the empire which gave them that freedom, and which established and maintained those British principles.
I was very happy this afternoon to find myself in agreement with the Minister of Justice in his declarations as to the neutrality of Canada. That may not make him particularly happy. I may tell him that only my Scotch caution restrains me from saying that I found myself in agreement with a great many other things that he said this afternoon. To me neutrality, from a practical point of view, is simply an utter impossibility for the Dominion of Canada so long as we hope to remain part and parcel of the British empire. The primary duty of any neutral nation is to maintain strict impartiality in respect to belligerent nations. The leader of the opposition last evening cited some of the instances that might arise, and the Minister of Justice gave others this afternoon.
Is it realized that if we declared neutrality we could not allow goods or munitions or supplies from Australia, we will say, to pass through Canada in order to reach the United Kingdom if the United Kingdom were at war? Our obligation would be to seize those supplies and to retain them in Canada. Is it possible that such procedure can represent the thought of Canadians? Again, it would not be possible for us, if we declared neutrality, to permit troops going from one part of the empire to

another to pass through Canada, because our obligation would be to seize, arrest and intern them, and to keep them in internment camps for the duration of the war. To me it is inconceivable that we should seize empire troops passing through Canada and place them in internment camps for the remainder of the war.
We could not allow, if we attempted neutrality, any single act of war, such as the seizure and capture of any vessel within the territorial waters of Canada. If the United Kingdom were at war and a British ship attacked an enemy ship within the territorial waters of Canada, can you imagine the Canadian navy being sent out to fight that British ship, and to capture both ships, bring them into a Canadian port and intern them for the duration of the war? Let me assume that a British ship under attack by a superior force were seeking succour and put into the harbour of Halifax or Saint John. Our obligation, if Canada attempted neutrality, would be to seize that ship, and to seize those British sailors, and to intern them in Canada for the duration of the war.
No, Mr. Speaker, I submit that neutrality is an utter impossibility for the Dominion of Canada. How much respect, I ask, -would the other nations of the world have for the senior dominion of the British empire if we attempted to declare neutrality when the United Kingdom was at war? The Prime Minister in his speech yesterday made it very clear that in the event of an aggressor attacking the United States, Canada would not be neutral but would be a participant for the purpose of preventing any attacking force from passing through our country. I refer to the remarks of the Prime Minister at page 2420 of Hansard, where he said:
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.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is protecting our own neutrality. That would be necessary in the event of a war between another nation and the United States, that we were not in.


James Earl Lawson: Right. Would anyone suggest that Canada's attitude when the United Kingdom was at war should be less impartial than the attitude it would have to take to maintain neutrality if the United States were at war? No, Mr. Speaker, I think we might as well fairly and frankly face the fact that

Foreign Policy-Mr. Lawson
a great truth was stated in. this parliament many years ago, that when Great Britain is at war Canada is at war. Having said that much, I ask, what should be the extent of our participation?
In the event of war, in the event of an aggressor nation desiring to make an attack upon Canada, we are particularly vulnerable. We are particularly vulnerable to aeroplane attack by reason of the development of our great resources. We have proceeded on a basis of developing our natural water power, and we carry the power thus generated for miles on miles to turn the wheels of important industries throughout the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. It is not difficult to conceive that a few well-placed bombs in this country might create havoc, not merely where they were dropped but upon our industrial fabric throughout the length and breadth of this country. Hence I urge, Mr. Speaker, that every hon. member, having regard to our particular situation, should realize the necessity, pointed out this afternoon by the Minister of Justice, of building up in Canada a defence force which would enable us to do something for ourselves and for our own protection and not leave us entirely dependent, as we have been for so long, upon the United Kingdom and the other parts of the empire, and, as some will say, upon the United States.
Let me ask hon. members what would happen if the United Kingdom were at war; if she were attacked; if she were defeated and beaten to her knees. What would happen? The victors would gather around the peace table to dictate the terms of peace; and do you not think that one of the first demands would be for the cession of the senior dominion, Canada? Why? Every dictator in the world to-day has declared in forcible terms a desire for colonial expansion. It is their primary objective. In Canada we have a vast territory, great natural resources, and a sparse population,-a perfect country for a dictator nation to colonize. Under such conditions what could Canada do? The United Kingdom having been defeated, we, as indeed was admitted this afternoon by the Minister of Justice, would be in no position standing alone to defend ourselves against one of the great dictatorships of the world.
Oh, some will say, the Monroe doctrine will protect us. Well, Mr. Speaker, what is the Monroe doctrine? It is not a contract. It is not a law. It is merely an expression of opinion. May I quote it? It is very brief. President Monroe, speaking in his message to congress in 1823, said this:
With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power we have not interfered 71492-156i
and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence, and maintained it, and whose dependence we have on great consideration and on just principles acknowledged, we could not view any interposition for the purpose of oppressing them, or controlling, in any other manner, their destiny, by any European power, in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.
That was the declaration which is known as the Monroe doctrine. True it is that in August, 1938, as stated yesterday by the Prime Minister, President Roosevelt of the United States enunciated the same principles and the same attitude. But may I invite the attention of hon. members to the fact that neither President Monroe's message nor President Roosevelt's reiteration has ever been adopted by the congress of the United States. If the parliament of Canada must determine, and we all agree it must, the extent of Canada's participation in any war, then surely the congress of the United States must determine the extent of the participation of the United States in any war. So let us not forget that the Monroe doctrine in itself does not constitute a guarantee for Canada. Our hope and our only safety is that, first, we protect ourselves to the greatest extent possible within our resources, and, second, that we bear in mind always, if the United Kingdom is attacked, what Canada's position may be in the event of the United Kingdom failing to succeed in any such war or engagement.
Let me assume, however, that, as I said a while ago, the United Kingdom were defeated. Let me assume that the United States came to our aid and protected us from foreign invasion. We then become a protectorate of the United States. In that event, having regard to the fact that sixty to sixty-five per cent of our imports come from the United States, will it not be only a question of time until Canada as a whole becomes part and parcel of the United States? To that, some people have great objection.
The Minister of Justice said this afternoon that he wanted to touch upon a delicate subject, and he did. I should like to touch upon the same subject, but I must confess that I do not regard it as a particularly delicate one. I am told by some that my French fellow-Canadians do not value the maintenance of Canada as an integral part of the British empire.


Mr. MARTIN:: Who said that?


James Earl Lawson: The hon. member need not stop me to ask who said that. It is a statement which has been frequently made. I am not making it; I am simply saying that it has been made, and I believe my hon.
Foreign Policy-Mr. Lawson

friend knows that that is so. With that statement, I wish to make it clear, I do not agree. I believe that my French fellow-Canadians have more to gain by keeping Canada as an integral part of the British empire than have any other group or class of people in this country.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Canada would not be in the empire if it were not for French Canada.


Mr. McGREGOR:: The hon. member is looking for an argument.


James Earl Lawson: It might surprise my hon. friend that I agreed with him.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Sir Robert Borden said that, too.


James Earl Lawson: I do not know who said it, but I agree with him, because I still have some recollection of the history of early days in this country when, upon an invasion from the United States, the French Canadian habitants-if I may so call them, as they were then-true habitants, went out poorly armed, many with only pitchforks and axes instead of muskets, and fought for the maintenance of Canada as an integral part of the great British empire.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: - On two occasions.


James Earl Lawson: I hope the Prime Minister will not ask me to make this a lesson in history.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said they did it on two occasions.


James Earl Lawson: I made the statement that I thought my French fellow-Canadians had a greater interest than almost any other class in maintaining Canada as an integral part of the British empire. Why? The French Canadians have many minority rights and many minority privileges in this country established by Great Britain, or as it then was, England and Scotland. I think they realize just as well as any other Canadian that every right or privilege has attached to it a corresponding responsibility. When people fail to discharge the. responsibilities attached to rights and privileges, history teaches us that those, rights and privileges are soon lost.
If we were to become part and parcel of the United States, how long do you think our separate scjjpoj system, maintained by public money, by public taxation, would survive? If We became part and parcel of the United States, does anyone seriously believe that Hie French language would ever be made an official language of: the congress of the United

States? No. Mr. Speaker, I think my fellow-French Canadians realize that they have more to preserve than almost any other class of people in this country, and I have sufficient faith in them to know and to believe that they will stand just as firmly as I, an Anglo-Saxon Canadian, for the maintenance of Canada as part and parcel of the British empire.
If that be so, let us face the situation frankly, that we cannot be part of this empire in peace and not be part of it in war. We cannot be in the empire and out of the empire at the same time. I am confident that the United Kingdom will never wage a war of aggression; I am confident that any war in which the United Kingdom may engage will be a war of defence. In view of what I have previously suggested might be the result of the defeat of the United Kingdom, surely it must be realized that there might come a time when, having regard to the conditions and the circumstances of a war in which the United Kingdom might be engaged, having regard to the exigencies of that moment, Canada's line of defence might be not in Canada, but upon a foreign soil. How then, I ask, can we now determine the extent to which Canada will participate in a future war in which the empire may be engaged?
We all want peace. Chamberlain wants peace. That has been clearly and amply demonstrated. But Chamberlain, with a knowledge of dictators, with a knowledge of European affairs, has in effect asked where we in Canada stand in respect to the empire. May I quote from the speech of Prime Minister Chamberlain at Birmingham, England, on March 17, 1939, two short paragraphs:
No greater mistake could be made than to suppose that this nation has so lost its fibre that it would not resist to the utmost any effort to dominate the world by force. I shall have the support of people who value peace but who value freedom even more.
And then:
We ourselves will turn first to our partners in the British commonwealth of nations.
That, Mr. Speaker, is an invitation to the different dominions to say where they stand. What is to be our answer? I was much impressed this afternoon by the plea of the Minister of Justice for the unity of all the citizens of Canada. I too desire that unity, and may I point out to the Minister of Justice that all the inconsistencies in thinking are not found in the province of Quebec. You will find them in the province of Ontario; you will find them in the western provinces; you will find them in other provinces of Canada.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Lacombe


Mr. BOUCHARD:: And provoked by each other.


James Earl Lawson: Yes, in many cases provoked mutually, sometimes internecine in each province. I too desire unity among the Canadian people. In the past I have never failed, when I have heard a declaration by anyone, either on a public platform or in a private room, about secession of the west or of Quebec or of some other part of Canada-I say, I have never failed to declare that if Canada was ever to fulfil its destiny, Canadians must keep before them the vision of the fathers of confederation, who united two great races and many provinces in order to make what we have, a federated Canada.
Yes, I desire unity. So far as I am personally concerned, and I hope the vast majority of my fellow Canadians will agree with me, we can still preserve that unity which is so much desired, we can still maintain that unity in the Dominion of Canada, by making answer to Prime Minister Chamberlain indicating that we stand, as a general enunciation of our foreign policy, not merely in the same relation to the United Kingdom as we stand to other nations of the world who are fellow members of the League of Nations, but to the extent of all our resources, to the extent of our power, for the maintenance of Canada as an integral part of, and for the defence of, the British empire.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the effects of the last war are engraved in letters of blood on the political history of this country. This sad reality will ever guide the steps of all true Canadians in the path of autonomy, liberty and sovereignty traced by the statute of Westminster. Nevertheless, a deplorable colonial mentality still exists in Canada, despite our unmistakeable evolution towards independence and the explicit statement, contained in paragraph 3 of the Statute of Westminster, of our power to legislate in external matters. This paragraph reads as follows:
It is hereby declared and enacted that the parliament of a dominion has full power to make laws having extraterritorial operation.
It is in the name of this treaty stamped with liberty, nobility and sovereignty that I earnestly entreat the house to beware of military and financial imperialism which will always seek to raise obstacles against the exercise of our sovereign rights. It is in the name of this document which consecrates our magnificent evolution towards the full exercise
of our prerogatives that I say: Beware of occult influences and odious war profiteers. They will stop at nothing. Accustomed to defile the most worthy causes, dissimulating their impudent plans of spoliation, they will spare nothing to deprive us of our right of self-government. Why should we ruin ourselves in wars or even preparations for wars which are no concern of ours? In constant peace with our neighbours, are we to commit this lamentable error? Shall we be so forgetful of realities that Canada will cease to be Canada; that this country will no longer !be ours; that our lines of defence will be everywhere in this troubled world; that we will have to emigrate to unhappy Europe with the last shred of our country, the last dollar of our money, the last son of Canada? I say no.
.Personally, I have always been opposed to any increase in military appropriations, so long as 1jie Militia and Defence Act permits the use thereof in foreign wars. I have never believed that this stupid armament race was ever intended for the protection of Canadian territory and Canadian territory alone. The existing Militia and Defence Act has always convinced me of the contrary. In the course of last session's debates I quoted the text of this act, which is in flagrant contradiction with the statute of Westminster. Many times have we asked for an amendment, but always in vain. The act remains on our statute book, unchanged. Religious and patriotic societies; county, town, village and parish councils, have insisted on the necessary amendments, while an entire people raised strong protests against the assertions of imperialistic principles made in this house on March 20 last. In the course of the preceding week the county council of Two Mountains, to which I have had the privilege of belonging for many years past, unanimously adopted a resolution expressing its opposition to any military action other than for the defence of Canadian territory. Through the unanimous action of the mayors of its seventeen municipalities, the county of Deux-Montagnes also asked that the Militia and Defence Act be amended, so as to be made applicable expressly and exclusively to our territorial defence. Such a splendid example of true Canadianism should be an inspiration to those whose imperialistic sighs are so deep that they cannot be breathed fully in a free Canada. That is why I am making it a point to record into Hansard the resolution adopted by the corporation of the county of Deux-Montagnes, a resolution showing more firmness, clearness, plainness and eloquence than the imperialistic propaganda, which is founded on bondage and domination.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Lacombe
The Corporation of the County of Deux-Montagnes
Sainte Scholastique, Que.
14th March, 1939.
Mr. Liguori Lacombe, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Canada.
To whom it may concern:
Excerpt from the minutes of a regular meeting of the corporation of the county of Deux-Montagnes, held in Sainte Scholastique, on the 8th March, 1939, and attended by Messrs. Herve Husereau, Joseph Lauzon, Philomire Filion, Edouard Castonguay, Omer Brunet, Maxime Charbonneau, Joseph Bourgeois, Frank Keyes, J. 0. Charette, Gustave Labelle, Jean-Louis Cyr, Charles-Henri Giroux, Petrus Fortier, Liguori Lacombe, M.P., under the chairmanship of Mr. Ophnie Lalonde, mayor of Saint-Placide and newly elected prefect of the county.
Moved by Mr. Jean-Louis Cyr, seconded by Mr. Philomire Filion, and carried unanimously, that the council of the county of Deux-Montagnes declare itself fundamentally opposed to any military action other than the defence of the Canadian territory, and to any military policy not expressly and exclusively designed to ensure the said territorial defence, and that the Canadian Militia and Defence Act be amended accordingly; and furthermore, that this council voice its opposition to any immigration whatever, and that copy of this resolution be forwarded to the proper authorities.
A true copy of the minute of these presents was filed in the county records.
J. Leo Beaudet,
Secretary of the municipal council of the county of Deux-Montagnes.
Mr. Speaker, the armaments race is not only stupid but infamous. Let the news agencies with imperialistic leanings cease to depict rearmament as a cure for unemployment. England spends hundreds of millions in military preparations but unemployment, far from disappearing, is reaching in that country a total of over 1,800,000, an increase of 50,000 over 1938 and of 300,000 over 1937. On the other hand, while unemployment remains rampant heinous profiteers are becoming increasingly rich. Wealth is the privilege of a few company shareholders whose dividends attain a rate as stupendously high as 32 per cent. And employment is decreasing. How pitiful is the sight of an economic system in full decay!
There is nothing new in all that. During the last war, a few people grew rich while others suffered untold hardships. A few loathsome profiteers flooded Europe with war equipment. Boundaries did not exist for cannon merchants. The ocean itself was no barrier for those ever greedy madmen, the most active and at the same time the most repulsive of whom was Sir Basil Zaharof. Holder of a baronetcy, commander of the Order of the Bath and grand officer of the Legion of honour, that

shady character became the intimate friend of the great political and military men of that period. He gave advice on war operations. He travelled from one sea port to another in perfect safety; he laid down the law, and compelled those in power to obey him. In short, he dominated governments and influenced history.
Mr. Speaker, the horrible war which engulfed the lives of 60,000 of our fellow coun-'trymen on foreign battlefields, and which cost and is still costing us billions, the terrible war which cost 33 countries the staggering sum of 186 billion dollars, this horrible war in which 15 million men were killed, now appears to have been useless and to have settled nothing. Why? Simply because Germany, although she may have lost the war, has won a great peace time victory through failure on the part of the victors to realize the inevitable consequences of their actions. When she was condemned to pay reparations, a few of the victors proved quite willing to grant her loans much more considerable than the amounts she had to pay. When her commercial fleet was seized, her enemies of yesterday provided her with the funds required to build another more powerful one. Dictatorship of money, what crimes do we not commit in your name! Twenty years ago, the old Germany was crushed and begging for mercy. To-day, the new Germany, in a shaken Europe, openly defies the democracies. Behind the League of Nations' back, she imposes humiliating conditions on Great Britain and France. What happens when the vanquished of yesterday demand the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia? Two great nations give way in the face of the terrible doctrine of, "might is right." These are indeed cruel truths. But no purpose is to be served by concealing them and it is far better to turn the searchlight of truth on the lowest strata of international life.
In the face of events like these, invisible forces such as cooperation and love of peace remain the only safeguards of our civilization.
That is where the petty interests and criminal hypocrisy of certain nations have led all peoples. To ensure the peace and progress of the world should have been the ultimate goal of the statesmen who were called upon to guide the destinies of the most powerful countries on earth. But arbitration and conciliation treaties were wrecked by a formidable instrument, that of financial and military imperialism. As substitutes for disarmament, tranquility and the free development of peoples, heinous psychological trends have given us all the devilish weapons invented by a barbarousness which we still dare to clothe with the noble name of civilization.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Lacombe
In conclusion, may I be permitted to remind the house that, during the last war, it was said that the gold of certain allied countries was of great service to the enemy. Could it be true that certain hidden powers thus supplied Germany for the entire war's duration? Is it true that the war could and should have been won three years sooner? Is it possible that the Canadian people who are staggering under the burden of war taxes could have been the victims of the blackest treachery that history has ever recorded?
Mr. Speaker, on the strength of the prerogatives granted to us by the statute of Westminster, let us avoid interference in foreign wars. In the interests of peace, order and progress in Canada, let us bend all our efforts towards the reorganization of our economic life which was so deeply affected by our participation in the last war. Let us remain at home, for I believe that, as far as Canada is concerned, the only danger of attack, provided of course such a danger does exist, would result from the fact that we did not abstain from intervening in the military affairs of Great Britain and other European countries. Our participation in the last war was disastrous and almost a national suicide. Consequently, Canada would have to choose between nonintervention and her own ruin, a total, complete and absolute non-intervention.
I am not of those who believe that once the principle of our participation is established, we can limit our contribution to volunteer services. That is a great mistake! We would be fatally drawn towards conscription. Have we already forgotten the famous national service of 1918? Have we forgotten the cruel treachery of which the religious and civil authorities of our country were made the victims at that time? Once the principle of participation is established, military conscription is bound to result therefrom. This will mean a mass levying of our entire youth, of all male Canadians, of all our living strength and of all our resources. Vanished will be the savings of our people, and ruined, the finances of t'he nation. Families, homes and even children in their cradles shall not be spared in this orgy of slaughtering and blood. The downfall and complete ruin of my fellow-citizens and my country is something that I will fight against to the bitter end. No Canadian worthy of the name would or could wish such a thing. For him, Canada is the home land. Prompted by this lofty sense of the physical, moral and spiritual personality of my country, I will never cease defending its sacred heritage against whomever might consciously or unconsciously desire its destruction.


Mr. VIEN:: Will my hon. friend allow me to ask him a question?


Liguori Lacombe: Certainly.


Thomas Vien: How would he ensure the defence of Canada if he does not take the necessary measures to that end?


Liguori Lacombe: I shall answer my hon. colleague at once-


Thomas Vien: And how would he go about defending the cradles and homes of which he # has just spoken against airplanes and warships coming up the St. Lawrence and bombing our territory?


Liguori Lacombe: I stated a moment ago that I was against any increase in military appropriations so long as the Militia and Defence Act was not amended. I have already expressed my opinion on the matter. I trust my hon. friend will no longer interrupt me.


Thomas Vien: That is not an answer to my question.


Liguori Lacombe: Does my hon. friend wish a clearer answer?


Thomas Vien: Yes.


Liguori Lacombe: The Militia Act, as it
stands on our statute book, cannot prevent our participation in foreign wars and that is what I am denouncing, as a true Canadian, while respecting the opinion of my hon. friend.


Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rose-mount):: And what if parliament said no?


Liguori Lacombe: If parliament said no?
In politics, no more than in other fields it is impossible to base one's actions on ifs. I will never cease to oppose all Canadian participation in foreign wars. I will never cease to fight all attempts to impose conscription. I will never cease to fight against the imperialistic sentiment, because it is the very negation of the notion of a Canadian motherland. I will never cease to insist upon the Militia Act being amended so as to bring it into conformity with the spirit of the statute of Westminster. I will never cease to proclaim, at all times and in all places, that we have only one country, and that is Canada; that our first duty is to be Canadian; before being English or French. I will never cease to denounce the narrow imperialism and the criminal hypocrisy of war profiteers.
I thought the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemount had a remark to make.


Alphonse Fournier: I have already made it.
Foreign Policy-Mr. Fair


Liguori Lacombe: All right, then.
I will never cease to unmask those who prefer colonialism to self-government, slavery to freedom. I will never cease to claim for my country, in the event of war, neutrality and t.he clear, precise, complete and definite sovereignty defined in the statute of Westminster. Others may consider the notion of a motherland from another point of view. I respect their convictions. But our constitution and our laws, my reason and my heart make it imperative for me to be and to remain a Canadian above all else. Loyal and true to my king, I desire, as every true Canadian, to serve him, but nowhere else than in my own country, where the sublime sacrifices of our ancestors have conquered our most cherished liberties. I would say to anyone who might question the loyalty of my compatriots: Read our history again and let us unite. Let us advance together towards autonomy, freedom and sovereignty, towards the immortal destiny of a Canada united in peace and in a truly Canadian patriotism.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege on other occasions to follow the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Lacombe), and he will have to pardon me again if I do not agree or disagree with him, because I must confess that I did not understand one word he said.
Yesterday I listened with great interest to the lengthy address delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). It was difficult to follow in many of its phases, but I was interested in his statement that parliament will decide on Canada's stand, when and if the question of war should arise. This is only as it should be. As long as we have different nationalities and different types of people in this country, I believe any decision on that question should be made by parliament. Let us hope that it will be many years before it is necessary to make such a decision, here or elsewhere.
I was interested also in the statement of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) that the first duty of public men is to hold this country together. I wonder if the leader of the opposition when he made that statement, fraught with grave meaning, fully realized his responsibility and the responsibility of other public men. It is true that public men get up and make wonderful speeches, but that is not doing everything that could be done to keep the country together. In order to keep the country united it is necessary to see to the comforts of all the people, not just a few of them, as is being done to-day. It might be better if a definition of public men

were given. I should like to hear a definition given so that we might have a chance to give ours.
Not many days ago I saw somewhere the statement-perhaps it might be applied to some of the leaders of our country-that " a patriotic hero is one who lays down your life for his country." We have had that demonstrated very well in the past., If another war should come, I hope there will not be a repetition of what occurred before. All classes should be treated alike, but that is not being done to-day. We have a vast amount of lip service, but when it comes to definite action we are very wide of the mark. Great and fundamental changes must be made in order to eliminate the causes of war, but so far neither this nor any other government has made even a start in doing its share to bring about these fundamental changes.
On the question of war profits and matters of the kind, I recommend to hon. members the reading of a book entitled Merchants of Death, in which they will find some startling information as to what has happened in the past. I am definitely opposed to war profiteering. During the past three years I have received dozens of resolutions protesting against profiteering in war munitions and materials, but this is the first time I have risen to speak against it. If at any time a vote should be taken on the subject, I shall certainly oppose war profiteering. In fact. I am opposed to war all round. In the last war the best of our youth were sent across the Atlantic. Before they left we told them that when they came back Canada would take care of them. When they were on active service they w'ere paid SI.10 a day, and we all know how they were treated when they returned. Some who perhaps had friends are receiving larger pensions than they are entitled to, but the ordinary man who was paid SI.10 a day while on service is not receiving anything like the attention he should. Yet if a war should break out again, and I hope it never will, we will call on the youth of Canada to go overseas to fight for us, and when they come back w'e will likely treat them the same as we did those who returned from the last war, should they be lucky enough to come back alive. In contrast to all this, a number of men who stayed home during the last war made millions of dollars in profits at the expense of those who were on active service overseas.
I do not believe such profits can be regarded as anything other than blood money. It is not too late for this government to see to it that war profits are kept down to where they rightly belong. Only yesterday we read

Foreign Policy-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford)
in the Ottawa Journal that in 1928 the mines of Ontario paid dividends to a total of $64,800,000. Surely some of those dividends must be classed as blood money. I am opposed also to the shipment of war materials, minerals, scrap-iron, and so on, to Japan or Germany. These materials are leaving Canada when the people are being taxed to build forts to guard us against these same countries, which may use these same materials to attack us in the very near future. I think this government should accept full responsibility and see to it that such exports are stopped right away.
In my opinion the creation of war is just one more type of business. Some people spend their lives trying to promote peace, while others spend their lives trying to promote war or war scares in order to create profits for themselves and their friends. At the head of the list I would place the banks and financial institutions and their accomplices. After what I have read in a number of articles and books. I do not believe that this statement can be disputed. In order to back it up further I should like to read a short statement under the heading, "Did they engineer the Munich pact?" which appeared in the Western Producer of November 10, 1938. It reads:
Whyte Williams, former foreign news correspondent and editor of Greenwich Time, published last week a list of those whom he claimed were twelve leading members of a London group who purportedly arranged the peace of Munich between Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Fuehrer Adolf Hitler.
The list included:
Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England and member of the board of the London Times.
Lord Lothian,, formerly Phillip Kerr, private secretary of Lloyd George at the Versailles peace conference, and first of the group to visit Nazi Germany.
Lady Guiness, in whose salon reich foreign minister von Ribbentrop first contacted London society.
Lord and Lady Astor.
Mr. Tiarks, of the international banking house of Henry Schroeder.
Marquess of Londonderry, unofficial observer of the group at the Munich conference.
Lord Brockett, who was reported to have visited Hitler the day before the latter's Nuremberg speech and later made a private report to Chamberlain.
Sir Josiah Stamp, noted economist who was said to have attended the Nuremberg rally to study.
Baron Harry Duncan McGowan, who followed the late Lord Melchett as chairman of the Imperial Chemical Industries.
Lord Clyde.
Sir Henri Deterding, head of the Royal Dutch Shell Oil Company, and leader in world affairs.
This is a very serious question, and one which I believe cannot be intelligently dis-71492-157
cussed by many of us because we have not access to the actual facts. We have information which perhaps we are not able to interpret correctly, but we do not know accurately the causes underlying the several problems that are arising and creating trouble all over the world. My plea to this government and to the governments of other countries is to get busy and assume their responsibilities and prevent war.	_
I have a verse here, Mr. Speaker, which I picked up a few weeks ago, and which in conclusion I should like to read. It is headed, And Still We Suffer, and reads:
So there will be anpther war
And we must fight just as before,
Once more the peace of England must be shattered
Our homes, friends and relations must be scattered.
Each man must kill, and, as a just reward,
His blood will stain the war fields tragic sward.	,	.
Ten million Englishmen must die in vam,_
Five million more must end their days in
pain,	.	,,
As hopeless cripples-ruined men-they will return,
What dreadful lessons these men have to
Is life so cheap? Can we afford to waste it?
Is the blood lust so sweet that every man should taste it?
Should we all fight, and try to lull each other?
We suffered the last war-why must we have another ?


Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great hesitancy that I rise to address the house on this very important question. After listening to the all-embracing address of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) yesterday and to that of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) to-day, one must indeed be bold to express in this house any further opinions on the subject.
But in speaking to-day I am speaking in the cause of peace which, I am convinced, must be the aim of every true Canadian and of every true Britisher. We must prepare for peace. If peace is impossible, then we must be prepared to defend this great country, our native land. Whether that defence must be on the shores of Canada or in a foreign land, we must give all in our power to that defence. Peace, I say, must be our aim. My heart bleeds to-day for the fathers and mothers throughout this land who have sons of or nearing military age, those parents who fear that any day a great catastrophe may come upon this country, and their sons be called upon to defend democracy. Therefore we should put forth the greatest effort in our power for peace so that our sons may never again be forced to go to war to defend the principles which we love.
2480	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford)
At one time Canada could have stayed aloof from the rest of the world, but conditions as they have developed in recent years have brought this dominion within a few hours travel from the centre of Europe, which at any moment may become a deadly volcano. At this very hour peace is still in doubt, and it is difficult to be optimistic. Should war break out in Europe, there is no doubt in my mind but that Canada will be drawn into it. Therefore we must be prepared to defend our shores.
During the last few years there has been criticism of our defence department. There should be no criticism of that department. I want to pay tribute to this government and to our Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) for the great effort which the government, and his department in particular, have made to strengthen our defences. Great strides have been made during the time this government has been in office. Prior to that, the defence estimates were being reduced year by year. I do not blame the former administration. I blame the lethargy of the Canadian people, who were not aware of the dangers. They were not aware that the enemy might be at the gate.
I want at this time to pay tribute also to our militia forces for the splendid way in which they have done their work despite public opinion. These militia units throughout our cities, towns and rural districts, with defence estimates reduced, had very little money with which to build up their organization, to purchase their supplies, and to give their officers and men the necessary training, and yet the militia men stood fast to their task. They did and are doing a service to Canada for which we should be truly grateful.
During the last decade we have been saying that wc do not want to become involved in European affairs. We have stated: Do not bother us about foreign affairs; let us get down to work; let us attend to our own business. Individuals have rights, but individuals have also responsibilities. Individualism built up this country, but to hold it we must have cooperation. That cooperation should pravail not only within Canada but by Canada with the other dominions of the empire. If war comes, one hundred per cent empire unity is imperative, and that involves one hundred per cent cooperation on the part of Canada.
I am convinced that that cooperation must exist if we are to continue to live under the union jack with the security of home and of our long cherished principles. Public opinion must be aroused to the dangers which threaten this hard-earned security. Let no part of Canada think it can be isolated from Europe when war breaks out.

I have said that our defence forces had been allowed to deteriorate on account of the lethargy of our people. I believe that to-day there is a reawakening among our people, and that they are beginning to realize how close we are to that terrible sore-spot in Europe. Public opinion, as I say, must be aroused to the danger which threatens our national security:	I am satisfied that if the people
of Canada realized how open they are to attack there would be but one opinion from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and that opinion would be to arm to defend our shores.
In an eloquent address this afternoon the Minister of Justice demonstrated the impossibility of Canada remaining neutral in a world conflict which involves Great Britain. Truly neutrality under such conditions would be a vain hope. As the minister observed, British and foreign ships would come to this country, and if we were neutral the ships of both Britain and her enemies would have to be seized. Such a situation would be impossible.
The question then arises, where is Canada's first line of defence? Is it along our own shores, or is Canada's first line of defence further away? I ask, what would happen if Great Britain were defeated in a foreign land? Would there be any hope for Canada? We are happy to have to the south of us a great, peace-loving neighbour, whose president joined this past summer with our own great, peace-loving Prime Minister in giving assurances for the maintenance of security and peace for both our nations. We derive a certain measure of security from that great power to the south. We have also enjoyed much security from another great nation, Great Britain. We have had the protection of the British navy. Sometimes I wonder whether we have done our part in this regard. It was stated the other day, I believe by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), that Canada is the fourth trading nation of the world. If that is so, does it not behoove us to defend the ships which ply back and forth, carrying our commerce; have we not some duty to perform; can we rely entirely upon the British navy or upon such help as might be rendered by our friendly neighbour to the south? We owe a great deal to Great Britain; and it has occurred to me that since the President of the United States, which so far as we are concerned is a foreign country, has said that nation would not stand aside if we were attacked by a foreign foe, can we, in view of the great blessings and unfailing help which we have derived from the British empire and the British navy, do less for the mother country if it is attacked than the United States might do for us?

Foreign Policy-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford)
As I said at the outset, all our efforts to-day must be directed toward the maintenance of peace. Everyone knows that is the aim and object of Great Britain. Her Prime Minister has said that he loves peace to the very depths of his soul. The dangers which menace the world to-day do not come from any desire on the part of Great Britain to gain territory or to deprive any foreign nation of its rights and privileges. The only danger of armed conflict to-day results from the desire of a foreign dictator to gain power by means of force. No country has any intention of attacking Germany. We do not wish to attack; we will simply defend what we have. We desire no more territory. We have no ambition to control any other country. We want to live in peace, happiness and harmony with all mankind. I am equally satisfied that Great Britain will never enter into war for any purpose other than to defend herself and other peace-loving democracies.
As the Prime Minister stated yesterday, it is of paramount importance to keep Canada united. The desire of the government for unity should find support from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Canada should and will be united when the people realize that all our efforts are to maintain peace and defend our shores. There is no man more fitted by experience and temperament to achieve this great purpose than is our own Prime Minister, and I am confident that when our dominion realizes that danger is at our very doors, then that purpose will be achieved. May that realization come soon.
I repeat that it is Canada's duty to stand with the other self-governing dominions of the empire and have one great, united force. I feel that the greatest contribution to world peace to-day would be an immediate and definite assurance from the dominions and democracies to Great Britain that in the event of an aggressive war by a nation greedy for power the dominions and democracies would give unlimited support to the motherland in men, arms and supplies. I feel that in the interests of peace Canada must let Great Britain know that we are arming for peace with her. At this time I read the words of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoken in this house shortly after the outbreak of war in 1914. The great Sir Wilfrid said:
It is our duty, more pressing upon us than all other duties at once, on this first day of this extraordinary session of the Canadian parliament, to let Great Britain know and to let the friends and foes of Great Britain know that there is in Canada but one mind and one heart, and that all Canadians stand behind the mother country.
71492-157^
Continuing. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
WTe are British subjects, and to-day we are face to face with the consequences which are involved in that proud fact. Long have we enjoyed the benefits of our British citizenship; to-day it is our duty to accept its responsibilities and sacrifices. ... It is a matter of history in one of the noblest pages in tb history of England, in that she never drew th' sword until every means had been exhauster to secure and occupy an honourable peace There is in this the inspiration and the hope that from this painful war the British empire may emerge with a new bond of union, thc pride of all its citizens, and a life line to all other nations.
Those were the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1914, and I am confident that they are the sentiments of the people of Canada in 1939.
The only clash that is likely to take place in the world to-day is between the democracies and the dictatorships. I am not finding fault with dictatorships. If any nation in the world desires to be governed by a dictator; if any nation prefers the totalitarian system of economy, that is its affair and we have no right to interfere. But when dictators endeavour by force to impose their forms of government upon other people who are unwilling to accept them and do not desire those forms of government, then we must be prepared to resist their efforts.
We cherish our freedom. We love our freedom. We will not give it up lightly. Our freedom has been dearly won and our freedom will be bravely defended. We are not prepared to accept dictatorship, which would take us back to the dark days of feudalism. In making that statement I feel I speak for all democracies. Their freedom like ours was dearly won; their freedom like ours will be bravely defended. The last great war from 1914 to 1918 was, we had hoped, a war to end war. It was, we had hoped, a war to bring about permanent peace. Unfortunately that may not have been accomplished, although we still hope that it has been. Whether it was accomplished or not, every man and woman who took part in that last war did so in the hope that they were giving of their best to establish peace for generations yet unborn.
No one has authority to speak for all the veterans of the last war; but from expressions from their various organizations and from ex-service men who are not in organizations, I feel I can say with confidence that those who fought in the last war to bring about lasting peace are prepared again to do their bit to establish such a peace and to maintain freedom in this land. Those who went through
2482	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Macdonald (Brantford)
the blood and fire of the last war do not want their efforts to have been in vain. They fought for freedom, for justice. They are prepared to defend that freedom and that justice for which they fought. They would love to keep Canada united, they would love to keep all parts of the empire united-why? Because they feel that by a united Canada and a united empire they can do more to maintain peace than if the world felt there was a difference of opinion.
The Canadian corps association has expressed it in this way:	.
Solidarity within the confines of the British empire at this time should have a retarding effect upon aggressors, whoever they may be, and may prevent bloodshed and even war.
Great Britain is giving of its best to-day to maintain peace. There is not a sacrifice which the brave people of the motherland will not undergo in order to maintain peace. There are some in this land who found fault with the noble and heroic efforts of the great Prime Minister of England, the Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain, when he returned and returned to Germany in an effort to preserve peace. Whether he was right at that time or whether he was wrong I do not know: I have my own opinion, others have theirs. But it does not behoove anyone in Canada, considering the little we have done to preserve peace, to complain or find fault with any of the efforts of that great man of the empire. Forty-five million people in Great Britain are standing against the ruthless machine of an aggressor in an effort to preserve peace. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how much greater that power for peace would be if it were backed up by 2,000,000 people in South Africa,
1,600.000	people in New Zealand, 6,830,000 in Australia and 11,000.000 in Canada, together with the other millions of people of this great empire? If the 45,000,000 people in Great Britain are stemming the efforts of a dictator to destroy the peace of the world, how much greater would the effect be if all the peoples of the empire and of the democracies were to stand up boldly with Great Britain to defend democracy and freedom and to maintain justice?
We in Canada must speed up our defences always with the thought in mind that we do not desire war; that on the contrary we do desire peace. Every dollar that is spent for armaments should be spent with the thought in mind that we are buying a dollar's worth of peace. Our resources must be given to the limit to maintain that peace. We must be prepared to mobilize, freed from the clutches of the war profiteer, the resources of this dominion, men, money and material, on

the side of justice, freedom and goodwill. Make no mistake; those who would control the world to-day do not want merely to control Europe. There is a prize for which certain powers in the world are seeking, and it may be that that prize is Canada. If the British empire falls in Europe, will the prize be Great Britain, or will it be some other country beyond the sea? I ask those who sit in security in this country to consider whether the prize for which the dictators are striving to-day is not this our own native land? It is indeed a great prize. We have the greatest country in the world, stretching across this continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific, with great resources, great open spaces, a land of unlimited possibilities. As I said before, we have privileges, but we also have responsibilities; and one of those responsibilities is to defend and maintain for democracy, for the empire, for freedom, this Canada of ours.
The British empire has been a great force for good throughout the ages. That empire is to-day a great force for good in the world, and that empire must be maintained, if freedom also is to be maintained. Our place is with the empire because I am convinced, as Mr. Beverley Baxter has said, that the British empire, with its liberty, its justice and its destiny^, is still the greatest force for good in the world.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: My first remark would be that perhaps this evening's papers make plain the fact that recent events have brought the world to a realisation that we are tottering on the very brink of war. The destruction of Czechoslovakia, completed just a few weeks ago, the annexation of Memel, are two recent events in a tragic series which, if we are going to understand this situation aright, we must view in their proper perspective. These events have occurred chiefly since the year 1931. To-day nations are speeding up their preparations for war, preparations which in my opinion clearly foreshadow an even greater crisis than that we have known. So the question I ask, and which I shall endeavour to answer from the point of view which I hold is: What is it that has brought the world to this pass?
In 1935 the present government of Great Britain, whose foreign policy we have followed rather closely, and whose leadership we may follow in the near future to an even greater degree, stated in its election manifesto that, collective security and adherence to the League of Nations alone could "save us from a return to the old system which resulted in the last war.' ['hen on July 26 of last year

Foreign Policy-Mr. Coldwell
Mr. Chamberlain declared that the league had gone, and he stated that in the critical situation in which we found ourselves we had to fall back again upon the ,old methods of diplomacy. In those words the British Prime Minister confessed that we had returned to the old system of power politics which, unless a radical change can be made even at this late hour, will lead us and the world inevitably to war.
I have said on more than one occasion in this chamber that we have arrived at this pass because of the foreign policies that have been followed by the great powers since 1931, policies which, I repeat, we in this country have followed very closely. The founders of the League of Nations hoped to make the world safe for democracy by laying the foundation of a world order based upon the democratic ideals of social and economic justice. They underestimated, as many people did, the vested interests and powerful economic and social groups whose interest lay in the maintenance of colonialism and armaments. The league idea was based upon the moral revolution that men believed had occurred, and the revulsion against what seemed to be the results of the great war itself. It is fundamental, however, it seems to me, to an understanding of the present situation that we must realize that the idea which has governed the foreign policies directed by the ruling classes in European countries is the preservation of the status quo within those countries, the preservation of the social and economic structure which has developed in those lands. Mr. Gladstone once said that in order to understand a country's foreign policy it was necessary to examine its domestic affaire and policies; and the chief purpose of most of the European governments since the great war has been the preservation of the interests of what we often call the capitalist economy and the class which controls the wealth of those countries.
Might I remind hon. members that the national government of Great Britain was formed to do this very thing in the domestic field in 1931, and its foreign policy ever since has been based upon exactly the same principle. This explains why in 1931 the Japanese aggression in Manchuria was actually condoned iby the foreign minister of Great Britain; for it was Sir John Simon who was complimented by the Japanese representative upon having placed the Japanese case before the League of Nations assembly better than he could have done it himself. On February 29, 1933, Right Hon. L. S. Amery, in the House of Commons in London, said:
When you look at the fact that Japan needs markets and that it is imperative for her, in the world in which she lives, that there should be some sort of peace and order, then who is there among us to cast the first stone and to say that Japan ought not to have acted with the object of creating peace and order in Manchuria and defending herself against the continual aggression of vigorous Chinese nationalism? Our whole policy in India, our whole policy in Egypt, stands condemned if we condemn Japan.
So the first member of the League of Nations, China, was sacrificed and Japan was allowed a free hand in the vain hope that some bargain could 'be made with the aggressor for the protection of certain economic interests in the far east.


Mr. NEILL:: If the hon. member will allow me a question, did not the League of Nations set up a commission under Lord Lytton, which investigated the matter and brought in a complete condemnation of Japan?


Major James William Coldwell: That is quite correct; as a matter of fact, I have the report under my hand; but I am pointing out that in spite of the fact that the Lytton commission condemned Japanese aggression, the British foreign minister condoned that aggression, and no action was taken to prevent or end it.


Alan Webster Neill: That is not fair. It was the League of Nations that fell down.


Major James William Coldwell: Collective security fell down, and the minister who was complimented . by Japan for the defence of Japanese aggression in Manchuria was Sir John Simon. The potential aggressor nations then realized that in spite of the league covenant aggression would be tolerated, and that it had paid. When Japan was allowed to seize Manchuria, it was clear that the world had taken its first step away from collective security and towards power politics and war.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. FOREIGN POLICY


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. T. THORSON (Selkirk) moved the second reading of Bill No 16, respecting the status of Canada in time of war.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to move the second reading of the bill which
2484	COMMONS
Status oj Canada in Time oj War
stands in my name. It is entitled, "an act respecting the status of Canada in time of war." The bill reads as follows:
Whereas it is expedient that the status of Canada in time of war should be made clear and declared by the parliament of Canada: Therefore his majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. Canada shall not assume the status of belligerent otherwise than by a declaration of war made by his majesty with specific reference to Canada and only on the advice of his majesty's government in Canada.
It is impossible in the short space of time at my disposal to discuss all the questions that arise in this connection. I shall, therefore, confine myself to the fundamental principles upon which it is based.
Before I proceed to the discussion of the bill itself, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my very deep thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and to the government of Canada for the great honour which was shown to me and to the constituency which I represent by my appointment as one of the members of the Canadian delegation to the assembly of the
League of Nations at Geneva.
% .
I shall not at this time review the controversy which took place last summer ai}d last fall in Czechoslovakia between the Sudeten Germans and the Czechs, for this subject has been fully discussed by the Prime Minister and other hon. members. Nor shall I describe at any length the situation as I saw it at Geneva, except to say that the air was full of controversies. Newspapers were received from every land, radio broadcasts in many languages were of hourly occurrence, and there was much confusion of thought and great uncertainty. However, it was my opinion that great as was the uncertainty, there would not be a world-wide war because of Czechoslovakia. I felt that there could not be a war, that there should not be a war, over that issue.
I was in London on the eventful day upon which the Munich agreement was signed, and I shall never forget the great sigh of relief that rose from that city when it was known that war had been averted and that peace was still in the land.
When I came back to Canada I was astonished at the state of mind into which the people of Canada had been whipped. I found a state of hysteria. There was thankfulness, it is true, that war had been averted, but it seemed to me that at times there was a sort of indignation that war had not taken place. There seemed to be fierce

resentment against Great Britain and France for the attitude they had taken. Perhaps one of the greatest needs in Canada to-day is a clearer knowledge and understanding of foreign affairs and a greater appreciation of the trend of events in Europe. We must have a greater understanding of the fundamental principles which the leaders of Great Britain and France have been trying to follow. We should develop resistance against the forces of hysteria based upon international hatred. We should develop anti-bodies in our body politic against the virulence of such hysteria.
It was said that Great Britain and France should have stood up against Hitler, that they should have delivered an ultimatum that there would be war if he marched into Czechoslovakia. I am convinced that if such an ultimatum had been delivered there woulu have been war. What a war that would have been! It would not have been a short war; it would have been a very long one. It would not have been won by bombardment from the air, or by troops on the battlefield or by a preponderance of armaments; it would have been won as the last war was won, by that group of nations which had the greatest access to food and raw materials. It would have been a war of attrition. Is it any wonder that Mr. Chamberlain hesitated about plunging the world into a war of that kind? If he had played international bluff with the civilization of the world as the stakes, he would have committed a gra^e crime against humanity. He did not do that, but stood steadfast for the cause of peace.
I do not believe that Great Britain and France hesitated about going into war because they were unprepared. I am convinced that Great Britain and France have an overwhelming superiority over the totalitarian states combined. If my opinion is right, that a world war between the democracies, on the one hand, and the totalitarian states, on the other, will be won by that group that has the greatest access to food and raw materials, then there is an overwhelming advantage on the side of Great Britain and France. That is an advantage which Great Britain and France have not lost in the least degree. They have access to Canada; they have access to the United States; they have access to South America; indeed, they have access to the whole world. I am not so sure that Germany's present eastward thrust is not the first public acknowledgment of her economic necessities. That may well be so.
Therefore. I am convinced that it was not because of lack of preparation that Great

Status of Canada in Time of War
Britain and France did not go into war. There were more important principles involved. I remember the dramatic speech that Mr. Chamberlain made the day after Herr Hitler had made his speech in Berlin. The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) and I listened together to the remarks of the British Prime Minister. That day was the only time at which I wavered in my opinion that there would not be war; after I heard Mr. Chamberlain's speech I was convinced that there would not be war. In his remarks 'yesterday the Prime Minister quoted a portion of that dramatic speech. I shall refer to it again because I think it enunciates the cardinal principle which Mr. Chamberlain and his associates have in mind in the foreign policy they are now pursuing. This is what Mr. Chamberlain 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.
That was a specific statement; when Mr. Chamberlain made it I was again confident that there would not be a world war. He went on to say;
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.
Then he concluded with this statement.
I believe that life without liberty would not be worth living, but war is a fearful thing and we must be very clear, before we embark on it, that it is really very great issues that are at stake and that we should risk everything in their defence.
I should like to paraphrase that statement in this manner:	In my opinion the most
sacred responsibility that any leader owes to his people is the maintenance of peace and the safeguarding of his people from the appalling consequences of war. That is a supreme duty, a supreme responsibility, the greatest duty that a leader can owe to his people. Freedom from war and the maintenance of peace should be the course to follow as long as such a course is possible. That principle must not be departed from unless some principle greater than peace itself is involved. In my opinion, that is the fundamental principle which has actuated the government of Great Britain and the government of France. War can bring nothing to these countries but disaster. They have no territorial desires, no dreams of conquest. War can only destroy,
particularly the kind of war that there would be if the forces of the world ranged themselves in the manner that I have indicated.
We must keep our heads cool in this country, as Mr. Chamberlain must keep his head cool in Great Britain; at the same time we must keep our hearts warm, as I think he is keeping his heart warm, for the cause of peace and preservation of his people from the awful consequences of war.
International hatred is not a policy of foieign relationships on which we should rely. It is easy to fan international hatred into a burning flame. Indeed, it is hard to resist that feeling when we see what is happening in Europe. But we must steel our hearts against international hatred. I for one do not intend to condemn or hate a whole people because I disapprove the actions of that people's leaders. I am convinced that the bulk of the German people are as keenly anxious for peace as we in Canada are.
Nor is dislike of dictatorships a proper cause for war, much as we may dislike dictatorship and prefer our own system of democratic government. Those who believe in democracy know that democracy will prevail. It cannot fail. We also know that the inevitable end of dictatorship is chaos and revolution. Why, then, not let the march of events run their course to their final conclusion?
Nor would we be justified in resorting to war for economic advantage or national prestige. Economic advantage and national prestige are not worth risking the civilization of the world. It is, I think, the fixed policy of Great Britain and France to keep their people out of war.
It has been suggested that steps should be taken to stop the totalitarian states before it is too late. It is folly to fight a preventive war to prevent something that may not happen. Earl Baldwin of Bewdley made a striking statement to which the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) referred yesterday. He stated that as long as the chances for peace were only five per cent and the chances for war ninety-five per cent, the chances for peace should be taken, for the alternative course meant war, with all the destruction that it would bring.
I approve the principles that I have enunciated. I approve them for Great Britain and I approve them for Canada. As it is the supreme duty of Mr. Chamberlain to preserve his people from the terrible consequences of war, so it is the supreme responsibility and the supreme duty of the Prime Minister of Canada to keep the people of Canada out of war as long as such a course is possible. I
[Stage Direction]
Status of Canada in Time of War
am convinced that the Prime Minister of Canada has a keen appreciation and a true realization of the great responsibility that rests upon his shoulders. He has stated again and again and again that the guiding principle in the formulation of Canada's foreign policy should be the maintenance of the unity of Canada as a nation. With that statement of principle I entirely agree. Canada should, therefore, if the principle that I have enunciated is sound, not take part in war unless some principle greater than peace itself, is involved-such as the civilization of the world, or Canada's national existence, or the liberty of her people. If these are involved, they are issues greater than peace; but no issues other than these are greater than peace. These fundamental principles should be clearly stated and rigidly observed. We should keep liberty of choice of action in Canada. It belongs to Canada. In the light of these fundamental principles I now proceed to a consideration of the bill which I have the honour to introduce in this house.
It has been argued that if Great Britain declares war, we in Canada are automatically at war. I deny the correctness of that statement as a constitutional fact. Those who take this view do not face the facts of the constitutional development which has taken place. Their view is based upon the contention that Canada is not a sovereign nation. They state that if his majesty on the advice of his majesty's ministers at Westminster declares war, we are automatically at war. Their contention is that since the king is one person, the crown is also indivisible. That may have been a correct statement of the constitutional position many years ago. In 1914 when war was declared, its application to Canada was automatic. Since then, the status of the selfgoverning dominions has changed. The British constitution has grown, as it is always growing. The declaration made by the imperial conference of 1926 is to the effect that the members of the British commonwealth are:
... 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.
It is inconsistent with this status that Great Britain should have the power to determine for Canada whether Canada is at war. The person of the king is one and undivided, but the crown is divisible. That is now a recognized development. It may be a strange development; it may be an illogical one, but

the British constitution is a flexible instrument; it adapts itself to changing conditions and to changing needs. It is recognized that His Majesty the King, when he performs executive acts of government, does so only upon the advice of his ministers, and that when he performs an executive act of government for one of his dominions he does so only upon the advice of his ministers in that dominion, in that British nation. None of the associated nations that form the commonwealth of nations has the slightest control or authority over any other of the British nations. They are all equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs.
The Balfour declaration made in 1926 is merely a statement of the status that had been already achieved. The position of the British nations has been recognized by outstanding authorities. Long before the statute of Westminster, Sir Frederick Pollock made this statement, drawing a distinction between legal theory and actual fact. He said this:
Leave conventions alone and look at the facts and we find that the colonies are in fact separate kingdoms. . . . The sovereignty is a figment, the states of the empire stand on an equal footing.
There is a distinction, so it is said, between sovereignty and autonomy, but that distinction is, in my opinion, purefy a legalistic one; for we have gone so far in our autonomy that it is complete and has become sovereignty in fact. This was recognized last fall by an outstanding British statesman. Lord Stanley, Secretary of State for the Dominions, whose untimely death has been regretted by all who knew the great work he was doing, stated in Toronto on August 25, 1938, in reply to a question as to whether the dictum that Canada is at war when Great Britain is at war was sound:
''Certainly not. Canada has entire responsibility of her own. She is a sovereign state and decides for herself."
It is an essential feature of the British constitution that all the peoples who live under it should have the full power and the complete right to determine in every respect the policies which they shall follow, whether those policies be internal or external ones. The constitution, is one of great flexibility, great adaptability. It is always changing, always growing, but it is always based upon the essential principle of the right of the people who live under it to full control over their affairs. It is also based upon their responsibility to exercise their rights.
Since the statute of Westminster was passed, our legal right, apart from our constitutional

Status oj Canada in Time of War
one, to determine all matters whether internal or external is beyond dispute. We have complete legislative power to decide all questions affecting Canada. It is true that the British North America Act itself is maintained intact, ibut the question of amendments to that act is a matter for the Canadian people to determine. We have, therefore, complete power to regulate the manner in which his majesty shall perform executive acts of government for us. There is no longer an indivisible royal prerogative. We may determine how that prerogative shall be exercised by his majesty in respect of Canada. I reject the view, therefore, that when Great Britain is at war, we are automatically at war.
But it has been argued that it is our duty as loyal Canadians to follow Great Britain automatically into war no matter what the issues may be. The purpose of my bill is to guard the people of Canada against such a course and against such a policy; for the following of such a policy would destroy national unity in Canada. We in this country must decide our foreign policy; we must not follow blindly the foreign policy set by any other nation. The fundamental principle of my bill is that we ourselves must face our national responsibility for foreign policy in the interests of Canadian unity, so that whatever course of action we follow will be the result of the free choice of the people of Canada. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for the support which he gave to this fundamental principle which underlies the bill which I am introducing. Yesterday he said this, as reported at page 2418 of Hansard.
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.
That was a sound Canadian statement. The Prime Minister has always shown a zealous regard for Canada and the welfare of its people. I should also like to congratulate the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) upon the contribution that he made to the debate yesterday. He made a striking statement. At page 2433 of Hansard he is reported as having said:
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 east us in the role of pawns on the international chessboard.
If I might be permitted to say so, the leader of the opposition made a fine contribution to the cause of Canadian unity when
he refused to be stampeded into a statement that Canada would support whatever policy was put into effect by Great Britain, and I am convinced that thoughtful Canadians will appreciate the contribution that he made.
Automatic commitment to war is the negation of self-government; it is a denial of responsible government. The greatest issue that any government can be called upon to face is the issue of peace or war. How can we in this house be responsible to the people who sent us here; how can the government of this country be responsible to parliament, if we follow a policy of automatic commitment to whatever Great Britain lays down as a matter of foreign policy? Where would our responsible government be if we followed such a course? How could we discharge our supreme duty to the people of Canada of maintaining peace and keeping them free from the appalling consequences of war, if we left the decision as to peace or war in the hands of another nation, no matter how great may be our respect or our affection for that nation? How can we as Canadians delegate that supreme responsibility to a government that is not our own?
Self-government is the essence of the British constitution. The decision of the issue between peace and war is the supreme exercise of self-government. We would be untrue to the veiy spirit and the essence of the British constitution if we did not decide that issue for ourselves but allowed it instead to be decided by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. We should assert our right to determine for ourselves whether we are or are not at war. The policies of Great Britain may change. Governments come and go, and there may be governments in Great Britain whose policies are repugnant to the Canadian people. If, for example, there should be in Great Britain a fascist government, or a communist government, should we in Canada blindly follow their foreign policy or any other policy? Certainly not. The present policy of peace in Great Britain might change; it might change under the pressure of the frenzy of hatred that is sometimes being manifested. If Great Britain were to declare war upon Germany merely because of attacks upon Poland, or Lithuania, or Hungary, shall we in Canada automatically be committed to such a war and participate in it? Certainly not. Such a course would disrupt the Canadian nation. If the national existence of Great Britain were really at stake, if she were in danger of destruction, that would be a different matter.
[Stage Direction]


Status of Canada in Time of War
The speeches made by the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition yesterday strengthen the hand of the responsible people in the government of Great Britain. Speeches of that sort are much more helpful to them than frenzied offers of support under all circumstances. Speeches of the kind made yesterday and to-day will make it easier for the government of Great Britain to withstand the clamours of irresponsible people. If the government of Great Britain knows that it cannot automatically carry the dominions into war with it unless it stands upon solid ground, we are doing a service to Great Britain in telling them that we shall decide for ourselves the issues of peace and war.
We in Canada would be greatly concerned if the life or liberty of Great Britain were involved, but I for one would not approve going into a war on an issue that centred on purely national prestige or economic advantage, or one that was engaged in for the purpose of teaching the totalitarian states a lesson. My first loyalty, Mr. Speaker, is to Canada and to the Canadian people. Their lives and their futures are our supreme concern. We might well be acclaimed by many if we demanded strong action to halt the aggression of totalitarian states, but we would not be the ones who would pay the price. Most of us are too old for active military service. The price, the appalling price, would be paid by the masses of the people, and another generation of young men would be totally destroyed. No, Mr. Speaker, let us not prate falsely of patriotism. It has been said that war is futile, that it settles no controversy; but it can be said of the last war that it was not fought in vain; for the memory of that war helps us to keep our heads cool and our hearts warm for the maintenance of peace. Since 1918 there have been countless incidents any one of which would have provoked a world war had it not been for the memory of that terrible war. May the memory of that war, therefore, and of its appalling consequences, never perish. May our minds be kept steadfast against war as long as war can be avoided.
We in Canada have gone a long way in asserting our freedom of action in time of war. We have definitely settled the principle that Canada will always decide the extent of her participation, if any, in war. The Prime Minister has made that statement on numerous occasions. He took an isolationist attitude once in 1922; I refer to the Chanak incident. On that occasion Canada did a great service to Great Britain through the action of the present Prime Minister, who said that parliament must decide. I am convinced that Great

Britain was to a large extent deterred from embarking upon war on that occasion by the action taken by Canada.
But, after all, there is nothing unusual or striking about the statement that parliament will decide the extent of Canada's participation in war. It could not be otherwise, for parliament votes the money; and the extent of our participation in a war depends upon the rooner parliament votes for the purpose of carrying on that war. Indeed, it could not be otherwise.
Canada must go further than she has gone. She must settle her right to neutrality, her right to freedom of choice in deciding the issues of peace and war, apart from the participation that Canada will take in that war. There are differences of opinion, even on the part of those who believe that Canada is a nation and no longer a colony, as to Canada's position in the matter of a right to neutrality.
May I first clear away certain misconceptions that have been prevalent. The bill which I am advocating is not a declaration of neutrality. I am not advocating a policy of neutrality. The bill says nothing whatever about what Canada should or should not do in any particular circumstances. It is not a statement in advance as to the position that Canada will take. I repeat that I am not advocating neutrality and that my bill is not a declaration of neutrality.
Nor is my bill a declaration of independence. It will not prevent unity of action between this country and Great Britain. Indeed, it will not alter in the slightest degree the relationship between this country and Great Britain. This fact was clearly recognized by Great Britain; it was acknowledged b'y Lord Stanley in the quotation I made a moment ago. It was acknowledged by Great Britain itself in considering a similar bill passed by the Irish Free State. The constitution of the new Irish Free State contains a clause to this effect-section 28 (3):
War shall not be declared and the state shall not participate in any war save with the consent of Dail Eireann.
The British government made an announcement with regard to this clause in the new Irish constitution. They announced on December 29, 1937, that they were prepared to treat the new constitution as not effecting a fundamental alteration in the position of the Irish Free State in future to be described under the new constitution as Eire or Ireland as a member of the British commonwealth of nations.
The bill does not touch the question as to the status of Canada in the matter of war-

Status oj Canada in Time of War
Mr. CHURCH:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question: Why does he not urge that Canada get out of the empire altogether?


Mr. THORSON:: I have just indicated definitely and clearly that I do not wish Canada to get out of the empire, and that this bill is not a declaration of independence.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for Selkirk has exhausted his time to speak.


Thomas Langton Church: I call the attention of the chair to the fact that the hon. member has spoken for fifty minutes. You, Mr. Speaker, called me to order last night for speaking thirty-eight minutes.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. member for Broadview should not say that. I have always given him the benefit of the doubt at all times.


Thomas Langton Church: The hon. member has not unanimous consent to continue.
To-morrow morning Hitler will receive the news of this proceeding with great satisfaction, and the dictators will wonder where Canada stands and where Canada is drifting. Let me tell the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thor-son) that long before his people came to this country, it was settled by' the British born; that this is a British country and under the British flag. He introduced this bill on February 3, eight weeks ago to-day. How does it come about that this particular bill is moved for second reading the day after the right hon. leader of the house made his statement in regard to foreign policy and the defence of this dominion? How does it come about that this separatist, isolationist bill is introduced in the House of Commons to-day? It is an insult to the British born of this country for the hon. member to make some of the statements he has made. I have read some of the hon. member's speeches about victims of British policy to the loyal people of Quebec, who have always been loyal to the British crown. Montcalm and Wolfe lie side by side, and the monument commemorating them bears tribute to the joint part they played for Canada. Last night I paid tribute to the great French nation for having with the assistance of Great Britain, saved civilization in the great war.
The hon. member calls his bill:
An act respecting the status of Canada in time of war.
And he goes on to say it is expedient that the status of Canada in time of war should
be made clear. But the mere fact that he says it is expedient does not make it expedient. The hon. member is evidently opposed to the former leader of the Liberal Party. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said that when Britain is at war, Canada is at war. Let me say to my hon. friend that 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 some of those who came to Canada a few years ago and are enjoying all the privileges and rights and liberties of this country, but who refuse to pay tribute to the mother of nations who gave us these liberties and the freedom and civilization we all enjoy. Everything we enjoy in this dominion to-day we owe to the protection of the British flag and the United Kingdom. Let me say to the hon. member that there will be great rejoicing to-night on the part of Hitler and the other dictators when they read that Canada is divided in the way it is. In 1914 that is what Germany was depending upon, that the dominions would be divided among themselves. * After the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) yesterday, he is now throwing cold water on the whole thing. What is becoming of Canada when we hear a debate along these lines? The hon. member says, "it is expedient." If there is one thing that it is not expedient to mention at this time, it is the subject matter of this particular bill. He says:
Whereas it is expedient that the status of Canada in time of war should be made clear and declared by the parliament of Canada: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. Canada shall not assume the status of a belligerent. . . .
Canada has nothing to be belligerent with. ' It has no army, no fleet, no air force; it is dependent, as it was in 1812, upon the mother country for all the privileges it enjoys. If Hitler sailed up the St. Lawrence with his modem war equipment, there would be very short shrift for the hon. gentleman who introduced this bill and for others of similar views, pacifists who were responsible for Munich and for the rise of the dictators to-day.
The mother country did not ask Canada to do what she did in the last war; Canada did it voluntarily and, I believe, would do the same to-day in similar circumstances, namely, go to Britain's aid in trouble. This bill provides that Canada shall not assume the status

Status oj Canada in Time of War
of a belligerent. Canada is, by this bill, assuming the status of a country that is out of touch with British institutions. The explanatory note of the bill says:
As Canada is a sovereign nation in personal union with other nations under His Majesty-
Yes, indeed, Canada is a nation; but it is a nation which for all its civil and religious liberties and everything else depends upon the mother country. Yes, Canada is a nation all right, on the front pages of United States monthly journals, and at five o'clock teas and ten o'clock dinners at Washington, but Canada is a pauper in actual performance. Canada is sovereign in talk only; that is as far as our sovereignty goes. Canada may have equality of status, but it certainly has not equality of stature. This bill will lead more to disunion than to union. The other day one of the former French premiers said you never knew when Great Britain could speak, because she was bound by the dominions. If we are to take the word of the hon. gentleman to-day, the dominions are nothing but a drag on the mother country, and if his view is correct, the sooner Canada gets out of the British empire, the better it will be for all concerned. This former premier of France said it was impossible to make any treaty with Great Britain because she could not speak with one voice, and that is the sort of thing which has been fatal to our country; that is the result of separatism all along the line, so fatal in peace and disastrous in war. The hon. gentleman wants to go further and abolish appeals to the privy council, and that is just another step towards putting Canada entirely outside the empire. The bill says, "it is expedient." With the situation that exists in Europe to-day, is it expedient that we should sit here and throw to the four winds of heaven everything that was said yesterday and to-day in regard to helping the mother country in regard to foreign affairs in time of war? I say it is not.
Further, Mr. Speaker, I say this bill cannot be passed by parliament without the consent of the provinces. The four provinces that originally entered confederation came in under a contract, and that contract cannot be changed by a separatist bill such as this without their consent. That was laid down in a text-book on the Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status by K. C. Wheare, Oxford Press, 1938, where at page 177 it is stated:
The fundamental fact in the case of the Dominion of Canada was that it was a federation.
At pages 183 and 184 it is stated that Mr. Ferguson, former premier of Ontario, presented
fMr, Church.]
a memorandum "that no restatement of the procedure for amending the constitution of Canada can be accepted" without Ontario's consent. He objected to the statute of Westminster and contended that legally there was no power to change the original contract in relation to the statute of Westminster. Ontario is a British province, and the other day the legislature of Ontario spoke for the people of this province. I believe it spoke also for many of the people of Quebec. We are part and parcel of the British empire; the four provinces that came into confederation did so as partners of Great Britain, and that situation cannot be changed without the consent of the people of the four original provinces.
Then the bill goes on to say that the status of Canada in time of war should be made clear. Well, if war comes in this country we shall have nothing with which to defend ourselves. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) addressed two or three meetings in Toronto during the past year. He is an isolationist also. If he had his way I believe we would be out of the British empire altogether, and if that is the policy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, the sooner it is known the better. No doubt this bill would please some of the glorious company of professors and some of the goodly fellowship of cabinet ministers, who have a different policy for each province; it may please some of the noble army of royal commissions and some of the favourites of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation among the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party and other groups, who can speak over the radio along this line with no opposition at all. But let me say this parliament has no mandate from the people to pass a bill of this kind. I believe the people should vote on this measure, and the question is whether or not we are willing to trust the people and give them the right to decide this matter at a general election. The hon. gentleman who introduced this bill, and others who support this separatist policy, have been wrong before. They relied on the League of Nations, now in ruins. We were told that if we belonged to the league, because of the league we would see war no more. They were wrong then as they are now.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, very much because I think you have always given both sides a fair show in regard to all these matters. You have had a very difficult and trying task in holding an even balance, but

Foreign Policy-Mr. Coldwell
I think you have done your utmost to see that goodwill and fair play will prevail in these important discussions. Now, however, we have debated this matter for two days and we are no clearer than we were before as to the position of Canada, in regard to foreign affairs. Yesterday also I paid tribute to your race for what they have done for Canada.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, the next blow at the League of Nations policy came with the failure of the disarmament conference which met in February, 1932. The representatives of the national government did little to ensure the success of that conference. For example, in the House of Lords in May 22, 1935, Lord Londonderry said:
In 1932, the disarmament conference assembled and almost its earliest discussions were centered around the possibility of the total abolition of air forces or at least of the abolition of the artillery of the air, the bombing aeroplane, which is the _ weapon which is the distinctive arm of the air force and to which it owes its separate existence. Through that period, difficult for any air minister and particularly for one -who, like myself, has always been convinced of the prime importance of the maintenance of an effective air arm to the security of all this country, I kept impressing upon my colleagues and upon the country generally the vital nature and place of the Royal Air Force in the scheme of our defences.
I ask hon. members to note these words:
I had the utmost difficulty at that time, amid the public outcry, in preserving the use of the bombing airplane even on the frontiers of the middle east and India.
To-day the fear of the bombing plane makes London, and perhaps Londonderry shudder. The disarmament conference failed in spite of the fact that the United States actually offered to enter into an agreement for consultation with the league assembly on the basis of the Kellogg pact or any other common treaty in case of a threat to peace. They offered not to obstruct the application of economic sanctions against any nation which they agreed also was the aggressor. An agreement of this type would have stopped Japanese aggression and probably prevented the series of events and crises which have followed. Collective security was given another bitter blow.
Then came the rise of Hitler. I am not going to recount to-night the causes of that rise because they are generally known. May I say that they date to some extent from some of the injustices of the treaty of Versailles. But his rise was encouraged by powerful interests both within and without Germany. Indeed, his rise was welcomed in certain quarters by reactionary forces who regarded Hitler as a buttress against leftist movements in Europe. Germany's rearmament was a violation of the treaty, but it was condoned. I should like to quote the words of Sir Arthur Balfour, chairman and managing director of the Capital Steel Works, Sheffield, as reported on October 24, 1933. He said:
One of the greatest menaces to peace in Europe to-day is the totally unarmed condition of Germany.
Mr. Lloyd George said something of a similar nature about the same time. In 1935 there was reached with Hitler a naval agreement, which was a bilateral breach, on the part of Germany and the national government of Britain, of the same treaty. We well remember how France criticized that naval agreement. In 1935 Mussolini seized Ethiopia in violation of the covenant of the league, and Abyssinia's appeal to the league was disregarded. Again aggression paid. In my opinion, the result of Abyssinia was the destruction of the league, the formation of the Rome-Berlin axis, the remilitarization of the Rhineland and the subsequent fascist aggression in Spain. It seems to me that if at any point the great powers had been faithful to the league, economic pressure might have stopped the development of the stituation which has brought us to the pass in which we find ourselves to-day.
The story of Spain is, I submit, a striking confirmation of the viewpoint that the fear by the vested interests in the European countries of a people's movement is greater than the fear of fascism. Under article 10 of the league covenant, which pledged members of the league to preserve against external aggression the territorial integrity and political independence of league members, it was the duty of all members of the league to supply the duly elected and legitimate government of Spain with all that was needed to put an end to foreign aggression. In December, 1936, the council of the league declared that any foreign intervention in Spain was contrary to international law and to article 10 of the covenant of the league. In spite of this a policy of non-intervention was followed by the democratic powers, with the result that the Spanish government has now been forced to capitu-
Foreign Policy-Mr. Coldwell

late to Franco and Spain is now in the hands of puppets who wished to destroy democracy in Spain and throughout Europe. Before the league assembly in September, 1936, Mr. Eden confessed that the British government did not believe in intervening in ideological conflicts such as that which was occurring in Spain. Contrast that with the statement made by Sir Samuel Hoare in the British House of Commons on November 5, 1919, when he said:
I believe that a policy of no intervention is in principle a negation of everything that the League of Nations stands for. I believe that if the League of Nations is to develop and be a force in the world it will have to take sides between what it believes to be good and what it believes to be bad; and I believe that if ... it stood aside and allowed it to be thought that there was no difference between one faction and another faction in Russia, it would be doomed- ... to sterility. ... I do not believe that a policy of no intervention is possible.
That is what Sir Samuel Hoare said in regard to what might be termed an ideoligical conflict. Members of the old school of British imperialism like Churchill realized that a victory for the fascists would turn the Mediterranean into an Italian lake. Hence their opposition to Mr. Chamberlain's policy. Today we are faced with the strange phenomenon of people who are as far apart as the poles uniting more or less in criticism of that policy. To-day the threat that they feared has become a reality and General Franco controls Spain instead of the government which, on February 16, 1937, offered to enter into an agreement with the British and French governments giving them the use of Spain's ports and airdromes and allowing the transit of French troops in case of war. To-day France has a hostile force along her Spanish boundary.
A year ago Austria was allowed to pass into the hands of Hitler, and last September the eastern citadel of democracy in central Europe, Czechoslovakia, was sacrificed. I am going to state that I believe that at any time strict adherence to the league covenant would have stopped aggression and prevented war. Instead, we now have Hitler, Mussolini and Japan attempting to rule the world by force. If I judge the situation aright from some of the speeches that have been made in this house, we are going to forget all about these things and perhaps participate in war in the defence of Poland. Last September the league was in session, but Mr. Chamberlain chose to ignore it and endeavoured to achieve a four-power agreement instead. The Prime Minister of Canada called that "mediation" yesterday. Mediation between whom? The

nation most concerned, Czechoslovakia, was never present at the conference. The only mediation that took place was a discussion between those who were going to destroy her. Mr. Chamberlain was successful in bringing the four powers together and arranging the Munich agreement under which it was agreed that the Sudeten region should pass into the hands of Hitler. In reporting to parliament on October 6-I have the British Hansard on my desk.-Mr. Chamberlain stated that Czechoslovakia had her boundaries guaranteed by Britain and France and thus was in a more satisfactory position than before.
A refusal at Munich to bow to the will of Hitler might have resulted in war, although this would seem to be unlikely since Hitler's chief of general staff and some of the high-ranking general officers were relieved of their commands subsequently because, it is said, they disagreed with the policy then pursued by Hitler. I believe, on the other hand, that had the League of Nations then in session been called upon to adjudicate, to marshal world opinion, that world opinion would have been sufficiently strong to prevent the aggression which was then contemplated. Someone may say "no" to that statement. May I say that the course followed resulted in the handing over to Hitler of one of the most highly fortified regions in Europe in the Sudeten mountains, and subsequently in enabling him to take over one of the greatest munitions factories in the world and large quantities of war equipment, aeroplanes and materials, and as a result to-day the democratic powers, if you call them such, are in a more parlous state than they were in last September.
The sequel to all this occurred as recently as the fifteenth day of this month, when suddenly, in violation of every promise, the remainder of Czechoslovakia was seized. The point I am making is this, that the desertion of the principle of collective security all through these years by the government now in power in Great Britain among others has resulted in placing under Hitler Czechoslovakia with its fortifications, war materials and equipment, and the great Skoda munition factory. Since then, Mussolini has made some demands on France, and we have witnessed the smaller nations of Europe, such as Hungary, Roumania and others, running like frightened chicken to the shelter of the dictators.
My criticism of our own government is this, that to this policy throughout these years Canada has been a silent partner. We have just heard this evening discussion on a bill which is designed, not to declare neutrality

Foreign Policy-Mr. Coldwell
by Canada, but to give Canada freedom of choice; and the series of events which I have recounted this evening makes it abundantly clear that we cannot risk the welfare of this country or of the people who inhabit it to governments over which we have no control, and who may follow policies which are against the best interests not only of Canada, not only of the British empire, but of the entire world.
Then, of course, at the conclusion of the ivents of last September we had the laudatory wire which the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) sent to Mr. Chamberlain congratulating him upon his achievement.
The group with which I have the honour to be associated in this house has endeavoured again and again to warn this country against the danger of following blindly the foreign policy personified by Mr. Chamberlain. We have demanded that before we be called upon to vote money for armaments, we should know the policy which made those armaments necessary. Year after year we have stated that from our places here and asked for a direct statement regarding foreign policy. On April 1 of last year I myself said, as reported at page 1935 of Hansard:
I think it is my duty to urge that we tell them-
That is the people of Great Britain.
-in no uncertain terms, that w'e shall not stand for the type of policy which has been pursued and rvhich I believe will eventually bring about the loss of democracy throughout a large part of the world. For these policies we in Canada must assume no responsibility. However, due to the breakdown of the League of Nations, we are compelled to consider some measures of defensive rearmament. To that, in so far as they are defensive, we in this group offer no objection; for the international scene has changed and for the worse since last year.
I said then it seemed to me that the nations were faced with two alternatives, either for members of the league to go to Geneva and declare that they would use every means in their power to resist aggression against Czechoslovakia or any of the smaller nations so threatened, or else drift steadily to war. Then, as now, I believed that the only way out is the marshaling of world opinion in defence of our democratic institutions. I did not believe then, and I do not believe now, that such action would have led to war. Such action, however, was not taken, and to-day huge sums are being spent in Canada and in every other country to prepare for war-war in Europe, and a war with the southeastern bastions of democracy already fallen into the hands of Hitler.
The recent history of world events has shown that the foreign policy of the British national government which Canada follows is based purely upon the preservation of the economic interests of the powerful group which controls the British government, in the event of such a policy resulting in war, I contend that Canada should have the right to decide what she will do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have that now.


Major James William Coldwell: The hon. member says that we have that right, but the weight of constitutional opinion is, I believe, against him.
It seems to me that the first requisite for our assistance should be the rebuilding of the League of Nations, based upon social and economic justice, and capable of guaranteeing the security of states that were loyal to their obligations as members of the league. This demands an immediate world conference to which, in my ooinion, the United States -yes, and even the fascist powers-should be invited. Other objects should be (1) the establishment of a court of international justice or the reestablishment of the international court of justice to settle the outstanding difficulties that confront the nations of the world; for I recognize that the have-not nations, as we call them, have some legitimate grievances, and that makes our position rather more difficult than it might otherwise have been; and (2) collective disarmament, and the establishment of an international police force to maintain order.
It will be argued, of course, that under present world conditions such proposals are purely idealistic, but what alternative is there? I believe that if the moral and peaceful forces of the world decided jointly to outlaw aggressor states, they could be brought to their senses still, by economic pressure. Some will say that this would involve suffering on the part of masses of the people in the aggressor countries, but such suffering would be negligible in comparison with the terrors of war.
Canada, as a small north American nation connected with the league, could do much to bring this about by indicating our stand clearly to the British people. They must be made to realize that unless and until they choose a government which is loyal to democratic principles and social justice, this country will not allow itself to be embroiled in a war fought to defend great economic interests. In any event they should be told that in the event of any war Canada's maximum contri-
Foreign Policy-Mr. Coldwell

bution would be the supplying of foodstuffs and material, and that, as has already been indicated, under no circumstances would conscription be instituted to provide an expeditionary force overseas.
Events have shown conclusively that the present government of Great Britain will not take a stand for democracy, but will take some stand only when their own particular interests are involved or threatened. They hoped throughout the years to compromise with the fascist powers. They now recognize they have failed, and so to-night war is being considered as a possibility. The irony of it all is this, that to-day, according to the papers, the British government has entered into an agreement with France for the defence or the guaranteeing of the boundaries of Poland-Poland, which six months ago was one of the nations that sought to partition Czechoslovakia, and which, moreover, is not democratic like Czechoslovakia was, but is under one of the worst dictatorships in Europe, and has been so since almost the close of the world war. It is futile, it seems to me, even to hope that a war conducted by the gentlemen who control British and French policy today will serve the cause of the common people. The first requisite, if we are to have any confidence in what they are about to do, is the establishment of governments which place first in their domestic and international policies the ideals of social and economic justice.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in his able speech this afternoon referred to the League of Nations, and added that we should do our bit to see that no great war takes place. I agree with him. It was that thought which provoked us some ten days ago to do our bit to prevent the developing situation by suggesting a meeting of the League of Nations to which the United States and the fascist states might be invited. We must revive collective security some time; for without it there can be no security for any nation, particularly small nations. We must banish from the earth those powerful economic and social interests and their political representatives that have temporarily destroyed collective security. The danger which confronts us now is that we shall face a war actively led by those who have betrayed and destroyed democracy and collective security because of what they believed to be their economic or their class interests. We should make it abundantly clear that we demand the reestablishment of democracy and of a collective peace system, not a collective war service; The first step must be that the British and French peoples clean their
houses of those who have destroyed their faith in both democracy and collective security. Then, I submit, and then only should we be prepared to lend our assistance in the prosecution of a struggle; for without such an assurance we should find ourselves more securely chained to the wheels of a victorious plutocracy, because I believe that when war comes, democracy goes out.
I agree with the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) when he said to-night that the most sacred duty of a leader to his people is the safeguarding of his nation against war. I agree, and because I agree I want to say to this house this evening that the desertion of the ideals of collective security and of peace has brought us to-night to the very brink of war. We should not sacrifice our boys as a living and a lively sacrifice to the interests of a group which has placed its interest above those of the security and the peace of mankind.
Before I sit down I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In to-day's papers we are told that the Canadian high commissioner in London, Mr. Massey, in common with the other dominion high commissioners, has been consulted regarding the international situation. In view of the reported guarantee to Poland, and the definite statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, as reported at page 2418 of Hansard:
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.
As the Prime Minister of Great Britain has since yesterday, it would appear from the dispatches and from the press report of his owm speech, given certain commitments; as the high commissioners of the dominion have been consulted, and as Mr. Massey's name has been mentioned in connection with these consultations, I would therefore ask the Prime Minister in view of the gravity of the situation if he cares to say anything regarding these reports.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Answering my hon. friend, I would say that the word "consultation" as used in the dispatch is not, I think, correct. The high commissioner for Canada was called in with other high commissioners to meet the Secretary of State for the Dominions, who, I understand, gave information to the high commissioners of a character similar to the information which was given in dispatches to the government here.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Cahan
But it was information, it was not consultation, as we understand those words. I might say to my hon. friend and to the house that at eight o'clock last evening, just before coming into the house, I received word in a dispatch that the British government were then considering issuing a statement to-day and that we would be advised of the statement. as soon as it was ready to be issued. I received this morning word of the statement. It came in the form of the statement as actually made in the British House of Commons by the Prime Minister.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to enter upon any lengthy discussion of the issues which have arisen in connection with this debate, because I thought that my own views had been so repeatedly expressed that it was now unnecessary. But certain issues have arisen which. I think, call for a restatement of those views. I regard this debate as one of the most momentous I have attended in recent years in the House of Commons, because here we are laying down for the guidance of the government-this government and future governments-the fundamental principles on which the commonwealth of nations is founded and in accordance with which there must be cooperative action between Canada, the United Kingdom and the sister dominions.
The British North America Act recites that Canada is a dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom. That, is the fundamental basis upon which the Dominion of Canada is established. The oath of allegiance which had been administered in Canada until May 16, 1934, was as follows:
I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George V (or reigning sovereign for the time being) as lawful sovereign of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, of the British possessions beyond the seas, and of this Dominion of Canada, dependent on and belonging to the said kingdom.
That last phrase did not seem to me to be consistent with the status of Canada as a member of the British commonwealth of nations. I therefore introduced in the session of 1934 a bill which was passed unanimously amending that oath of allegiance to read as follows:
I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to King George V, his heirs and successors according to the law.
The phrase in the former oath of allegiance, that " this Dominion of Canada belongs to the United Kingdom," was left out because
it seemed to me to be inconsistent with our present status. The crown under which Canada exists as a dominion, so far as we are concerned, seems to me undoubtedly to be now one and indivisible as it was when the British North America Act was first enacted in 1867. The crown is as indivisible as the person of the king is indivisible. When a state of war exists between the crown and any country whatever, then Canada is at war and cannot legally be neutral. That is my firm conviction. A declaration by the parliament of Canada of neutrality in any war in which the crown is involved is a declaration of Canada's repudiation of the crown and a declaration of Canada's secession from the British commonwealth and from the empire. A declaration of neutrality is not a declaration of a legal right but a political declaration of vast import to Canada and to the other dominions.
This Canadian parliament may, if it will, make such a declaration, but such a declaration if made will be a repudiation of our oaths of allegiance and a declaration of the severance of Canada's political association with the other British dominions. If and when such a declaration is attempted, its real import will certainly be brought home to the hearts and minds of the Canadian people, and no member of this parliament can have any doubt as to the verdict which the vast majority of the Canadian people will render thereon.
Canada has certain responsibilities to the crown, to the United Kingdom and to all other dominions under the crown, which responsibilities were in part expressed by a resolution of the imperial conference of 1923, which was approved by the government of Canada, which t'he parliament of Canada supported, and to which it subscribed at the time. That resolution contains the following:
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.
And then for the defence of the countries comprising the British empire the imperial conference of 1923 laid down the following as guiding principles:
(a)	The primary responsibility of each portion of the empire represented at the conference for its own local defence.
(b)	Adequate provision for safeguarding the maritime communications of the several parts of the empire and the routes^ and waterways along and through which their armed forces and trade pass.
(c)	The provision of naval bases, and facilities for repair and fuel so as to ensure the mobility of the fleets.
Foreign Policy-Mr. Cahan

(d)	The desirability of the maintenance of a minimum standard of naval strength, namely, equality with the naval strength of any foreign power in accordance with the provisions of the Washington treaty on limitation of armaments as approved by Great Britain, all the self-governing dominions and India.
Canada was represented at Washington in the negotiation of the Washington treaty, and that treaty was signed by an official representative of this dominion. Hon. members will note the various responsibilities: Adequate provision for safeguarding the maritime communications of the several parts of the empire; the safeguarding of routes and waterways along and through which armed forces and trade pass; the provision of naval bases and facilities for repair and fuel so as to ensure the mobility of the fleet; and the desirability of the maintenance of a minimum standard of naval strength in accordance with the provisions of the Washington treaty on limitation of armaments.
At the imperial conference of 1926 the resolutions of the conference of 1923, from which I have quoted, were affirmed by the following resolution:
1. The resolutions on defence adopted at the last session of the conference are reaffirmed.
That is a reaffirmation of the resolutions of the conference of 1923. The report of the imperial conference, which this parliament subsequently recognized as a charter of the liberties of the dominions, contained the oft-quoted declaration that the dominions are:
. . . 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.
And that report of 1926 also declares:
Though every dominion is now, and must always remain, the sole judge of the nature and extent of its cooperation, no common cause will, in our opinion, be thereby imperilled.
That statement was made by Canada's representatives in conjunction with the representatives of all the other dominions who w-ere assembled at the conference of 1926. Those resolutions and those declarations, in which Canada participated, imply not only the solidarity of the British empire but also the moral responsibility of each and every dominion to make every reasonable effort within its power and resources in order to maintain not only its own defences but also to cooperate with the other dominions in the defence of their common interests.
The declarations of successive imperial conferences, to which successive governments of Canada have been a party, necessitate our

due appreciation of the fact that many of these intricate questions of inter-imperial relationship have been left, as they have been left ever since the Dominion of Canada was formed, to the consideration of the governments and parliaments of the respective dominions as and when particular events may arise demanding discussion and decision. I am of the opinion, which I have frequently expressed, that we shall best preserve the unity of the empire, shall best carry out the covenants implied in those declarations, by so dealing with events as they arise, and then by consultation, with goodwill, being ever anxious to conciliate and adopt as far as we may the views of the other sister dominions and of the United Kingdom, but ever persistently seeking to preserve the unity of the British empire of which we form a part, and upon which the well-being of this world for many years to come must largely depend.
In the meantime we must ever remember that the very existence of Canada as a political entity depends upon keeping inviolate not only our inter-imperial conventions but also the understandings and conventions embodied in our own constitution with respect to the rights and interests of certain racial and religious minorities, and with respect to the constitutional rights and interests of the several provinces of Canada. These understandings and conventions must be maintained in order that we may preserve the political entity as well as the political unity of our country. If we deliberately repudiate them, Canada will be disrupted and political chaos will undoubtedly ensue.
It is with these contingencies that we are now brought face to face. So far as I am concerned I believe that Canada is morally bound to fulfil her obligations and duties under those conventions, which were undoubtedly the fundamental compact upon ' which certain rights and liberties were vouchsafed to us by the conference of 1926 and by the statute of Westminster in 1931, that carried these conventions and understandings into legal effect.
At the present time, believing as I do that my oath of allegiance to the crown, that my fulfilment of the duties and responsibilities which Canada has definitely undertaken, depend upon Canada cooperating with the other portions of the empire, not only in the defence of our own country but in the effective defence of cur ports and harbours and the effective defence of the common interests which we all have as members of the British commonwealth, I cannot support any departure which implies that Canada is going to

Foreign Policy-Mr. Cahan
assume a neutral position in a war between Great Britain and any other country. Therefore I entirely agree with the statements made this afternoon by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) so far as I understood them from his oral utterances, as to the impossibility of Canada deliberately adopting a status of neutrality in any war in which the United Kingdom is engaged, without at the same time severing our connection with the United Kingdom and forswearing our allegiance to the crown.
The occurrence of this debate seems to me to be a very solemn occasion. We are going to the very fundamentals not only of Canada's constitution but of the constitution of the empire, of which we form a part. Therefore my own position is clear. I cannot add very much to what I have said. I am an imperialist, the papers say; and, in the sense in which I have stated the case, I am. I am absolutely in favour of carrying out to the extent of our ability the solemn engagements into which our government has entered with the other governments of the commonwealth. And when there is a state of war existing between the crown and any foreign nation, with all the energy and all the faculties I possess I will support the crown. Questions may arise as to the extent to which the governments of the dominions should be consulted. Personally I should like to see a somewhat closer consultation than perhaps has been carried on by this government or even by its predecessor. I believe that our very existence as a dominion depends upon close cooperation, which must be founded upon consultation, frequent consultation, as well as upon the official information received from time to time with respect to the development of international affairs.
Therefore as far as I am concerned I stand by and support the attitude taken this afternoon by the Minister of Justice. I could go on and say many things in support of his suggestion that at the time of the outbreak of the last war the province of Quebec and the people of the Freneh-Canadian race were placed in a very difficult position indeed. But I could write a volume to show, I think, that the great body of sentiment in that province was in favour of cooperation ; but it resisted coercion at a time when coercion was not necessary.
I saw many pathetic instances, of which perhaps I may be permitted to relate one. My own boy had his spine shattered by an explosive shell at Courcellette, and I went to see him. He said, " Father, I wish you would go and see another boy from Canada who is in the next room." They were in a part of
the hospital reserved for young officers. I went into the next room and met a young Freneh-Canadian who spoke English with difficulty; but when I told him I was from Canada and that I was the father of the young man in the next room he was very glad indeed to see me. His father called upon me subsequently in Canada to thank me for having visited the lad. I said to the young man,
" My dear boy, how did you come into this fight?" " Well," he said, " my father is in charge of a lighthouse on the coast of Quebec. Father is a stern man, and when the war broke out and I saw how things were progressing I wanted to enlist voluntarily, but I did not like to bring this up in conversation with father. So I went to the mainland and interviewed the parish priest, and asked him to consult with my father and to recommend that I be allowed to enlist. But the parish priest told me it was not a matter in which he should interfere, that it was something which should be settled between my father and myself." Then he went on, " That night-it was in October-sitting before an open grate fire in the lighthouse building I told him what I thought I ought to do." The young man said the tears came into his father's eyes and ran down his cheeks. He was of the old Norman stock, and he said, " Thank God, my son, that you have decided to do this v oluntarily. I have been anxious that you should make that decision, but I would not place myself in the position of seeming to influence or coerce you to do so." So the boy said, " I went and enlisted in the ranks." At the time he was wounded he had risen to be a lieutenant.
As an English-speaking Canadian, of English descent, few men know certain parts of Quebec better than I do. I know, for instance, that in a certain Laurentian village seven or eight boys got together and decided to enlist, which they did after obtaining the consent of their parents. They came to Montreal and enlisted, and were all put in a regiment in which not a single officer spoke the French language, while none of these boys spoke English except to an extremely limited extent. So they were drilled and kicked and cuffed about until finally they were sent to Valcartier. Again at Valcartier these young men, some of the finest ever produced by the Norman race in Canada, simply because they did not speak English fluently, were kicked and cuffed about in another English regiment, until finally they were all sent back to the village from which they came, with a certificate stating that they were so stupid they could not understand the drill. So we lost six or eight men who would have been among the most splendid volunteers we could

Foreign Policy-Mr. Cahan
have had for service in a country like France. I know one of my own boys, who was brought up to speak French fairly well, told me that he was up at the front arranging for quarters for his regiment, and when some of the women in the homes, just behind the front lines, found a boy from Canada who could speak French, they put their arms round him, kissed him on both cheeks and said, "Thank God you have come. We have suffered so much and waited so long."
That, after all, is the spirit of the French people; but you must treat them with the consideration, respect and esteem which they deserve and which we often fail to give. If that is done, and it comes to another great conflict, if it comes under this government I am sure other methods, more conciliatory, will be followed; and if they are followed, you will find the young men of the French-Canadian race-I know them better in the country districts, perhaps, than in the cities -ready and anxious to play their part and do their share of sendee alongside their Canadian fellow subjects. Coercion will not be necessary in Quebec if you exercise conciliation and respect the mentality and traditions of the great people who founded that race, particularly-and I hope this will not be offensive to any person-those of the Norman race to which so many of us actually belong. I can make that statement with some pride, because my grandmother on one side came from the Huguenots and had strong French sympathies.
This great decision, if it has to be made, may have to be made suddenly. If so, the whole matter of Canada's active participation in war must be decided by the Canadian parliament and, through parliament, by the Canadian people. But if that issue is raised, if my fellow Canadians in the province of Quebec realize that the question of neutrality involves the severance of Canada from the British empire and from the British crown, I have no doubt as to the decision that the thoughtful people will make.
I sometimes talk to the leading clergy of Quebec and to those men who lead public opinion on various sides of politics in Quebec, and I am persuaded that the thoughtful and intelligent men of that province believe that the preservation of those religious and racial rights, which they hold sacred, depends upon Canada remaining a part of the British empire, because in no other state in Europe or in America is there the same freedom of religious opinion and of religious worship as is to be found throughout the British empire under the crown.
[Mr Cahan.]


Mr. A. J. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I have often had occasion to address this house in French, but because of a wish expressed by some of my Englishspeaking colleagues, I desire at this time to express myself in their language. We are living through a period filled with worry and anguish. It is perhaps more troublous than any the world has ever before seen. The peoples of the world seem to be expecting some terrible catastrophe. Nothing will serve as a clearer indication of the nervousness of the individual than the avidity with which everyone reads the newspapers. Motor car accidents and tragedies of all sorts daily cost the lives of hundreds of people, yet they are passed over as simple news items. The dangerous events taking place in Europe, the international situation and the threat of a conflict which might spread to the four corners of the universe, bringing about the ruin of our civilization, are the subjects which captivate our attention. Indeed, when one considers the almost diabolic ardour with which certain nations, especially during the last few years, have bent their efforts toward perfecting engines of destruction, it is natural to fear that the next conflict may be even more murderous than one can imagine.
The world has not yet ceased to suffer from the wounds inflicted during the conflict which started in 1914. Already certain madmen, swollen with pride, are ready to assume before history the responsibility of a crime as monstrous as war. It is barely twenty years since the signing of the armistice ended the horrible tragedy which accumulated such heaps of ruins during the four years which it lasted. Can we possibly have forgotten the price we paid in bitterness, suffering and human life? To-day we stand once more on the brink of the abyss, the terrible lesson having taught us nothing. What causes brought about such a situation? The first is the fact that at the end of the last war the peace was ill prepared. Those who drafted the treaties, instead of drawing their inspiration from principles of charity and justice allowed themselves to be mastered by a spirit of rancour, selfishness and greed. If the same real Christian sense which once inspired such high ideals among the nations had governed the redrawing of the map of the world, we would not have to face to-day such an alarming state of affairs. But the statesmen who gathered at Versailles thought they alone could settle the arduous problems which they had to solve in order to lay the foundations of a lasting peace. In their pride they refused to

Foreign Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia)
listen to the voice of that other great apostle of peace, Benedict XV, who then reigned in Rome. Hence our situation to-day.
For years certain countries in Europe have done all in their power to destroy religion, and we see the results to-day. Precepts of hatred have replaced those precepts of love which were brought to this earth twenty centuries ago by the Divine One who said: "Love ye one another." That is why the progress ox science, instead of serving to relieve suffering humanity, prepares rather for its destruction. Yet do we not thirst for peace? The modest artisan, the business man, the ordinary citizen, whatever may be his station in life- all of us want only to pursue the peaceful tenor of our ways. To-day the world is in such a state that a few tyrants, whose people have provided them with infinite power, have succeeded in making the whole universe stand in fear, notwithstanding the general desire for peace.
Now. Mr. Speaker, what will be Canada's attitude in the nearing conflict if Great Britain is drawn in? I say that our strict duty is to remain out of it unless Canada is attacked or directly menaced. We have no right to repeat the sad experiment of 1914. We have no right to sacrifice our young people and lead our country to the brink of ruin in order to defend the cause of certain European countries. We must think of Canada first, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said yesterday and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said to-day. If in the past Canada contracted any debts toward certain European countries, we have repaid them largely. If we are asked to show receipts we can point to the 60.000 Canadian soldiers who are sleeping their last sleep overseas. Our own difficulties are quite sufficiently hard to solve. The inheritance of taxation which we have because of our participation in the last conflict is already too great a burden on the shoulders of our Canadian people. After twenty years we have not yet even succeeded in discharging the undertakings of the then leader of the government on behalf of our returned soldiers. Yet I know we still have in this country a certain number of imperialistic extremists who would stop at nothing to launch Canada into the same sort of tragic adventure of which we all have such sad recollections.
May I be permitted to quote the words of Sir Robert Borden, former Prime Minister of Canada, spoken to the members of the Canadian expeditionary forces in 1917, and to be found in the February, 1939, Trafalgar
House News, the official organ of the Ottawa branch, British empire service league. He said:
You are men actually facing the enemy day and night. You are suffering greatly from fatigue, overstrain and lack of rest. The marvel of it is that men could undergo such a strain without breaking; but you have never yet broken, and history will appreciate that in days to come.
You men are about to enter one of the most serious engagements that ever faced the Canadian corps. I cannot, at this moment, give any information as to where this attack will be staged; whether it be successful or not, it is to be borne in mind that it will not be an easy success. ... We feel confident that you will succeed where others failed for you have never yet failed in anything you have set your hand to, as a Canadian corps.
You can go into this action feeling assured of this, and as the head of the government, I give you this assurance, that you need have no fear that the government and the country will fail to show just appreciation of your service to the country and empire in what you are about to do, and what you have already done.
The government and the country will consider it their first duty to see that a proper appreciation of your effort and of your courage is brought to the notice of the people at home, and it will always be our endeavour to so guide the attitude of public opinion that the country will support the government to prove to the returned man its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and empire; and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken with the men who won and the men who died.
Notwithstanding this solemn engagement, a great many veterans, affected by their war service but unable to establish claims to pension or compensation, wander to-day through the streets of our cities and towns, dragging out their broken, handicapped lives, . and the government can find no way of helping them.
I have often been shocked at hearing most unpleasant remarks made about these men, that they are lazy, heartless, that they do not want to earn their own living. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, some of them are less worthy of sympathy than others, but I know that for many of them war broke the mainspring of their will power. They saw their courage and the last ounce of their energy gone under nights of terrifying bombardments, and I pity such men with all my heart because I understand.
Like many of my hon. colleagues in this house, I, too, saw war service, not as a general, [DOT] not as an officer, but as a full private. So I think I know something of what war is. I know the meaning of that tragic word.
I hold in my hand the shoulder-strap of a captured German soldier. This bit of cloth,
2500	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Lapointe (Matapedia)
which once belonged to a soldier of the 4th Bavarian regiment-his division I forget- brings back to me tragic recollections which will never be effaced from my memory. It reminds me of the hardships I endured, of all the horrors of war. It reminds me of my poor comrades-in-arms dying in the mud after most horrible agony. It reminds me also of the day when for the first time I aimed my rifle at the enemy.
It was at the battle of Hill 70, on August 15, 1917, and I was in the first assaulting wave. At a certain moment I had a man's life at my mercy at the end of my rifle. I took aim, but did not fire immediately. At the risk of having some of my colleagues consider me lacking in courage, I confess that, before firing, I let such thoughts as these run through my mind: This man has probably not wanted war but has been drawn into it by the force of events. Like me surely he wants to live. He also has dear ones at home awaiting his return, and here am I going to make orphans of them.
I remember, Mr. Speaker, that when I enlisted as a volunteer, Canada was calling on her sons to go to the defence of civilization and fight for the survival of democracy in a war to end war and bring everlasting peace to the world. That was less than a quarter of a century ago, and to-day the world is faced with a state of affairs the like of which we have never before seen. The world has gone mad, blinded Iby hatred, and is rushing to destruction. Is it possible that all the sufferings we endured and all the millions of lives that were sacrificed during the last conflict were in vain? It seems impossible to believe. Others may have forgotten, but I have not. That is why, even at the risk of causing scandal among some people who may be more attached to the empire than to Canada, I must state that I shall use my last ounce of strength and energy left me by war to fight against conscription in this country for outside wars. I am ready to-day to make every possible effort to prevent the participation of Canada in any outside war unless the future of our dominion is at stake. My reason for so doing is that I wish to save my compatriots, be they of French, English, or other descent, from the sad experience I myself underwent. But I must add that, if Canada were attacked, I should want to be the first to answer the . clarion call and shed the last drop of blood for my country.
I should like to recall the speech made by Archdeacon A. P. Gower Rees, general chaplain assistant of the British forces during the great war. At a banquet of the "6087 over-

seas association," given at the Windsor Hotel, Montreal, on November 11, 1938, to commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the signing of the armistice, the archdeacon declared :
Anyone who states seriously that he would cheerfully go back to war deserves no better than a strait-jacket.
He added that he did not wish do see our young men die just when they were beginning to understand life.
The government is asking us this year to vote larger sums for national defence. But with the rapid and constant improvements that are being made in armaments throughout the world, we do not know what to-morrow will bring. I recognize the necessity for adequate protection of the life and property of our Canadian citizens.
I should like to recall the statement made by Major General Frank M. Andrews, chief of staff of military aviation in the United States, in St. Louis, Missouri, on January 17 last. He said:
In case of attack the main industrial centres and their civilian population could not be protected.
Major General Andrews made that statement before the annual conference of the national air association. He added:
The large American cities would present an easy mark for enemy airplanes from abroad if the government did not increase its national defence.
I have confidence in the Prime Minister and in all the members of his government. I am sure that if a crisis ever comes, they will not let themselves be guided by any imperialistic propaganda, but they will act first and above all in the best interests of Canada.


Mr. MAURICE LALONDE (Labelle) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, on November 11, 1918, in a railway carriage at the station of Rethondes, there was signed tha armistice which brought to an end the horrible massacres of the great war. William II's dream-which can be called a germanic megalomania and which sought to impose on a world which wanted to be free, the hegemony of iron and force-collapsed in an abyss of humiliation. Germany had to submit to the will of the victors.
Five treaties were signed which were to bring to the world the peace promised to men of good will-Versailles, St. Germain, Trianon, Neuilly and Lausanne. They were to guarantee peace for all time. Alas! they turned out to be pacts violated with impunity.
From the morrow of the armistice, German bad faith became evident. One of the signatories, General Winterfield, protested that the

Foreign Policy-Mr. Lalonde
allies had placed Germany in the impossibility of executing the terms of the armistice. Dr. Solf cried out against the inhumanity of the pact, and both these German leaders entreated the idealist Wilson to attenuate the rigours of the conditions of peace.
The three most ancient royal families of Europe disappeared

the Hapsburgs of Austria, the Hohenzollerns of Germany, the Wittels-bachs of Bavaria. There is therefore no reason to wonder at imprisoned Germany's tremendous reaction to the straight]'acket of Versailles. It is a historic truth that vanquished nations compressed within artificial walls always keep in their hearts desires of revenge. It is possible to vanquish a nation, but not to enslave it. In the words of Lord Asquith, "it was an unsavoury peace."
It was inevitable that Germany should embark upon a policy of territorial expansion, for history has ever shown that vanquished peoples go to the greatest heights of heroism to reconquer their lost liberties.
Victor Margueritte spoke the truth when he wrote:
Folly it was to expect to keep forever imprisoned a nation of 60 million inhabitants, a prolific and highly industrialized people whose energy in every field of thought and action continues to prove its vitality. Not content with condemning them without possibility of appeal for faults shared by all, with disarming them, depriving them of their navy and their colonies, the successors of Poincare, to whatever party they belonged, all, with the exception of Briand, pursued the same policy based on fear.
The natural result was the successive violation of all the peace treaties by a Germany which had recovered its powers of resistance. Of the whole structure of the treaty of Versailles, there now remain only the colonial clauses.
The Hoover moratorium of 1932 terminated the payment of reparations. In 1933, Germany withdrew from the League of Nations and the disarmament conference.
In March, 1935, Hitler inaugurated conscription despite the limitation of 100,000 men imposed on his army.
In July, 1935, the Anglo-German understanding abrogated the naval restrictions.
In March, 1936, German troops occupied the demilitarized zone of the Rhine.
In November, 1936, Germany regained its complete territorial sovereignty by denouncing the internationalisation of its rivers.
The territorial clauses have been in part annulled by the addition of the Saar Basin following the plebiscite of January, 1935, and by the absorption of Austria in March, 1938, shortly followed by the conquest of Memel.
In September of the same year, Germany reconquered a part of Czechoslovakia, and, a few months later, invaded another part in spite of the protests of stirred up democracies. The treaty of St. Germain, signed November 10, 1919, has also been violated. That treaty had given to Italy southern Tyrol and deprived Austria of three-quarters of its territory. However, in April, 1936, the clauses abolishing military conscription, limiting the strength of the Austrian army to 30,000 men and reducing armaments were repealed by a proclamation of the Austrian government itself.
Under the treaty of Trianon, signed June 4, 1920, the Hungarian population was reduced to 9 million people by the transfer of the greater part of its territory to the Little Entente. But, in August, 1936, the same process occurred again, Czechoslovakia, Jugoslavia and Rumania allowing Hungary to rearm intensively and to increase the strength of its armed forces.
Under the treaty of Neuilly, signed November 27, 1919, Bulgaria was deprived of an immense portion of its territory. But, in July, 1938, the Balkan coalition-Turkey, Greece, Jugo-Slavia and Rumania-agreed to the abolition of the military clauses of the treaty and allowed Bulgaria to rebuild its army and its strength.
On July 24, 1923, the treaty of Lausanne was signed, replacing the old treaty of Sevres, in order to confirm the partition of the territory of Turkey and the neutrality of the Dardanelles coasts.
In June, 1936, the eight powers who had signed the treaty allowed Turkey to remilitarize the Dardanelles, the Bosporus and the Black Sea.
On October 16,	1925, was signed the
Locarno pact, the most important of the three treaties signed by Belgium, France, Germany, England and Italy and which was supposed to give the world an everlasting peace. Alas! the hopes were short-lived, because Germany soon afterwards began to remilitarize the Rhine.
Will German ambition come to a stop? I do no think so. Denmark will soon be obliged to return Schleswig. Will Poland cede Dantzig, West Prussia and Pesnania, as well as the portions of Upper Silesia which were given to her? And, finally, will not the ferocious Hitler want to see the swastika wave over the churches and buildings of Alsace and Lorraine? Such is the distressful question, upon whose unpredictable solution depends the future of Europe, in fact of the world.
In their desire to establish an enduring peace, the countries of the world had founded the League of Nations. It was to be the

Foreign Policy-Mr. Lalonde
supreme umpire, the final tribunal where the nations, renouncing war, were to find oracles of peace and undertakings. Again we are forced to admit the league's total failure and incapacity to check the disastrous ambition of the vanquished of 1918. What have we left of the war? A frightful heritage of hatred and of unsatiated appetites, a disorganized international economy and a world threatened with dictatorial domination. A human peace was sought, based on pagan egoism and materialism. Christian charity was banished, and the governments of the world deliberately relegated to the confines of his retreat the sole depository of true peace- the bishop of Rome!
What is left of all these treaties? A collection of old rags dispersed by the winds of folly to the four corners of the world. In the face of the futile efforts of man to bring to the world a basis of true peace, we have every right to ask ourselves what advantages Canada has obtained from these adventures and what our future policy should be in international matters.
The only tangible results of the last war, so far as we are concerned, are the 60,000 Canadians left in French graves, the more than 100,000 war invalids at home, and a two billion dollar debt weighing heavily on the shoulders of the Canadian people.
It would be difficult to add anything to the statements made in the house by the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King). I may be permitted, however, to enunciate a personal opinion. Canada's external policy cannot be that of a fully independent nation. The right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has stated in the house that our independence was merely relative, and that the Statute of Westminster had not granted us full autonomy. I share that opinion.
Privy council appeals in civil matters, our own inability to amend our constitution, the presence in this country of a governor general delegated by London, our inability to declare war on our own behalf or to proclaim our independence, the unapparent but actual bondage of Canadian economy to foreign capital, the indestructible chain of racial feelings which bind our English-speaking fellow countrymen to their mother country-whose right and duty it is to go to her assistance if they so desire,- all these are as many ties which still unite us to Great Britain, as many obstacles in our path to full independence, and as many reasons which lead us to believe that perhaps circumstances will be more powerful than men and that in the national constitution of Canada there still linger a few vestiges of colonialism.

I have certainly no desire to belittle the magnificent efforts accomplished in the course of the last twenty years for the achievement of our national independence. I confess, however, to harbouring a doubt, and a very grave one, as to the exact scope of our present liberties and the extent of our sovereignty.
Should the matter of our country's participation in foreign wars be submitted to parliament, I am convinced that outside influence would be brought to bear on its decisions. The Canadianism of the members would be subjected to the assaults of imperialistic propaganda, and my only hope of seeing my country stay out of any external wars lies in the strict indefectibility of the people's representatives with regard to our Canadian ideals. And I am not ashamed to state that I shall be among those who will remain deaf to such an appeal.
The right hon. the Prime Minister cannot do otherwise but to proclaim the sovereignty of the parliament of Canada, sole judge in the end. Whether it be agreeable or not, let it be shouted from every house top, notwithstanding the denials of our opponents, and for the simple reason that our Constitution is so fashioned, that only the Canadian parliament shall decide on our participation in any foreign war.
Therefore, do I wish to advise my fellow compatriots that, although I stand opposed to Canada's participation in any foreign war and I am averse, as all Canadians should be, to seeing my country drawn into any conflict, I must admit that we shall inevitably be drawn into such a conflict if the parliament of Canada is controlled by a majority of members with imperialistic leanings. There only remains to our people the ultimate recourse of exercising their democratic rights in electing none but the men who pledge themselves to be Canadians first, and not imperialists. It would be ridiculous to demand clear cut declarations from the leader of the government. Were he to enlarge on his statement, I would not believe him.
However, our constitution provides a most effective means of ascertaining the views of our people, and that is a national referendum.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not claim that we should resort to tactics such as those that were used the last time conscription was enforced; what I have in mind is a genuine popular vote held under conditions of fairness. The government would then know the true feeling of -the people and we, as representatives of the several constituencies, would be in a position to know whether the Canadian people are still willing to participate in external wars.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Plaxton
Mr. Speaker, I for one still believe in Canadian unity. But I am wondering how my fellow French-Canadians could be blamed if, heeding the call of their origin and of their blood they fail to embrace fully the imperialistic doctrine, as some of our opponents claim they should do.
Conquests cannot sever racial ties, even through the course of generations. Mr. Speaker, French-Canadians have remained loyal subjects of the crown and they will uphold the membership of Canada in the British commonwealth of nations so long as our English speaking fellow citizens will continue to preserve the integrity of our catholic faith, of our French language and of our racial ideals.
I should like to illustrate my argument by quoting these words from Jules Gerbault:
"Does not history prove that for us the best and most appropriate way of serving the interests of humanity consists, above all, in being Catholics and Frenchmen?"
I fully acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, the present difficulties, but I believe that in the near future our country will attain complete autonomy, and absolute independence and so be able to declare its neutrality and to be master of its own national destinies. I cannot but appreciate the strong efforts made in this country to direct Canadian thought towards these ideals. Our rising generation sometimes breaks away from traditions, visualizing the future with greater independence. Uneasy about the morrow, it endeavours to develop, above all, a Canadian thought and a Canadian life. I was pleased to hear the right honourable Prime Minister when he declared that no decision as to the participation of Canada in external wars shall be taken by the Liberal party without previous consideration being given to the unique and supreme interests of Canada.
His statement to the effect that conscription will not be enforced will serve to appease the minds of my fellow-compatriots in the province of Quebec and to allay their justifiable apprehensions. Were all our public men to follow the same sound principle I would have no fear lest our country should sacrifice its sons and its money to a foreign ideology. Let us hope that our present leaders will heed his word and that it will echo throughout the ages. It shall inspire our leaders of to-morrow and those of to-day shall take pride in the fact that they will have guided their succesors at the head of the state.
In closing my remarks, I wish to say once again, Mr. Speaker, that I hope to see among 71492-158
my compatriots, a strengthening of that well-understood Canadianism, that eminently Christian policy, which is the basis of all progress. We may as well face the fact that the present world crisis is primarily a moral one. If we are struggling to-day through an economic and social crisis, it is because we have repudiated the old principles of prudence, charity and justice; because we denied Chris-tianism and its gospel. There is no need to seek elsewhere the causes of those nameless disorders. Mankind will never enjoy peace and the happiness which it brings, until man is prepared to forsake for truth, the foolish utopias of his paganism, in order to turn from -the support of fallacies, to the defence of faith and indefectible hope.


Mr. H. J. PLAXTON (Trinity):: I rise to speak in this debate, believing that I can contribute to the discussion a viewpoint to which no one else has as yet given expression. Because of my age and inclination I am one of the few members of this house who would be directly affected by the involvement of this country in war. This government's foreign policy in case of war involving Great Britain, is therefore of vital interest to me as well as to thousands of my fellow citizens who are to-day of military age. I propose to deal with only two phases of the question. First, there is the legal aspect of it, which, while I consider it important, is nevertheless insignificant when considered in relation to the sentiments and feelings of Canadians throughout the dominion.
But what is Canada's position in case Great Britain is involved in war? Whether it be a war of aggression or a war of defence, and regardless of what moral reasons may obtain, I argue that in either event, our king being at war and all Canadians being subjects of our king, Canada is automatically at war. The British North America Act provided for our allegiance to the crown, and this allegiance by all nations comprising the British commonwealth of nations, of which Canada is one, is specifically provided for by that part of the preamble contained in the second paragraph of the statute of Westminster, which reads:
And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this act that, inasmuch as the crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British commonwealth of nations-
And these are the words to which I wish to draw particular attention.
-and as they are united by a common allegiance to the crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the

Foreign Policy-Mr. Plaxton

members of the commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching succession to the throne or the royal style and titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
If I am right in this regard, then I submit that any discussion of what Canada might do in a certain set of circumstances wherein Great Britain is engaged in conflict with any one or more foreign powers is irrelevant.
Whether I am right or wrong in respect to the first question does not, however, in my opinion matter to any great extent; but the second and most vital phase of the problem, which in my judgment overshadows all issues connected with this vital subject, is embraced in the question:	What will Canadians of
military age do if Great Britain is at war? In recent months I have talked to hundreds of Canadians of my own age or younger, and I believe I am expressing their view when I say that in such an event they will offer their services to the empire with the same eagerness and high degree of patriotism which characterized and motivated the actions of their fathers who fought and died for the empire during the great war. Totalitarian forms of government, and their persecution of minority racial and religious groups, are repugnant not only to myself but to my fellow Canadians of military age. And further acts of aggression which may imperil the British empire and democracy itself cannot in our opinion be tolerated.
It is their judgment as well as mine, subject to the qualification I have provided, that the establishment and maintenance of world peace on a permanent basis demand forthwith the halting of the aggressor nations of the world. To this end it would appear that the frontiers of Canada, as a member of the British commonwealth of nations, can no longer be considered to be the Atlantic on the east, the Pacific on the west, and the United States on the south, but are rather the existing boundaries of those nations which to-day threaten the peace of the world and the lives of those nations and peoples that believe in democratic forms of government. That, to my mind, is a fair expression of the opinion of the young men of Canada, who are of the same flesh and blood that provided the finest fighting shock troops the world saw in the last great war. If we are confronted with a world crisis which demands action, may I say to the house and to all who may be concerned, that we accept not only the challenge but the trust reposed in us by those immortal lines of John McCrae, who wrote:

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die We shall not slefep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.
On motion of Mr. Thorson the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, April 3, 1939