Defence Scheme No . 2 Defence Scheme No . 2 was a Canadian military strategy developed after World War I outlining the Canadian response in the event of a war between the United States of America and Japan . The primary concern of this strategy was remaining neutral in any conflict between the two countries . Origins . Plans for this scheme began immediately following World War I . However , it was not greatly developed until the early 1930s , when James Sutherland Brown constructed a rough model of this strategy . The major tenet of Brown ’ s model was the defence of the Pacific coast in the event of a war between the United States and Japan . General Andrew McNaughton would later transform this model into a commitment towards protecting Canadian neutrality . In 1933 , the strategy was finalized . However it was not approved by the government until 1936 . Issues . There were several issues that made this strategy of Canadian neutrality unlikely : Attitudes . In Canada , there was an anti - Japanese and pro - American sentiment to contend with . It would have been difficult for the government to maintain neutrality and retain the support of citizens if they did not at least attempt to align themselves with the United States . Imperial ties . Due to Canada ’ s Imperial ties , if Britain decided to join the Americans in a war against the Japanese it would be difficult for Canada to remain neutral . If Britain went to war it would not include Canada by default , since the Statute of Westminster in 1931 had transferred war - making powers to the Canadian Parliament , but , given existing ties , it would have been unlikely that Canada would have not been drawn in . ( However , the Irish Free State , at the time a Dominion within the British Empire , remained neutral throughout the Second World War . South Africa , also a Dominion , also had internal challenges to a war with Germany . Dominion status was not , therefore , a guarantee in itself of military alliance with Britain . ) This relationship was untested since World War I , and was intact until Canada declared war on Germany in 1939 . If Britain joined in such a war it would effectively destroy Canada ’ s policy of neutrality . Proximity to the United States . Due to the proximity between Canada and the United States , it was only natural that there would be some overlap in the defence of territory . The United States was testing aircraft and flying through Canadian airspace to Alaska . If Canada allowed the United States to continue this practice , then it was feared that it would lead to an unwanted situation . Effectively this means that Canada was trying to avoid dangerous engagements between either Japan or the United States . Even though the American planes overhead were creating tension and a threat to neutrality , Canada was not willing to risk neutrality in a time of peace . The “ Joint Staff Committee suggested that Ottawa tell Washington that it could offer ‘ no military commitment in advance of an actual crisis developing . ’ Sources . Bercuson , David J . and J . L . Granatstein . " Dictionary of Canadian Military History " . Canada : Oxford University Press , 1992 Granatstein , J . L . " Canada ' s Army : Waging War and Keeping the Peace " . University of Toronto Press , 2004 http : / / books . google . ca / books ? id = jqxyhNcha3sC & printsec = frontcover & dq = Canada % 27s + Army # PPA171 , M1 Perras , Galen . “ ‘ FUTURE PLAYS WILL DEPEND ON HOW THE NEXT ONE WORKS ’ : FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT AND THE CANADIAN LEGATION DISCUSSIONS OF JANUARY 1938 . ” " Journal of Military and Strategic Studies " , Winter 2006 / 07 , Vol . 9 , Issue 2 . http : / / www . jmss . org / 2007 / 2007winter / articles / perras _ cont - defence . pdf Perras , Galen Roger and Katrina E . Kellner . “ ’ A perfectly logical and sensible thing ’ : Billy Mitchell Advocates a Canadian - American Aerial Alliance against Japan . " " The Journal of Military History " , Volume 72 , Number 3 , July 2008