January 25, 1937

UFOL

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

Surely the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) does not think I am quite so innocent. He cannot fool me so easily.

I come now to the last part of this resolution :

That the Canadian government should make every effort to discover and remove the causes of international friction and social injustice.

There is no way in which we can help to bring about the ideal expressed in the last part of the resolution better than by removing social injustice in Canada. If in this country we could create an ideal state which would furnish opportunities for all, we would make in that way the greatest contribution to world peace that could be made by us. To-night the Prime Minister made reference to troubles without and within nations. So far as I know, any trouble within Canada, or within most other nations, is trouble related to social injustice, trouble in connection with some having too much and others having too little. Inasmuch as Canada, together with all other nations, seeks to extend opportunities to all, peace will be strengthened.

I think now, even as early as this, we ought to say very plainly to Great Britain that Canada is not in the same frame of mind as she was in 1914; that Canada is unlikely to plunge into a European war without very careful thought, and if everyone thought as I do she would not plunge in at all. Of course it is impossible for anyone to say what the people of Canada will think once the propaganda gets going. I have seen people swayed almost overnight from a very sound position through propaganda, and one cannot say what might happen again. But I believe parliament, through its various groups, ought to express an opinion on this matter, in order that people not only in Canada but also in other parts of the British commonwealth will know something of the different schools of thought in this country.

Topic:   FOREIGN POLICY
Subtopic:   PROPOSED STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES TO APPLY IN RESPECT OF WAR, THE CAUSES OF WAR, AND WAR MUNITIONS OR MATERIALS
Permalink
CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):

In rising to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I feel the mover (Mr. Woods-worth) has rendered a distinct service in having this question discussed. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has clarified the situation to a remarkable extent by the statement he has made to-night. The danger of war and the increased preparations for war since this house last met are marked. It seems a remarkable thing that less than twenty years ago we completed one of the greatest wars in

Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas

the history of mankind; that around a hundred thousand cenotaphs people pledged that never again would there be war, and that to-day Europe should be an armed camp. It has been estimated that in Europe at the present time there are fifty per cent more men under arms than there were in 1913. Practically every nation in Europe is increasing its armaments at an amazing rate, Great Britain herself having being compelled within the last few years to resort to an extensive armament program.

It might be well to stop and ask ourselves the reason for this remarkable change since 1918 and 1919, When we really believed we had started to build "the parliament of man and the federation of the world." It can be seen quite clearly that during the past five or six years one crisis after another has arisen in international affairs, each a little harder to avoid than the one before, and in each case a compromise becoming a little more difficult to arrange, with the area within which peace was possible gradually becoming smaller. First, it was the Japanese aggression in Manchuria, which for a time looked as though it would cause a war in the Pacific. A compromise was arranged, but only by allowing Japan to retain the part of Manchuria it had occupied. Eighteen months ago another crisis arose, when Italy began to appropriate Ethiopia. Again there was every indication of a war in the Mediterranean, and again war was averted only by a compromise under which the aggressor was allowed to retain his booty.

At the present time we are in the throes of another international crisis. Evidence has been brought forward again and again to show that outside powers are actually giving military assistance to rebels in their endeavour to overthrow a properly constituted and properly elected government. In this case international war is being averted only because we are compromising. The civil war is being allowed to continue.

In view of the gathering clouds all over the world I maintain that a real service is being performed to-night by this discussion and by the fact that the Prime Minister has seen fit to make so clear a statement.

The possible foreign policies which might be adopted may be divided roughly into three classifications. I am not going to go back over the ground already covered except to say that most of us would fall into one of the three classifications. I imagine that these will cut across party lines and racial and religious differences. There are those who follow a more or less imperialistic policy which would commit Canada to war in the event of Great Britain or the League of

amt-17

Nations becoming involved in a war. It would mean that in the event of Great Britain or the British commonwealth of nations becoming involved, Canada would be obligated to send a military contingent across the Atlantic. I think I can agree with the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) when she says that such a course would not find favour with a large section of the Canadian people. I do not think I am alone in being delighted with the statement which the Prime Minister made at Geneva to the effect that only the parliament of Canada could declare war for Canada. I do not propose to take up time in reading his speech as he has already quoted from it. For the information of those who have been unable to obtain copies of this speech, may I say that I secured mine from the League of Nations Society. Copies can be obtained there for ten cents, and they are worth at least half that amount, if not all.

The Prime Minister's statement showed very clearly that Canada was not prepared to adopt the imperialistic position. We were not prepared to accept the position that Great Britain, the League of Nations or anyone else might precipitate Canada into a major conflict. When one considers the defence estimates which have been brought down, one wonders whether the government has decided to veer away from that original stand. I do not think it can be stated too often that Canada needs a foreign policy far more than she needs a defence policy. The Prime Minister stated to-night that these defence estimates were purely for defence purposes. They are increased over the estimates of last year, so that must mean that the need for defence has increased since that time. If the need for defence has increased since last year, we as members of parliament ought to know what potential aggressors have become more aggressive than they were last year, and against whom we are increasing our defences. Far more than we need to talk of a defence policy do we need to know what our foreign policy is and igainst whom we are required to increase our defences.

The second classification referred to by the Prime Minister is based upon the isolationist point of view. There are those who believe that we should refrain absolutely from making any international commitments because of the danger of such entanglements bringing us into a war. Those who are truly isolationists would refuse to utilize any type of peace machinery which would involve the use of force in any shape or form. The best example of this is the United States.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas

Topic:   FOREIGN POLICY
Subtopic:   PROPOSED STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES TO APPLY IN RESPECT OF WAR, THE CAUSES OF WAR, AND WAR MUNITIONS OR MATERIALS
Permalink
LIB

Paul Joseph James Martin

Liberal

Mr. MARTIN:

What about the resolution?

Topic:   FOREIGN POLICY
Subtopic:   PROPOSED STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES TO APPLY IN RESPECT OF WAR, THE CAUSES OF WAR, AND WAR MUNITIONS OR MATERIALS
Permalink
CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. DOUGLAS:

The hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) asks about the resolution. I believe he knows-I am certain the more intelligent members of the house do- that there is a decided difference between neutrality and isolation. I shall come to that in just a moment. Isolation must be based upon one of two things, either regional pacts or very strong armaments. Italy, Germany and Japan have resorted to the former, while the United States has resorted to the latter. While I have a great deal of admiration for the hon. member for Grey-Bruce who stands very bluntly for a policy of isolation, I am convinced that in the long run it could never have any great value. Hon. members refer to geography, but geography is a thing of the past. Only a short time ago Captain Mollison crossed the Atlantic in nineteen hours. Space is being obliterated. In a major world conflict a policy of isolation would be well nigh impossible, particularly for an exporting nation like Canada. Only twenty years ago the United States, a country more self-supporting than Canada, found it absolutely impossible to remain out of a world war even at a time when space was a more important factor than it is to-day. There may come a time when a policy of isolation will be forced upon us, but I am absolutely convinced that the isolationist point of view is hopeless as far as the building up of an effective world peace is concerned.

The time has come when we must either work collectively to build a world peace or be inundated in a world war. One of my complaints about the foreign policy outlined tonight by the Prime Minister is the fact that it is moving steadily and relentlessly towards a policy of isolation. For a long time I have suspected that hon. gentlemen opposite were pro-American in their trade policy, but it is becoming increasingly evident that they are also pro-American in their foreign policy.

The third classification would take in those who believe that we ought to have a system of collective action based upon collective security, with the proviso that Canada, owing to her geographical position, should be relieved of responsibility with respect to military sanctions. Such a policy would involve the acceptance of three principles. First, there would be the surrender of national sovereignty by which a nation gives up its right to decide in matters of international affairs concerning itself, but refers such matters to some international court. Also a nation would have to be willing to forego recourse to war as an instrument of national policy in settling differences.

The second principle involved in a system of collective action would be the setting up of the necessary machinery for the peaceful revision of treaties and for discussions with a view to removing the causes of war. Most of us recognize that any league organized merely for the maintenance of the status quo must inevitably fail. Machinery must be provided from time to time to revise treaties, such as the treaty of Versailles, which no statesman of any standing would seek now to defend. There must be a revision from time to time of territorial agreements. There must be recognition of such problems as the pressure of population, the need for markets and the necessity for colonies. There must be consideration of all those factors that bring nations into conflict one with another.

The third principle involved in the idea of collective action based upon collective security would be the use of force either by economic sanctions or, in the last resort, by military sanctions with a view to restricting those aggressor nations which might, in violation of their pledge, resort to force as an instrument of national policy. Canada, of course-this was put on Hansard last year and I shall not read it again-ever since 1920 has had the proviso that because of her geographical position she would not make any commitment with respect to military sanctions. But in days gone by she has made definite commitments as to economic sanctions, and I am convinced that if the nations of the world collectively were to apply economic sanctions the need for military sanctions would never arise. There has been published just recently the Memoirs of General deBono, who commanded the forces of II Duce in Ethiopia, and the preface was written by Mussolini himself. DeBono makes the amazing statement that, had the Italians been deprived of their resources of oil at the time economic sanctions were being discussed by the League of Nations, II Duce would have been compelled to give up his expedition in Ethiopia within three months.

Into which of these classifications does the foreign policy outlined by the government to-night fall? Personally I feel that the government is moving steadily, although perhaps not altogether conscious of it, towards an armed isolationist position. That is made evident by two things: first of all, by the attitude which was taken by the government in the Ethiopia affair, and there is no reason to go back over that, for it was dealt with in this house last year, when this government in conjunction with other governments failed

to bring the full force of economic, diplomatic and financial boycott to bear on an aggressor nation.

In a statement made to this house last year, when the estimates of the Department of External Affairs were up, the Prime Minister said that " collective bluffing cannot guarantee collective security." I submit that neither can collective security be guaranteed by collective duplicity, or by collective cowardice, or by collective evasion of our responsibilities, and that is exactly what took place. While peace was preserved in the Mediterranean, it was preserved at the expense of a primitive people, who, possessing only obsolete weapons, were wiped out and conquered by a country which, in violation of its pledged word, had resorted to physical force.

The second indication of the movement of the government toward isolation was contained, not only in the speech by the Prime Minister to-night, but in the speech he made at Geneva. I have already said that the Prime Minister made an excellent speech in the first part of his remarks on that occasion; but in the second part, after having said that nobody except parliament could declare war for Canada, he went on to say that Canada was not prepared to commit itself to economic sanctions-it had never been asked to commit itself to military sanctions-and that we must think of the league in terms of cooperation rather than coercion. He used those terms again to-night. He said that we must have " mediation and conciliation " in the league, all of which I suggest are very fine, high-sounding phrases, but the Prime Minister overlooks entirely the fact that we are dealing with nations not all of whom are equally interested in peace. There are in Europe to-day nations which are avowed potential aggressors. One cannot talk about conciliation with a mad dog. One cannot talk about mediation with a megalomaniac who says that the idea of peace is abhorrent to him. One cannot talk about conciliation with a dictator who says: "We extend to you an

olive branch which springs from eight million bayonets." A league such as is envisaged and talked about by the Prime Minister would be an international debating society that would be as effective as a ladies' aid meeting. To take the teeth out of the league, to take from the league all capacity to enforce its decisions, is to make the League of Nations null and void.

The Prime Minister, speaking on his estimates last year, said: "We are not prepared to see the league become an international

31111-17i

Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas

war office." I do not think any person here would suggest that it should become an international war office, but it might become an international department of justice, not only judging as between nations but also having the power which a department of justice must have to ensure that its decisions shall be carried out; and that is something which the League of Nations as pictured by the Prime Minister to-night certainly does not have. In fact, I find it somewhat difficult to bring into any degree of consistency the Prime Minister's speech at Geneva and the statement he made to-night with reference to the rickety house. He said: We might build a new house, but there is always the danger of a man setting fire to it; because of that danger we must take some action against that man. Agreed, but one cannot take action against that man individually; one must take action against him by acting collectively and passing laws against the crime of arson, and by having police to apprehend the criminal and make him obey the laws of the community.

The Prime Minister spoke of angels of light and of darkness being constantly in conflict. I imagine that the medical men would think perhaps of microbes and bacteria. But we combat these things collectively, not individually, and if the forces in the world that make for war, if the aggressive forces in the world to-day are to be met, they must be met collectively by the peaceful nations of the world.

The Prime Minister spoke to-night of the need for unity between democracies, but certainly there can be no unity between democracies if Canada announces she is not prepared to pay the price of maintaining a peace system. The Prime Minister also spoke of the absence of certain countries from the meeting of the League of Nations held at Geneva last September because of the element of force in the covenant. I grant you that the United States stayed out of the league because of the military commitments contained in the covenant, but I do not think it is correct to say that Japan or Italy or Germany stayed out because of those commitments. They came in when those commitments were there. Rather let it be said that they went out of the league because they were branded as international criminals who had been condemned at the bar of international justice. To suggest that if we take the teeth out of the League of Nations they may all get together in good fellow-

Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas

ship is like suggesting that if we rescinded all the laws in Canada, we and the criminals could fraternize and have no more hard feelings against each other.

I submit that the attitude of the government with respect to Ethiopia, the speech which the Prime Minister made last September at Geneva and the statement he made in the house to-night, indicate not a nation that is willing to enter into the responsibility of building a peace front, but a nation that is slowly and inevitably moving toward armed isolation. When the Prime Minister made his speech at Geneva, it was not very surprising that the papers of London and Paris, particularly papers that were pro-fascist, rejoiced in his statement. One of them said, "Canada leads the way out from Geneva." Another said, "Nothing but rags and tatters is left of collective security." Still another said, "The only policy left is isolation, and toward it the dominion is moving with the steady, relentless inevitability of an icecap."

In closing, I wish to submit three things that, I believe, should be incorporated in a peace policy for Canada: First, collaboration in building a collective system to cooperate with the other peace loving nations in the world with a view to building peace machinery. I am convinced that mere "mediation and conciliation," which the Prime Minister has outlined as a proposed new basis, is not enough. We must be prepared to enter into a system for building collective security arising out of collective action, and involving, if necessary, collective economic sanctions against a nation that has become an aggressor.

Second, we should insist that in such a collective system Canada shall not be deemed to be committed to military action in view of her geographical location, which makes the sending of an expeditionary force a very difficult matter, and also in view of the mixed races in Canada, which makes any wholehearted entrance into a foreign war a very dubious undertaking. It is unnecessary to say that in this country we have our friends of the French race; we have other races that have contributed to and made rich our culture right across Canada. Every day I receive letters from people who came from the older civilizations to Canada in many cases to escape from the ruthlessness of militarism, and who shrink at the very idea of being conscripted and sent back again to participate in European quarrels which were not of their making. Because of that, we in Canada should make it clearly understood that military commitments are impossible in such a collective system as far as we are concerned. We should also

make it understood that because of distances, and because a blockade would make the sending of soldiers across the Atlantic a costly and risky business, Canada's contribution would be very expensive in proportion to the small amount of service that could be rendered. Further, except in matters of defence we have no potential enemies and should be asked to contribute only to economic sanctions, leaving to those located in affected areas the task of supplying, where necessary, military force.

The third thing I wish to suggest is that, as a lead toward building such a collective system, we in Canada should take steps to place the export of nickel under a national commission with a view to preventing potentially aggressive nations from securing large quantities of war material. I do not wish to infringe upon the resolution on this matter which is coming up later, but I have in my hand a statement of the exports of nickel from Canada from 1929 to the present time. It is amazing that most countries which have been the aggressor nations in the past five years have increased their imports of nickel from this country at an immense rate. The normal increase in nickel imports in most cases works out at an average of about 12 to 14 per cent per annum. I imagine that would approximate fairly closely to the expansion in the industrial and commercial life of the respective nations. But in the case of the nations which have been aggressive over the last two or three years that increase has been 300 and 400 per cent; they have actually trebled and quadrupled their imports of nickel from the Dominion of Canada. I submit that this is a serious problem. It is very little use to talk about mediation and conciliation, about building a new league on cooperation rather than coercion, when we are allowing millions of tons of nickel to go out of our country. It does not take a very fertile imagination to conceive the possibility that there are young boys living in Canada to-night, even some men who are in this chamber to-night, whose bodies will be tom to pieces by the very nickel we are now exporting.

We could begin in Canada to render a real service to the cause of peace, and the building of a really effective system of collective action, by taking steps now to restrict the sale of nickel to those nations which are using it largely for armament purposes. It would not be necessary, as the Prime Minister suggested, that we have a complete nationalization of the industry. In Saskatchewan they have a liquor commission, because the people believe that the liquor industry is such that it should not be left to the desire for profit and the greed

Foreign Policy-Mr. Massey

of the private individual to exploit, with the result that no brewery is allowed to sell liquor directly to the consumer; it must be sold through the commission, in bond. The same thing could be done with reference to nickel. I ask the government to consider very seriously the feasibility this year of setting up such a commission whereby exporters and foreign importers could get nickel only through such a commission. This might mean some economic loss. The Financial Post made the statement that for the first nine months of 1936 the International Nickel company showed a profit of $23,000,000. Such an amount of profit might not be possible if a commission such as I have suggested were constituted. But I submit through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of this house that the making of a profit of $23,000,000 by the International Nickel company or any other company is relatively unimportant as compared with the task of helping to build a system of peace, and demonstrating to the nations of the world that as far as we in Canada are concerned we are prepared to pay the price of peace. I should like to see our people and our government say to the world at large: The

nickel in Canada is not ours. We did not put it in the earth. It is a heritage and a trust, and we are prepared to say to the nations of the world: "So long as you want that nickel for the enhancement of human happiness rather than the destruction of human life we are prepared to sell it to you, but when you want nickel, as some nations professedly -do, to destroy human bodies, to wipe out cities and to annihilate civilization, then not one ton of nickel is going to leave the shores of Canada for such purposes."

I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite to give this matter serious consideration. In the last war soldiers were shot down by their own bullets; German boys at Verdun died on German wire manufactured in Germany and sent to France through Switzerland. Surely we do not want to see any war take place in which Canadian nickel, sold to some potential aggressor, will, in the years to come, be used to destroy the bodies of Canadian soldiers. I therefore ask that we consider seriously in the course of this debate the possibility of entering into a collective system to build up peace machinery for the world. We ask that Canada, in view of her position and her geographic location, shall be freed from military commitments, and that as a sign of our good faith we shall take steps even now to begin to restrict the sale of nickel, as far as possible, to purely commercial purposes.

Topic:   FOREIGN POLICY
Subtopic:   PROPOSED STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES TO APPLY IN RESPECT OF WAR, THE CAUSES OF WAR, AND WAR MUNITIONS OR MATERIALS
Permalink
CON

Denton Massey

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. DENTON MASSEY (Greenwood):

I am sure that hon. members realize the importance and possibly far-reaching effect of this debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has brought to the attention of the house a matter in which he is vitally interested, in which indeed the people of this country are vitally interested. It so happens, as a result of circumstances over which we have little or no control, that there are wars and rumours of war, and many feel that there is danger of nation rising against nation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not discuss the ghastly folly of war; he took that for granted, and so do I. Nor did he discuss the un-Christian character of war; that too he took for granted, and so do I. But he was concerned about policies; he was concerned about the policy that we in Canada should have to help to prevent war. He felt that Canada should have an effective voice in what concerns her. That was his language. The alleged war scare has burned deeply into his mind, and so he asks, What can, what must, what shall Canada do in case of war; and, further, what should Canada do now in these days of international unrest?

Obviously the answers to these questions must be predicated upon some knowledge of the position which Canada holds to-day as a nation among the family of nations. Let it be stated here and at once that whatever place Canada holds to-day as a nation among the family of nations was dearly bought for her, bought for her at the ghastly yet noble price paid by the Canadian corps of 1914-1918, those men who willingly gave of their best, indeed their very lives, to form a corps that General Currie so aptly called "the finest fighting force in the allied army." No nation could be ignored that had been able to maintain such a force. Canada's place as a nation was therefore bought for her in those days of war and its accompanying horror, a place which we thought we sealed and sealed proudly the day we became a signatory to the covenant of the League of Nations. Thus we had a right to a voice in world affairs. No longer could Canada be regarded as an unimportant little nation on the Norih American continent, composed of a handf ll of people living north of the forty-ninth parallel of latitude. So to-day we find ourselves, it seems to me, in a unique position; for our voice should be stronger and should carry far more weight than we ever thought it could.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Massey

We have heard references in this debate to the great size of the United States; we have heard references to-day to the comparative size of Canada. But since the United States apparently elects to speak only in whispers on the backstairs of Europe, Canada finds herself-if she would find' herself- in a position to express not only her own views but those of the whole new world. And from that point of view she would be heard with respect in a world court. Yes, we could have a powerful voice in world affairs; but what is the voice of Canada? If we are absolutely frank with ourselves we are compelled' to admit that to-day there is no single voice in Canada but there is a cacophony arising from within our borders. And here we are at once in the paradoxical and absurd position of having had bought for us, at a tremendous price, the right to sit in a world court and, by our own enterprise and industry in commerce, a certain strength lent to that voice; yet we are not able to determine what sound that voice should make. In fact we seem to be getting further and further away from that determination every day.

I am not an alarmist nor am I an extremist, but I do survey the present situation with extreme gravity. The possibility-and please note that I do not say the probability -of war in Europe has brought us face to face with the necessity of solving what is our greatest national problem, and of solving that problem with dispatch. Our greatest national problem is not that of unemployment; it is not the problem of agriculture; it is not the problem of youth or of any such questions which one might mention. It is the sum of these problems. And just as the whole is greater than any of its parts, so is our greatest problem greater than any one of the individual problems it embraces. The problem is the determination of a national policy for Canada. What sort of Canada do we want? Have we any great national determination as far as that is concerned? Do we want a united Canada or do we want a Canada at all? These questions must be answered if the Dominion of Canada is to develop as a nation among the family of nations. We have no national voice to-day. To travel from Halifax to Victoria is to find a virtual kaleidoscope of opinion.

To-night we have heard various schools of thought set out by those who have spoken. Perhaps I, too, may be permitted to suggest four schools of thought. It seems to me that opinion in Canada to-day may be divided into four groups. First, there is the opinion held by those who want a Canada, but a Canada essentially isofated from Europe, a

Canada only for Canadians, a Canada quite prepared to let the empire and Europe mess about to their hearts' content. A second group consists of the adherents of that opinion which says: We do not want a Canada at all; no doubt the fathers of confederation did what they did in sincerity and as they thought was best for their country; but times have changed since 1867; Canada is virtually five separate states, the maritimes in the east, Quebec, Ontario, the three prairie provinces, and British Columbia in the far west; let us thank the fathers of confederation for what they attempted, and now let each part go its own way. The third group, and by no means a small one, consists of those who do not know what they want. Unfortunately this group may be the most vocal. This group talks about a dominion somewhat loosely tied together, which has some sort of defence'but not too much, in which certain powers are taken away from the central government and given to the provincial governments. Yet at the same time they say there is too much government in Canada; they talk about no aid to the empire in case of conflict but are perfectly willing to take all and give nothing; in short they talk this way and the other, but really do not know what they want. In the fourth group are those who want a Dominion of Canada in fact as well as in name, a dominion which is an integral and important part of the British commonwealth of nations, ready and willing to join with that commonwealth to help enforce peace and to make peace heroic, a Dominion of Canada which is not only a British dominion but a nation of the world, a Dominion of Canada that will give support to the British commonwealth of nations in doing the job of work which there is for that commonwealth to do and to which the Prime Minister referred tonight so ably and so well. I am going to discuss these four groups not separately, but collectively in the light of what I have in essence already said, that is that Canada is at the cross-roads.

In the first place let us consider the isolationist. The isolationist as I understand him is he who demands that Canada have a complete national economy of her own; that the question of her participation in any war be not only hers to determine but that it be made clear to the nations of the world that Canada is free to be neutral in any war. I think there may be a confounding of terms in that connection. Neutrality is one thing, non-participation is another. Complete neutrality is one thing, passive belligerency is another. Would a declaration of Canadian neutrality in time of war be regarded by any

Foreign Policy-Mr. Massey

warring nation, an enemy of Great Britain, as binding, so long as this dominion remains part of the empire? Even if there were no active participation, would an invasion of Canada in time of war by an enemy of Great Britain be regarded as a breach of neutrality? Let those who argue for isolation for Canada, or neutrality in case of war, remember that there is no such thing as passive belligerency. There is either complete neutrality or a state of war. And thus the only way for Canada to be regarded as a neutral country in a war in which the empire is involved is to sever her ties with the empire. This means we are no longer British. It means we are no longer able to claim all that that means and has meant, not merely from a purely sentimental point of view of traditional attachment to family or race, but from the prestige and protection which have always been such a vital part of our national position. Let the isolationist be prepared to justify all that it means for a Canadian citizen to sacrifice his British citizenship, to surrender the prestige and protection that go with it, to give up any claim on the services of an extraordinarily efficient and extensive diplomatic, naval and military organization.

In the second place, let those who argue for isolation and in the same breath plead the cause of peace, the glory of the united states of the world, remember that a united British commonwealth brings together at one fell swoop one-fifth of the people of the world, brings them together in a common cause. And what a mighty force for good is here as long as that force is for right and not for might; a force that espouses the causes of peace and justice! Therefore, let the isolationist be prepared to argue that the cause of peace is aided by the disintegration of the British Empire, and that the breaking away of the dominion from the British commonwealth of nations and the breaking up of that commonwealth, constitute a step forward rather than backward in the interests of world unity.

In the third place, is the isolationist prepared not only to admit, as Dean Corbett of McGill law school put it in an excellent article which appeared recently; that "neutrality can be bought only at the price or our common nationality," but to" skate over apparently without qualms, "the moral objection to retaining, in the quality of a British subject, a claim on these services while repudiating by neutrality a reasonable share in the burdens of political association?" Assume for the sake of discussion that the isolationist and his supporters say that this moral obligation business is merely, in Kipling's language, "the flaccid tissues of long

dead issues, offensive to God and man," is tawdry, maudlin and mawkish sentiment and tradition; that British citizenship has become but a catch phrase and means nothing to Canada any more; that it is just Canada for Canadians we want, and nothing else. Where does that lead us? Canada as a nation divorced from the British commonwealth of nations becomes at once a puny, faraway nation with about as much chance of being heard in a world court or in the market places of the world as any one of the dozen or more tiny states of Europe. Let an isolated Canada, a Canada divorced from the empire, be prepared to withdraw from any institution which is non-British-Canadian-for indeed any participation which we have had to date in international affairs has been as a nation within the British commonwealth of nations. The trade treaties we have made over the years- we will assume they are a benefit to Canada- must be disregarded and torn up as they were made with a British Canada. In essence, therefore, the isolationist demands that we sacrifice our external trade and bring to bear our full national powers on our internal trade.

In the fourth place let me again quote Dean Corbett:

The only hope for isolation would seem to lie in the achievement of that complete selfsufficiency which is the Arcadia of certain ardent materialists and quack economists.

What does that mean? It means that we return at once to the primitive state in which our forefathers left us; that we tear down our industrial structure; that we once more put our hands only to the plough and the distaff, crawl into a smug parochial nationalism, and say to the land-hungry nations of the world, "Please, please, leave us alone." How long would rich, fertile Canada be left alone? Oh, but the isolationist says, "There is the United States; she will protect us." Hon. members will realize that a mother protects her daughter with no expectation of reward, but cousins do not take care of cousins on the same basis. There would be no protection without a price. Are we prepared to pay that price?

Lastly, is the isolationist prepared to assure us that the application of his policy rids us once and for all of the war menace? Divorce this dominion from the balance wheel of empire; remove from our provinces or groups of provinces our point of common allegiance, the throne of England, and just how long would Canada remain a union of nine provinces? Would the maritimes be apt to rush to the aid of British Columbia in the event of some land-starved power becoming actively

Foreign Policy-Mr. Massey

greedy? Or would British Columbia be inclined to rush to the aid of the maritimes in similar circumstances? Divided states in what is now the Dominion of Canada I feel would be the inevitable result of secession.

Topic:   FOREIGN POLICY
Subtopic:   PROPOSED STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES TO APPLY IN RESPECT OF WAR, THE CAUSES OF WAR, AND WAR MUNITIONS OR MATERIALS
Permalink
LIB

Robert Emmett Finn

Liberal

Mr. FINN:

What would Ontario do?

Topic:   FOREIGN POLICY
Subtopic:   PROPOSED STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES TO APPLY IN RESPECT OF WAR, THE CAUSES OF WAR, AND WAR MUNITIONS OR MATERIALS
Permalink
CON

Denton Massey

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MASSEY:

What would Ontario do but watch the crows fly by in either direction? As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, divided states within what is now the Dominion of Canada would be the inevitable result, I feel, of the application of a policy of isolation. Then, as divided states, what easy prey we would be to those nations to the right of us and to the left of us who, not unlike the guns of Balaclava, are volleying and thundering, or at least rumbling ominously for those who have ears to hear.

Let us go back to the point from which we started. Canada can have no voice in world affairs until we have determined the sort of Canada we want, or if we want a Canada at all. We have reached the cross-roads, Mr. Speaker, and now we mu9t decide which way we want to go. I suggest that hon. members listen again to the words of Benjamin Franklin. This time he might be speaking to us, when he says, " We must all hang together or we will hang separately." Hon. members might well listen again to the voice of a great leader of another day, the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who challenged us when he said that " the twentieth century belongs to Canada." If it is a united Canada we want-and thank God I think it is-a Canada, a dominion within the British commonwealth of nations, let us tear away our thoughts and efforts from the divisions caused by crassly selfish, provincial economies and societies, and turn our common effort into one great, dominion wide, united, unselfish effort. If it is peace we want-and who does not want peace; I take second place to no hon. member in this house in a desire for peace-then let us out of this strange cacophony that now arises from within our borders tune the voice of Canada. And may we remember that it is not governments, federal, provincial or municipal, that will tune the voice of Canada to a single dulcet note. It is a public opinion, and public opinion that faces facts fearlessly rather than flirts with fiction, yes, and which faces not only facts but the ideals, the illusions and the real unrealities, that builds nations. We cannot; we must not; in the name of our fathers, the pioneers who broke the soil in this

country, we dare not throw the future away for selfish, sectional parochialism. Let us give the fullest and the 'best of all that we hold dear to make of the phrase " Dominion of Canada " not just a picturesque imagery but a quick, real, virile, glorious reality, a Canada bound together by gold chains of national understanding, national unity, national courage, national faith and national hope. It is then, and only then, that the voice of Canada can be heard in world affairs.

Some years ago, Mr. Speaker, in the southern part of Saskatchewan, at the end of an excellent growing summer, when the wheat was high and the heads full, a three-year old child wandered from her home, and was last seen heading toward the wheat. She was not missed for some hours. Her mother realized the danger when news that the child was missing was brought to her, and at once summoned the child's father who started, with all the help available, frantically to seek his little girl. All day long he and those on the farm searched without avail. Others came and gave help, with no result. Night came. The people of the whole countryside with characteristic willingness and spontaneity joined in the search. Throughout the night they looked, using all the lanterns and other means of lighting they could find, but still without avail. The dawn of the next day found them weary and hungry, but still they carried on as the child was still missing. Nightfall came, and at last one called all the others together from every part of the farm and said, "Why do we not form a great human chain and march across these fields hand in hand? Someone is sure to find her." And they found her! It was not long before a foot touched a silent, still little body. The father was called to the spot, and as he picked up the lifeless body of his child, he looked up to heaven and cried, "Great God, why didn't we join hands before?"

Across this dominion, Mr. Speaker, from the maritimes through Quebec and Ontario, across the prairies into British Columbia, may we not have to say some day, "My God, why did we not join hands before?" The challenge to national unity is sounding now. Pray God we may answer it!

On motion of Mr. Elliott (Kindersley) the debate was adjourned.

Topic:   FOREIGN POLICY
Subtopic:   PROPOSED STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES TO APPLY IN RESPECT OF WAR, THE CAUSES OF WAR, AND WAR MUNITIONS OR MATERIALS
Permalink

At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order. * Trade with Germany Tuesday, January 26, 1937


January 25, 1937