January 25, 1937

LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

As I recall it, the Militia Act requires that parliament must be convened within fifteen days after the militia has been placed on active service. I do not think it would be possible for the militia to be placed on active service and sent out of the country within that period of time. I do not think any government in Canada would contemplate for one moment the placing of any of the forces of this dominion on service beyond the dominion without parliament meeting in the first instance.

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

James Shaver Woodsworth

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

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

If I may say so,

that hardly touches the point. The Prime Minister just said that neutrality was the negative side and participation the active side of this war question. I should like to get from him a statement as to whether this country might possibly be committed to war, even though it was not committed to the actual sending of troops out of the 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
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Most certainly not. Our policy is that parliament alone can commit Canada. I cannot make that too clear. At the present time there are no commitments, so far as Canada is concerned, to participate in any war. Equally, there are no commitments of which I am aware, or of which any one else is aware, whereby we agree to remain neutral under all circumstances. The policy of the government with respect to participation and neutrality is that parliament will decide what is to be done.

I think I made the position of Canada very clear when speaking last year at Geneva. I shall quote only two paragraphs of what I said at that time. They will, I believe, remove any doubts there may be in the mind of any hon. member as to the position of the present administration. I want to make it quite clear that we will not necessarily become involved in any war into which other parts of the British Empire may enter, simply because we are part of the British Empire. It is for this parliament to decide whether or not we will participate in a war in which other parts of the British Empire may be engaged. Let me read what I said at the assembly of the League of Nations in the presence of British ministers and the representatives of other nations.

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

James Shaver Woodsworth

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

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Before the Prime

Minister goes on with that, if I might be permitted, does his statement mean that, even though the British Empire is involved, we shall remain neutral until parliament decides?

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

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I have already said that parliament will decide that question. Just how far we shall remain neutral will depend in part upon ourselves and possibly in part upon an enemy which might take it into its head to attack us.

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

James Shaver Woodsworth

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

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

If Great Britain,

went to war, does the Prime Minister consider that we would remain neutral when that, country was involved?

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

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

That is the very point I am objecting to in my hon..

250 COMMONS

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King

friend's resolution. He wants us to say here and now that we will remain neutral no matter wrhat the circumstances may be. My reply to him is that parliament will decide whether or not we will remain neutral. We will not be bound in advance as to what position we will take. We will in a ease such as he has mentioned take into account all the circumstances which have occasioned Great Britain entering the war. We will take into account the situation in our own country. In reaching a decision parliament will consider everything that has a bearing on the question of the war.

Let me now read.the statements of Canada's position which I made at Geneva. They ought surely once and for all to be an answer as to where Canada stands on this subject, so far at least as the present administration is concerned.. There may be-I am not quite sure that there are not-some who will differ from the statement of policy, but it is a statement of the present administration's policy, and it is the policy which the present administration intends to follow as long as it remains in office. These quotations are from a speech delivered at the seventeenth session of the assembly at Geneva on September 20, 1936.

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

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Is it published separately for distribution?

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

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Yes. I shall be glad to send my hon. friend a copy if he has not one. I thought he had one. This is the first statement:

The nations of the British commonwealth are held together by ties of friendship, by similar political institutions, and by common attachment to democratic ideals, rather than by commitments to join together in war. The Canadian parliament reserves to itself the right to declare, in the light of the circumstances existing at the time, to what extent, if at all, Canada will participate in conflicts in which other members of the commonwealth may be engaged.

There was also the following:

The Canadian House of Commons by unanimous resolution has made the adoption of undertakings to apply either military or economic sanctions subject to the approval of parliament.

What I have said and quoted does not mean that in no circumstances would the Canadian people be prepared to share in action against on aggressor; there have been no absolute commitments either for or against participation in rear or other forms of force. It does mean that any decision on the part of Canada to participate in war will have to be taken by the parliament or people of Canada in the light of all existing circumstances; circumstances of the day as they exist in Canada, as well as in the areas involved. fMr. Mackenzie King.]

I do not intend to say more on the subject to-night than to indicate what appear to be the different attitudes being assumed in Canada by various groups of people toward foreign policy and defence, particularly in relation to the question of Canada's participation in war. As far as one can gather from what has appeared in the press, and from what has been said in both houses of parliament, and by public men in different places, it would seem that there are three different positions being assumed with respect to the interrelated questions of empire defence and foreign policy. There are three schools of thought, or three different policies being asserted.

There is what I might call the imperialistic school, and I hope that those who share its view will not feel that I am misnaming it in any way, those who take the position that the British Empire is one and indivisible, and that in matters of defence there should be a common policy, which of necessity means a common foreign policy for the empire. Those who hold this view link the dominions irrevocably with the British Isles with respect to any decision which the latter may make in regard to war. That is the extreme on one side; "a thorough-going imperialism" it has been termed.

Then there is another group, the isolationist, which takes what has been referred to as the "regardless nationalism" view, a thorough-going isolation; the view that Canada should be completely severed from all contacts with countries engaged in war whether the contacts be with other parts of the British commonwealth or with other nations; that we should be an isolated country refusing in any way to be drawn into conflicts across the Pacific, across the Atlantic, or to the south of our boundary.

These are the two extreme views. It is impossible to say in how extreme a form any individual may hold either of these views. Also a point is reached where it may be difficult to say just where one opinion shades into the other, but just as there is a difference between day and night, so there is a difference between these two extremes. As between the two, there is a central moderate attitude, to which it seems to me most of the people of Canada adhere. It fills a middle area in which there is room for a diversity of views and policies having however one thing in common, that the policy must be Canadian throughout. Those holding this attitude are neither imperialistic nor isolationist in their outlook, but they are distinctly Canadian in their outlook. They believe in deciding questions relating to

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King

defence or foreign policy by reference to what is Canada's interest. Decisions must be made by Canada primarily in the interests of Canada. In considering her own welfare Canada will naturally take into account the interests of all those with whom she may be associated, but her position will be based upon what appears to be in the interest of Canada in the situation as it may present itself at the time. It is from this point of view that the present administration approaches the questions of peace and war in a world such as we live in to-day. In practice this will not mean a rigid policy expressing itself in automatic action or inaction as trouble arises, but a policy in keeping with conditions and circumstances. In so far as we come to parliament with an expression of our opinion, we will give it to parliament from the point of view that a certain course should be taken because, having regard to all the circumstances existing at the time, we believe it to be in Canada's interest it should be taken.

If I had to find words, Mr. Speaker, m which to express Canada's foreign policy, I would use those which the Apostle Paul addressed to the Romans, when he said to them, "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men." Those words, applied to Canada as a nation, express our policy. There is not a phrase in that little sentence which is not significant. "If it be possible"; those words are not without their meaning. When we say that we would live at peace with all men, it may nevertheless not be possible in a world such as we are in to-day to live at peace with all men. That is the most serious circumstance with which this country and many other countries are faced at the present time. The world is not in a normal frame of mind. The world has been going through a condition of stress and strain in the last five j'ears which has affected the mentality of men. No one can tell what terrible situation may appear on the horizon at any time. No one can say what mad act may be performed in the course of a crisis which may precipitate a great world catastrophe. God forbid that anything of the kind may come! But no man would be worthy of a place in this parliament who did not realize that there is no part of the world to-day that is not menaced with danger from without, and very few parts not menaced equally from unrest within. It is that fact which lends significance to the next phrase in the sentence I have quoted from St. Paul "as much as lieth in you." "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you"-the Apostle Paul was making clear

when, he used those words that he realized that within an individual-and it is equally true of a nation-there were conditions or forces which sometimes made peaceful relations with others very difficult if not next to impossible.

A government, in dealing with the affairs of a nation, and particularly with international relations, has to consider all possible situations that may arise. Any action for purposes of defence that the present administration has taken or may take will be due to the fact that, as men of affairs and as men of the world, knowing and understanding something of human nature, knowing and understanding something of the world situation as it is to-day and as it is developing, we feel it wise to recommend such action to parliament.

There is one other thing I should like to say, which has an immediate bearing upon the effect of any declaration of neutrality on the part of Canada just at this time. There are times and seasons for all things. In any action this parliament takes, we shall do well to have regard for the world situation as it is to-day and for the way in which our action may be viewed by other parts of the world. If ever there was need for unity on the part of nations and peoples who hold certain cherished ideals of freedom and liberty, that need exists to-day. We have need for unity in our own country. Nothing can do this country more injury than internal disruptions and differences. We have need for unity as between all parts of the British commonwealth of nations. I for one believe that the British commonwealth to-day is exercising a greater influence for peace than any other force in the world. For my part, instead of talking about the danger of Britain dragging us into war, I would say that I think there is not a man living in England to-day who wants war. I believe that the entire British nation-working men, professional men, public men, all classes-are determined to exercise their powers to the last degree to avert a great world catastrophe and to prevent if possible a war into which Britain may be drawn. What Britain has done to appease antagonisms in the last few years is something that the rest of the world hardly begins to appreciate. What, I wonder, would be the condition of Europe to-day if Britain had not endeavoured, as she has at every moment, to avert or circumscribe conflict? She has been the great pacifier. If, at, the moment, the Spanish civil war has not grown to proportions involving the whole of Europe and

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mackenzie King

possibly other parts of the world as well, too much credit cannot be given to Britain. We shall do well to keep this thought in mind as we discuss our relations with the British empire.

Let me proceed. There is more need of unity to-day than ever before, not only among the copies of the British commonwealth, but among all the English speaking peoples of the world. There is great need of unity between the British commonwealth of nations and the United States in seeking to preserve the traditions and safeguards of freedom and of liberty upon which both great political entities are founded. Let me add that there is need to-day for unity among all those nations which cherish democratic ideals and individual freedom, and which in matters of government seek to maintain democratic institutions.

What would be the effect, regardless of who the belligerents may be, of a declaration of neutrality on the part of this parliament to-night? It would simply offer succour and support to those forces that are ready to oppose Canada, to oppose the British commonwealth of nations, to oppose the English speaking peoples, and that have their hand out against democracy and democratic institutions. In the eyes of the world it would simply be a "contracting out" of any endeavour to preserve all that we hold dearest in our national and in our individual lives.

I should like to have said something with regard to the League of Nations; I might just express one thought and close with it. I agree very largely with what my hon. friend has said to-night about the league being founded in some respects on a wrong principle. At the time the covenant was framed, the world was far too much under the war mentality. Instead of emphasis being placed upon the attainment of peace by peaceful means, friendly consultation and cooperation, too much reliance was placed upon force or the threat of force. Had it been otherwise, the world situation might be quite a different one to-day. The league has failed, in part because emphasis was placed upon the prevention of war by warlike means, rather than upon a constructive peace policy based upon the investigation and disclosure of the causes of grievances between nations, and their removal through the operation of an informed and enlightened world opinion. As my hon. friend said this afternoon, war never solved any problem. It has generally made it worse than it was before. Undoubtedly the only way in

which these great problems will ultimately be solved will be by getting rid of the fundamental grievances that lie at the root of them.

I believe that the League of Nations has yet a great part to play, but it will be able to play that part effectively only when it comes to have universality of membership. A league of nations without the United States, or Germany, or Japan, with Italy neither in nor out, with Brazil out, and with other nations not prepared to live up to obligations which they had assumed, is not an institution which can maintain peace. The reason some countries never came into the league, and the reasons why others went out, or were unwilling to assume risks involved were in part because of the war obligations which the league imposed upon them, or to which they saw its obligation were certain to lead. I believe that with a revision of the covenant which will enable the league to proceed long lines which with further consultation, conciliation and mediation, we shall see develop a great institution which will serve the world well. I had that feeling very strongly at the League of Nations last year. One felt at Geneva in a very real way the absence of Germany, of Japan, of Italy, of the United States and of one or two other countries. The one thing the statesmen of Europe were seeking above all else at that time might have been found at the league, had it been formed originally on a peace basis rather than a war basis. The English, the French and others were asserting the need of a conference of the great powers of Europe. Up to the present time they have not been able to bring such a conference about. Had the league from the outset been functioning as a body for consultation, for conciliation, for mediation, those countries would have been there, and such a conference would have taken place in the natural course of events. I believe that had there been a conference among men of the character of those who were in attendance at the league, with those of the countries not represented who hold the positions of secretaries of state in foreign affairs of their respective countries good results would inevitably have fol'"*ved.

Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): It is rather a pity that I did not speak before the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), because I was all ready to tender him very hearty congratulations upon his speech at Geneva and to spend some time praising his courage and the clear-cut action which he took there. But the encircling of the circumference of opinion which he has done to-night has tempered my

Foreign Policy

Miss Macphail

enthusiasm. The imperialists ought to be fairly well satisfied with the second last part of his address. At any rate it impressed me as being an assurance to them that they need not worry too much.

The thing that concerns me, all the more so after the Prime Minister's utterance just now, is this new cry of old words-the defence of democracy-even if we have to go to war about it. We fought one war to make the world safe for democracy, but we have had less democracy since than before, and now one can see the same slogan getting into current use again. Surely we ought to be able to think up something different. I saw the other day that Anthony Eden had said that we ought to have a nation fit for heroes. That is so close to "homes fit for heroes" that he should not be credited with originality. It is these recurring phrases that startle thinking people, and I believe that everyone in this house, to whichever group he may belong, is deeply concerned. We all fear another war and we fear that Canada will be dragged into it. But I really did not think we should ever be asked to go to war again on the same old slogans; I thought new ones would be devised.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) ought to be congratulated upon having, by means of this resolution, brought up the question of Canada's foreign policy. Whether we entirely agree with the resolution or not, it has served a very useful purpose, and certainly with parts of it I agree. I agree with the hon. member when he says that Canada's foreign policy has not been given any considerable place in the parliament of Canada. I have been in this house for fifteen years and Canada's foreign policy has been for the most part either too important or not important enough to be discussed; there has always seemed to be some reason why it should not be given a major place in the debates of this house. I suppose that one reason why Canada's foreign policy has been hazy, particularly in the years since the war, has been the fact that there are three distinct schools of thought in Canada. I shall not describe them by the names which the Prime Minister called them, but no doubt I mean exactly what he meant. There is the league or collectivist school; the imperialist school-whether or not that is what was called by the Prime Minister a Canadian school. I cannot be sure-and there is the North American or the Canadian or the isolationist school. If my judgment is correct, the tendency to-day is toward a thoroughly Canadian policy which recognizes

more clearly than before Canada's geographical position. In my opinion the government deliberately refrained from being too specific -and I am referring not only to this government but to others-with respect to its foreign policy, because, should it come out for any one of these three schools, it would thereby offend the other two. So that more harmony was achieved by being vague than by being concrete in the enunciation of foreign policy.

Last September the Prime Minister took what I considered at the time a more heartening attitude. I did think the speech he made at Geneva was a courageous utterance. I am sure it must have been an almost terrifying performance to Geneva in later years to hear someone say what he actually thought aboift international affairs. At any rate, I did think the Prime Minister on that occasion said some things which very much needed saying. In this regard I am depending solely upon the reports of the press at that time. The week after the speech was made I went to the Department of External Affairs to secure a copy, but at that time they did not have one. If any copies are available, I hope to get one. As I say, therefore, I am taking my quotations from the press of that time. Some of the sentences used by the Prime Minister were these:

"The means of solving the problems of Europe were best known," he said, "to the nations of Europe themselves, and were likely at this juncture to be more effective if applied by direct negotiation."

I thought it was quite time that someone made that statement at Geneva and I was happy to realize it had been made by the Prime Minister of Canada. In my opinion we have been thinking, far too long, of European problems as something which it was our duty to solve. The nations of Europe should set about solving their own problems; at any rate, they should not expect people who live as far away as we do from the seat of their continuous trouble to have the unabated interest in their problems that they themselves have. I felt that that was a telling sentence.

I agree entirely with this longer statement:

Canadians-

I think he could have said North Americans with equal truth.

Canadians viewing Europe from their own country were struck with the violent nature of the propaganda and recriminations hurled incessantly across frontiers, the endeavours to draw all countries into one or the other ex-

Foreign Policy-Miss Macphail

tremist camp, in the feverish race for rearmament, the hurrying to and fro of diplomats, the ceaseless weaving and unravelling of understandings and alliances and the consequent fear of peoples.

After discussing our neighbours and our lack of neighbours he went on to say, and this is a position which I have taken for some time:

It would be unreasonable to expect a North American state to have the same international outlook and the same conception of interest or duty as an European state facing widely different conditions.

Again he made this statement:

Perhaps it would be helpful all round if we would recognize-

I call his attention to this particularly to-night.

that differences in policy where they exist do not represent a superior or an inferior outlook, but in the main correspond to the difference in circumstances that we face.

That, I think, needed saying at Geneva. Mr. M. H. Halton-I believe this appeared in the Toronto Daily Star-commenting on the Prime Minister's speech had this to say. There was a good deal of comment in the lobbies at Geneva over the speech and he quotes one of the British delegation as follows:

An excellent speech." said one member of the British delegation here. "Talk all you like about the ideal of imposing peace but it won't be done. Mr. King faced realities. We know for good or ill Canada won't and can't be expected to bind herself in advance to enter a war which is none of her doing."

British opinion on the whole has two sides. They appreciate Mr. King's following Britain's lead in saying this is no time for league reform, but naturally they can t be happy at what is almost unanimously interpreted here as an isolationist tendency. The nearest of all to a unanimous view is the opinion that what Mr. King said needed saying, if it actually represented the majority opinion of Canadians.

In my opinion what the Prime Minister said at Geneva did and does represent the majority opinion of Canadians. I do not feel as happy about his speech to-night as I did over the reports of his speech delivered at Geneva.

W hen the war was over and the League of Nations was being born, I felt that there was hope that the league would be a real league; that all nations would belong to it; that the ideals which were enunciated at that time would dominate the league. Since then, while I still believe in the ideals of the league, I have come to feel that the great powers use the league for their own purposes; when they wish to make much of it they do and when

they wish to, they slight it. That is the cause of the failure of the league, together with the injustices embodied in the treaty of Versailles.

In Canada, in the last two or three years particularly, there seems to have been a confusion-it appears to me so-which brought the imperialists and the collectivists so close together that I can scarcely distinguish between them. They wanted the same action, although they wanted it for different reasons. They both seemed to favour economic sanctions and might possibly both have favoured military sanctions. At any rate I did not find myself in recent months in agreement with either school. It grieves me to say that, because in the early days I was so enthusiastic a collectivist, and had such high hopes for the league, that if I say I have to a great degree lost confidence in its ability to render the service I expected it to render I feel in a way disloyal, not that I have changed my opinion of the ideal of the league.

Some day we shall come to the task of forming a better league, and it will take into account some things which were not sufficiently stressed before. One will be the principle of graduated responsibility. We were wrong in supposing that all parts of the world would be equally interested in a given crisis. Always the people who live closest to the place where the crisis is will be much more interested than those who live further away. That has swung me-and I say it quite frankly; I am not going to try to confuse my position in a multitude of words and sentences, I am not good anyway at hiding my thought, but I want 'to make my position exceedingly clear-that has swung me and I think a great many other Canadians to what I call a North American point of view. If the house likes to call it an isolationist position let it be so. One thing about Canada which we can be sure will never change is its geographical position. We cannot be sure it will not change in other respects. That geographical factor will in the long run determine Canada's foreign policy. Canada is not across the channel from Europe, so that, although we may try to deceive ourselves into believing that we think as we would if we were across the channel from Europe, actually our thinking is governed by the fact that the Atlantic lies between us and Europe. Therefore, without apology and without feeling any less loyal than anyone else in this house, feeling loyal and entirely Canadian, I say my position is a Canadian position, a North American position, and at the moment an isolationist position. Isolation, however.- is only a stop-

Foreign Policy-Miss Macphail

gap. not a final solution. But there are many in this house who, if they would admit it, feel that what we now want to do is to cut ourselves adrift from the problems of Europe, and from being dragged into war as the solution of European problems by Great Britain. I have not and do not care to assert that I have that confidence in the ruling caste of Great Britain which the Prime Minister has just now stated that he feels. I have very little confidence in the ruling caste of Great Britain; I have no faith that they would keep us at all times in a position which is good for us. I believe the ruling caste of Great Britain will sacrifice the masses of Britain and will sacrifice Canada to their own interests. If saying that is disloyal, then I am disloyal.

Before the estimates for national defence are debated the Canadian parliament should be very sure of the reason for increasing them. Are we getting ready for an overseas conflict? The Prime Minister may not think we are, but what does our military caste, small as it is, think? How closely are they in touch with the military groups in Great Britain? We need to know the answer to these questions. Are we getting ready to defend Canada against possible enemies, I do not know who they are, but whoever they are? The kind of defence we should have depends upon the answer. If it is to defend Canada, we would need coast defences and an efficient air force. If Canada is preparing for war abroad a mobile unit to be sent swiftly overseas would more likely be required. The parliament and the people of Canada have a right to know for what purpose we are to spend the monej'.

Canada is very fortunate; our defence is three oceans; the Atlantic, the Arctic and the Pacific, and the United States to the south, that more than anything else. Nor do I think it is disloyal to recognize that. A glance at the map is proof. It would be foolish to pretend that we are in the same position as New Zealand or Australia or South Africa or Great Britain. When we are judging the efficiency of Canada's defence forces, it must be in relation to our position; we must think not in terms of other parts of the British commonwealth, but in Canadian terms, terms of what is good for Canada. That is loyalty in its highest terms. Surely loyalty has something to do with Canada. It is true that when we take an oath of allegiance we never mention Canada; we take no oath of allegiance to the people of Canada or of faithfulness to their best interests. But surely loyalty must touch the land of our birth, the land which is ours, and the land which I love above all

others. It would be the sheerest hypocrisy for me to say that I love Great Britain as dearly as I do Canada. I do not; I love Canada more than any country in the world.

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

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

So do we all.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

A lot of people do not say so. What I am saying is that we do not need to explain our loyalty. If we are doing what we think is best for Canada, that is the best thing we can do in the circumstances; we cannot expect that we shall all agree.

We hear many glowing words of praise for Sweden and Denmark. Well, possibly Sweden and Denmark are in the position in which they are to-day by reason of many things, but largely because they have kept themselves from wars for a long time. They were closer to the conflict of 1914-1918 than we were; yet they were able to maintain neutrality. Again they are sitting on top of the volcano; whether they can maintain neutrality on this occasion I do not know, but I know they still have the determination to try to. Canada would be well advised to get ready for neutrality. If we wait until the last moment to make our decision we shall not decide for neutrality, because there will be the pull of the military caste, the pull of sentimental imperial ties, there will be many things influencing us against neutrality. If, then, we are even going to consider it we should consider it now, and we should consider the price. I think the United States are acting wisely in this regard. They are preparing for neutrality. I do not know whether they can remain neutral when war comes, but I know they are getting ready to remain neutral, and that is something. That will keep them out at least a couple of weeks longer than would otherwise be possible. In Canada we ought now to be doing everything possible in preparation to maintain a neutral position. Unless we do so we shall be drawn in by forces of which we as a parliament know nothing, about which possibly the government will not know too much and of which the people of Canada have never heard.

Canada is developing a virile national spirit. I do not mean a nationalism which seeks expression for endeavouring to annex other countries, for instance, Newfoundland, the West Indies and Bermuda. I mean a nationalism which is proud of Canada, which is self-respecting, which is determined that Canada will make decisions for herself and that she will not now, as has been the case too often in the past, be unduly influenced by considerations of Great Britain, shall I say. Canada is growing up. and particularly

Foreign Policy-Miss Macphail

among our younger people there is a virile Canadianism. They are not so much [DOT] attached to any part of Europe, or indeed to the British commonwealth of nations, as are those of older years. This is something we have to reckon with at some time, and we might as well admit it now.

As Canada grows up, she should take part in neighbourhood conferences. I do not remember his exact words, but in speaking at Geneva I believe the Prime Minister expressed faith in regional pacts, saying that he thought they came closer to reality in linking obligations with definite contingency and direct interest. Early last December there was a neighbourhood conference of the American republics at Buenos Aires. I see no reason why Canada should not have attended that conference.

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

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I give my hon. friend the reason?

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

Yes, indeed.

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

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

We were not invited.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

Did you make it clear that you did not want to be invited?

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

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

No; we just were not invited, that is all.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

I am not so sure. If Canada made it known that she wanted to be invited she would be invited.

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

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

That is not the way it is done.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

I would not be surprised if she made it known that she did not want to be invited, though perhaps not so clearly as that. But this was a conference of the Americas, North and South, called to consider the protection of the Americas. A good neighbour takes part in neighbourhood gatherings; that was a -neighbourhood gathering. and I can see nothing illogical nor, indeed, disloyal in Canada's participation in any such conference. We ought to get over our adolescent stage and become accustomed to the idea that we are an adult nation. That means that we should be able to go to Buenos Aires and take part in a conference without incurring any sort of condemnation either here or in any other part of the British commonwealth of nations.

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

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Surely

they will know now that they should invite us.

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

January 25, 1937