February 4, 1937

MONTREAL INLAND REVENUE SERVICE

LIB

Mr. JEAN:

Liberal

1. What are the names of all the officers and other employees, permanent or temporary, who are employed in the inland revenue service at Montreal during 1936?

2. What was the nature of their duties, and

what salary did each one receive during the year? .

3. Upon what dates did they commence their duties, and were they appointed by the Civil Service commission, the Department of National Revenue, or otherwise?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   MONTREAL INLAND REVENUE SERVICE
Permalink

MONTREAL-AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES

LIB

Mr. JEAN:

Liberal

1. What are the names of all officers and other employees, permanent or temporary, who were employed in the service of the Department of Agriculture at Montreal during 1936?

2. What was the nature of their duties, and what salary did each one receive during the year?

3. Upon what dates did they commence their duties, and were they appointed by the Civil Service commisson, the Department of Agriculture, or otherwise?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   MONTREAL-AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES
Permalink

MONTREAL-NATIONAL DEFENCE EMPLOYEES

LIB

Mr. JEAN:

Liberal

1. What are the names of all the officers and other employees, permanent or temporary, who were employed in the service of the Department of National" Defence at Montreal, during 1936?

2. What was the nature of their duties and what salary did each one receive during the year?

3. Upon what dates did they commence their duties, and were they appointed by the Civil Service commission, the Department of National Defence, or otherwise?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   MONTREAL-NATIONAL DEFENCE EMPLOYEES
Permalink

MONTREAL-HARBOUR SERVICE

LIB

Mr. JEAN:

Liberal

1. What are the names of all the officers and other employees, permanent or temporary, who were employed on the harbour service at Montreal during 1936?

2. What was the nature of their duties and

-what salary did each one receive during the year? v ,

3. Upon what dates did they commence their duties, and vrere they appointed by the Civil Service commission, the harbour commission, or otherwise?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   MONTREAL-HARBOUR SERVICE
Permalink

MONTREAL-PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES

LIB

Mr. JEAN:

Liberal

1. What are the names of all the officers and other employees, permanent or temporary, who were employed by the Department of Public Works at Montreal, during 1936?

2. What was the nature of their duties and what salary did each one receive during the year?

3. Upon what dates did they commence their duties, and were they appointed by the Civil Service commission, the Department of Public Works, or other-wise?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   MONTREAL-PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES
Permalink

BANK OF CANADA BUILDING


On the orders of the day:


LIB

Ralph Maybank

Liberal

Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):

I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin). It is announced in the newspapers that the government is proceeding with the erection of a building for the Bank of Canada in Ottawa. Can the minister say whether the specifications for such building will permit the use of Tyndall stone from Manitoba, which was used in the erection of this centre block building? The people of Manitoba are anxious to know whether restrictions which have existed hitherto with reference to that stone will be removed in the future, and in particular with respect to this building.

Topic:   BANK OF CANADA BUILDING
Permalink
LIB

Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Hon. P. J. A. OARDIN (Minister of Public Works):

In answer to my hon. friend I would say that this government has nothing to do with the construction of an office building for the Bank of Canada. The bank itself, not the government or the Department of Public Works, is providing for that building. It is therefore a matter for the bank.

Topic:   BANK OF CANADA BUILDING
Permalink

FOREIGN EOLICY

PROPOSED STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES TO APPLY IN RESPECT OF WAR, THE CAUSES OF WAR, AND WAR MUNITIONS OR MATERIALS


The house resumed from Thursday, January 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woodisworth: That, in the opinion of this house, the foreign policy of Canada should conform to the following principles:- 1. That under existing international relations, in the event of war. Canada should remain strictly neutral regardless of who the belligerents may be. 2. That at no time should Canadian citizens be permitted to make profits out of supplying war munitions or materials. 3. That the Canadian government should make every effort to discover a,nd remove the causes of international friction and social injustice.


SC

Charles Edward Johnston

Social Credit

Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):

In continuing from the other day my remarks with respect to this resolution, I wish to make it very clear that I am voicing only my personal opinions, and I think it is up to every member of this house to do the same.

The problem of war is one which, to my mind, is dealt with too lightly. I discussed the other day the first two paragraphs of the resolution, and I wish now to refer to the third paragraph, which reads:

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

536 COMMONS

Foreign Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)

There, I think, lies one of the main causes of war, and I think there should be in this house a great deal of concentrated thought upon that one subject. I am in full accord with this part of the resolution; in fact, as I said before, I am in entire agreement with the principle of the resolution as a whole, but in view of the fact that it was probably rather loosely worded, some things in it would have to be changed before I could vote for it.

I believe that one of the great causes of discontent is connected with the search for foreign markets in the endeavour to expand national trade. It seems to me that a good deal of friction thereby occurs between the nations, because every nation is looking for the same thing. If our attention were more closely drawn to the possibilities of the home market through the supplying of our own people with the goods with which it is possible to supply them, we should not have so much difficulty in that direction.

One of the beneficial results of a proper international organization would be the reconciling of ambitions for colonial expansion. There is no doubt that the war of 1914, in which Germany was the aggressor, was waged for colonial expansion. The war that seems likely to break out in a very short time will be occasioned by the same thing. Surely there is enough colonial territory in the world to provide everybody with sufficient raw materials to carry on the industries they require. The urge for colonial expansion undoubtedly results from the search for raw materials, and if we could attain to some sort of organization, as was suggested in a resolution recently submitted, in this house, whereby the nations could get together in conference-though I dislike the word-and discuss their grievances and adjust these difficulties, much good would follow for the world. For instance, if Germany is in need of crude oil, and, a conference was held' at which all nations were represented, possibly an arrangement could be worked out by which she could receive all the crude oil required for her domestic and industrial needs, though not to the extent of stimulating and increasing or commercializing the accumulation of war material. If our attention were concentrated on these matters we might get a little nearer the solution of the problem of war.

I am largely in agreement with what Bernard Shaw said about conferences in a statement to the Associated Press at San Francisco on March 5:

Disarmament conferences are utter rubbish. They are hejd merely to keep the public amused, he smiled. No nation is going to disarm. They sit around a table and say, "If I shoot you with a 14-inch gun will you throw away your 16-inch guns?''

That has been the idea underlying most of these conferences. It has not been a question of whether we can really solve the difficulties which bring about war; the idea has been, as Bernard Shaw suggests, that if one nation throws away its 16-inch gun the other may shoot at it with a 14-inch gun.

One of the great causes of war is foreign financial investment. I was surprised to see the other day that Great Britain is even now contemplating a loan to finance Italy, a country which no doubt, if there is another war, will be one of our opponents. Why should any of our financial organizations in the British Empire fee financing a country which is purely on a war basis? Our financial institutions have made loans to Germany and Russia, and these countries are carrying out a program of aggressive warfare. When our own financial institutions will assist foreign nations in the financing of a war program, I submit they are doing something that is entirely wrong; and that is one of the things which we should do our best to put a stop to.

It is true we have a great many organizations throughout the dominion that are spreading the doctrine of peace; we have anti-war organizations, we have different peace societies; and there are various church organizations that are devoted to peace. But I am reminded of the way in which these different peace organizations functioned during the last war. We have had these organizations for a number of years-we had them even before the outbreak of war in 1914-and what happened when war broke out? These very organizations that broadcast peace throughout the world were turned into a war propaganda machine, and they began to work in the opposite direction. During the war we had churches preaching to the young men to go into the war; in Germany preachers urged them to do the same. There can be no reliance on these peace organizations. I do not mean to imply, of course, that their intentions were not good, but they are not made use of for the benefit of human society, and we should not base our strength on these peace organizations.

I do not think we should entirely disregard the possibility of war; I do not think we should treat it too lightly. In my opinion we should go ahead and prepare a proper defence program, trusting neither to the United States nor to Great Britain nor to any of the other nations. If we declare to these nations that we are going to stand on our own feet, then we should not in any sense of the word depend upon Great Britain. I am absolutely against war and I believe it would be wrong for this

Foreign Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)

dominion ever to participate in any foreign war without the consent of the Canadian people in the form of a plebiscite or by some similar method. Before we step off the continent to fight in any European war we should have the consent of the people of Canada. I would like to make that clear. If we proceed as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) has said, on a purely defensive program, the cost involved will not be nearly so great.

This country is especially well-protected by nature. On the south, of course, there is one of the greatest nations in the world, the United States. We have always had amicable relations with them and we need not fear them. At the same time I do not suggest that we should put our trust in them. There is no reason to suppose, however, that the United States would ever attack Canada, nor would Canada attack the United States. Moreover, there is no reason to suppose that the United States would permit any foreign power to use its soil as a military base from which to attack Canada, or vice versa-the rule would work both ways. In the north we are protected naturally by the Arctic and it would be almost impossible for an attacking force to come down upon us on that side. Then we have the Pacific and the Atlantic coasts. These two coasts would have to be protected in a purely self-defence program.

When we speak of the coasts we naturally think of the creation of a navy. In my opinion we have not a navy sufficiently strong to defend our coasts. I submit that we should have a navy second to none. I shall be asked at once: Where will the boats come from? Well, if it is a purely defensive program we should be starting a shipbuilding concern in Canada to provide the ships. This would take care of a great deal of the unemployment that now exists; it would provide work for a large number of Canadians, bearing in mind of course, that it is a purely defensive program, and building the ships necessary for a decent navy manned by Canadian seamen. We should have a fleet capable of protecting us against any aggressive force, and it would not require a very considerable fleet either. It would not entail costs nearly as great as if we were preparing a fleet sufficiently strong to attack any of the European countries.

Along with that coastal defence we should have an air force second to none. That could be achieved in two ways. In my opinion, one of the best ways of establishing an air force would be to encourage commercial flying so as to educate fliers in Canada. That is the main thing. An adequate commercial air

fleet could be turned almost overnight into a fighting force in an emergency. I do not say, however, that we should put all our strength in that; we should direct our attention to the building up of an effective military air force as well, so that in the event of sudden attack it would be able to take the initiative until the others were organized. That, too, would provide more employment in Canada and would help to solve a problem that faces us at all times. Then, in connection with coastal defence, we should need fortifications; the ocean ports would have to be properly fortified. That is purely defensive, because these forts would prevent any invading fleet from landing on our shores. It would be necessary to have a militia well equipped and possibly a standing army. This would tend to give employment to those now out of work, and it would not cause dissatisfaction among the people of Canada, because I do not believe there is a man either in this house or anywhere else in Canada who would say that we should not be prepared to build up a substantial organization for selfdefence so that we should be able to protect ourselves in time of need. I do not think we need worry greatly over foreign invasion, when you consider the fact that it is next to an impossibility for any one of the foreign countries to attack us or to land safely, so as to make any progress. When you consider that fact you realize the absurdity of building up too tremendous a fighting machine, and it would not be in the interests of the country to do that. I submit, however, that we should have one of the best.

Some people may say that Europe is now so well equipped with air forces as to be able to land here overnight. Well, I do not know of any airship built so far that can traverse the three thousand miles of water separating us from Europe and make the return trip without landing here for refueling or repairs. True, the Italians last year demonstrated with a fleet of twenty air machines that they could come over. But what is twenty machines, what is one hundred machines when it comes to a question of conquering this country? And if they had nowhere to land they would be eliminated. Then we should have our own fortifications to meet them. They would have to get by our own fleet and if they got by that, they would have to attack our own air force. But that is not all; if they succeeded in landing their men their difficulty would only then have begun. We would have a militia to meet them, an air force and a navy, and on top of that they would have to establish a permanent base here.

538 COMMONS

Foreign Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)

To show you the impossibility of such an attack I want to read an extract from the Saturday Evening Post of Nevember 17, 1936, giving the British experience in the last war:

British experience in the world war indicated that about forty pounds of general cargo per soldier per day was required to supply an army from an overseas base. In the A.E.F. we started out with that figure. We attempted to build up a ninety-day reserve for an army of two million men, but we did not get very far with it. On that basis we would have had to unload 40,000 tons of cargo per day. Loaded on army trucks that would have required a daily truck train more than 150 miles long.

This cargo consisted not only of food, clothing, guns, ammunition and all that sort of thing, but of such little odds and ends as 35,000 motor trucks, 1,500 standard locomotives, 20,000 freight cars, 5,000 miles of standard steel rails and 3,500,000 cross ties. We had all the French ports at our disposal. Our line of communication across the ocean was never seriously threatened. All we had to do was to run ships back and forth like ferryboats. But even so we had to shorten our objective to 30,000 tons per day. and as a matter of fact we never reached 25.000. Our shortage was met by the allies. Our own war experience illustrates why no foreign power could invade America provided we bake ordinary common sense precautions to prevent it.

I think that is a very sensible argument. If we take ordinary common sense precautions there can be no question in the world of any foreign invasion of this country. I think, sir, we should, have the world's best fleet in our own waters, we should have the world's best army on our own land' and we should have the world's best air fleet in our own air, and never step off the soil of Canada without a clear understanding and declaration from the people of Canada, as I suggested a while ago.

One main question is, how are you going to finance this? I was interested the other day when I picked up a clipping from the Hamilton Spectator reporting a speech by the Minister of National Defence:

Hon. Ian Mackenzie, Minister of Defence, explains to a "defence-conscious" country that the government is also "acutely conscious of its primary responsibility for local defence." But, he adds, the question of how far Canada can go in discharging that responsibility depends upon "the extent to which the hard-pressed Canadian taxpayer is able and willing to meet new burdens and new taxes." The price of independence has to be paid.

I contend that if we have to depend for a defence program upon the amount of money which can be extorted from the taxpayers of this country we are not going to get very far. If I may be so bold as to say so, I do not think that was the minister's intention. Directly, yes, but indirectly, no, because the people of Canada cannot stand any more taxation to build up defences if it must be

done by the orthodox method of borrowing. During the last war we built up a tremendous national debt; we have not paid it and never will pay it. In view of the fact that we have not paid for the last war, how are we going to finance another? We shall go into debt, just as surely as we are here, if we follow the method proposed by the minister. There is no alternative. I suggest following a different plan of financing. This government should finance its defence program on its own credit, not by borrowing money. To .me it is ricidu-lous to see the government borrowing money from the banks to carry out its program. But, it will be said, if the banks do it there is no inflation. I am not going to argue the point whether or not it is inflation, but I say that if it is inflation for the government to do it, it would be inflation for the banks; if it is not inflation for the banks it would not be inflation if the government did it. The same amount of money would be put out in any case. Suppose it took $50,000,000; if the $50,000,000 can be created by the banks why should it not be created by the federal government? One of the speakers on this side said the other day that the former government created in that way about $15,000,000 for the railways. That did not cause inflation; you never heard any question of it. They said it was a time of emergency. Well, surely this is a time of emergency, and surely this is a time to take every precaution to build up good defences and keep our country from going any further into debt. If it could be done without serious consequences then, why can it not now?

The logical thing is for the dominion government to create the amount of money it would otherwise borrow from the banks, put the money in the Bank of Canada, if you like; pay them for the clerical work, say a quarter of one per cent-I am told that the actual cost is about one-seventh of one per cent for bookkeeping, but pay them well; I do not advocate cutting it too small, give them one-quarter or one-half of one per cent for the clerical work. One of the great advantages of this method of financing-which has been followed by the government in the past without any serious consequences, and could be done again without any more serious consequences, and would not be inflation if done by the government any more than it would be if done by the banks-is that we would not have to tax our people for the next five hundred years to pay the interest on a debt the principal of which never could and never would be paid.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mutch

There is one thing that would have to be considered no matter how this program is financed, that is, if we are to follow the declaration of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day when he said there should be-he did not say there would not be-no profiteering, no blood money, no blood profits from war. Following that declaration I say there should be controlled prices. During the last war the price of wheat was controlled when it was going too high, and there is no doubt they will do it again as to that commodity. Why, then, can they not control prices of other articles? We know there were tremendous profits made in the last war. This is the time, right now, in this session, to go ahead and plan defences and let the people of Canada know exactly what the government intend to do and how they intend to do it. Then everyone will be satisfied.

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

Leslie Alexander Mutch

Liberal

Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):

When this debate began a week ago last Monday it occurred to me that there was something ironic in the fact that it was initiated on the anniversary of the poet who optimistically wrote about the time-

That man to man, the world o'er Shall brothers be for a' that.

That poet, however, was not always so optimistic; in another poem he wrote something which I have been treasuring in my mind for a good many years and obeying literally for the last two sessions. The lines are something to this effect:

In politics if thou wouldst mix, and mean thy fortunes be,

Bear this in mind; be deaf and blind, let great folk hear and see.

I cut that out about twelve years ago and have carried it ever since, but a few minutes ago I threw it away because it is no longer for me, at any rate for the time being, to follow that very sage advice. On this particular question I had thought to be silent in this house as I have been hitherto, but, sir, as one of those who fought in the great war to make the world safe for eight or ten or twelve per cent or whatever can be got -not, as the .hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphaii) suggested, to keep the world safe for democracy-it seemed to me the expression of opinions in respect to foreign policy for Canada should not be left entirely to those who were either too young to fight in the last war or will be too old to fight in the next. It seems to me the returned' soldiers of Canada have kept too much aloof from politics. If this country was worth dying for, as thousands did die, surely it is worth the while of those who survive to take some interest in and attempt to play some part

with respect to the foreign policy of this country. The youth of to-day have been told so often the future belongs to them that the majority of them have come to accept it literally and are, I believe, willing to step in and carry on at any time. On the other hand, another generation older than ours has carried on through about twice their normal space of time in the direction of the public affairs of Canada. They have done that not perhaps of their own volition but because the generation which to a great extent disappeared during the last war has been so busy trying to establish itself, to keep alive and pay for the war they fought, that until recently they have not been in a position to take part in public affairs. We who belong to neither of these generations touch both of them. We, whose illusions are gone, perhaps need something of the vigorous, selfish viewpoint of youth. We who are a bit hasty in condemning smugness and lip service need the restraint of our more diplomatic elders. We need something of the tact, the diplomacy and the steadiness of the older generation who have carried on throughout the most trying period of our history.

The motion is divided into three parts. I take it, sir, that it relates more to the question of foreign policy than to *hat of defence. If I may be permitted to express my mind I would say that the first part of the motion is nonsense and the third part is only a pious expression. There are many of us who feel that the meat in the resolution is to be found in the second part. Mr. Speaker, when the day dawns in which war is unprofitable, that day will be the dawn of universal peace.

It has been stated often that in war everyone loses. That, sir, is arrant nonsense. It would be true to say that no matter who wins or loses the battles, the same people always win the war. Some of the greatest fortunes of the world were based on a foundation . the mortar of which is human blood. I need not elaborate that point, because it is something the truth of which every hon. member is aware. And so when we look over the situation, as we listen to some of the discussions relevant to the question of national policy, and a great many that are not relevant to it, I wonder when we are going to stop fooling ourselves. When shall we stop chattering about treaties, leagues, and armaments? When shall we stop defining ourselves as militarists or pacifists, or whatever designation we may apply? We are playing our little part in the wings and leaving the centre of the stage to the apostles of the high god Mammon, whose right hand is Mars.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Mutch

We ought to be honest with ourselves and with each other. We ought to be able to say definitely that when the hour strikes, if it does strike, the financial resources of Canada will be conscripted to the last dollar, even as men are taken, to the last unhappy youth. Do that, sir, and we shall have struck a blow in our own defence which not only will be heard but will echo and reecho around the world and without shedding blood. Then we shall be on our way toward peace, that which has been described as the peace that passeth understanding. I do not know why it passeth understanding unless it is because we talk so much about it that we cannot think about it. Perhaps we cannot hear the message of peace because of the clang and clank of the moneychangers in the temple-and by that I mean the armament manufacturers.

The Prime Minister has said that the element of profit is necessary to the supply of arms and munitions. I agree with him. I wish he would say to the world that so far as Canada is concerned there is no profit to be made out of war. If that means nationalization of munitions in time of peace as well as war, I am still for it. If governments were as careful of our individual lives as they are of our collective credit we would feel a great deal more secure. I doubt whether any government can control inflation, but I know that *while there is profit in war no government can protect us against it. Ten millions of people cannot forever hold half a continent in an overcrowded world. Neither can they defend it. It has been said that in the Armageddon to come Canada is in a favoured position. May I say to the house that if Armageddon comes, Canada, in the parlance of the gangster, is " on the spot." If might is to prevail, then it will seek the choicest prize. Look about you: throughout the world to-day there is no greater object of envy than the Dominion of Canada.

Permit me to repeat that there is too little of real honesty in discussions of this subject. I am pleased to note that so far in the debate there has been little of the emotional cant which is generally associated with true patriotism. My loyalty, sir, is not only to the land of my birth, but to the people in it. My inheritance is not a ploughed field, but a free spirit; mine is not the supreme Japanese privilege of dying for my country but the opportunity of living in it and doing something, if I can, to help the others who live in it to attain the free life which should be the lot of every Canadian. We cannot free the world from war; but, sir, we can declare on the question of war profits that Canada has taken a firm stand.

Then, another point has arisen in the debate which irritates me, as a returned soldier, and always has the same effect. Reference was madle to men who fought and died: for $1.10 per day. As a former soldier may I say the expression amuses me when it does not annoy me. Those who died in France and by whose graves some hon. members stood last fall did not die for $1.10 a day. The money element in war is reckoned not in wages but in dividends. Those men died for an ideal- hazy, half-understood; most of them would have scorned a description of it. But it was real. There was nothing of mob fatalism in their action. Beneath exteriors as varied as their numbers they wore a shining armour of idealism worthy of a greater and better cause. Deluded?-maybe; deceived?-perhaps; grumbling?-sometimes. Suffering and wretched, they carried on till death. Need I say it is beneath the dignity of any hon. member or any person outside the house to suggest that those men acted only for mercenary reasons, for $1.10 a day. Theirs was not the disillusionment; that was reserved for us, who did not die. We talk too much and think too little. We crave action when we ought to pause and reflect. There is no dearth of opportunity for action. We in Canada, in common with the world, have problems worthy [DOT] of all the patriotic endeavour we can muster. There is a clear challenge to a fight with a worthy foeman, poverty-a fight in which none is conscripted but in which all must serve. It is a fight in which man allies himself with God, not as in the great war when the German carried His name on his belt-buckle and romantic British journalists described His angels leading from the clouds, but as one reverently thinks He intended us to apt, in the fight against man's inhumanity to man.

I revert, in closing, to the resolution before us. Despite all I have said I cannot support it. The first clause limits our actions without having any regard to our position or need. The third clause offers lip service to an abstraction. It breaks no new ground and presents no appeal. It offers nothing and promises nothing. It is only a wind-sock on the political landing field. Parliament owes the Canada for which a generation died something more concrete, something more definite and something more sincere.

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

John Charles Landeryou

Social Credit

Mr. J. C. LANDERYOU (Calgary East):

Foreign Policy-Mr. Landeryou

In view of the extensive rearmament of powerful nations throughout the world, the British Empire must be in a position to defend its people, its territory, its trade routes and lines of communication. I would point out, however, that Great Britain must be careful of European entanglements, because while I feel certain the Canadian people are prepared to help defend the British Empire, they are not prepared to enter into a war of aggression or a war in any part of the world which does not vitally .concern the well-being of the English speaking units of the empire. I would point out further that old methods of financing the building of armaments, and of conducting war, must be abolished. The people of Canada will not stand much longer the steady pyramiding of debts under the present system, which have as their direct result chaotic conditions in our economic life.

In this connection may I read a statement made by Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it was delivered at Birmingham on January 29. The news item is headed with the words "Living Standards are Endangered by Rearmament Plans," and is in the following terms:

Neville Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared to-day, "If something is not done" to reduce "the terrible burden of armaments it is bound to pull down the standard of living for a generation to come."

Chamberlain referred in a public address to the "incredible folly of a civilization which is piling up these terrible burdens on the shoulders of the nation."

"We are embarking on by far the largest program for defence ever undertaken by this country in peace times" he said. "It is involving us in the expenditure of hundreds of millions of pounds upon munitions and weapons which produce no economic return and which indeed have the inevitable effect of diverting our industries from more desirable activities. I believe that course was absolutely essential. We had no choice in the matter."

The government must finance defence without creating enormous debt burdens to be placed on generations to come. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said the Liberal party stands for the issuing of currency and credit in terms of the public need. We are of opinion that the country is in need of defence. Let us issue the credit necessary for the purpose without borrowing, and take steps to prevent profiteering on the manufacture of defence equipment. By taking the profit out of war we will be on the road to peace.

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

February 4, 1937