Exactly; I meant the hon. member for Winnipeg South. I was going to say that I think the great majority of men who went to the front did so with the idea that they were giving patriotic service to their country. Other people stayed at home and profiteered out o-f the war-there is no doubt about that-and they have never been held to an accounting. Certain inquiries were made by the Liberals just after the war, but before long this investigation petered out, and we have never dealt with the profiteers who
criminally in my judgment
made money while others of their fellow-citizens died in France. I am firmly of opinion that, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South suggested, if we could take the profit out of war we would do away with a great deal that now foments and fosters war. I have not time tonight to go into the revelations which have been made by the Nye committee and by a host of books like Merchants of Death.
Again, the Prime Minister, in referring to the British commission that dealt with the possibility of nationalizing armaments, says:
Members of all political parties served on the commission.
This leaves a false impression. Let me quote a note from Foreign Affairs in an article
Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworlh
on the American and British munitions investigation, January, 1937, pages 320 and 328:
This commission also consisted of seven members but, unlike the American group, they did not hold public office. The chairman, Sir John Eldon Bankes, was a retired judge, 81 years of age. Two members (one a cooperator and one a retired magazine editor) were well over 70. The other members were a professor of comparative law, a journalist, a business man, and a woman who was formerly an official of the league. The personnel did not offer much promise of an aggressive enquiry; the members themselves had no first-hand knowledge of the problems with which they were to deal, and they were not authorized, as the senate committee was, to employ experts to direct the investigation and examine the witnesses. . . .
A little later:
It was not authorized, under its terms of reference, to undertake a detailed investigation of the evils ascribed to the munitions traffic, and consequently only three instances of alleged abuse were brought to its attention. On the whole, the argument for nationalization as presented to the commission, was, in its own words, "purely speculative in character and unsupported by evidence." But under the commission's mode of procedure it was impossible for the advocates of nationalization to present anything more than a speculative case. Possible evils could be cited, but no opportunity was provided to prove the existence of actual evils. . . .
There is, therefore, nothing that has been brought forward by the Prime Minister to offset the statements which were made to the effect that there had been grievous abuses under private manufacture, or to warrant anyone in saying that there is any evidence to prove that the munitions business should not be nationalized.
I urge that we do not deceive ourselves. Armaments mean war; there is no other reason for armaments than possible war, and the furnishing of armaments is one of the surest ways of inducing war. Let me cite two statements in support of that. Earl Grey, in Twenty-Five Years, said:
The enormous growth of armaments, the sense of insecurity and fear caused by them, it was these that made war inevitable.
We are following in the same old path. On this point I should like to quote some rather remarkable words spoken a few years ago by the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). In referring to the peace pact he said:
The very essence of this instrument is that those who sign it . . . begin at once to destroy by peaceful means those instruments by which peace is rendered impossible. . . . We must therefore destroy the instruments that make for war, so that when such appeals are made to the emotions there will be no response-no cannon, no navy, no troops. That is the only
way by which peace can be made lasting in this world.
Well, instead of that we are now proposing to provide more cannon, a greater navy and more troops and air forces. I wonder whether we are heading in the way that makes for peace. In connection with the heavy increase for national defence, may I venture to express the opinion that there should be no increase until the veterans of the last war are adequately provided for. We have at the present time some 50,000 veterans who are unemployed. I do not think I am asking too much when I make a plea on behalf of hundreds of veterans in my own constituency as well as those throughout the west, who have written and spoken to me. I urge that we should not make any further expenditures for war until the men who are suffering from the last war are adequately provided for. I would say further that there should be no increase in expenditures until the burden of taxation is shifted from the shoulders of those who now bear it to the shoulders of those who made profits out of the last war. That is only fair. We still have in our midst people who made profits out of the war and salted them down in tax-free bonds, while the whole population, including returned men themselves, are struggling under the burden. I say that no more funds should be voted for war purposes until those who made profits out of the last war are forced to surrender their ill-gotten gains.
Again, I would suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that there be no increase for national defence until there is full provision for social services. Only last year the blind made an appeal to the minister for special attention. It is quite true that this year the age limit for the old age pension is being lowered to sixty-five in the case of the blind.
Subtopic: PROPOSED STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES TO APPLY IN RESPECT OF WAR, THE CAUSES OF WAR, AND WAR MUNITIONS OR MATERIALS