February 4, 1937

MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES

CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

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

Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn) moved:

That, in the opinion of this house, legislation should be immediately brought down by the government of the day providing that, in the event of another war involving Canada's active participation, every agency, financial, industrial, transportation or natural resources, shall automatically be conscripted for the duration of such a war, and that a penalty be imposed for the violation thereof.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not present

this motion to the house as one who has lost all hope of peace or as one who anticipates another war. But in view of the fear of an impending conflict, to which the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred this afternoon, I believe the policy which this country would follow in the event of war should be discussed at this time.

This motion is in no way inconsistent with the resolutions that have been presented and the pleas for peace that- have been made from time to time by our group in this chamber. It follows in logical sequence those of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). The hon. member for Winnipeg North asked that we should have a peace conference that might prevent war. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked that, if this was impossible, we in Canada should refrain from entering into such a war. Now, in this motion, I am suggesting that if it is impossible to keep out of a war, at least we should state clearly to the people of Canada the steps which we shall pursue in the prosecution of such a war.

At the outset, may I direct attention to the fact that if we are drawn into the maelstrom of war the legislation asked for in this motion would be invaluable. On the other hand, should war be averted, which I am sure is the wish of every hon. member, no harm possibly can have been done by placing upon the statute books of Canada measures such as are suggested in this resolution.

In the first place, may I point out to hon. members that this motion does not request the nationalization of industry. Personally I would favour such a step, but for the purposes for which this motion is intended nationalization would be unnecessary. The

War Measures-Mr. Douglas

word "conscription" does not mean or imply social ownership. It means the compulsory enlistment or the regulation, control and regimentation of industry in the interests of the state during a pressing emergency. It would mean the strict control and supervision of industry to prevent citizens from making large sums of money at the expense of the state. It would mean the fixing of prices, the stabilization of wages and the national control of finance and credit, to the end that no person or group of persons, by reason of their age, their occupation or their particular position, should be enabled to benefit while other sections of the population were engaged in making sacrifices in defence of their country. It should be pointed out that this idea is not new and that practically every nation engaged in the last war was moving slowly toward this situation when the armistice was signed. In Great Britain, when Mr. Lloyd George was appointed Minister of Munitions, he began the coordination of industry in an endeavour to harness more efficiently the resources of the nation, and the British profiteering act of 1919 was a further step in this direction.

In March, 1918, Bernard Baruch was appointed head of the war industries board in the United States, and undertook to organize distribution so that the army's needs would be supplied, and the prices paid by civilians for depleted supplies of goods would be kept down to a reasonable level. This body fixed prices, stabilized wages, and even proceeded, to fix prices on the basic commodities purchased by the consumer. Products were graded according to quality and sold at a fixed price according to grade. For instance, a person not having a war industries board card in the window was not permitted to sell shoes. Rents as well as the prices of wearing apparel and food products were to have been fixed, but the armistice made unnecessary any further action on the part of the board.

Mr. Baruch, who was an outstanding and successful American business man, was so convinced by his experience as chairman of the war industries board of the necessity of such a step that he has since been a constant advocate of a program to take profit out of war, and has spent a small fortune in research work along this line. In the Atlantic Monthly of January, 1926, he outlines in the following terms the program submitted by the war industries board:

In the event of war, the president would have power, acting through another war industries board, to fix prices at what was considered a fair level before the war. It would be

illegal to buy, sell, serve or rent at any other than these prices. Brakes would be applied to every agency of inflation before the hurtful process started. The draft board would have before it the estimated needs of every business and profession in its relationship to the conduct of the war, and men would be selected accordingly. Prices would be made public and readjusted every three months, so that consumers would have redress if prices were considered too high. Money would be controlled and directed like any other resource.

Mr. Baruch continues:

A man should no more be permitted in war time to use his money as he w'ishes than he should be permitted to use the product of his mill or factory. Each part of the community must adjust its wants to the great undertaking in order to win.

Be goes on>

to say:

If the government in the future has authority to fix prices and distribution of mateiials and labour, rent and use of man-power, transportation and all the things necessary for the conduct of war, any rise in prices will be prevented, even in the anticipation of war. This plan will remove the possibility of anyone's urging w'ar as a means of making profits. The fact that profits would be less in war than in peace, and that w-ealth and resources would be directed by the government might have some active deterring influence on men of great resources. Instead of being passive they might become active advocates of peace.

Recently in France the government took steps to bring the entire armament industry under direct government control, with a view not only to prevent certain armament manufacturers from supplying potential enemies, but to ensure greater efficiency in the event of the outbreak of war.

In discussing the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King', said:

Even if we succeeded in bringing about the nationalization of industry to the extent that all w'ar materials could be manufactured without profit, I am afraid that for a long time to come we would not recover what in the interval we had lost in the way of individual initiative and freedom.

May I point out that the experience in the last war was just the opposite to the assertion made by the Prime Minister. Those who have followed closely the herculean efforts of Lloyd George during the famous shell shortage of 1915, or the struggles of Bernard Baruch in the United States, will never claim that private industry is able efficiently to supply the needs of a country at war. In practically every country engaged in the last war it was necessary to impose government control, and to place many of the entrepreneurs in managerial capacities in their own plants.

War Measures-Mr. Douglas

With reference to loss of initiative, I think the house will recognize that in time of war thousands of people are compelled to suppress their desire for initiative and are expected for the good of the state to subjugate their individual desire to centralized authority so that the war may be more efficiently conducted.

The motion is not an attempt to force the nationalization of industry upon the country or to suggest any policy which would make toward the lessening of our efficiency in the event of a declaration of war. The intention of the motion is that we shall begin now to take the necessary steps to remove the element of profit from any war which may occur in which Canada shall be involved, and that all the industrial, financial and human resources of the nation shall be mobilized for the purpose of bringing such war to a successful termination. Let me, therefore, draw to the attention of hon. members some of the advantages to be derived from taking the necessary steps to place upon the statute books legislation which would immediately conscript all wealth in the event of Canada participating in a war.

The first reason for advocating such a course is that private manufacture of arms permits a condition whereby individuals, and groups of individuals, motivated by the desire for profit, constantly foment war scares and stir up international friction. There is perhaps no story quite so black as the history of the armament manufacturers of Europe, Great Britain and the United States. The activities of private manufacturers of armaments may be divided roughly into three classes: First, their activities prior to the great war; second, their activities during the great war, and, third, their activities in the post-war period. For the purpose of this debate it is unnecessary to trace the origin of great armament firms such as Krupp in Germany; Schneider Creusot in France; Armstrong and Vickers in England; Gatling, Maxim and du Pont in the United States. Suffice it to say that for half a century before the great war these firms were growing in power in different parts of the world. They exchanged patents. They owned shares in each other's companies. They bought influential newspapers and periodicals, and put members of the civil and military authorities on their pay-rolls. I refer hon. members to a study of the armament industry written by Doctor Engelbrecht and Hanighen, entitled Merchants of Death, or Philip Noel-Baker's book entitled The Private Manufacture of Armaments, or E. Staley's War and the Private Investor. These three books are heavily documented. They are prepared not by journalists, but by men of research.

Very early in their development, armament manufacturers were quick to learn two things. One was that patriotism is not always profitable, and that to refuse to sell equipment to an enemy or a potential enemy may be patriotic, but it is very poor business. So the Franco-Prussian war was won by the assistance of Schneider's artillery, and Sir Basil Zaharoff, the wily Greek, showed his impartiality by selling submarines not only to his native Greece but also to her oppressor, Turkey. The pompom guns which wrought such devastating havoc in the Boer war were sold to South Africa by the British firm of Vickers. Krupp manufactured in Germany armour-plating for battleships that were later destined to defeat the fatherland in the great war. British arms-manufacturers fortified the Dardanelles where later thousands of young Anzacs were to meet their death. Some of the manipulations of this den of thieves were almost amusing. For instance, after the Russo-Japanese war Schneider wanted to rearm the Russian army, but found that the Russians were lacking in the necessary finances. Schneider thereupon organized a banking syndicate and floated a loan in Paris to facilitate the Russian rearmament. The Russian revolution which took place in 1917 resulted in the repudiation of all debts, and as a consequence the French people found that they had equipped the Russian army but had paid for it themselves.

The second great lesson which the members of the armament ring were quick to [DOT] learn was that times of peace and security meant times of depression in their particular line of business. Consequently, they sowed discord in an attempt to keep the nations of Europe in a constant state of military and naval preparedness. For instance, Schneider had placed in those French papers which he owned statements purporting to have been made by German military officials boasting about their superior military strength as compared with that of France. The response was, of course, an increased military expenditure by the French. This was immediately brought to the attention of the German people and resulted in a similar step being taken by that country. In this way suspicion was kept at fever heat and every opportunity was taken by these salesmen of death to keep every nation in a maximum state of military and naval preparedness.

However, it was during the great war that the armament manufacturers showed themselves in their true colours. The great war revealed the fact that these armament manufacturers have no country and own no loyalty other than their personal gain and the satiation of their unending greed. The great war was a mass of contradiction. British ships foundered

War Measures-Mr. Douglas

in the Dardanelles because of British-made mines and were crippled by British-made guns. French troops in Bulgaria were repulsed by French 75 mm. guns in the hands of their enemies. Bulgarian and Roumanian troops fought each other with weapons bought from the same firm. The Skoda company helped to rearm Russia and the Russians turned their Austrian-made guns against the Austrian armies.

The international solidarity of the armament manufacturers was shown by the Briey-Dombasle incident. The great iron mines of the French armament industry are in the Briey basin. Early in the war these were captured by the German forces and immediately used to supply Germany's ever increasing demand for armaments. In 1916 the French advanced sufficiently in this territory to bring the Briey basin well within the range of their heavy artillery. Throughout the entire war it would have been possible to continue aeroplane bombing operations against this section. It would have been possible at any time from 1916 to 1918 to destroy the mines and brass furnaces of the Briey district and to cut off the supply of metal which was keeping the German military machine operating. Yet, throughout the duration of the war, Briey remained one of the so-called quite sectors. Documentary evidence has since been produced in the French Chambei of Deputies showing that when queries were made as to why the iron mines at Briey had not been reduced to ashes, the reply of headquarters was, "If we destroy Briey, the Germans will at once retaliate and destroy our plant at Dombasle." That is, both sides would have been badly crippled; the war would have come to an end long before it did, and perhaps a million or more men would not have been killed. To the armament manufacturers this would have been the supreme tragedy.

Throughout the duration of the war there was a most significant and confused international trade in war materials even between enemy nations. German industrialists were shipping scrap-iron to France via Switzerland at the rate of 150,000 tons a month to be used to tear German boys to pieces. In the attack on Verdun German boys found themselves impaled on barbed wire which had been made a few months before in Germany. English merchants shipped into Germany through Scandinavia, glycerine and Canadian nickel which it was known perfectly well would be used to mangle English soldiers in the trenches. French nickel also found its tortuous way, greased by profit, into Germany.

The construction of German submarines would have been practically impossible but for the shipment of French aluminum which arrived in Germany via Switzerland. Volumes of evidence have been produced by the Carnegie endowment for international peace, the Walter Haines school for international relations at Johns Hopkins university and the Nye commission appointed by the senate of the United States, to show that throughout the entire war patriotism was sacrificed to the making of profits and human lives were destroyed in order that dividends might be earned on armament shares. In every country that participated in the great war amazing profits were made by companies selling war materials to various governments.

With the cessation of hostilities in 1918 the armament makers had to resort once again to their old tactics of keeping nations in a constant state of armed preparedness and of stirring up international friction wherever possible. Before the war to end war was quite finished, Schneider, Vickers, Skoda and Krupp were busily engaged again. In fact, the peace conference was still in session when war broke out between Greece and Turkey. The British supported Greece and Vickers arms were amply supplied to the Greeks who advanced into Asia Minor. The French were also interested in that particular area and consequently did not prevent Schneider from arming the Turks. We have the ironical picture of the British and French delegates sitting at the peace conference while Greek soldiers with British guns were engaged in the task of fighting Turkish soldiers armed with French guns. An American correspondent reported as follows:

First I saw the retreat of the Greeks. They left behind artillery and machine guns all of which bore the mark of the English firm of Vickers. Then I witnessed the triumphant entry of the Turks into Smyrna. They brought with them magnificent guns made by Schneider-Creusot. On that day I understood what the entente cordiale meant.

When the Riff uprising took place in Morocco it was put down at great cost of French soldiers. These wild tribesmen were found to possess large supplies of excellent modern military equipment of French manufacture. Discreet silence in official and journalistic quarters stifled comment on this discovery.

The rearmament of Germany under Adolf Hitler was financed and carried out to a very large extent by the firm of Skoda in Czechoslovakia and the Schneider-Creusot firm in France. In 1933, despite the fact that the treaty of Versailles forbade Germany from having a military air force, the Germans

War Measures-Mr. Douglas

placed an order with a British aircraft manufacturer for sixty of the most efficient fighting planes in the market. Only the intervention of the British air ministry prevented the delivery of the planes to help in Germany's rearmament program. Nor are we here in Canada altogether free from this unscrupulous trade in blood and slaughter. With the consent of the house I should like to place on Hansard a table secured from the external trade branch of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics dealing with the export trade of Canada. From this table it will be seen that our exports of nickel have doubled.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
LIB

Frederick George Sanderson (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) cannot put the table on Hansard without reading it.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

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

Mr. DOUGLAS:

I do not want to raise the point, but several tables have been placed on Hansard this year by members who merely handed them to the Clerk.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

No.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

With the consent of the house.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

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

Mr. DOUGLAS:

If the house disagrees, of course I shall be compelled to read it.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

I object. We cannot answer things like that unless they are read. It is easy to make a long speech in that way.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

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

Mr. DOUGLAS:

I think the Minister of

Justice (Mr. Lapointe) should be the last person to say that, after speaking an hour and twenty minutes this afternoon.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

At least

I was reading what citations I wished to have recorded in Hansard.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Reid

Liberal

Mr. REID:

And the minister did not read his speech. Keep to the truth.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

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

Mr. DOUGLAS:

I shall not take time now to read this table. I shall be very glad in closing the debate to place it on Hansard or to have one of my colleagues do so. But I wish to say that the export of nickel from this country has been doubled since 1933, despite the fact that 1933 was our best year since 1929. To whom was this increased exportation sent? Our exports to Great Britain have doubled, and our exports to Germany have also doubled since 1933, while last year the increase was twenty-seven fold. The increase in the export of nickel to Italy has been phenomenal. The increase in 1935 over 1934 was fourfold, which recalls the fact that that was the year in which Italy was waging her ruthless campaign against Ethiopia. It is interesting to note the tremendous increase

of nickel exports during the past three years to the Netherlands, which means in reality indirect shipment to Germany. That nickel is undoubtedly being used in Hitler's rearmament program. Fortunes are being made in Canada to-day by the International Nickel Company and by a number of firms selling huge quantities of copper to rearming nations in Europe. Last year the production of copper reached 420,000,000 pounds, the greatest number recorded in Canadian history. The Canada Car and Found,ry Company, a firm which began in 1917 with the manufacture of arms to ship to Russia, has had a new lease of life on the expectation of orders from Great Britain to build aeroplanes. Press reports state that Canadian Vickers are said to be making contacts in western Canada with such firms as the Vulcan Iron Works in Winnipeg and the idle General Motors plant in Regina, with a view to establishing armament plants in that part of the country. Canadian Industries Limited, of which the president is Mr. A. E. Purvis, chairman of the National Employment Commission, controls the major chemical industries of Canada, has investments in General Motors and Dunlop Tires, and owns five explosives and armament factories in Canada. The total earnings of Canadian Industries Limited for 1934 are more than one million- dollars above 1933, and for 1935 are slightly less than one million dollars over 1933.

Figures of the Department of External Affairs show tremendous increases in our exports to Morocco during the last three months of 1936. One of my colleagues will deal with that. I just want to say in passing that those exports consist in the main of large quantities of wheat which are going to Spanish Morocco and undoubtedly are being used to feed insurgent troops, and of large quantities of nitrate, which, the chemists say, can very easily be converted into high explosives. It is possible, in fact it is more than likely, that we are making a very large contribution to the unfortunate conflict which is now going on in the Spanish peninsula.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the whole history o,f the armament industry ought to teach us that the private manufacture of arms should not be left to the unpatriotic, unscrupulous, and oftentimes diabolical machinations of international racketeers. I contend that the parliament of this country has a responsibility to its people to see to it that certain corporations and individuals, motivated only by a desire for gain, should not be permitted, now or later, to supply war materials to enemies or potential enemies. This is particularly true of the

War Measures-Mr. Douglas

export of nickel. In a modern war no country can fight long without nickel, since it is absolutely necessary for the manufacture of shells, cannon, armour-plating, tanks, et cetera. Nickel, along with oil, has become the indispensable requirement of modem warfare. Not only can no nation fight a modem war without nickel, but no nation can participate in a modern war without Canadian nickel, for we in Canada are in the fortunate position of controlling the major supply of the world's nickel. We have within our hands what may prove to be the key to the entire situation. Courageous and conclusive action taken at this time may well prevent the rearming of certain nations in Europe to-day. It is for this reason that I have urged in this house before, and now urge again, that the government consider seriously the advisability of setting up a commission to control the export of nickel from Canada and to prevent what easily may come to pass, the slaughtering of our youth by the very material which we have dug from our soil.

The second reason why I believe this resolution should be passed is that it would be a deterrent to keep us from plunging into war. In a time of crisis no nation can afford to have within its borders a small group of individuals who, for purely personal reasons, desire to see their country at war. That there are such individuals has been shown again and again by the history of the past fifteen years. The story of William B. Shearer, whose unscrupulous actions did so much to sabotage the naval disarmament conference at Geneva, is known to all hon. members. At a public investigation in the United States, Mr. Shearer claimed that he had been promised $250,000 by certain shipbuilding concerns and steel companies for his services on that occasion. Mr. Shearer represents a type, one that I am afraid is not altogether uncommon. This parliament can remove once and for all the profit incentive that might stimulate certain individuals to advocate war, by declaring unequivocally here and now that in the event of an outbreak of a war in which Canada is actively participating, all wealth shall be conscripted, controlled and operated for the sole purpose of winning the war, without so far as is humanly possible the making of profits by any corporation or individual.

The third reason why I believe such a step would be beneficial to the interests of the Canadian people is that it would give our citizens across Canada the feeling that fair treatment was being meted out to all and sundry, irrespective of rank, age, sex or social position. It is being recognized to-day

by most students of international affairs that an outbreak of war will be followed almost immediately by a conscription of all available man-power. I have never had a very high opinion of the armament manufacturers, but nothing I could have said would have constituted a more scathing indictment than this statement of the Prime Minister the other day:

Of one thing I am perfectly sure; no manufacturer of munitions will engage in that business for the sake of charity.

That is true beyond a doubt. But we shall expect men to hazard their lives not for charity but for patriotism. Once again we shall ask, as we did from 1914 to 1918, over half a million young Canadians to suffer the hardships and privations of a military campaign, indeed, even to lay down their lives on the foreign field, with no greater promise of reward than that a grateful country will erect a cenotaph to their memory or utter eulogistic orations over their graves. But while men are being asked to make the supreme sacrifice, other men will benefit by the very absence of these young heroes. Men engaged in industry will make higher wages. People in all walks of life will benefit by the scarcity of labour, while those engaged in the manufacture of implements of war will make fabulous fortunes at the expense of the state. Nothing we can say here will justify this discrimination. I for one have no wish to see Canada become involved in a war, but if we are compelled to participate in a war I would ask that the sacrifice which will undoubtedly be entailed shall be extended to all sections, classes and ages of the population. Let us have no more war in which the members of one group fight and receive $1.10 a day while others line their pockets in comfort and security. If we go into war we must all go in and not leave the burden to merely a few. If we have the power to conscript human life and to expose it to danger, who shall deny us the power to ask for the use of the economic and physical resources of the nation.

The final reason why I propose this motion to the house is that I believe it is one of the few proposals that, while acting as a stimulus to peace, nevertheless would strengthen us in the event of war. I take it that all of us want peace, and that none of us is desirous of seeing Canada participate in another world war. Yet all of us would hesitate to take in the interests of peace any steps which would leave us helpless in the event of war. We are citizens of the world, but first and foremost we are citizens of Canada and her welfare and security must always remain of

War Measures-Mr. Douglas

paramount importance. But the proposals contained within this motion, while acting as a deterrent to war, would not weaken us in the event of war but would rather coordinate and strengthen our nation in any struggle in which it might be called to engage. No group of people know more about the horror of war than the men who served in the last great conflict that shook the world. At the dominion convention of the Great War Veterans' Association in 1925 the following resolution was adopted:

That the dominion parliament be urged to consider legislation, to mobilize the whole power of the nation for national service in the event of a declaration of war;

That, the property equally with the persona, lives and liberties of all citizens shall be subject to conscription for defence of the nation.

If I am informed correctly, I believe the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) was the individual who moved this resolution at the historic convention to which I have referred. I can conceive of no one better equipped than the Minister of National Defence to understand the procedure that would best recommend itself to all parts of the country. The fact that the minister, supported by the Canadian Legion, advocated such a step, ought to commend it to every hon. member.

At a more recent conference, namely, the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, held March 19, 1936, the following resolution was adopted:

Be it resolved that this convention reaffirms the resolution passed at the dominion convention of the Canadian Legion held at Ottawa in 1934, and at Niagara Falls in 1932, urging that in the event of another war the government take immediate steps to conscript the entire man-power, wealth, natural resources, public utilities, business and industrial institutions of the nation, so that by so doing the profit may be taken out of war and the entire citizenship may be moved in a common incentive to seek peace and maintain it.

These two resolutions, coming as they do from bodies of men who bore the brunt of the last titanic struggle in which we were engaged, speak more eloquently than anyone else can for the need of measures similar to those suggested in the motion now before the house.

During the last war, while some fought, others filled' their pockets; while some laid down their lives, others laid up treasure against the morrow. Now, with the danger of another conflict hovering over us, men who fought so nobly and sacrificed so much have placed themselves on record, asking that should they or their children be called upon to ex-

pose themselves to danger in defence of their country, the burden of such an undertaking should be borne by the rich as well as by the poor, and by the aged as well as by the young. Only upon such a basis would any government dare to ask its people to undergo the rigours and excruciating suffering of another war.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
LIB

Robert John Deachman

Liberal

Mr. R. J. DEACHMAN (Huron North):

Listening to this debate during the last day or two I have come to the conclusion that we shall have no more wars. We shall be saved from war not by armaments but by resolutions discussed in this House of Commons by our peace time soldiers. War is the essence of violence, and when war comes we shall marshal what forces we can possibly assemble and hurl them against the forces of the enemy.

The only question which we need to discuss in regard to this resolution is this very simple one: Would the passing of the resolution and its embodiment in an act of parliament help us to strike harder when the day of war came? Well. I have my doubts. In the last great war twelve days elapsed between the murder of an Austrian prince and the outbreak of hostilities. During that time the military machine clicked in Europe. Sir Edward Grey and the other British leaders strove to prevent war and then came the pentecost of calamity.

When the next war comes I venture to suggest that it will come upon us much more suddenly. Perhaps we shall hear of uneasiness in the cabinets and in the capitals of Europe, and then wake up some morning to find that war has broken out. And what will be the situation at that time? The government will have the task of carrying on the business of the nation; it will have to conduct the war. I have considerable confidence in the present government, as many hon. members know, but I do not believe that a government which is running the affairs of this nation and at the same time taking its part in what will be the most titanic conflict the world has ever known, will stop at that time to consider the fact that a resolution had been proposed by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas), suggesting a change in our economic system.

My hon. friend suggests to-night that he does not propose that conscription shall involve the taking over of any particular plants or anything else in Canada. What does it mean? The suggestion is that these things shall automatically be conscripted for the duration of the war and that penalties shall be imposed for the violation thereof. I am not sure what this means; I am not sure whether it means that the penalty is to be

War Measures-Mr. Deachman

imposed upon those who refuse to accept the conscription or whether it is to be imposed upon the government for not carrying out the act if passed. But what difference does it make? When the war comes the government of the day will do the best it can. It will take over what plants it needs; it will conscript men. But you do not improve the situation by passing a resolution declaring now that you wish to do this. I imagine that the government which is laying certain plans for eventualities that may arise will also consider other plans it intends to carry into effect so far as economic circumstances and financial conditions will permit. But I do not believe the government can suddenly decide to take over the countryas entire industry. It will take over what is necessary and do the best it can to marshal the forces of the nation in the struggle which is before it.

We lost the last war not in the field but by peace. We may lose the next war, although fought for freedom and the establishment of our own political conceptions, if we attempt at the outbreak of hostilities to accept the ideas which are guiding our enemies in the conflict. We have in Europe to-day these war-mad nations, but they cannot be saved from their madness by government ownership of munition factories. They cannot be saved from it by taking the profit out of war. Russia has taken the profit out of war; Russia owns her munition factories; there are no profiteers in war supplies in Russia. If profiteering is attempted, those found guilty of it are backed up against a wall and shot. But Russia marshals the greatest war force in Europe to-day and is one of the prime disturbers, although perhaps she may feel her position justified because she faces the other great war nation of Europe which, accepting a different political theory also prepares for the coming conflict.

I venture to suggest that we have heard too much of the power of the armament makers to cause war. Does anyone in this house think that Great Britain has, on the advice of a few munition makers, turned to armaments as she has during the last two or three years? Is that possible? Great Britain has turned to armaments after risking her safety in the cause of peace; she has armed because she feels that she must be prepared to fight or lose her position in the world. But she is not doing that at the behest of some manufacturer of armaments. I suggest that the same thing is true of the United States. To-day the United States is spending on arms and equipment for war more money than she ever spent before. Does any hon. member believe that President Roosevelt and Secretary of State Hull are guided by a desire to please the munition manufacturers of the United States? Is that conceivable? We are preparing here to spend money on military equipment; does any hon. member think the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) are governed by a desire to give an order to some manufacturers of arms and war equipment? The action taken is because of the situation which exists in the world today. Rightly or wrongly they are convinced that our defences must be increased, and they are going about this in the way which, in their judgment, is best calculated to meet the situation. That is the position. There are other and far more potent causes of war.

This does not mean for a moment that during war we should not apply the principles of sound taxation to the profiteers and all who make money from war. We should endeavour as far as possible to conduct a pay-as-you-go war. We may accomplish all that is sought by this resolution by the application of taxes which will take from those who make money out of war the gains which they have made. But the situation cannot be improved by taking over factories, unless in special circumstances of particular need. You cannot help your side to win war by becoming communists or fascists, or by adopting the principles of communism or fascism. There are other and far more deep-seated causes of war than the munition makers or even the fascists, causes which have their being in the economic life of the (people and the very nature of things as they exist to-day. There are in Europe to-day certain land-hungry nations, nations which have not the natural resources required to enable them to develop the life of their people as they desire. We have the same thing on the Pacific-Japan, with a rapidly growing population, struggling to make headway. It finds that otheT nations have acquired great areas of land, and now it proposes to acquire some on its own account. It is bursting with the forces of expansion. When that happens, it constitutes a problem which must be faced; it is a problem which we ought .to discuss in this house, if we are going to avoid war. Germany wants colonies, Italy wants colonies. It is all very well to say that they cannot have them, if that is the viewpoint, but are you going to deny to them the right to do business with you? That 'is precisely what we are doing to-day. I have heard the argument, and it is true, that Germany or Italy can come to Canada for wheat; they can go to the United States for cotton;

War Measures-Mr. Deachman

they can go to Australia for wool; all these countries are ready to sell them the raw materials which they possess. But are these nations willing to accept goods from Germany or Italy in payment for the products which they want to buy? I ask this house one question: At the time that we were

holding millions and millions of bushels of wheat in the elevators of western Canada, if Germany or Italy had come to us and said, "We want one hundred million bushels of wheat; we will take it at a fair price and will ship in payment an equivalent value in goods," what would the government have said? I wonder what my friend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) would have said. I am sorry he is not in his seat. 1 wonder what the government which formerly occupied the treasury benches would have said. There would have been at once the cry, we cannot permit the importation, of these goods from outside because it would deprive our Canadian people of employment. Well, if you accept that doctrine, then you must keep your wheat at home, because the only means by which you can get payment for the goods which you send out is by accepting payment in goods.

Another particularly striking thing came to my attention the other day. Following the war American financiers loaned large sums of money abroad. In- other words, there were large outward shipments of goods from the United States to different countries, and the Americans accepted ,bonds in payment therefor. Then the interest- on those bonds became payable. Meanwhile the tariff of the United States had gone up and there was no chance to make payment in goods. What followed? The value of the bonds went down. The whole financial structure began to collapse, and that was the beginning of the crisis of 1929. The American people, no more intelligent than the average protectionist in, this country

and that is not very intelligent- accepted the idea that if they were paid in goods for the goods they had sent abroad, ruin would stare them in the face; their people would be unemplojred.

Let us follow the technique of that a little and see if we can make it clear. If the British government owes someone in the United States $1,000 on a bond, settlement would normally be made by the shipment of goods to the United States to the extent of Sl.OOO; the goods would be sold and the bondholder would be paid-I leave out the intermediate transactions in exchange. The bondholder would then have SI.000 which he would spend in buying a new car. Would anyone be deprived of employment by that

process? It is clear and simple; there is no difficulty about it. But the obstacle that stands in the way is nothing other than the economic ignorance-

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
?

An hon. MEMBER:

Stupidity.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
LIB

Robert John Deachman

Liberal

Mr. DEACHMAN:

That is a good word; I shall put the two together-the economic stupidity and ignorance of the protectionist spirit which dominates the people of the world to-day. Can you save this situation by discussing a resolution like this? Can you save it by an amendment to the British North America Act, as was discussed in the house the other day? Is there any other way by which the people can get clear of the fear and the horror of war than by making them recognize that in a world which God has made an integrated and correlated world, you cannot live unto yourself alone and still have peace?

That is the essence of the whole situation. That is what we must do if we hope to escape war. As long as men are human, with human passions, you will not be clear of war and the fear of war until you get clearly into your minds the fact that you can exchange freely with your brother man without the slightest fear of injury to yourself. That is the approach in truth to the elimination of war. There is no other way by which we can escape that curse.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
SC

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit

Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a word or two to the discussion on the resolution now before the house, aud I wish to affirm my approval of it. I had intended to speak for a little while to the motion which was debated this afternoon, but I was one of the speakers listed to follow the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and I felt that it would be an imposition on my part to speak just at that time. I find, however, that some of my material will fit into this discussion very admirably, and with that in mind I wish to present a few observations.

I am certain that no one wants war. I am sure that if the peoples of the world were asked their opinion by way of a plebiscite or a vote, almost to a man the verdict would be: No. But we realize that conditions are as they are and that facts must be faced. Therefore we have the resolution reading "in the event of war." It is suggested that the industries-and I fancy the resolution means particularly the war industries-of the country should be conscripted in case of war. That may appear to involve a great deal; nevertheless it is not without its possibilities. I

War Measures-Mr. Hansell

am conscious of the fact that there would arise the necessity of determining what manufacturing was for war purposes and what was not. This is not always easy. The same is true with regard to our exports. For instance, Canada is the leading nickel exporting country in the world. She produces about eighty-one per cent of the total nickel production of the world. Canada's production of nickel increased by more than fifty-one per cent from 1933 to 1934. In 1935, Canada exported about $28,500,000 worth of nickel, or about four times as much a? she exported in 1933. and I have said nothing about the huge quantities of other kinds of metal that have been exported. It will readily be seen, therefore, that some difficulty may arise in determining which of these exports are for probable war purposes, and the same thing would be true, although to a lesser degree, in regard to finished products.

We cannot permit such difficulties to interfere with that which is right, and certainly to my mind it is not right for private industry to make money at the expense of life. I listened with some interest to the previous speaker, the hon. member for Huron North (Mr. Deachman). Whether or not I got the complete force of his argument, I understood it to be that the resolution had to do with whether or not we could strike harder when war came. I do not think that is the intent of the resolution. It is not a question of whether or not we can strike harder when time of war comes; it is a matter of whether or not we are to be drawn into a war by the influence of the fine art of private manufacturers of arms. The hon. gentleman referred to Great Britain; he mentioned President Roosevelt, Mr. Cordell Hull and the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King), saying that these men certainly would not be influenced by private manufacturers; that they would not go to war simply because private manufacturers of munitions influenced them. I am not going to debate that point. We do not assume for a moment that they would do so. Nevertheless the fact must be faced that for a long, long time private manufacturers of armaments have had their propagandists in the field. Those propagandists are not there to influence governments to stay out of war. While the mover of the resolution (Mr. Douglas) was speaking this evening he referred to the well known Mr. William B. Shearer. It was by sheer coincidence that I happened to be reading about this same gentleman at that very time. In this connection I should like to read a paragraph or two-

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
LIB

Vincent Dupuis

Liberal

Mr. DUPUIS:

What is the title of the book?

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
SC

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit

Mr. HANSELL:

I will give that. I might mention also that some in this corner of the house have been accused of reading a great many quotations.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink
SC

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit

Mr. HANSELL:

Well, I am going to quote from a book which I believe to be exceptionally authoritative. It is the first in a series of two volumes by Philip Noel-Baker, M.P., entitled The Private Manufacture of Armaments. Someone may cry out, 'Who is he?" I am going to read who he is. He is the late Cassell Professor of International Relations in the university of London; late Fellow of King's College, Cambridge; member of the British delegation to the peace conference, 1919; parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 19291931; personal assistant to the president of the disarmament conference, 1932 and 1933. In the book there is a prefatory note by Viscount Cecil.

Now for the quotation concerning Mr. William B. Shearer and the propaganda that goes on at disarmament conferences, if you please. I am breaking into the middle of the story:

There are, moreover, some aspects of Mr. Shearer's work with which many British readers are unfamiliar. Most people, indeed, remember no more than the simple fact that Mr. Shearer was paid $25,000 for six weeks' propaganda at the naval conference summoned in 1927 by President Coolidge at Geneva.

That is a pretty nice sum of money for six weeks' work. It makes me feel that perhaps we who are endeavouring to unravel international complications are receiving the salaries of office boys. To continue the quotation:

They forget that this was only one special job among a number, and that for several years he was doing the same kind of propaganda for a number of employers in the United States. Here is his own account of his activities, as he summarized them in the suit he lodged against the Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corporation, the Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, and the American Brown Boveri Company-the three most important private naval shipyards in the United States:

" Services rendered and performed by plaintiff relating and with respect to the shipbuilding industry, the business of ship building, and the increase thereof, as affecting the business and financial interests and welfare of the defendants; service as representative of the defendants at Washington, D.C., Geneva, Switzerland, New York city, and other places in connection with the matters above referred to; the preparation and distribution of literature, data, and information relating to the above-mentioned and other matters; interviews and conferences with various individuals, in-

War Measures-Mr. Hansell

eluding public officials and representatives of the press; the preparation and delivery of public addresses; the organization and conduct of a publicity campaign for the benefit of and aid of the business and financial interests of the defendants; consulting and advising with the defendants in relation to the above and other matters affecting their business and financial welfare; and generally aiding and assisting the defendants in the conduct and promotion of their business affairs."

In pursuance of these activities, Mr. Shearer:

(a) Visited Geneva during the meeting of the preparatory disarmament commission in 1926;

(b) Visited Geneva again during the naval conference summoned by President Coolidge in 1927;

(e) "Lobbied" in Washington during the "three cruiser fight" in 1927, to which reference has been made above;

(d) "Lobbied" again in Washington on the Jones-White Merchant Shipping Bill, which Mr. Wilder so successfully carried through in 1928;

(e) "Lobbied" yet again in Washington in the so-called "fifteen cruiser fight" in 1929;

(f) Conducted speaking tours throughout the country, interviewed the press, wrote articles, etc.

I think that is enough of that. But to say such work was not done in the interests of profiteering in war manufactures is to talk nonsense.

May I add one or two further observations, and I am getting them from the same book. Perhaps I am doing a good deal of quoting tonight, and some hon. members may object. I trust, however, that the objection is not raised because the authorities are so authoritative. As a general rule governments approve the private manufacturing of armaments, sometimes even to the extent of giving financial backing and assistance, although the British government has been against this policy of financial assistance for the armament export trade. Nevertheless, to say the least, financial concerns are sometimes closely related to armament firms. Vickers, Armstrong, Schneider and Krupp have either created their own banking houses to help them carry on their work or established close personal relations with important banks.

Then there is the sale of armaments to potential enemies. To some extent the mover of the resolution has covered this question. It is obvious that private manufacturers of armaments are in business not for pleasure or by reason of their great patriotism, but rather for profit. It could be said that if the profit were taken out of war there would be no private manufacturing of armaments. This means that armament firms are constantly on the lookout for foreign markets, which results in the sale of armaments to potential enemies.

At page 184 of the book I find that out of 141 warships built by Armstrong-Whitworth before the great war, 105 were built for foreign countries and thirty-six for Great Britain. At page 189 I read the following:

After the war the German armament industry, with the knowledge and collusion of the German general staff, did much to organize the rearmament of Russia. In particular, they allowed Herr Stolzenberg to set up a chemical warfare factory on Russian soil, and Junkers to build extensive aircraft works. In these and other ways, German arms firms helped the Soviet government to lay the foundations of its present military strength. To-day the governments of Russia and Germany are preparing openly and feverishly for war, and there is no more dangerous situation in the world than that which their hostility involves. .. .Italy was a member of the triple alliance; she was bound by treaty to join Germany and Austria-Hungary if European war broke out; yet she failed to march in August, 1914, and within a year she was fighting on the other side. Other no less flagrant cases could be cited.

Then, at page 195:

The latest tanks are the result of long and costly experiment and research. Yet it has been stated that, when Germany started to rearm, and while her right to do so w-as still violently contested by the government of France, a great French arms firm sold 400 tanks to Herr Hitler's government. In order to evade suspicion, the tanks were shipped through Holland to Germany.

With these few observations I announce my determination to support the resolution. I am glad the mover of the resolution has stated that it is not intended to emphasize the nationalization of industry. Personally I am against the nationalization of industry, but I do not think that in a time of war industry should make huge profits out of that which kills and destroys our young manhood. It may be said that war is a national crisis and that we should conscript all industry. It might also be said that we are now in the midst of a national crisis and that all industry should be conscripted or nationalized, The national crisis we are in today is purely economic, whereas the crisis of war is entirely different. With these reservations, I intend to vote for the resolution.

Mr. J. It. HURTUBISE (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this resolution, but in view of the remarks made to-day and a few days ago by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) with reference to the exportation of nickel, I feel it to be my duty to say a few words. After listening to the hon. gentleman one would think that the producers of nickel in Canada are combined with the arms manufacturers of the world. I should like to prove to the house that this is far from being so. The

War Measures-Mr. Hurtubise

International Nickel Company, which is the exclusive exporter of nickel from Canada, has made a great contribution to this country in the way of scientific and industrial advancement. It is true that some nickel goes into armaments, but it is not a great deal. Before the great war, nickel was not used to any great extent in industry and naturally a large part of the production was used in armaments. However, in 1929 more nickel was used in industry than was used for armaments at the peak of the war-time consumption. The company's representatives state that manufacturers of armaments now consume less than five per cent of its production. I should like to quote what was said by Mr. F. E. Lathe and Mr. S. J. Cook of the national research laboratories. These gentlemen presented a paper at the thirteenth annual meeting of the League of Nations Society of Canada on the control of war metals as a peace measure. These men made inquiries as to the production and exportation of Canadian nickel and at this meeting held in Ottawa on May 31, 1935, they said:

The restriction on the production or movement of war metals would not necessarily prevent war. The only real hope of placing effective restriction upon the conduct of war operations by limiting the production or movement of key metals lies in international action.

They say that substitutes could be made available for aluminum and nickel, at least in so far as the application of these metals are concerned. As I said before, the representatives of the company state that only five per cent of its production is used for war purposes. After making a study of the matter, these two gentlemen state that eighteen per cent of the nickel exported is used for armaments. The International Nickel Company, the sole producer of nickel in Canada, has made a great contribution to the progress of this country. Nickel is used in this and other countries for almost every purpose. It is used for architectural and household purposes, mainly in the form of monel metal. Nickel silver and stainless steel are used for exterior and interior architectural ornamentation and also for restaurant, household and factory equipment. A large amount of nickel silver is used for hardware, plumbing and tableware. These are just some of the uses to which this metal is put.

During the past few years the International Nickel Company has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in research work to find new uses for this metal. These people are intelligent and they realize the word is being passed around that nickel is being used largely

for armaments. They are trying to prove to the Canadian people that only a small percentage of their production is used for that purpose. The large portion of their production is used for purposes other than armaments. We see all around us examples of the use of this metal in one alloy or another.

I mentioned architectural and household use. Nickel is used also in the automotive industry. Nickel alloys are used for automotive parts subject to great strain such as gears, drive shafts, roller-bearings and forgings. Stainless steel is used for ornamental parts and nickel alloys are used for cylinders and other parts of the engine. Nickel silver is used for interior ornamental work and also in the manufacture of spark-plugs. These articles are not manufactured for war purposes and there are hundreds of thousands of pounds of nickel exported every day to be put to uses such as these. I discussed this matter with the officials of the company and I know for a fact that nickel is being used, not for armaments but for the different purposes I have mentioned.

Because of its lightness it is also used in aviation. The chemical and allied industries are large users of nickel. For instance, monel metal, inconel-these are different preparations of nickel-and stainless and corrosion-resistant steel for corrosion-resisting equipment for all sorts of articles in the ceramic, dairy, laundry, distilling, dry-cleaning, glass, icecream, pulp and paper, soap, textile, wine and beer industries. This indicates the wide range of uses of nickel. Then there are electrical and radio uses: nickel radio tube parts, monel metal bolts, nuts and fittings, nickel chromium electrical-resistance alloys for heater coils and elements of electrical heating appliances; nickel-iron alloys for thermostatic elements; nickel-iron and nickel-cadmium accumulator batteries. This again indicates the wide use of nickel. In machinery there is the rolled, forged and cast nickel alloy steel for stressed parts. That is where nickel comes most into use on account of its combination with steel, giving the greatest resistance ever found in steel. Nickel is used in gears, shafting and roller-bearings, nickel alloy cast-iron for bed plates, frames, cylinders, brake drums, rolls, housings, for heavy machinery, machine tools, agricultural implements, excavating machinery. Then in marine construction, we find nickel alloy steel propeller shafts, turbine gears, diesel engine parts, nickel alloy cast-iron pumps and valves. Then in the mining in-

War Measures-Mr. Hurtubise

dustry, nickel is used in drilling equipment and mine skips, ear axles, crushing machinery, nickel alloy cast-iron for crushing and grinding equipment, pumps, and valves. It is also used in the railways. This shows that there is a very wide range of uses for nickel.

The hon. member for Weyburn mentioned the great exports of nickel to different countries. Everybody knows that the United States is the most advanced nation in the manufacture of mechanical instruments. They have hundreds of industries of that kind, and it is for their purposes that most of the nickel exported to that country is used. Forty per cent of our nickel production goes to the United States. The hon. member mentioned some time ago that nickel was going in increasing amounts to the Netherlands. I should like to give figures of the world distribution of exports of nickel. If I were allowed, Mr. Speaker, I could put on Hansard the whole table supplied by the bureau of statistics showing the exportation of nickel from 1927 to 1937.

Topic:   WAR MEASURES
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONSCRIPTION OF ALL AGENCIES AND RESOURCES FOR DURATION OF HOSTILITIES
Permalink

February 4, 1937