February 15, 1937

(Latest available figures) Country Population 1934-35 1935-36 1936-37 National Defence Expenditure National Defence Appropriations National Defence Appropriations or Estimates Total 000's omitted Per capita Percent of Total Budget Total 000's omitted Per capita Per cent of Total Budget Total 000's omitted Per capita Per cent of Total BudgetAustralia Canada Great Britain and N. Ireland.. New Zealand South Africa (a) 6,724,305 10,949,000 (g) 46,889,000 1,573,000 1,914,700 (whites) $ 21,017 13,041 491,436 3,495 6,405 S 3 17 1 19 10 48 2 22 3 34 10-4 (d) 2-7 140 3-8 31 $ (b) 29,189 15,397 660,305 (j) 3,744 (j) 8,675 $ 4 37 1 41 14 14 2 38 4 53 (b) 9-5 (e) 2-9 14-8 G) 3-6 a) 4-9 $ (c) 35,237 19,358 (h) 966,522 (k) (k) S 5 28 1 77 20 61 (k) (k) (c) 10 8 (f) 3-7 (i) 24-7 (k) (k)Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Italy Japan Norway Russia Sweden Switzerland United States 8.276.000 3.684.000 3.762.000 41.940.000 66.616.000 43.009.000 69.251.000 2.884.000 168,000,000 6.248.000 4.163.000 127,500,000 58,415 9,042 15,366 744,265 352,354 359,893 264,685 9,105 1,000,000 32,075 29,920 804,700 7 05 2 45 4 08 17 94 5 29 8 36 3 82 3 15 5 95 5 13 7 18 6 31 12-2 11-2 25-4 23-0 13-8 19-3 43-7 9-9 10-2 11-6 19-5 10-9 37,984 9,192 15,514 704,285 (n) (o) 348,668 296,975 9,547 1,640,000 30,914 31,475 (s) 906,700 4 59 2 50 4 12 16 79 (k) (o) 8 11 4 30 3 31 9 77 4 95 7 56 7 11 11- 3 10- 9 21-1 22-4 (k) (o) 22-4 46-6 9-3 12- 6 11- 4 20-1 (s) 11-8 57,214 9,164 18,680 (1) 861,600 (n) (o) 245,400 (p) 402,410 9,628 (q) 2,960,000 31,500 (r) 80,480 (s) 985,455 6 92 2 48 4 91 25 00 (k) (o) 5 69 5 81 3 33 17 62 5 04 19 50 7 72 (u) 16-0 (k) (k) (m) 41-3 (k) (t) 15-1 46-8 (v) 7-9 18-9 (k) (k) (s) 14-5 General: Computations for non-Britisli countries for 1934-35 and 1935-36 based on League of Nations Armament Year Book (1936) and Statesmen's Year Book (1935-36) statistics except where otherwise stated in Notes. Currency rate prevailing in December of each year used in computing dollar figures. (a) Australian population figure prior to 1936 Census-6,668,195-used for per capita costs of 1934-35 and 1935-36. (b) Official Australian report. (c) Reported in Australian Intelligence Diary No. 9/1936, dated 28th September, 1936. (d) Percentage of total actual expenditure as given by Minister of Finance, in House of Commons, 1st May, 1936. (e) Percentage of total extimated expenditure as given by Minister of Finance, in House of Commons, 1st May, 1936. (Figures of actual expenditure not yet available.) 900 COMMONS National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) (f) Percentage of total estimated expenditure as supplied by financial superintendent's branch, November, 1936. (g) British population figure prior to 1936 census-46,681,000-used for per capita costs of 1934-35 and 1935-36. (h) From "London Times", 10th July, 1936. (i) From "Ottawa Journal", 4th July, 1936. (j) From Statemen's Year Book, 1935. (k) Information not available. (l) From "Ottawa Journal", 10th November, 1936. (m) From "Montreal Gazette", 29th October, 1936. (n) Quoted in British House of Commons (20 July, 1936) as being $4,000,000,000 for each year and to be expended on defence forces, on strategic roads and on other matters which are directly or indirectly connected with problems of defence. (o) Does not include extraordinary expenditure for Italo-Ethiopian war. (p) From "London Times", 17th January, 1936. Reported that a further sum (estimated at about $550,000,000) over and above this figure is to be spent on expansion and rearmament of defence forces during the next five years. (q) From "London Times", 17th January, 1936. (r) From "London Observer", 21st June, 1936. (s) Official Budget statements of 1935 and 1936. (t) From "Montreal Gazette", 11-1-37. (u) "Canadian Commercial Journal", 21-11-36. (v) "London Times", 16-1-37. National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) 902 COMMONS National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) Coming now to a discussion of the question of neutrality, let me envision the situation with Canada out of a prevailing conflict and with Canada being faced with the necessity of protecting her own neutrality. In other words, she must be able to defend her territory from being utilized by combatants for belligerent purposes. As a rule I do not like using quotations, but I should like to quote in this connection from an address delivered at the Canadian Institute of Economics and Politics last year by Professor Lower. He contemplates the situation and names the combatants. I would not do that, but I think I am entitled to quote from his remarks. He says: If a war should break out between Japan and the United States, we should be affected at once. The question would immediately arise as to whether we would maintain our neutrality. There are a number of factors which might render it difficult for us to do so. We would have to keep the warships of both belligerents out of our ports and prevent either one of them using any part of our coastline against the other. The Americans might wish us to give them the right to fly across our territory to Alaska. . . . But we could not give privileges to one of the belligerents that we would not give to the other. . . . It would seem to be only good judgment for us to prepare our western coast so that we would maintain our neutrality as against both combatants. . . . If the coast continues defenceless, Japan might try to make use of its islands and inlets as bases for operations against American ships. If that were to occur, the Americans would at once demand the right to put the Japanese out. . . . Once allowing that, we would have virtually abandoned neutrality, and we would be in great danger both of being drawn into the war and of losing control of our own territory. . . . Measures of coastal defence on this sector would appear to be both wise and self-respecting. I suggest, therefore, without referring to wihat I might term the alleged obligations of Canada as a result of various conferences, but only the obligation of Canada in relation to Canadian defence, that problem is no longer the traditional obligation of local defence but the complete responsibility for defence in consequence of Canada's new sovereign status. And I would direct that remark particularly to those in this dominion who very properly have strong nationalist ideals. The more you believe in, the more you subscribe to doctrines of Canadian nationalism, the more must you provide for the defence of the Dominion of Canada. You cannot any longer lean upon the alliances or the implied alliances of the past; you can no longer lean upon the implications of the Monroe doctrine. If you are going to profess the virtues and the pride of nationalism, you must face your responsibilities and meet your obligations in accordance with the status of sovereignty. As I said before, the present policy is not new. It was formulated by Canada and it is limited to the defence of our shores, our homes, our territorial waters and our neutrality. And I desire to say very definitely that the development of any policy of defence is not greatly assisted, at the present time especially, by the declarations of those who speak in other places with reference to a compulsory coordinated defence policy in which Canada would assume automatic responsibilities. In maintaining the essential principles of Canadian unity it is necessary to observe that the prevailing sentiment of public opinion in Canada to-day would not be in favour of committing the Canadian people to automatic responsibility in regard to any centralized or coordinated scheme or plan of defence, and just as we in Canada are not inclined to assume any automatic obligations or any automatic responsibility, so also, as was definitely proved by recent discussions in this house, Canada is opposed to any precarious policy of automatic neutrality. The reason for that is that so long as we have international brigandage as at the present time, so long as the swash-buckling international gangster is stalking about the world, so long as we have dictatorships in power, swayed by ambitions of conquest and the passion for personal power, so long will it be necessary for the smaller nations of the world, lovers of liberty, to be prepared to defend their liberties against licence and their freedom against aggression. That is why a policy of precarious permanent neutrality spells the death knell of democracy throughout the world. It has been said many a time in this parliament, from 1923 when the Prime Minister made his declaration down until a week ago, that parliament will decide in so far as the initiative may rest with Canada and the Canadian people. But if we were unable to protect our own neutrality we might be declared a belligerent, and some foreign power might decide that we were involved. Therefore we must be equipped successfully to protect our own shores, our seaports and the focal areas of trade routes adjacent to the coasts of Canada. If parliament decides we are neutral we must be able to protect our neutrality; otherwise we may be dragged in by causes over which we have no control. National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) I therefore approach the keynote of the present increase, or extension, or expansion in the estimates, and its purpose is fourfold. In the first place, we must provide for additional aircraft together with supplies and accommodation and personnel for patrolling our coasts and shipping terminals and for defending ourselves against the attacks of those who may violate our neutrality. In the second place, there is in addition to supply and shore structures a very slight and unpretentious addition to our naval strength, to patrol our coasts and shipping terminals, to keep our harbour mouths free of mines and to challenge any suspicious craft. In the third place, there is provision for additional coastal batteries, including anti-aircraft defence equipment to engage hostile craft and defend the entrances to our ports and inland waters. And lastly there is additional training for the militia, especially coastal artillery and services likely to be called upon in various emergencies. May I sum up this part of my explanation by referring to the cardinal principles of the present defence program as submitted to the house about a week ago by the leader of the government. In the first place, our enlarged defence estimates are submitted only for the defence of Canada. In the second place, they were not arranged between Canada and any other nation. In the third place, there has not been in connection with a single item of the estimates so submitted any request from any government in any other place whatsoever. In the fourth place, parliament itself must be the final judge as to Canada's participation in any future war, and in the last place, with reference to the League of Nations, only a universal league would be an absolute guarantee of peace. I should like to approach the third aspect, in regard to the conditions which prevailed in the defence situation in Canada in 1935. Certain matters were brought to my attention in 1935 and I want to explain to the house frankly the position and what was done. In regard to our naval forces it was reported that even assuming an effective air force and militia cooperation, Canada did not possess adequate naval forces to guarantee her neutrality in a war in which she did not wish to be a belligerent. In October, 1935, Canada possessed two effective torpedo boat destroyers, two torpedo boat destroyers due for retirement or demilitarization, and one inefficient mine sweeper. The action already taken has been as follows: The two old destroyers have been demilitarized; two new destroyers-four years old-have been purchased; a small training schooner is under construction in Nova Scotia; the outfit of ammunition for ships in commission has been virtually completed, and gunnery and other equipment of ships in commission have been modernized. That is all that has been done, and the estimates this year are just by way of continuing and carrying on that work. In reference to shore facilities-the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. Tolmie) knows about and will appreciate the situation there-it was reported that the barracks, dockyards and other shore facilities were inadequate. Immediate action was taken to remedy this condition. It was further reported that the naval magazine at Esqui-malt harbour was condemned in 1905 and was a positive menace to the surrounding community. Immediate action was taken in this regard. It was also reported that the wireless equipment at both Halifax and Esquimalt was inadequate; immediate action was also taken in this regard. Then, to come to the militia services, it was reported that there was not a single modern anti-aircraft gun in the whole Dominion of Canada. What a splendid condition for a great and wealthy nation like Canada I In justice to my hon. friend the member for Yale (Mr. Stirling), I want to say that he took action with reference to that before I stepped into office as Minister of Defence. He commenced a program which I am endeavouring to carry out in reference to anti-aircraft guns. It was also reported that the stock of field gun ammunition was precariously low. It was reported that coast defence armaments were in many cases defective. It was reported that beyond a few batteries no provision had been made for mechanical transport. Action was taken in these matters. It was reported that there was an insufficient supply of respirators even for the permanent force, and action was taken in this regard. It was reported in regard to manufacturing facilities that none existed in Canada for the production of rifles, machine guns and artillery weapons. Action has been taken to a certain extent in this regard, and more is to be taken under the estimate now under consideration. In regard to reorganization, it was reported that reorganization of the militia had been recommended in 1932, approved in principle but no further action taken. May I say that the post-war establishment consisting of eleven infantry and four cavalry divisions has been reduced to six infantry divisions and one cavalry. The form of militia organization had to be adapted to modern types of arms and equipment. A few inactive units have been disbanded; thirty-six regiments of cavalry 904 COMMONS National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) have been reduced to sixteen, plus four armoured car regiments, and in regard to infantry and machine gun battalions, one hundred and thirty-five units have been reduced to ninety-one. It is true there has been an increase in artillery units and Royal Canadian Engineers. In the Royal Army Medical Corps thirteen surplus units have been disbanded. That means that the paper strength of 135,000 has been reduced to 90,000. All have been made ready for the process of reorganization and mechanization, and the duty of this parliament at the present time as I see it is to provide equipment for the small militia force which we have to-day in Canada. When we come to discuss the estimates, hon. members will find that the main increase is to provide stores and equipment in order to provide a more efficient and effective force. WTith reference to the air force, it was reported that only twenty-three aircraft of a service type were available in Canada. Not one plane was suitable for active service under present day conditions. Orders were placed last year, some by my predecessor, for eighteen aircraft, and under the present estimates steps are being taken to increase this number. Now let me deal with what happened to the air force of Canada. I find that the appropriations were as follows: Air Services 1930- 31 $7,475,7001931- 32 5,322,0001932- 33 1,750,000 Or a total reduction in two years of $5,725,700 or 75 per cent. Then the Royal Canadian Air Force: 1930- 31 $2,510,0001931- 32 2,266,0001932- 33 1,555,000 Or a total reduction of 36 per cent. Then we have the most disastrous reduction of all. In 1931-32 flying hours were increased by 5,000. But in 1932-33 flying hours were reduced by 27,095 hours, from 32,095 hours to a total of 5,000 flying hours. In the following year a further reduction of 3,800 hours was made so that the total hours of flying in this dominion were reduced in three years from 32,095 to 1,200. In other words, flying was discontinued in Canada during the years of the depression. This will explain the reason for the present increase in the air force estimates. For the purpose of my argument I am not going to refer to the personnel of these forces. But I wish to drive home as strongly as I can that the increase of $6,706,000 in the air force vote is to repair what was done during the years of the depression. JMr. I. Mackenzie.] Next I come to the question of industrial organization. I think both the mover and seconder of the resolution said that nothing had been done by this administration with reference to industrial organization or industrial mobilization in Canada. But I want to tell my hon. friends that for the last eight or nine .months the Department of National Defence in cooperation with other departments of the government has been engaged upon the most comprehensive industrial survey of Canada that was ever made in her history. This has been done in other nations. Australia has been carrying out such a survey for the last fifteen years; England has been doing so for the last eight years; we are endeavouring to do in two years what should have been done many years ago, and inside two years we shall have a comprehensive industrial survey covering every industry in Canada so as to enable it to be mobilized for this nation in case it should be assailed or in case of any national emergency. What has been done? We have obtained information as to the availability in Canada of facilities for the production of shells, fuses, explosives and propellants, guns and gun cartridges, motor vehicles, aircraft, aircraft engines and accessories, and we have received the most loyal cooperation from other departments of government, notably the Department of Labour, the Department of Mines and Resources, the Department of Transport, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce. May I repeat once again that this is not in any way to develop, in regard to the equipment required for our militia service, a policy of centralization, or for any other extraneous purpose. The reason for the increase in the militia service vote, which possibly is not as popular as the increase in the vote for the air force or the small increase in the naval vote, is twofold. In the first place, it is to provide new, modern and up to date equipment for our militia services and, in the second place, to give us a small force to cooperate with our air force and our naval force for the protection of Canada, within Canada only. I hope that is quite precise, definite and clear to every hon. member. I think, sir, I have dealt with the question of industrial mobilization. Now I wish to deal with the question of profits, raised in a previous debate, and mentioned by both speakers this afternoon. This question divides itself into three categories. The first is the supply of defence equipment in peace time; the second is the export of munitions or supplies beyond the country, and the third is National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) the supply of munitions and equipment in war time. With reference to the second and third, these can and will be controlled, and measures of the most vigorous and relentless nature already are under preparation for this purpose. With reference to the first of these categories, having to do with the supply of defence equipment in peace time, government policies were formulated some time ago. They are very similar to those recommended by the commission in Great Britain and by the senate commission of investigation of the United States, to which reference was made this afternoon. They are designed to safeguard the public interest as far as possible by competition, where competition is possible. Where this cannot be done; where competition is not possible, they are designed to establish rigid principles of reasonable remuneration, to make unfair profits impossible and to provide for a thorough system of inspection and audit. So I trust my hon. friends will realize that when they raised this question they discussed a matter which was decided and acted upon by the present administration many months ago. Now I come to an analysis of the estimates for 1937-38. Before going on with this, however, I desire to make one or two references to the change in conditions of warfare, as they affect our air forces in particular. This afternoon I referred to the air defence bases bill of 1935, adopted by the United States, which proved that the great republic to the south does not consider itself unexposed to air attack from Europe and Asia. It is taking defensive measures in consequence of that view. As the eastern and western portions of Canada lie in the great circle routes from Europe and eastern Asia to the United States respectively, it is clear that Canada is still exposed to air attack from overseas. Consequently the question of air defence is becoming one of increasing importance to this country. With reference to the militia situation of a year ago, I desire to repeat that the militia possessed then, and to-day possesses, little of armoured fighting vehicles, of supplies of mechanized transport of approved design or of modern weapons. To revert to the air forces of Canada, while it is not contended that Canada's requirements are comparable with those of the great powers, perhaps at this time it is pertinent to remind hon. members that Canada's air force is entirely inadequate to meet her modest defence requirements; further, that at the present moment this country does not possess an aircraft industry worthy of the name and that all our airplane engines are being imported. With reference to coastal defence, at both Esquimalt and Halifax it was necessary to embark upon the modernization of equipment. The immediate requirements in our air force are modern aircraft bases; advanced and intermediate operating stations; repair and supply depots and training centres. The requirements of our air defence on both east and west coasts necessitate provision for the reconnaissance of vast sea areas and lengthy coast lines, and the defence of our ports from hostile aircraft carriers or overseas borne aircraft. As I said before, under modern conditions, with aircraft carriers the enemy could attack our coastal cities and smash up our elevators and other places used for the storage of foodstuffs I have before me an actual analysis of the estimates of the Department of National Defence. Taking first of all our naval forces, the increase in the present year over last year is $1,832,310. The increase in personnel is: Royal Canadian navy, 373, by reason of the larger size of the newer vessels, and Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, 161, making a total, after these estimates are adopted, of 2,771 in the navy. The details of the increase are: Pay and allowances $359,325 Stores and allowances- Ammunition and stores 350,760 Four minesweepers 750,000 Repairs-maintenance 128,000 Works-lands and buildings Joint service magazine 200,000 In regard to the air force, the increase amounts to $6,706,622, which can be divided into permanent, $6,176,692 and non-permanent, $529,930. Those amounts can be again subdivided into: Permanent- AdministrationTraining and maintenance.. $ 629,749 Stores and equipment 4,524,847 Engineer services 1,022,096 Non-permanent- Administration and maintenance 107.715 Stores and equipment 413,215 Engineer services 9,000 In other words, stores and equipment take up over $5,000,000 of the total increase of $6,706,622. I should like to make that very clear. The increase in personnel of the air force, made necessary by the modest program of expansion being undertaken, is forty officers and 519 airmen. In regard to stores and equipment, the subdivisions are as follows in part: Aircraft stores $ 345,924 Ammunition 113,934 Stores 1.499,763 Aircraft 2,019,263 Engines 187,500 906 COMMONS National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) This makes a total of nearly $5,000,000. The new aircraft proposed will include twelve two-seater fighters; seven Stranraer flying boats; eighteen coastal reconnaissance ships; eleven torpedo bombers; twenty-seven (ab initio) training planes and twenty-four bombers and three army co-operation, or a total of 102 airplanes costing in round figures $3,000,000, with engines costing $237,000. The engineer services in connection with the air force provide for an increase of $1,000,000, of which the central depot at Trenton takes $747,000; the Pacific coast, $450,000, and the Atlantic coast, $435,000. These, together with some smaller items, account for the total air force increase of approximately $6,700,000. In regard to the militia services, the total increase is $5,831,502. That amount is broken up as follows: Engineer services and works.... $1,867,850General stores and equipment.. 3,509.499Permanent force 234,713Militia 220,640RJVI.C 8,800 The amount of $1,867,850 for engineer services and works is for works at Ottawa, Petawawa, London, Barriefield, St. John's, P.Q., Valcartier, Halifax, Winnipeg and Shilo, with about $1,000,000 to be expended on the Pacific coast for emplacements, gun positions and technical equipment, and small amounts for Dundurn and Calgary. Of the increase of $3,509,499 in general stores and equipment, artillery stores take up $2$58,616 and the dominion arsenal at Quebec about $450,000. The artillery stores include ammunition, shells, cartridges, fuses of various sizes and descriptions, as well as tractors, training equipment, machine guns, anti-aircraft searchlight equipment and anti-aircraft guns, together with batteries of coast defence guns as well as a substantial number of the new light Bren machine guns. In the non-permanent militia service the increase is $220,640, and this increase is in order to give additional days of training to the small, compact force we have now established in the Dominion of Canada. In the permanent force the increase of S234.000 is caused by an increase in the personnel of twenty-two officers and 173 other ranks, including nine officers and eighty other ranks previously under civil aviation vote, largely the result of new instructors being required consequent upon the reorganization and mechanization of the militia. To sum up all these figures, the militia service is increased $5,832,000; the naval service is increased $1,832,000 and the air service is increased $6,552,635, deducting the items in last year's estimates not repeated this year in connection with projects generally, $2,601,332, making a net increase of $11,615,000 in this year's estimates. These are the actual details of the estimates. They are all for the purpose of coastal defence, and for increased equipment and for cooperation of militia services of Canada with the air force and naval forces for the protection of Canada, within our own borders. I cannot make that sufficiently clear to hon. members of the house. I desire to deal once more with the amendment of the hon. member. It is strange that in Canada, which is probably potentially one of the richest countries in the world, that we do not find the same cooperation between members of the Labour party and the government of the day with reference to the question of defence as we do in other countries. Canadian socialists oppose even these modest provisions for defence in Canada. That is not the policy of the Labour or Socialist party in Great Britain. It is not the policy of socialists in France. It is not the policy of the Australian Labour party. I desire to read with emphasis a motion carried at the recent labour conference held in Edinburgh in October of last year. On motion of Mr. Dalton, the Labour party conference adopted by a majority of 1,081,000 the following resolution: That in view of the threatening attitude of dictatorships which are increasing their armaments at an unprecedented rate, flouting international law, and refusing to cooperate in the work of organizing peace

Listen to this: -this conference declares that the armed strength of the countries loyal to the league of nations must be conditioned by the armed strength of the potential aggressors. The conference therefore reaffirms the policy of the Labour party, to maintain such defence forces as are consistent with our country's responsibility as a member of the league of nations- And now I desire to emphasize these three points: (a) the preservation of the people's rights and liberties, (b) the continuance of democratic institutions, and (c) the observance of international law. I suggest that all three of these points apply to the Dominion of Canada to-day. Here we have members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation whose political philosophy is based essentially upon the doctrine of socialism. Here we have hon. members of that party moving a vote of want of confidence in this administration, with two points in mind: (1) a disapproval of the modest expansion of our defence system, and (2) a spurious laudation of their own political philosophy of socialism. May I now quote the final words from Major Attlee's speech, leader of the Labour party in Great Britain. He said: The La- National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) hour party believed that they must take every step to deal with the curse of war, and on the other hand, they were not prepared to bow down to fascism or to be conquered by fascism from without or from within. "The level of British armaments," he said, "must be fixed with regard to our position in relation to collective security." In the Australian Labour party which follows a policy similar to that of hon. members in this chamber, there has recently been a complete change-due to what? The change has been due to recent world developments and the present menace. The Australian Labour party has now adopted a defence program of its own providing: (1) for the defensive organization of industry; (2) for training and equipment of a substantial nucleus of effective field forces, capable of speedy expansion; (3) for a strong air force, and (4) for development of the country's capacity to provide adequate munitions. As hon. members know, South Africa has followed the same course. In this connection may I quote from the observations of Mr. Pirow, Minister of National Defence in that country. A press dispatch states: Pirow emphasized that South Africa was not preparing for war in the near future but merely taking elementary precautions "which every nation must bear in mind if it values freedom and independence." He also disclosed to parliament that hi3 technical department was exploring the possibility of manufacturing in South Africa various military necessities hitherto imported. . . . A survey is also being made Pirow announced of industrial possibilities for war purposes which he said would ensure supply of the necessary stores without dislocating civil requirements and without profiteering. I now come to that section of my remarks dealing with the estimates. I suggest, first, it is very regrettable indeed that unanimity of opinion in Canada seems to be impossible with reference to a question as non contentious as the requirements of Canadian defence. The most important contribution we can render at this time, when shadows of impending disaster seem to be hovering so darkly over a doubt-torn and tempest-tossed world is, so far as possible, to resist all suggestions of partisan controversy, and to respect the heartfelt opinions and1 profound convictions of those who may differ from the defence policies of the government of the day. It is not for us at this time to say that those who are opposed to us are of necessity wrong, but we should endeavour to prove that what we are trying to do is the right thing and in the interest of the nation. While we adopt the attitude of not being too critical of one another, we on this side of the house are convinced that the policy presented at this time by the present administration is one which, by reason of its studied moderation and its avoidance of and severance from any extraneous commitments, should commend itself to the free and unfettered judgment of the Canadian people. Some may criticize us as pursuing a purely national policy; some may say that we are evading our empire responsibilities. May I say just a personal word in that connection. I have the greatest veneration for the contribution that has been made by the British Empire, especially in recent years, toward the preservation of the peace of the world. When I think of the great contribution made by our great empire, I think of Gladstone's great words when he referred to "the noble fabric of the British Empire." I recall the words of the great intellectual statesman Mr. Herbert Asquith, when he referred to the empire as "the greatest and most fruitful experiment that the world has ever seen in the cooperative union of free and self-governing communities." I recall the words of Lord Rosebery when he referred to the empire "as the noblest example yet known of free, just and adaptable government." I recall the words of a great Canadian Doctor Macdonald, once of the Toronto Globe, who said: It would indeed be a calamity beyond compare were that world empire broken and its dismembered fragments scattered abroad. I recall the words of Burke who said: "Ties of the empire are light as air but strong as links of iron." Yet, sir, our duty is to the dominion and the Canadian people; this defence policy is a Canadian defence policy for the direct defence of our Canadian shores and our Canadian homes. Finally, may I say that with great veneration for empire idealism we in Canada to-day are looking to the future of this great dominion of ours, preserving so far as we can the unity of our people, with reference to all policies. In the great words of Sir George Foster, quoting Rudyard Kipling, "We are daughter in our mother's house, and mistress in our own." While some hon. members may call to their support the Monroe doctrine of the southland and others may look for support to the forces of empire in other directions without doing anything to bear our own burden, may I conclude with the words used by Sir George W. Ross in Toronto thirty years ago: Oh! This may love the southland, And this may cross the sea But this Land is our Land And Canada for me. 908 COMMONS National Defence-Mr. Mitchell


Archibald Hugh Mitchell

Social Credit

Mr. A. H. MITCHELL (Medicine Hat):

Mr. Speaker, speaking to this motion of want of confidence in the government, I must say at the outset that I am not in full agreement with it. I have not confidence in some of the policies of this government; its financial policy and its unemployment policy are examples. But I do agree with the defence policy of this government, and I wish now through you, sir, to compliment the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) upon giving to the house a clear and what I believe to be a true statement of the national and international situations as they see them. I have listened to them on each occasion they have spoken on this subject, and I very much appreciate the statements they have made from time to time.

The amendment which was moved to the motion for supply does not state that these defence estimates are to appropriate money for defence at the expense of social security. Although the amendment infers this to be true, it does not say so. Accordingly it leaves the way wide open for myself and for those around me who wish to do so to continue their struggle for social security without in any way interfering with our desire for national safety in times like these.

I think it is very timely just at this stage for me to point out on behalf of my colleagues and myself how much easier apparently it is to finance war than to finance peace. That was true in the last war. There was a condition of emergency which came upon us overnight, and that emergency was financed to the last dollar. But peace, Mr. Speaker, and the emergencies arising out of conditions of peace-these apparently are very difficult to finance. That is one of the paradoxes of this age, and one of the grave indictments of our present economic system.

This is a very practical world in which we live, and as a practical man I do not hesitate to suggest to this House of Commons that the ultimate security of nations does not lie in armaments, as was demonstrated by the last war. Security, in the well known language of the Oxford Group, lies in God control, God controlled individuals, God controlled homes, industries and nations, and may I say to my friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and to socialists everywhere and other reformers, that the same thing is true of all our suggested systems. However, the ideal state of affairs that men envision is not here; we are not yet living in times like

those. Around us everywhere it is a fact that Canada is not providing adequately, to use the language of the amendment, for "social security of all sections of the Canadian people."

It is also a fact that the nations are rearming on every hand; that millions of dollars and millions of pounds and millions of various other moneys are being voted and appropriated in every country for armaments, and that millions of men are training at this time for war. No matter how idealistic we may be, we cannot hide the fact that what I have just said is true, no more than we can escape the fact that every last one of the leaders of all these arming countries proclaims loudly now and again that the armament campaign which is going on in 'his country is not intended for offensive purposes, that it is only for defence. I wonder if that might not cause some of us to stop and see whether Canada's danger and the world danger to-day is not only international but intra-national. I wonder if the attacks which we fear are altogether external attacks. I wonder if there is not perhaps a force at work internally, not only in Europe but in America as well, including Canada, for which we must be prepared, and of which we have every reason to have grave fear. That, Mr. Speaker, is not necessarily a bogeyman. So far as the invader coming across the ocean to Canada is concerned, goodness knows why they would come to Canada to attack our shores. That, as the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) has suggested, may very easily be a bogeyman. But if the danger is more local than that, if it exists within our own nation and not outside our nation altogether, then I believe that all possible steps ought to be and must be taken to give Canada at least an ordinary fighting chance to protect herself. In saying that, I feel that I am doing only what is my duty, and in doing so I am not giving the government blanket approval in regard to all its policies. I feel now, although it might better come upon the discussion of the defence estimates themselves, like describing to the house the pitiful equipment and the terrible uniforms and materials that our men are expected to use in some of the armouries west of the great lakes. However, I might better wait for the discussion of the estimates.

I conclude with the thought with which I started, that we are living in a world where there is actual danger, and while certain ideals may be very desirable, and will eventually become realities, yet the real and present fact is that grave danger confronts us, not alone externally, but internally.

National Defence-Mr. Raymond


Maxime Raymond


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie) (Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I think that the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) when the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) was about to ask for the appropriations which he deems necessary for his department, is of the utmost importance, first of all on account of the increase of these estimates over last year, due to war preparations in Europe and following the rather ill-timed statements of some foreign or semi-foreign individuals, some of whom have no right to interfere in our political discussions and for whom past experience should have been a lesson.

I wish to avail myself of this opportunity briefly to state my views and those of the people I represent on this question of national defence, and I shall do it, to use the expression of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) " with a feeling of doing as my conscience bids me."

During the last few months we have had the visit of imperialist pilgrims-that is how they were called by the Minister of National Defence-who came here to show us our duty. We were able to read out the suggestions that were made by outstanding men in British politics, when some of them told us how many military aircraft we should have and others warned us that at the coming imperial conference the dominions would be called to decide as to their partaking in the defence of the empire. We have also read suggestive articles both in the British and Canadian press, and about war scares in Europe and to crown it all we now see that the estimates for military purposes are being substantially increased. You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that we 'have reason to wonder whither we are going.

In justice to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) I wish to recall right now the firm view which he took on September 29 last, when speaking at Geneva, before the Assembly of the League of Nations, he thus asserted our sovereign status:

We will not necessarily become involved in any war into which other parts of the British Empire may enter, simply because we are part of the British Empire.

And further:

Any decision on the part of Canada to participate in war will have to be taken by the parliament or people of Canada.

Speaking right here in this house on January 25 last, he stated:

That, on questions of defence or foreign policy Canada's attitude shall be guided by its own interest.

These are statements of principles with which I am fully in accord. They differ absolutely

from the old formula according to which Canada was necessarily at war when England was at war.

However, there are facts which we cannot ignore, and it is these facts about which we are concerned and which require some explanations from the government.

This year, the estimates amount to about $34,000,000 compared to about $20,000,000 last year. Why this increase?

The right hon. the Prime Minister, in answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) said:

As far as the estimates presented to parliament at this session are concerned, any increase placed there has been only and solely because of what the government believe to be necessary for the defence of Canada and of Canada alone. The estimates have not been framed with any thought of participation in European wars.

That statement was repeated this evening by the hon. Minister of National Defence. Without expressing any doubt as to the judgment of the government, it seems to me that some further explanations are called for.

Defence of Canada! against whom and against what?

Where lies this sudden threat which requires such a considerable expenditure for defence purposes? Abroad or at home? Let us consider the facts. The defence estimates, including those for air services, amounted, last year, to about $20,000,000, after the last appropriations were voted on June 22, 1936.

I have every good reason to believe that the Minister of National Defence, advised undoubtedly by his military experts, had then asked the house the necessary appropriations to maintain the efficient defence of Canada and that nothing had been neglected. Then, barely seven months after, he comes here and asks for an increase of $14,000,000. What did happen during this short period to justify such a substantial increase, apart from the visit of Lord Elibank, following the warning of Sir Samuel Hoare?

Our boundaries are the same. Our neighbours are the same and are just as peaceful as they were. Our geographical position has not changed and we are still separated from Europe and Asia by oceans, that mean almost an absolute security. We have no enemies that we know of. Moreover, the friction that existed by reason of the sanctions against Italy has disappeared since these sanctions have been removed.

Did the conditions in Europe grow worse? There is not any more talk about war than there was last June, when the estimates were voted; as a matter of fact, there is less talk


National Defence-Mr. Raymond

about it since the Italo-Ethiopian conflict is over. At any rate, our frontiers are not in Europe.

Then where did this danger of aggression from outside spring up since the end of June, 1936, that compels the Minister of National Defence to come up before parliament and ask such a substantial increase in his estimates, being a further charge for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) who still needs every dollar for our most essential expenditures. This is the question I am putting to the Minister of National Defence, and I do not intend to prejudice his answer. However, you will admit that there are coincidences and facts that are liable to throw some anxiety in the minds of those who believe in the defence of Canada within the limits of her needs and resources, but who are against any military preparations for other purposes.

Will the menace come from within? Some people say so. On January 14 last, L'Action Catholique reminded the governments that their duty was to preserve order in this country, be it even by force, and it drew attention to possible troubles. We all know what is happening in Russia, in Spain and even among our neighbours, the United States. Quite recently, speaking about the strike in the General Motors' plants, Father Coughlin pointed out the influence of communism in that strike, and he brought to the attention of the authorities, before it might be too late, the threat of a revolution. During that strike, the civil and judicial authorities were flouted.

In our own country, in Canada, volunteers have sailed in order to enlist in the red army of Spain. This, I admit, does not give me any sorrow; it will rid us of these undesirable people, provided they do not return here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:

Hear, hear!


Maxime Raymond



But it shows that there are some of them in our country. Besides, well informed people tell us that communism is a real threat which must be faced. This being so, let us guard against unpreparedness. If, in order to face such a contingency, an increase in our forces is necessaiy, let us not hesitate to bring it about, for we need an adequate organization to maintain order within our country and to protect our institutions. Such is the essential duty of the state.

We must guard, protect and defend ourselves not, as I take it, against any invading army, but against the overrunning of our country by these professional agitators, these

fomenters of trouble who are at work elsewhere, and who have already begun to make their presence felt here.

In this connection, I was recently reading a pamphlet in which the federal authorities were criticized for having done nothing to thwart communism, and where they were being rebuked for having repealed section 98 of the Criminal Code. I do not doubt the good faith of those who write such things, but if they really wish to educate the public, let them first read or study the act by which section 98 of the Criminal Code was repealed. They will find that by the same act section 133 of the Criminal Code was amended, through the addition of paragraph 4, which goes further in its import than section 98; that is why the Right Hon. Senator Meighen said in the Senate:

This bill repeals section 98, it is true, but in another section it restores section 98, or the full effect of it, after the repeal.

Then, on the subject of unlawful association, he said:

Under this bill, if it passes, and under the law as it then will be, nobody can be a member of such an association, for such membership is sedition and sedition at common law is forbidden. So there is no change there. The law said there was a presumption a man was a member, not if he attended a public meeting, but if he attended a meeting of the association. If it was not a member it was not very hard for him to discharge the onus. All he had to do whs to swear he was not a member. That is no great hardship. That presumption in similar cases runs through the Code almost from cover to cover. But to be a member of such an association will be an offence after this bill passes. (Debates of the Senate, session of 1936, p. 619.)

And Hon. Senator Cote, appointed by the Bennett government, gave a similar opinion about paragraph 4 added to section 133 of the Criminal Code.

In this section 4 is involved a point of law which is interesting not only to lawyers, but to every citizen who concerns himself with matters affecting the safety of the state. Under this amendment it will be easier to obtain a conviction, for the crown will not have to establish that the actions of the accused amount to an intention to bring about governmental changes by force. If the accused is a person who "publishes, or circulates any writing, printing or document in which it is advocated, or who teaches or advocates the use, without the authority of law, or force, as means of accomplishing any governmental change within Canada," he shall be presumed guilty. I am perfectly satisfied with this amendment. It goes farther than section 98 and justifies me in voting for the repeal of that section. (Debates of the Senate, session of 1936, page 622.)

I may now add that it devolves upon the attorney general in each province to prosecute those who transgress this law.

National Defence-Mr. Raymond

Whether the threat may come from the outside or arise within our own borders, I frankly admit, Mr. Speaker, that I findi it hard to get a clear idea as to the extent or the limit of our requirements as regards national defence. We do not know what the future has in store for us, although we try to foresee it. Besides, we scarcely know about the present. And unforeseen events may always alter the most reasonable expectations.

The minister has given us some explanations,-andi I believe in his sincerity-but they are open to question. He told us, in brief, that on the advice of his experts he asks but the minimum that is required to ensure our security. A perusal of the debates that have taken place in this house, will show that in the past cases have occurred where the minister of militia, after bringing down his estimates, had to alter them, in spite of the adivice of his experts. As an instance, I may refer to the House of Commons debates, session of 1922, volume 2, page 1135. Here is what the Minister of Militia, Hon. Mr. Graham, had to say in submitting his estimates :

The militia estimates, I might say, have been pared down to a point as low as is compatible with national safety; in fact, I have been criticized quite severely for some of the reductions.

Nevertheless, in spite of that statement by the minister and notwithstanding the opinion of military experts, a few Liberal members, and among them our Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power), our Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret), availing themselves of their right to question the need of these estimates for the purpose of ensuring our national security, did not take the same view as the then Minister of Militia upon different items, especially the vote for $1,400,000 for " annual drill." And Mr. Power, who is now the Minister of Pensions and National Health, moved, seconded by Mr. Lanctot, member for Laprairie-Napierville, an amendment calling for the reduction of this vote by $1,100,000 because they could not see the necessity of it. (House of Commons Debates, session of 1922, pages 1173-1174).

It is true that the amendment was negatived, but the amendment to the amendment brought by the Hon. Mr. Lapointe, then Minister of Marine, with a view to reducing the vote by $400,000 was agreed to (Debates of the House of Commons, session of 1922, at page 1578). On that occasion, the Minister of Militia said:

It is the desire of the government, of course, to meet the wishes of parliament, for parliament is supreme.

In fact, reductions totalling S700,000 were made in the militia estimates amounting approximately to $10,000,000 brought down by the Minister of Militia.

Now, if you recall the words of the Minister ot Militia which I quoted a moment ago on the absolute necessity of these minimum expenditures to ensure national security, you will realize that predictions made by experts do not always come true, as despite their prophecies, no catastrophe has befallen us after 1922 and our country has enjoyed complete security, notwithstanding the reduction of $700,000 made in the militia estimates then proposed.

This shows that bona fide opinions may differ on a question of appreciation, and that it may be advisable to revise the proposed figures when the various items are considered, without in any way affecting the security of this country.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize my views on these defence estimates. I cannot vote in favour of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North, be it for the sole reason that he wants this house to pass sentence before having heard the evidence. But I am not prepared to vote for those increased expenditures, unless it is clearly shown to me that they are warranted.

We are told that these estimates are necessary for the defence of Canada, and for Canada alone, and we are asked to have confidence in the government. I am quite willing to do so, but we should not be asked to vote blindly. Too many happenings of late have aroused our attention. Too many people from abroad have taken upon them to advise us. We have heard of national defence estimates amounting to $70,000,000, of 1,000 military planes for Canada, and so forth. Could it be that these present expenditures are but the beginning of the carrying out of a more extensive program? We are fully aware of the purposes of certain advisers from abroad, but we should rather like to know the present and future intentions of the government.

My duty to my electors is to oppose Canada's participation in any war outside of her own territory-the horrors of the last war are still too vivid,-and I will not vote a single dollar increase that will not be spent "wholly and exclusively" for the defence of Canada, and in Canada only.

Since our dominion is now a sovereign state, the obligation rests upon us to see to our own national defence, and we must protect our-

National Defence-Mr. Reid

selves against dangers from within and without. For that reason, I am prepared to vote any amount shown to be necessary to make this country safe.

But again, I say that our army, our air force and our navy must be called out only in defence of Canada and solely within her territory.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe


Mr. LAPOINTE (Translation):

Hear, hear.


Donat Raymond


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):


guides all nations. Our interest tells us not to participate in any foreign war and consequently, not to prepare therefor. Our policy should be essentially a Canadian policy.


Thomas Reid


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):

I listened with a great deal of attention this afternoon to the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) when he introduced this want of confidence motion as the house was about to go into committee of supply on the estimates for defence, and before proceeding with what I have to say on the motion I think it incumbent upon me to make a few remarks with regard to some of the statements made by the hon. gentleman. Let me say at the outset that if any opinion goes abroad in this country after to-day to the effect that Canada is preparing for war, it will have been started by the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group across the floor, one member of whom, the hon. member for Vancouver North, this afternoon, on beginning to speak, said it appeared that Canada was now preparing for war. This was the first intimation on the part of any hon. member that the defence estimates about to be introduced represented the beginning of Canada's participation in any war preparations.

As I say, I followed very closely the remarks of the hon. gentleman, and before I go further there are one or two other matters to which I wish also to refer. The hon. member spoke about the pre-war mental attitude. Well, if there is any pre-war mental attitude, it certainly is not very manifest in this country. Looking around the world and seeing what is happening in various countries, one cannot help realizing that this is the last country in the world where one would expect to find that spirit. The hon. member spoke also about the rush of armaments throughout the world, suggesting that perhaps it was the beginning of the destruction of democracy. Need I point out that democracy's greatest bulwark is Great Britain? Linked with the dominions and the colonies she is the greatest factor in the world to-day in the safeguarding of democracy. But what

is Great Britain doing along these lines? For quite a number of years she went about preaching peace and suddenly woke up to the fact that she was in great and grave danger, and in what is now taking place there is evidence of the fact that Great Britain is alive to the mistakes of the past years. It is said on reliable authority that at Christmas she gave every one of some forty million citizens a gas mask, free. Evidently she is alive to the danger from the air through poison gas.

The question of defence, Mr. Speaker, like that of neutrality, is different from the question of Canada's participation in any European war or the question of joining with or assisting Great Britain in any conflict in which she may participate either as aggressor or in self-defence. It is easy to understand the wide divergence of views with regard to the sending of troops across the seas to take part in conflicts in regard to which we in Canada have never been consulted and with which we may be or may believe ourselves to be remotely concerned. But the question of military equipment becomes an entirely different one when we come to the simple question of the defence of our own shore and country. Generally speaking, it is safe to say that there might be numbers of Canadians who would be hesitant about Canada participating in wars abroad, but who would never for a moment hesitate when it came to a question of defending Canada against attack. I noticed in the press, only this afternoon, a statement by the seconder of the resolution when, speaking at a gathering, he said he had been educating a boy of his not to participate in any foreign wars, telling him that it would be better for him to become a convict than a soldier. But I noted in the account that it was stated the boy said, "With the exception of the defence of Canada." And that question is the great one confronting this country.

It is hardly necessary to take up the time of the house in explaining what the various countries of the world are doing at the present moment? This was ably done this afternoon by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), but I am going to touch for one moment on the great armament race which is taking place, and to point out that what we are doing in Canada is comparatively speaking nothing. Our proposed expenditure this year is something like one-half of one per cent of our total budget, as compared with budgets in countries like Japan where it is 46 per cent, Russia where it is 20 per cent, Jugoslavia where it is 21 per cent, and so on. Great Britain has likewise embarked upon

National Defence-Mr. Reid

a large program; her armaments budget for this year is close to 20 per cent of the total budget for the nation. And need I point out that we are no longer dealing with nations as nations? Contrast the statements recently made by Premier Mussolini of Italy and Herr Goebbels of Germany with that to which we have listened, made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Woodsworth). Mussolini said:

r I hold out a great olive branch to the world. This olive^ branch springs from an immense forest of eight million bayonets, well sharpened and thrust from intrepid young hearts.

There is Italy's olive branch. Contrast it with the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who I think should be sent over there as an emissary to see if he could do anything with that dictator.

And echoing through the world we hear the same sentiment. Herr Goebbels said:

We took precautions on the principle that the League of Nations is good, but air squadrons and army corps are still better.

So one could go from one nation to another telling what each is doing, arming and rearming in a feverish, mad rush.

But we come to the question of defence. That is the question confronting this house, the defence of our own land. I realize that it is a serious question, one in regard to which there are many schools of thought. The hon. member for Vancouver North, who introduced the resolution, referred, I think correctly, to the impossibility of effectively arming ourselves against modern warlike nations. I do not think there is an hon. member who seriously believes that eleven million people could adequately arm to protect themselves to-day against any of the major nations of the world who are now armed to the teeth. But may I say to the hon. member that I was painfully surprised by his remarks in which he seemed to express a little slurring sarcasm, as to the efficiency of British professional troops. It will be remembered that at the outbreak of the great war, no one would care to think of what might have happened, but for that little band of professional troops which went over to France and stemmed the tide of the great German rush.


Charles Grant MacNeil

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

Mr. MacNEIL:

May I remind the hon. member that I referred only to the genera! staff.


Thomas Reid



Well, the hon. member makes that explanation now but he did not make it clear in his speech this afternoon, and that is what I am dealing with.

Then the hon. member said something to the effect that if Canada did get into trouble, perhaps the United States or even Great Britain would not stand by and see us put to the wall; but later he denied that it was a sponging policy. I cannot quite understand what he meant, because if we are going to depend forever upon the might of Great Britain and the United States, it certainly is a sponging policy and cannot be anything else.

We come, then, to the courses open to Canada. The first is that we can do nothing, nothing at all. Now that is very simple. Second, we could cooperate within the empire. But I know there are those in this country who will have no truck or trade with the old country. May I say this in kindness to the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group; I have sat for six years in this house and never heard him say one kindly word regarding Great Britain. Of course I may have missed it. Then a third course proposed is to separate entirely from the empire, and that course involves one of two things, namely, make alliances, or arm. Those are the three courses which I see open to this country.

That brings us to the question of neutrality, which was briefly touched upon by the Minister of National Defence this afternoon, and which I am going to take a little time to elaborate. First, I should like to draw this fact to the attention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the leader of the group. We are dealing with realities; we are not dealing with theories. I could liken him to a labour leader in the old country who later became Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who talked about peace, peace, and who at one time almost gave away Singapore. Had it not been for the Lords of the British Admiralty, that naval base, so much needed to-day, would have been given away by the then Labour Prime Minister of Great Britain. He kept talking peace, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has talked since I came into the house. It seems to me to be time partly wasted; it is on the European continent these things should be preached, not here, because we are a peaceable nation. Ramsay MacDonald balked peace in Great Britain, yes, and started to practise it while he was Prime Minister. But did any country in the world follow his lead? No, not one. In fact, .the reverse was the case. Almost every country was quietly and secretly arming, until last year it was brought forcibly home to the British people how dangerous and futile that policy had been. Whether we like it or not, for the first time in the history of

National Dejence-Mr. Reid

the British nation she had to take backwater and could not give world leadership when that leadership was required, as instanced during the time of the Ethiopian trouble. I say again, if anything happened to the British Empire, heaven help democracy! It surprises me that I have not heard one word of commendation from that group about the great struggle for democracy and the bulwark that Great Britain has been. I think some meed of praise is due Britain for that. But lot us look seriously at Great Britain for a moment. Will anyone seriously dispute the statement that Great Britain has been and still is the greatest factor in 'the world for peace, or the greatest bulwark of democracy in the world? Would any hon. member seriously dispute that statement? I think not. Consider, then, her position to-day and just what she is doing in the way of war preparation. Among other things, as I have pointed out, she is presenting every citizen with a gas mask, and her latest program is running into a cost of billions of dollars.

That gives me a thought, Mr. Speaker. The other day I was just wondering what the two great labour leaders of Great Britain, Ramsay MacDonald and Philip Snowden, who is today in the House of Lords, would think now in view of the fact that in 1931 they went around the country preaching ruin if certain economies were not effected. And be it remembered those economies were effected by cutting the rates of unemployment relief, by cutting teachers' salaries, and by reducing other social services. I wonder what they would think now that this latest program has been commenced, because it certainly makes their total budget of 1931 look very small indeed. As a rule, the British people are lovers of peace, and during the years of Arthur Henderson and Ramsay MacDonald Great Britain went further than any other nation in an effort to induce all other countries to beat their swords into ploughshares. But the British people realize now that they went too far in that direction. Not only did it do no good at all; it was a dangerous experiment. It was laudable, I admit, to endeavour to practise the principles which were laid down by Ramsay MacDonald when he was Prime Minister, but theorist as he was, he failed to discern that he was dealing not with theories but with realities.

I am inclined to think the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party in this house is somewhat that same type of theorist. It could be said also, perhaps, that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party stands in almost the same position in Canada as the party formerly headed by

Ramsay MacDonald occupies in Great Britain. It is well known that Ramsay MacDonald ruined the socialist cause in Great Britain for many, many years to come. That is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre seems to have done for his party in Canada. He endeavoured to form a new political group in this country; he attempted to join, farmers and labour under one political head, and designated the party the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, with the theoretical doctrine of state socialism for labour on the one hand and private ownership of land for the farmers on the other. That was a beautiful theory, but just the same it was a theory which was doomed to failure from the start. Those who have given any thought at all to the subject know full well that state ownership was abandoned long ago as an obsolete doctrine and a socialist idea, and if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had been a little more practical he never would have attempted such a political union in this country. It was unfortunate for his party, and like Ramsay MacDonald he must accept some responsibility for the unfortunate experiment. It is little wonder that in British Columbia the party is split in two.

Now, Mr. Speaker, for a few moments I should like to deal with the question of neutrality, but I want to deal with it in a practical way in order to show this house how real the question is and just how it will and does affect Canada. To maintain neutrality Canada must become a full-fledged nation supporting international law and able to play its part. But we heard nothing like that from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he spoke of neutrality. He just waved his arms and said "neutrality" as if there were nothing to it. If we in Canada are going to have neutrality, we must be able to enforce international law and to play our part as a full-fledged nation. But when we endeavour to make a beginning in playing our part as a full-fledged nation; when we endeavour to put ourselves in a position to respect and enforce international law, we are met by a want of confidence motion introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). I should like to quote Lord Birkenhead on international law, but I do not intend to quote very extensively because the lawyers in this house might be tempted to object if I did so. At page 325 of his book on International Law, Lord Birkenhead says that when a neutral government does not or cannot expel an enemy or an enemy ship, the other belligerent is justified in taking complete charge of the situa-

National Defence-Mr. Reid

tion, and according to the Hague Convention of 1,907 failure to enforce neutrality is a breach of neutrality. Then, with respect to international law, Lord Birkenhead says further, that a country guilty of a breach of neutrality must pay damages, et cetera.

According to international law which is in effect to-day, no belligerent ship may remain in any neutral port longer than twenty-four hours. Just consider for a moment what would happen if, say the United States and Japan were at war and a Japanese submarine or battleship endeavoured to enter or to remain in one of our Pacific ports. If we did not take action, we certainly would be in trouble. I am going to visualize for a moment what might take place as far as the Pacific coast of British Columbia is concerned. The coast line of British Columbia is some 750 miles in length, and in that distance there are numerous islands and bays. There would be nothing to hinder the Japanese, we shall say for the sake of argument, from hiding large quantities of oil and gasoline on one of these islands. Then, in case of war, a Japanese submarine or some other Japanese ship could, if required refuel at that point. What would be our position if we took no action in connection with that ship while it was in our territory? Do you think we could just say "We are neutral and will do nothing?" Would that be the end of it? I do not -think so, nor would it.

I am going to cite actual cases. One of them may be rather ancient, but one is a very recent case. I do so in order to draw to the attention of the house just what could and would happen in the event of our neglect or inability to chase out one of the belligerents. The first case I have in mind is that of Alabama, which is a historical case. Great Britain allowed that ship to escape. The United States filed a claim against Great Britain for $15,000,000, part of which has been paid, and I understand the rest would have been paid if it had been possible to locate the owners of goods which were damaged. Then, during the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, a Russian destroyer took refuge in a Chinese port. China was a neutral country and could not either order the destroyer out or put it out. Well, the Japanese just went in there and blew up the ship. We all remember the case of the German cruiser Dresden during the last war. Oh, yes, the cruiser was a long way from home, but still this happened out in the Pacific. The Dresden escaped after the battle of the Falkland islands. The British warships hunted the Dresden for three months and finally located it in Chilean territory at 31111-584

Juan Fernandez island. Rather than, surrender the ship the commander had the crew taken off and then he blew up and sank the cruiser.

I know there are some who say that war between the United States and Japan is unthinkable. Pray heaven it never comes! But if one believes the statements we have heard in this house recently that preparation for war brings war. there is then certainly a grave possibility of war between those two nations, because they are arming at an unprecedented rate. If war ever takes place, let me warn the house and the country that we cannot stay out of it. It is no idle boast of the Japanese on our coast that if war ever occurs, she intends to use the territory of British Columbia as a base for operations. AVhether we like it or not., we are not going to escape the responsibility of lack of enforcement of neutrality in the event of hostilities between two other nations. If American trade were interfered with on our Pacific coast and if it were known that a Japanese submarine or destroyer were harboured in any of our ports, the United States would not hesitate for a moment, and rightly so, to come in and take complete charge of the territory.

Yet there are those who say that our remaining neutral does not imperil us. I say again to the hon. member for Vancouver North, when he speaks of being neutral, to look at the matter from a practical viewpoint, from the standpoint of realities. If he does he will come to the viewpoint to which I have come, that we cannot remain neutral unless we are prepared to do more not only toward chasing out an enemy ship but toward protecting our own.

I had not intended speaking as long as this, but I thought it incumbent upon me to rise in my place and say that I for one could not and would not support the want of confidence motion, believing as I do that it is the duty of a nation to defend herself. I realize the truth of what the hon. member said, that perhaps more should be done for social purposes and by way of alleviating distress. I am all for this, but I agree with Adam Smith who many years ago said that defence is greater than opulence. In this country opulence means trade and commerce. If we are going to take our part as a nation, it is high time we began looking after our own defence.


René-Antoine Pelletier

Social Credit

Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):

Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the impas-

National Dejence-Mr. Pelletier

sioned speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) as it was delivered both before and after recess. It was almost as forceful as some of his speeches I read regarding proposals for credit and currency in terms of public need. However, since he made those speeches he has become Minister of National Defence, and his slogan seems to have been altered to guns and battleships, in terms of military demand.

He spoke about lack of consistency in the amendment, as well he should; he himself is so consistent that he must deplore inconsistency in anyone else. I would ask hon. members to note how strikingly similar both slogans are; both demand something for someone. Of course, it is not the same "someone," but one must remember that the minister is not now occupying the same position as he did at another time. This may account for the slight change of wording.

However, ait this session, of parliament he is about to ask for a vote of some millions of dollars to be expended, as he explains, for national defence purposes. May I state clearly at this point that this afternoon the minister stated that this is not in any way to be considered as helping in, or part of the British Empire defence plan. A short time ago the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) stated that we should speak about the glorious part Great Britain has taken in order to preserve world peace. I do not for one moment doubt ilhat all the glory coming to her should be given her. She should be given credit for it, but in view of the declaration of policy of the Minister of National Defence, I fail to see that in these defence estimates we are called upon to make any decision on that particular point. Apparently he does not wish to 'associate himself with any empire defence plan. On the other hand, he does not like to prepare for war, and would have us believe that these expenditures are merely for the defence of Canada, and of Canada alone.

In view of the fact that last year we spent millions of dollars for the same purpose and that this year we are called upon to spend more millions of dollars, it seems to me the question of defence is one which should be defined. I wonder where the limit is going to be, so far as defence is concerned. That- is one thing the minister has not fold us. For example, he told us about the efficiency of his department. His department had pointed out to him what was needed in Canada. They wanted some battle ships, some anti-aircraft guns, new equipment, and so on. I find in a return tabled at this session that some

^Mr. Pelletier.]

$45,807,928 was spent strictly for military requirements since 1920. Yet we find the Minister of National Defence telling the house that we have nothing by way of defence in Canada. He tells us we have not a gun worth while keeping; he says we have no machine guns, no anti-aircraft guns, despite an expenditure of over $45,000,000. I am wondering where the money went.

This afternoon he pointed out the necessity for the defence of Canada, should anyone attack us. But, like the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), he failed to mention who the supposed enemy might be. The Minister of Justice ait least said that there were three or four dogs, allegedly mad,, running around Europe. They 'have not yet snarled at the Minister of Justice, because he did not name them. Undoubtedly a local disturbance of such a nature as to demand all the hearing powers of the Minister of National Defence must surround him, and prevent him from hearing the same noises as does the Minister of Justice. We are told by the Minister of National Defence that these are armaments for defence purposes. What do other nations say? Germany is arming, and Hitler says:

It must be thoroughly understood that the lost lands will never be won back by solemn appeals to the good God, nor by pious hopes in any league of nations, but only by force of arms.

Italy is also arming, and Mussolini says:

We reject the absurdity of eternal peace, which is foreign to our creed and our temperament. We must be strong; we must be always stronger; we must be so strong that we can face any eventuality.

Russia is also arming, and Stalin says:

The trend towards disarmament is openly being replaced by a trend toward arming and rearming. The people of the U.S.S.R. would fight to the very death to preserve the gains of the revolution.

France, too, is arming. Premier Leon Blum says:

The Europe of 1914 has been reconstituted not only in its material but in its moral elements. Faith in peace is shaken and dislocated. The final catastrophe seems to be preferred to the worry.

Great Britain is arming, too. My point is that exactly the same situation prevailed in the years prior to the last war. This is something which should cause alarm. I have in my hand the speeches delivered in the Imperial House of Commons in August, 1914, relative to Great Britain and to European powers. I ask hon. members to note how similar are the pronouncements of the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Justice at this session of parliament, in

National Defence-Mr. Pelletier

these times, to those spoken in 1914 in the British House of Commons. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir Edward Grey, said this:

Last week I stated we were working for peace-

The Minister of National Defence said exactly the same thing to-day. Sir Edward Grey continues:

-not only for this country

The minister would have some of us believe that it is only for this country.

-but to preserve the peace of Europe. To-day events move so rapidly that it is exceedingly difficult to state with technical accuracy the actual state of affairs.

The Minister of National Defence no doubt realizes that the world is faced with exactly the same eventualities to-day. We have the same pronouncements about the building up of armaments in order to defend the integrity of one's country or to bring about world peace, but let us see what the result has been of all these cries about saving democracy for posterity, fighting in defence of freedom, and so on, because in the final analysis it is results that count.

Apparently a large number of people have been forgotten, and perhaps it is right to forget them because they are dead. They are the eight million people who gave up their lives in the last war. There died in the last war 1,611,014 Germans; 1,427,800 Frenchmen; 2,672,064 Russians; 911,000 Austrians; 807,451 Englishmen; 507,160 Italians. Those were the soldiers who died in the last war. This number does not include many others of other nations who met their deaths in the last war, and all this was done after we had been told by the great statesmen of the world that they were arming in order to keep democracy safe for posterity.

Now let us see how many were wounded in the last war. The number was 20,297,551 soldiers wounded. Even to-day in this Canada of ours we can go about the country and in all parts we find soldiers who are still lying on their beds of agony as a result of the wounds they received in the last war. In addition, there were 9,000,000 war orphans, and 5,000,000 war widows. The total capitalized value of the civilian lives lost has been estimated to be $33,551,276,280, and I give it to the very last dollar because it is so many dollars' worth of civilian lives. The property loss on land was figured at $29,960,000,000; property loss on sea, $6,800,000,000; loss to neutrals, $2,000,000,000, and loss to the world, $337,846,189,667.

The hon. member behind me asks, where does the money come from? I wonder. It is something that cannot be explained by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when we require certain moneys for social purposes. It is something that cannot be explained by any of the governments under the present existing financial system. They do not know where the money is to come from for social services, but when it is to be used for purposes of destruction, to snuff out the lives of brother human beings, to build up armaments with which they can fight and kill each other, then there is no difficulty about finding all the money that is necessary, and in destroying all the goods that we could put to better use.

I have no doubt it is quite easy for the Minister of National Defence to make such an impassioned plea as he did to-night, because he is surrounded by many of his colleagues who are honoured and happy to applaud him every once in a while. That gives him a great deal of courage, and undoubtedly pushed him to extremes so far as his oration to-night was concerned. When I saw his colleagues pounding their desks to-night, and saw the minister of National Defence himself pounding his own desk this afternoon, I felt they were pounding upon the hearts of those who are always the losers in any war, and that is the mothers in all countries. They are always the losers, and have been in every war since man first lifted his hand against his brother. Millions of them are now the mothers of spirits whom once they called their sons.

So, I cannot find it within myself to support increased armaments for Canada because I do not believe these armaments are really and truly only for purposes of national defence. The Prime Minister this afternoon-and I think I heard him correctly-denied that any sort of agreement either implied or otherwise existed between any country and Canada in connection with these millions of dollars which Canada is asked to expend on armaments. I would point out, however, that before the last great war broke out, an agreement or at least an understanding existed between the general staffs of Great Britain and Belgium that was not recorded at the time but was eventually found to have been in existence, and when we read statements such as were made by outstanding men like Sir Samuel Hoare recently in England, I cannot see much consistency in the statement of the Minister of National Defence that these armaments are not for empire defence. It is almost impossible to know what the true position is. The govern-


National Defence-Mr. Bertrand (Laurier)

ment persistently refuse to give us their policy. They tell us they do not want to have anything to do with the British Empire, that these moneys are not for empire defence. They have repeated that time and time again. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) feels he can support these estimates because he believes they are not for the purpose of empire defence, but in the next breath he would like to have us contribute something to Great Britain. It is most difficult to know the true position, and until such time as we have a definite statement from the government as to what these armaments are really for, I cannot find myself able to vote for these increased armaments.


Ernest Bertrand



Mr. Speaker, this question is very important, first, on account of the amount involved, and second, on account of the principle involved.

If we consider the amount involved, and compare it with what was expended in previous years, it is rather a large amount; but if we compare this amount with what has been voted in countries like the Argentine Republic, Chile, Switzerland or the Irish Free State, it is not a large amount. The South American countries have no more reason to arm than we have. If the Monroe doctrine means anything, they are protected by it just as much as we are. They are further away from Europe and Asia, and yet they spend larger amounts on armaments than we are asked to spend, If the amount is considered in relation to the armaments that we had here, it is not a large amount because we had nothing at all before, as was so well said by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie).

But I feel that the question is rather one of principle, and the principle involved is that of contribution to the future wars of Europe. If national defence meant contribution to the future wars of Europe, then I say undoubtedly I would have to be against national defence. If it meant contribution to European wars, I am sure that the people of my own province would soon ask themselves the question: Is it worth while to stay within the British Empire if we have to go to war because South Africa wants its independence recognized, because Germany wants its colonies back, or for any other reason?

But if we have to defend1 Canadian territory and if it means only the defence of our territory, I am going to vote heartily for this measure of defence. It is true, in my opinion, that, legally speaking, we are just as independent as we can be. The Statute

of Westminster is not, unfortunately, a title that we can take and register in the book of independence as a proprietor would register title to his own property. Perhaps because we have not gained this statute at the price of bloodshed, we do not accord it as much importance as we should. On the other hand, we bear the earmark of a British country; we have the same flag; we have the same king, and if England or some other part of the British Empire were attacked, we would have to defend ourselves. I say gladly that I am ready to stay a long time within the British Empire at the price of defending my own country against any attack. It is true that Canada is further removed than any other part of the empire from any conflict which we to-day can foresee. But the high seas are not so far away nowadays as they were many years ago. True, we cannot argue away the Atlantic or the Pacific ocean, but it must be remembered that Washington is nearer to London than it is to Mexico.

We hear a lot about the Monroe doctrine. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might give this house the benefit of some studies I have made recently with regard to that doctrine. It was formulated in 1823 as a defence against the Holy Alliance, reactionary powers of Europe that wanted to bring the Spanish colonies of South America into submission to Spain. It was directed against England, against France, and against Russia, but it was formulated without any request on the part of the South American colonies. It has been interpreted by the United States in fifty different ways, and its only meaning as far as that nation is concerned is that the United States shall intervene whenever they want to intervene and that they will not intervene if they feel it is in their interests not to do so. Very often its effect has been to stop other countries from interfering with the states of South America, not only from armed intervention but from purchasing land or territory when they wanted to acquire such lands or territories for themselves. We know what happened as far as Texas, New Mexico, upper California and Cuba are concerned. The Monroe doctrine is a doctrine of "no colonization." We are apt to forget that confederation itself was passed as an answer to that doctrine. I have before me a book written by Professor Reddaway, of Cambridge university, and he quotes the words of President Adams, some time in 1827, that "the union must soon include all North America." In 1866, not only the president of the United States but the house of representatives con-

National Defence-Mr. Bertrand (Laurier)

sidered a bill to annex the colonies north of their northern frontier, and Mr. Reddaway


These feelings found utterance when, in 1866, the house of representatives considered a bill for the eventual annexation of the continent north of their own borders. They were answered by the British North America Act, which united Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick into a single dominion. This constituted the sharpest check which the development of the Monroe doctrine had received.

There are numerous quotations similar to this in the book to which I have referred and in another book written in 1897 by a French professor, M. Delarue de Beaumarchais. The South Americans did not like the Monroe doctrine. It is said in Mr. Reddaway's book that they never called for it and they never recognized it. As I said a few minutes ago, the United States have interpreted it to suit their own interests of the moment. With regard to Cuba, Mr. Reddaway states:

The question of Cuba, however, interwoven as it was with the question of slavery, continued to occupy the attention of the United States. The succeeding president, aiming at preventing emancipation by annexing the island, endorsed the Monroe doctrine in his message of 1853.

This is what I want to come to:

Next year-

In 1854.

. . . the ambassadors of the United States to London, Paris and Madrid met at Ostend, and astounded Europe by a manifesto. if Spain refused to sell Cuba to the republic, they declared, ail laws divine and human would justify the republic in taking it by force.

Well, I say that this is not a doctrine to protect the neighbours of the United States. Even if we were independent to-day we should have to spend more than we shall spend under the present program of the government. In 1895, war was almost brought about between the United States and Great Britain, by virtue of the Monroe doctrine, in connection with the borders between Guiana and Venezuela. But where the effect of the doctrine clearly showed itself is with relation to Cuba. I am not going to relate the more recent history of Cuba, for I think it is known to everybody, but I suggest it indicates that we should protect ourselves without having too much recourse to the Monroe doctrine. It indicates that if we depend upon the United States for our defence, we must pay for it. In the history of the United States, we cannot find anywhere that the American government has sacrificed money and men without receiving due return. We are all thankful for the part the United States took in the great war, and the words of General Pershing when he arrived in France,

" Lafayette, we are here," will go down in history. But we must also remember that four or five years afterwards congress said to the allies, and especially to France, " Lafayette, here is the bill." And they are still pressing for it.

So far as my province is concerned, the question is one of national defence, but our opponents in that province are trying to induce the people to believe that national defence means participation. Allow me to quote from a newspaper which is not particularly sympathetic to the Liberals in the province of Quebec; I refer to Le Devoir. I believe the editors of Le Devoir are sincere, but they forget what they wrote in 1914. I find in Le Devoir of August 3, 1914, the editor-in-chief, Mr. Heroux, writing the following words:

On annonce que la Commission du Port et la eompagnie du Grand-Tronc font particuliere-ment surveiller les elevateurs a grain et leur materiel, et que le Commission du Port a demands au gouvernement d'exercer une surveillance speciale sur les canaux et les ports. Tout cela est de premiere necessity et utile au premier chef au gouvernement canadien, comme la mise en defense de nos cotes et le maintien de la paix interieure.

Let me translate the principal words: "All that is of the greatest necessity and of vital importance to the Canadian government, and so is the proper defence of our shores and the maintenance of internal peace." But that is not all. Again, on August 3, 1914, Mr. Armand LaVergne made a speech which was reported in Le Devoir: He said:

M. Armand Lavergne, le jeune depute nationa-liste, que l'on a interroge sur la participation du Canada a la guerre europerenne et sur la rumeur de son depart pour la guerre, a declare: "II n'est pas vrai que je pars pour la guerre ear j'ai toujours desapprouve la participation du Canada aux guerres k 1'etranger, que ee soit avec la France ou TAngleterre. Si les troupes sont mobilisees pour la defense du Canada, j'obeirai aux ordres. Je considere que les Canadiens rendraient un meilleur service 5. TAngleterre en protegeant Sydney, Halifax et Quebec, plutot que d'envoyer des troupes se battre en Europe.

Let me translate this again: "If mobilization is ordered for the defence of Canada I shall obey orders. I consider that Canadians will render a greater service to England in protecting Sydney, Halifax and Quebec, than in sending troops to fight in Europe." Well, to protect any of these ports or the port of Vancouver from a raid, we need anti-aircraft guns and boats to sweep the St. Lawrence clear of mines. We cannot defend these towns with water pistols or pea-shooters. On August 5, 1914, Le Devoir said:

Chaque lieure rend plus claire la gravite et Tetendue des mesures que nous impose la defense du Canada proprement dit-noire devoir


National Defence-Mr. Bertrand (Laurier)

particulier, ou personne ne nous suppleera et pour l'aecomplissement duquel nous ne devons rieri epargner.

This is important and I want to translate it: "Every moment shows more clearly the gravity and the extensiveness of the measures which the defence of Canada is imposing upon us, which is our duty where anybody may attack us, and for which we shall neglect nothing." I am not going to quote many more, though I could if I wanted to go through the files; but on August 5, 1914, Mr. Armand LaVergne also said:

En face de la situation qui nous est faite, nous devons nous demander, dit M. Lavergne, quels sont nos devoirs? Je considere que nous avons pour premier devoir de defendre notre territoire. Le danger que court l'Angleterre n'est pas dans l'armee autrichienne ni dans la flotte allemande. L'Angleterre peut etre affa-mee dans tous sens et nous devons proteger les ports de Sydney et de Halifax et garder libre la route du Saint-Laurent, afin de pouvoir lui offrir un grenier ou elle trouvera ses vivres.

I think this deserves to be translated at length: "Confronting the situation which is facing us we must ask ourselves what our duty is. I consider that our first duty is to defend our territory. The danger to England is not from the Austrian army or the German navy. England will be needing foodstuffs and we must protect our ports of Sydney and Halifax and keep free the St. Lawrence route so that she may have access to our granaries from which to secure her bread."

On August 17, Mr. Heroux of Le Devoir, wrote words that are still more in our favour to-day. He said:

Nous estimons avec la vieille tradition cana-dienne, que les obligations militaires du Canada se limitent a la defense du territoire: ee devoir, il est absolu et nous devons l'aeeomplir, quelle que soit 1'attitude du gouvernement ontarien. Si nous eroyions que notre devoir va au deli, nous dirions encore a nos eompatriotes: Accom-plissons ce devoir, quoi que fasse le gouvernement. On ne marehande pas dans ce domaine.

I translate: "We feel with the old Canadian tradition that the military obligations of Canada are limited to the national defence of our territory. This duty is absolute, and we must perform it whatever may be the attitude of the Ontario government to the school question. If we thought our duty went further we would so inform our compatriots. Let us discharge this duty, whatever may be done by the government of Ontario. We must not bargain in this domain." He was referring to the Ontario government of that time. These are words that are true to our best traditions and I am proud to-day to defend these preparations for national defence. I am proud to-day to support these proposals for national defence. I am proud

to think that the minister who first proposed in this house the act to set up the Canadian militia was a French-Canadian from Quebec, who sat among the Conservatives.

On July 9, 1914, before the war broke out Mr. Bourassa was in London, and, speaking before the Liberal Colonial Club, he is reported by the newspapers to 'have said:

II a declare qu'il appartenait a la Grande-Bretagne de garder les mers tandis que le Canada ferait sa part en defendant son territoire. M. Bourassa a tres bien resume la situation canadienne en montrant plusieurs partis oecu-pes a fortifier les liens imperialistes, pendant que les seuls nationalistes travaillaient sur des bases logiques au developpement de la defense nationale.

This means: He declared that the safekeeping of the high seas belonged to Great Britain, while Canada would do her share in defending her territory.

Mr. Bourassa summed up the Canadian situation by showing that other political parties were working for the imperial link, while the nationalists were working on a logical basis for the development of national defence.

Again, on February 24, 1917, speaking of Canadian statesmen, he said:

S'ils etaient restes fideles a la tradition canadienne et aux accords arretes avec la Grande-Bretagne, ils se seraient bornes a preparer la defense du territoire canadien.

Which means that if the government had restricted itself to the motives governing all other statements, if it had remained trua to Canadian tradition and to accords made with Great Britain, our statesmen would have restricted themselves to providing for the defence of Canadian territory.

Then, another question which is asked in the province of Quebec is: Where is the enemy? This question we can read in many newspapers, including Le Devoir. To-day with the airplane enemies may come from afar. But if there is a man who should not ask this question, it is the ex-director of Le Devoir. In 1914, Mr. Bourassa was in Europe; on July 30 he was in Strassbourg; on July 31 he was in Cologne, and on August 2 he was in Cologne. Coming back to this continent, on August 22 he gave to the newspapers an interview in which he said that he even had to walk to the German frontier, the train service being completely disorganized by the state of war, and that he had to leave his trunks in Germany.

These, Mr. Speaker, are the reasons why I intend to vote with the government and to vote against the motion. As a Canadian speaking the French language, I feel that I would be belittling my country if we did not

Dominion-Provincial Relations

make provision to defend ourselves properly. I should be belittling my province and my own race. To conclude, let me quote a word of Mr. Reddaway, written in 1898. Speaking of the southern nations of America, he said:

The nations of South America would no doubt sacrifice much to gain the United States as an ally. They would be untrue to their Spanish ancestors, on the other hand, if they accepted her protection at the price of any portion of their political independence.

If we rely solely on the Monroe doctrine for our defence, we are absolutely abandoning our independence, or at any rate a great part of it. I am sure that in my own province the leader of the government, whose ancestors suffered for the autonomy of Canada, is going to be looked upon as a true Canadian; the province of Quebec will have faith in him and will not have any trouble in voting for these appropriations.

On motion of Mr. Thorson the debate was adjourned.

On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Tuesday, February 16, 1937


February 15, 1937