(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
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
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
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)
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
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:
Or a total reduction in two years of $5,725,700 or 75 per cent.
Then the Royal Canadian Air Force:
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
Pay and allowances $359,325
Stores and allowances-
Ammunition and stores 350,760
Four minesweepers 750,000
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:
AdministrationTraining and maintenance.. $ 629,749
Stores and equipment 4,524,847
Engineer services 1,022,096
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
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
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