February 16, 1937

LIB

Robert Emmett Finn

Liberal

Mr. FINN:

What battleships are being proposed to be built in Canada or for Canada?

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
SC

John Charles Landeryou

Social Credit

Mr. LANDERYOU:

My hon. friend knows that they intend to build some ships in Great Britain.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Robert Emmett Finn

Liberal

Mr. FINN:

What have we to do with that?

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Jean

Liberal

Mr. JOSEPH JEAN (Mercier) (Translation) :

Mr. Speaker, I think that the importance of this debate has been exaggerated. The militia estimates on which it is based are not in themselves very alarming. Ten or fifteen millions added to our national defence appropriations will not be sufficient for us to save the British Empire, nor even Canada if she were attacked, and the increase in these estimates is not likely to draw our country into a war.

This question of reorganizing our national defence has been arousing public opinion throughout the country, and, in fairness to those who have felt compelled to protest against the policy of the government in this matter, I think that we must at least consider their criticisms and dispel their legitimate fears. The horrors of 1914-18 are still so vivid in the mind of every Canadian and the mortgage placed on our country is still so heavy that we cannot see without fear any tendency toward militarism, slight as it might be. Consequently I do not blame those who availed themselves of the opportunity to warn us against the renewal of such a tragedy as the last war and its effects. I do not question their good faith nor their patriotism and I like to believe that their criticism is not intended to conceal mean and petty political tactics, but on the other hand I might say to them who sincerely fear these defence increases that they also must believe in our sincerity of purpose and that our love for our country is as real as theirs.

I represent in this house one of the largest electoral districts of our dominion. The voters have clearly placed their confidence in me at the last election. The population of that constituency is essentially Canadian and unequivocally devoted to the interest of the country. I would betray their confidence, I would be unworthy of their trust if I were to take on this question, or on any other issue for that matter, a stand not clearly and simply Canadian. But I would also fail in my duty to my constituents if, for the sake of a few more votes at the next election, I were not to do the proper thing and what I consider to be in the best interests of my country, or if I were not to follow unhesitatingly the dictates of my conscience in the matter of responsibilities.

After all, is there anything very alarming in these militia estimates? The only justifiable fear that has been voiced so far, at least if I may judge by the representations made to me and by what I have read in the papers, is that we might be drawn, directly or indirectly, into future wars on the battlefields of Europe, as some would say, or in wars outside this continent, as others would put it, and that our foreign policy might be dictated to us by London or by a foreign nation.

Mr. Speaker, I will go further in expressing that fear. In so far as I am concerned, I do not want to see Canadians drawn into any war, domestic or foreign, of any nature whatsoever. War is a tragedy which does not benefit the belligerents and which should be looked upon with loathing and shame by anyone who prides himself on being civilized. But there is a vast difference between that and declaring that we must give up all preventive measures and any national defence organization.

I will not admit, either, that the defence policy as presented to us by the government necessarily implies in any way our future participation in a foreign war. Whether we are equipped for war or not, should the people of Canada decide, in a moment of aberration, to take part in a foreign war, or should our territory be invaded, Canadians would be forced, as they have been in the past, to give their blood and their money in order to enforce such a decision or to repel the aggressor.

Moreover, should Canada participate in any foreign war, an event which I neither anticipate nor desire, it is not the army we are now equipping which would take the greatest part in that war, since that army is organized for defence purposes, and solely for defending Canada. Consequently, we are not asked today to decide if Canada will take part in a war or not. If such were the case, I would not hesitate to answer in the negative. The only problem facing us as a result of these increases is whether or not Canada should have her own national defence organization.

If someone were to move a resolution for the abolition of the department of National Defence in Canada or of any form of armament, I would be sorry for my hon. friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), but I would not be shocked. But if you want to act as an independent nation, if we are to believe-and it is a legitimate pride-'that we are a nation, then we must assume all the inevitable responsibilities. There is no instance in the history of the world or in our own time of a single country which has not provided1 in some way for her

National Defence-Mr. Jean

national defence. I do not think either that we can find a doctrine which makes for complete disarmament of a nation, on account of her being opposed to war. Even those who have started revolutions for the purpose of wiping militarism forever of this world, are to-day armed up to the teeth and are always challenging other nations to draw them in new conflicts.

Lenin himself, in the first days of the Russian revolution, published this manifesto to his country, on November 2, 1917:

We have put an end not only to war but to militarism. We will give the Russian people an opportunity to know the happiness of a peaceful people having given up war and having no regular army.

If we consider the tremendous army which Russia now has, twenty years after that prediction was made, it is obvious that such pacifist and nihilist theories are nothing but empty words used to deceive the people and to make them forget the realities which they must constantly face.

I shall be very careful, Mr. Speaker, not to resort to such theories which bring about results quite different from those that are expected. I have no fear on behalf of Canada, should we organize a modest national army, even though no enemy might threaten us for the time being. On the contrary, I am convinced that such a small army would be a powerful factor of internal peace and one of the best means of developing among our people that spirit of national unity which we all wish to promote in our country. But that objective will only be reached on one condition, and I wish to give at once a warning to those who will be in command of our army, as well as to the Canadian people. The so-called national defence will be truly national only inasmuch as the various elements of our population and the two great races who live in this country are allotted a real and at least an equal share in it.

It is useless to conceal the fact that one of the obstacles to national unity in this country is the unequal division of responsibilities and advantages between the various races. If the province of Quebec looks distrustfully upon the increase in the defence estimates, the reason is not that the French-Canadians are less patriotic than others or that they refuse to assume their share of responsibility as regards the defence of our territory and of our liberties, but they demand the recognition of their efforts, of their sacrifices and of their almost age-long struggle to maintain the integrity of their country, and to ensure its development.

Therefore, if we admit that Canada, as a nation, should have her small army, let all

races without discrimination be invited to join its ranks, and especially the French-Canadians who have no other country but Canada which they pioneered. I firmly believe that as long as there remains a parcel of Canadian land to defend, a liberty to safeguard, and an institution to protect in this country, the French-Canadians will make it a point of glory and a duty to fight to the end.

As to the question of deciding whether our army should be equipped in such and such a way, whether we should have a navy, aircraft or war gas, I admit candidly that I am unfamiliar with these proposals. I also do not know whether 10, 15 or 20 million dollars would be excessive or insufficient to complete the organization of a modest national army, and on this point, like several other bon. members, I am reserving the right, when the estimates are taken up, to obtain the necessary information on which to base my opinion.

In short, Mr. Speaker, I fail to see where the increase in the defence estimates amount, in principle, to a declaration of war or to some kind of commitment to participate in foreign wars, which I would strongly oppose, should I be given such an opportunity. But the question is simply to decide whether Canada is to have her exclusively national army and if this army is to be equipped with modem weapons as found in every modern army.

Inasmuch as there is nothing else in view- and we have the positive assurance of the Minister of National Defence that such is the case-I am ready to support, in principle, the policy of the government, knowing that I am fulfilling a sacred duty to my country.

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT Temis-couata) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I have before me Le Soleil of March 4, 1935, which reports an important speech made in Quebec by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) at a dinner tendered to our very good friend the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) in March 1935. On that occasion the hon. minister spoke as follows:

I shall repeat to-day what I have always said in my public speeches as well as in my private conversations, and this is intended especially for the young men who are anxious about reforms and changes: Urge reforms, ask for them but do so from within the ranks of the Liberal party which alone can carry them out, and not from without, that is in these new groups which cannot but divide the Liberal forces.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to put on record this statement which is quite in conformity with the Liberal principles as we all understand1 them. The discussion which has taken place to-day shows clearly that in

National Defence-Mr. Pouliot

our party we still enjoy the freedom of speech which was so dear to the old Liberals and which nobody can take away from us so long as the Liberal party will be worthy of its name.

The question that we are now discussing is a very important one and deserves our best attention. As usual, I would like to deal with it in a cool and moderate way.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Paul Joseph James Martin

Liberal

Mr. MARTIN:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

There is one thing which has not been mentioned and which is very important, at least for the purpose of disposing of it, and that is what is commonly called red tape. If there ever was a department where red tape is in vogue it is in the Department of National Defence. I have before me an historical document of the utmost importance, namely, the 92 resolutions of 1834. The 45th resolution ends thus:

. . . listening rather to the governors and their advisers than to the people and their representatives, and shielding with their protection those who consumed the taxes rather than those who paid them.

In other words, in this year of grace 1937, which is the anniversary year of 1837 when the Canadians had to rise in revolt-and your ancestors were among them, Mr. Speaker,- to protect themselves against bureaucracy, this same bureaucracy is now more powerful in Ottawa than it was then. Since a century we have gone backwards. It is time to bring bureaucracy to order.

I always made a distinction, Mr. Speaker, between a real soldier and an actor. A real soldier is one who fought on the battlefields, but an actor is one who kept hiding twenty miles back of the front lines, or in England, or in Canada.

Such a man, Mr. Speaker, has no right to call himself a soldier; he is a common actor and perhaps he can deceive someone . . . I remember having seen and heard Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree, one of the greatest actors of England, in the part of Cardinal Wolsejr. His presence was imposing, his dress compelled respect, and he had a wonderful appearance, but nevertheless he had never been a prince of the church; he was only an actor. Mr. Speaker, we can apply the same comparison to all those who wear a military uniform and who have never gone to war. Once again it is not the cowl that makes the monk.

There is one thing that surprises me most and it is the statement that has been made in Montreal the day before yesterday by an honorary lieutenant-colonel. I have here a clipping from the Montreal Gazette, and I

see in the second section of that newspaper that Honorary Lieutenant-Colonel Ward C. Pitfield stated that the members who ridicule these furbelows were crazy. Well, sir, this individual who sold almost $50,000 worth of paints to the Tory administration in 1932 has a good war record. He did fine service at the front, and earned there his rank of captain, but he bought his title of honorary lieutenant-colonel. To-day he is surprised when we reproach him with making a show-off of a title which- he bought. Personally, I am wondering why he should put more value on what he bought than on what he actually earned. That reminds me of the man who got his head shaved and who thought that it was far more stylish to wear a red wig, and also that other man who had all the good teeth that Providence had given him, pulled out, to have false teeth instead. Mr. Pitfield prefers the artificial to the genuine thing. He would rather hare what he bought than what he earned and to me that is extraordinary.

I shall ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call it six o'clock, and I shall resume later.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. POULIOT:

Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock we were talking about red tape. What is it? We find a lot of it in one of our most interesting publications, The Canada Gazette. I have in my hand several numbers of that valuable publication, and I am very much surprised to find that half of them are used in printing notices for the Department of National Defence. We have no army; yet we hear so much about it in this official publication.

I now hold in my hand the last number, and find in it a great deal about the staff of the Department of National Defence. It always speaks about promotions-prosperity in the Woods building. Promotions and other matters take up three pages and a half, in small text. Then there are general orders. They are easy to see, with titles in big, black letters. Then there is organization, disbandment, localization of units, and a lot of letters. These always come from H.Q.-headquarters-and refer to orders in council. Then there is more about promotion.

The number issued prior to the last one was just as interesting. In it we find a lot about the Department of National Defence, when it speaks about cavalry, infantry and

National Dejence-Mr. Pouliot

everything else. It is most interesting to read1 that, sir, and most important for the state to have all these promotions. Then, turning to the issue of January 30, we find some more stuff. Oh, yes, we find general orders again. These people in the Department of National Defence cannot learn warfare. They must 'be trying out their penmanship all the time. Everybody in that department, from the chief of staff to the last appointed stenographer, must also fee a typist. We hear a lot about that-most foolish; most stupid-and it continues like that.

This we call red tape. What is red tape? Red tape consists of a lot of formalities carried out just to show the importance of the one who performs them. Red tape is useless, but it is made use of for a purpose. It is carried out to show that the man who executes the formalities is the only man who could) do this so well. In the civil service my experience has been that the simplest things, the easiest to understand, are made the most difficult in order to show the ability and the wonderful genius of an ass. Hon. members laugh, but that is the case. Let us take the fellow who is stupid, and who cannot do anything well. He says, "I will make myself important." Then he assumes a solemn air, and attempts to convince his minister that he is the only being on earth who can do a certain thing. Sometimes he is believed; sometimes the officials do not see the ears of the ass. There is a lot of that, but I shall not insist upon it.

This is red tape. It is useless. I am sure the hon. members who moved and1 seconded the amendment know more about it than I do because they were in the army for a long time. It is perhaps because of that experience they have expressed themselves so eloquently in the matter of national defence. There are good men in that department. I know some who are very able, and I respect them because I am not a socialist or a communist. I am not against the army; the army is a very good thing; it is a necessity. But it should be an army, not a joke. Distinction should be made between the good and the bad.

Let us see the doubtful ones. Gentlemen, I happened to glance at the November issue of Seaports, from Surrey, England, and in it I saw the picture of a jovial beef-eater, Major B. D. C. Treat of Surrey, England, who arrived on the Antonia on October 4. It states, " He will spend some 'time in the Department of National Defence in Ottawa." I wonder how many notices he has drafted to be printed in the Canada Gazette. He has not stayed here long, but there is reference to him in Hansard, and I am not going to

read all that I have before me. What surprised me was that the Department of National Defence knew very little about his military experience. I asked the following question:

What was he doing in England before coming here?

And the answer:

From February 16, 1933, to December 31, 1935, officially listed as major instructor in gunnery, coast artillery school, Shoeburyness, England; otherwise unknown.

Then, the next question:

Previous to his coming here did he visit other parts of the British Empire, and if so, (a) in what capacity, and (b) where?

And the answer is:

Not known-but it is presumed that he did not.

The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) is a serious man, and a friend of mine. I am very much surprised that he did not get more information about the illustrious Major B. D. C. Treat who came from Surrey, England, to share his knowledge with the bloated colonials. But there is more to it than that. After having looked at Seaports, that wonderful weekly, I glanced through the telephone directory of the dominion government, and saw the numerous branches listed under the Department of National Defence. I had a hearty laugh, inside me of course, because I was alone at the time. Then it occurred to me that I would ask for information about people in the department who were real soldiers, and those who were just acting. At first the apparent length of the question surprised a few members, and I had to explain about the book which had given me cause to be a little curious about the matter, and to put my nose in the Department of National Defence; I hold it now. Sir, listen bo this: This is a resume of sessional paper 160 reference No. 41, babied on February 10.

It reads:

War Records of N. D. Department Staff

A questionnaire by J. F. Pouliot (Liberal, Temiscouata), as to the actual war experience and place of birth of the staff of the Department of National Defence was answered in a return tabled in the House of Commons yesterday by Secretary of State Rinfret.

Mr. Pouliot divided his classifications into those thirty-seven years and over, who served in an actual theatre of war, twenty miles behind the lines, in England or in Canada.

I wanted to be fair to those who were too young to enlist at the time of the war. I wanted to be fair to the younger men employed in the Department of National Defence. I did not want to be hard on them.

National Defence-Mr. Pouliot

The article continues:

He learned there are 95 officers and 215 other ranks in the department 37 years of age or older, and 34 officers and 377 men younger than 37. Then, dealing with those 37 and over, he found there were 68 officers and 119 men who had served in the line in an actual theatre of war; 4 officers and 9 men who had been stationed farther than twenty miles behind the fighting line; 9 officers and 18 men who had been stationed in England; 14 officers and 60 men who did not leave Canada on active service overseas.

Of the total departmental staff, 92 officers and 345 men were born in Canada; 37 officers and 246 men were born outside Canada.

At the time the return was tabled, one had gone home, which made it one less.

Could we not have Canadians filling, not only the humble posts but the more eminent positions in the Department of National Defence? I am proud of my fellow citizens and I believe that an English or Frenchspeaking Canadian is just as good as an Englishman from the old country. I am very much surprised to find that after so many years since the British officers and men left this country Canada has taken a step backwards. We find that one-half of the staff of the Department of National Defence is made up of men who are not Canadians. These figures have nothing to do with the non-commissioned officers as another return to be tabled later will cover those men. I wonder whether among those who stayed twenty miles behind the fighting line or those who, while serving in the Canadian army, stayed in England or Canada, there are not some who did so in order that they might avoid going to the front ? I shall have more to say about this later on. I want to know if there are cowards in the Canadian army, if there are in the department men who have done their best to stay away from the front.

There are not only those in the Department of National Defence who have not had practical experience in war; there are others who are on parade as honorary colonels and honorary lieutenant-colonels. The list of these officers is tremendous, and many of them are honorary colonels of three regiments which have been disbanded. One man has been praised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) just as though he were dead. This gentleman is a general and has been knighted, and I wonder whether he is praised because of his title. I am very much surprised that the 87th regiment of Calgary is not a disbanded regiment. I have many more particulars I could read, but I shall not do so at this time.

This strikes me as being a great joke at the expense of the people and at the ex-31111-60

pense of our dead. These men take advantage of their wealth in order to parade in a uniform which they were too cowardly to wear during the war. I do not blame anyone for not enlisting; every man is free either to join the army or not to join, but when a man wears a uniform he should have more behind it than the fact that his bank roll is fat. A man has no right to parade like an actor in the uniform of an honorary officer. I am not being personal about this matter as my remarks apply to every one of these honorary colonels and honorary lieutenant-colonels, whose names appear on this official return of the House of Commons. It would be just as easy to have a drum-major twirl his stick in front of a regiment as to have it led by an honorary lieutenant-colonel. At one time there was a crank who used to cover his chest with tin in the belief that he was an emperor. The same thing applies to these honorary colonels and lieutenant-colonels-they are just covered with tin.

There is another marvellous matter to which I should like to refer. The previous government decided that those who fought in the armies of the countries allied with His Majesty during the war were entitled to preference over Canadian citizens when being considered for civil service positions. I asked if the government had any information as to whether those countries which were allied with His Majesty during the war gave the same privilege to Canadian citizens in connection with their civil service. Was the answer yes or no? It was worse than that; it was "no information." When the previous government was in power, the Secretary of State of that time (Mr. Cahan) submitted to the house legislation which gave preference to those who were not our fellow-citizens simply because they had fought in the armies of countries allied with His Majesty. That was pretty hard to accept.

I now come to something delightful, something which is like an oasis in the desert. If there is one decoration which is not the cover of a can, it is the efficiency medal. Is that not delightful-efficiency? It is an American word, signifying one who is efficient, who is able, who has in his hand the key of success. One who is efficient is worthy of confidence, of approval, of respect. So let me quote from our esteemed contemporary, the Ottawa Journal. It announces in its issue of July 11, 1936, "Military awards in Ottawa and district." Mr. Speaker, be careful I Mr. Clerk -I cannot address him, but he must be careful ; so must the assistant clerk, lest they fall from their chairs. Listen, and be careful 1

National Defence-Mr. Pouliot

The efficiency decoration is bestowed by this government on various men. And who is the most efficient -man in Canada?

The Eight Honourable E. B. Bennett is among the many Canadians receiving military decorations in a list made public on Friday by officials of the Department of National Defence.

Mr. Bennett is honorary colonel of the Calgary Highlanders and has been awarded the Canadian efficiency decoration.

There is efficiency! I never knew that before, and I am surprised that the right hon. gentleman does not wear his medal and does not carry with him all his degrees of LL.D. honoris causa.

What is a medal? The great Napoleon has said, "C'est avec des hochets qu'on mene les hommes"-a great saying of a great emperor who had a deep knowledge of the human heart. I shall never forgive the Minister of National Defence for having pinned that efficiency decoration on the lapel of the leader of the opposition. But time 'flies; let us speak about efficiency. There are also other efficient people. Last year I drew the attention of this house to the fact that if Colonel Steel had been returned to the Department of National Defence and granted the pension to which he was entitled, he would have had one-half of what he now receives. I complain about that.

Now, with regard to economy. Would it not be better to return General McNaughton to the Department of National Defence at a pension of $4,800 a year and replace him at the head of the National Research Council by a really efficient Canadian and a very eminent man who has been a benefactor to the race of mankind; I refer to Doctor Banting, the discoverer of insulin. McNaughton receives $15,000. His salary should be reduced to one cent. But if Banting were appointed to that position, I would be ready to vote $25,000, $50,000, even $100,000, to permit him to continue his scientific experiments in the interests of humanity. We are not stingy; we are ready to vote money provided that it serves the purpose for which it is voted. I am ready to vote money to rebuild the Moose Jaw armoury which was burned the day before last. It is a useful expenditure. But the objects for which we are to vote must be disclosed to us.

In my opinion this motion is premature, although it serves a good purpose. I find it premature because I want to get some more information about the wide distribution of medals and titles and the real efficiency of the officers and men of the department before deciding whether I shall vote for or against

the next estimates. I want information. But I will tell the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) that his motion has been useful. It has been the occasion of a free exchange of views with regard to the very important matter of national defence. I do not know what I might have done had his motion not been twofold, but as it is, I shall not vote for the program of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation until its leader answers the fifty-five questions that I put to him in February, 1933.

I have only five minutes more, and I shall try to use them as well as I can. We have been told that communism is a menace to this country. I do not know that we are entitled to go as far -as that. It may become a menace if we continue to give absurd salaries to some members of the civil service who do nothing, when others who wo-rk are not well enough paid. Take, for instance, McNaughton's salary of $15,000 as head of the National Research Council; it is a provocation to those who suffer hunger; so is the salary of MacBrien, and so are other salaries which are in excess of $10,000. There should be a reduction in that regard, with the exception perhaps of the chief justice. I do -not know of any civil servant who is worth more than $10,000. Not only that, but some others have recourse to tricks in order to increase their salaries. They do not have a flat salary of $15,000, they have apparently $10,000 -or $11,000 -or $12,000, and they have also some other gratuities or bonuses. That is a shame.

I do not wish to see the federal government carrying on the fight against communism. Why? Because it is the duty of the provinces to do so. It is the obligation of the provinces to maintain order within their borders. Therefore I am much concerned about the intrusion of the dominion government in provincial business, and the more so because to-day I have heard the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) express some opportune views regarding the distribution of taxes in order that the federal government, the provinces -and the municipalities should remain within their prescribed limits and be independent of each other.

Great dangers result from distributing -money too freely. Our votes would not be so high if Fullerton had not received $30,000, and if Hector Charlesworth had not been granted $6,000 purely as a gratuity, which he did not deserve. Either those two men were competent or they were not. If they were competent they should be in office now; they should not have been put out-, and if they were -incompetent they were not entitled to

National Defence-Mr. Factor

any award at the expense of the taxpayers. This matter is very serious, as we all know, and for my part I am ready to do anything that is essential for the defence of the country. But if there is an increase in the estimates, I do hope that when any member recommends an honest citizen of his constituency who desires voluntarily to enlist to defend the country, the doors of the Department of National Defence will not be closed against him and that he will have an opportunity to serve his country, especially when there are people from outside receiving fair salaries and bonuses while our own people are on relief. This should stop at once. The Department of National Defence, before being reorganized, should be ventilated; the windows should be opened and the cobwebs brushed away, and there should be a general clean-up in the department to show that bureaucracy is about to die. There are enough good soldiers in the Department of National Defence; let them use their guns to kill bureaucracy and they will serve the country very well.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Samuel Factor

Liberal

Mr. SAMUEL FACTOR (Spadina):

I

hope the hon. member who preceded me will pardon me if I do not follow him along the same line. I do not possess his fluency of speech or his sense of humour, nor am I industrious enough to make such an analytical research in the National Defence department as he has done. But may I say in a word that perhaps the officers of our Department of National Defence compare very favourably with the officers of departments of national defence of other countries.

In the last few days I have received hundreds, yes, literally hundreds of communications from my own constituency opposing the increase in the estimates of the Department of National Defence. Let me give a sample of the literature which I have received from my own constituents. This morning I received postal cards a sample of which reads:

As a citizen in your constituency I urge you to oppose any increase in military expenditures.

I may say for the information of the house that I have tried carefully to peruse the names signed on these cards, and I can assure hon. members that the great majority of the communications come, not from communists or wild-eyed radicals but from responsible citizens. The majority of them come, not from men of foreign origin but from men of good Anglo-Saxon stock. I have also received a number of letters from ministers of the gospel, professors of the university of Toronto, students, women's organizations, and presidents of home and school clubs, all

opposing the increase in the expenditures of the Department of National Defence, looking upon it as a preparation for war, as an entiy of Canada into a race for armaments of war. This is all very disturbing and confusing.

Possibly because of the influence exerted by a depression psychology it is the easiest thing in the world at the present time to foment the public mind into a frenzy to look upon problems not in their true perspective but from an extreme standpoint, and I assume that if I were following the line of least resistance I would stand here and utter a strong indictment against the government and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). If I wanted to curry political popularity in my own constituency, and particularly in certain sections of my constituency, I would strongly condemn the government. Furthermore, if I were of opinion that the increase of a few million dollars in the estimates of the department meant the entry of our country into a race for armaments, meant the imitation of some of the European countries in their mad race toward war; if for a moment I thought that the increase in the estimates meant the precipitation of our country into a European war, I would not hesitate, party allegiance or not, party loyalty or not, to rise in my place in the house and condemn the government for increasing the estimates.

But let Us analyze the increase for a moment and see what it does mean. I strongly deprecate the great confusion that has been created in this debate. I deprecate this full-dress debate because it has led merely to a confusion in the public mind. For instance, this afternoon we heard some admirable speeches condemning war. Let me ask this house: Is there an hon. member who will not agree wholeheartedly that war is cruel, brutal and futile, that war destroys not only the vanquished but the victor as well? Is there an hon. member who will not agree that an enormous economic loss amounting to billions of dollars was incurred in the last war and that there was also enormous loss of life among our own Canadians, the flower of our manhood being destroyed, sacrificed on the altar of war?

I believe the opinion is unanimous that Canada should not be entangled in any kind of war. I hate to visualize the next war. Let me read a short paragraph from an address delivered in Toronto by General Pouderoux, a famous French soldier. He says:

The social consequences of a new war would be absolutely catastrophic. They would bring belligerent nations right back to savagery without any accompanying profit to neutral nations,

National Defence-Mr. Factor

who in turn would have to defend themselves against an infection of world wide corruption, similar to any other contagious epidemic.

In this world of shattered nations, demoralized and deprived of all their resources, the peoples of the earth would fall into utter misery and utter barbarism. Their place in history would be like that of the mutilated veterans and beggars in our own nation. They would have to live off the neutral countries who could not very well refuse to keep them from actual annihilation.

Any political regime which contributed to the outbreak of war itself or was not sufficiently energetic in opposing it would not be able to stand against popular movements born of discouragement, indignation, terror or the profound distress of the civilian population. In any future war involving, as it would, non-combatants as well as combatants, governments would have to reckon with the probability of violent and sudden popular disorders. An iron rule imposed by the sheer gravity of events, and by the difficulty of distributing food supplies, would have to be hastily set up in the general chaos of terror and misery.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

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

Mr. DOUGLAS:

Does the hon. gentleman tell the house that General Pouderoux favours armaments as preventing the thing he depicts?

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Samuel Factor

Liberal

Mr. FACTOR:

No; General Pouderoux

does not favour any armaments or any war, nor does any member of this house favour armaments and war. There is not one member of the government, from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) down, who favours armaments and war.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

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

Mr. DOUGLAS:

Then why the increase in the estimate?

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Samuel Factor

Liberal

Mr. FACTOR:

Nor does anyone favour

the present condition of the world. We are living in a crazy world, a world in which established things and institutions are being upset. I certainly do not favour armaments of war, any more than I favour the dictatorships of Hitler or Mussolini or Stalin. I do not favour armaments of war because armaments of war lead to war. If I thought for a moment that the Prime Minister of this country and the Minister of National Defence are foisting upon this country a policy of armaments of war, I should be the first to rise in my place and oppose that policy. But, knowing as I do the contributions that our Prime Minister made to the promotion and development of industrial peace, knowing the contribution that he has made to the improvement of social and economic conditions, knowing as I do the experience that our Minister of National Defence had in war, I say to hon. members that these two hon. gentlemen are the last persons on earth to foist a policy of armaments of war on this dominion.

I am as much an idealist as the hon. member who interrupted me. But I am sorry to say that we are not living in an idealistic world at present. I deplore, as I said, the dictatorships in Europe; I deplore as well the fact that in our own country race hatreds are being created and fomented. I deplore the general instability of the present time. But we must face facts. We live in a realistic world. I d;o not for a moment consider the increase of $13,000,000 in the estimates for national defence a preparation for war. Let me ask hon. members; let me ask the mover or the seconder of this amendment-and I am not doubting their sincerity-are they prepared to advocate the total abolition of the Department of National Defence? Would they be prepared to say that this country under present world conditions should not vote a single dollar for national defence? Certainly not. Let me ask them then. If we are to have some policy of national defence, why not have an adequate policy? We must remember that we are not living in the horse and buggy days of twenty-five or thirty years ago. Business, agriculture, science have progressed; in every sphere of business activity we seek to use the most modern methods. So my argument is that if a policy of national defence is necessary, in all common sense let us have an up to date policy. Let us have equipment which is modern and fit to cope with eventualities which we may have to face. Modernizing our present equipment is the purpose of this increase. I cannot see why it is called' an increase or an expansion of our national defence; it is simply for the purpose of modernizing our defence equipment and bringing it up to date. Its purpose is to provide modern aircraft equipment and some naval equipment. If world conditions improve, and if in a year or two from now we can attain to that idealistic state of peace among all men, the $6,000,000 worth of equipment for our aerial defence can easily be converted to peace-time purposes. The hundred' or so aircraft can easily be converted to peaceful uses, providing for an effective transcontinental air service across Canada.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

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

Mr. DOUGLAS:

They will be out of date then; new ones will have to be 'built.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Samuel Factor

Liberal

Mr. FACTOR:

Well, if we have to build new ones we shall build them. The major portion of this $6,000,000 is for the construction of modern aerial defences. Let us have at least sufficiently equipped defences, and for this I have to take the word of our own minister and of those qualified to know, that

National Defence-Mr. Gardiner

the amount voted will bring into being a small, compact but effective machine which will be able to defend Canada-yes perhaps, if necessary, to cooperate with other countries of the world in time of peril and of need. I deplore the necessity of even talking about ammunition and anti-aircraft guns and war equipment, I should like to see the old prophetic dream realized, that men should beat their swords into ploughshares and1 their spears into pruning hooks. Unfortunately at the present time we are not living in such idealistic days. Would any hon. member tell me that if we wiped out entirely our vote for national defence, this would in any way promote international peace, would in any way encourage these mad dogs in Europe to pursue policies of peace? If we scrapped every bit of equipment contemplated in the present estimates, would this in any way give a lead towards international peace? If I thought it would I should be the first to say so. We have to go through this period of transition. As mentioned by other speakers, in this world at the present time it is not merely nation conflicting with nation, there are two ideas clashing. As far as I am concerned, as a Canadian I stand ready to defend those democratic and free institutions which are so near and dear to my heart against dictatorships. I am ready to maintain in the British Empire at least those institutions which make no distinction between class and class, between race and race, between religion and religion, those institutions which do not oppress minorities, which do not de-class people because of their religion or their race. I am ready to defend those institutions because it is only through them and only by readiness to defend them that we can hope to attain that ideal which Tennyson envisioned, in which-

the war drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle flags were furl'd

In the parliament of man, the federation of the world.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :

Mr. Speaker, when this debate commenced yesterday, it was not my intention to address the house, since I thought in all probability the debate would be concluded before it became necessary for me to be absent from the house for a number of days. In order that there may be no mistake as to my views with regard to this question, however, I think it necessary for me to say a few words at this time.

One reason why I consider it necessary to speak on this matter is the fact that I am Minister of Agriculture in the government of Canada and as such I am at least supposed

to be representative of that great mass of people living on the farms of Canada who are looked upon as the most peace-loving people in the country, though personally I may not be as peace-loving as some. In the second place, Mr. Speaker, I am the only member of the government living in that great expanse of territory which stretches from the city of Winnipeg to the city of Vancouver.

I do not pretend to be able to speak for the people who live in that section of the dominion on this or any other particular question for any particular length of time. I know that public opinion in Canada with regard to most questions changes more or less from day to day, certainly from week to week' and sometimes very greatly from month to month and from year to year. On a question such as that of war and peace there is perhaps a more rapid change of opinion than with regard to any other question which might be discussed. It would be absolutely impossible for me to tell the house at this time what would be the attitude of the people of Canada if another war were declared. All the circumstances surrounding the declaration of war would have to be known at the time that decision was reached, and in discussing this matter at this time we can consider, only in an academic way, the attitude which might be taken by the people under any condition of war. After all probably that would not get us very much further than some general conclusions with regard to war and peace.

I agree with the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Factor), who has just spoken, when he says that this is not an occasion upon which to discuss war or the attitude of different members of the house as to the question of peace. We all believe in peace. We would all like to promote peace and to see the world continuously engaged in the pursuits of peace. But most of us know, either from experience or from the reading of history, that it always has been very difficult to maintain the world in a state of peace for any considerable length of time. Perhaps there was no other period in world history when, considered as a whole, the world was so completely at peace as it was during the hundred years between 1815 and 1915. It is true that we had wars in that period, of time, but their influences upon the human race were more or less restricted. At the beginning of that period, however, we had one of the great world1 wars and at the end of the period we had the last great war. If I were seeking for a reason for the lack of great world wars in the period I have mentioned, I might find it in the fact that the North American continent was being opened up largely during that century. Peoples were

950 COMMONS

National Defence-Mr. Gardiner

able to find an outlet from the more thickly settled portions of the world, where difficulties always arise because of the trouble people have in obtaining the food, clothing and shelter they require in order to maintain themselves.

We are approaching another period of difficulty, and one of my reasons for desiring to speak on this question, coming as I do from western Canada, is a thought that was placed upon Hansard yesterday. Anyone who is a student of composition or of speech knows that the proper place to put the thing you want to put over is in the last paragraph of the composition or the speech. You want to get into that paragraph something that will strike the eye and compel the attention of anyone who reads. On page 891 of Hansard I find these words, spoken by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who comes from the very centre of the area of which I have been speaking:

I am convinced, therefore, that if we in Canada are to progress we must stand clear of this mad race for armaments which can lead only to war. On the other hand, if this house decides that we are going to prepare for war, then I submit that those who believe we should prepare, should bring down proposals which are in line with that preparedness. I would not support them, but I maintain that the next war will be a chemical war, a war of scientists, and under the conditions which are likely to exist, our government, if it is going to prepare for war at all, should do it as economically and as efficiently as possible. Call in the best scientists you have in the country, chemists and others, and let them prepare the most horrible gases they can think of. Let them assemble the most terrible germs of the type the nations will use, and let them prepare adequately for the real war that they foreshadow-

Who foreshadows it?

-in the future. And as for our young men, as my colleague from Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) has said, we should care for their physique and health for, after all, in any form of defence we need well-nurtured, well-developed bodies. As far as I am concerned, however, I oppose such war preparations. I oppose war because I do not believe in war, and I conscientiously object to it. But there is another thing that I believe, and it is this: when people talk about the inevitability of war, at any rate let them not say that participation in war is a Christian duty.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if talking about the inevitability of war, the dreadfulness of war and the destruction caused by war will have anything to do with the promotion of war, I do not know any paragraph that could do more in that direction than the paragraph I have just read. No one in this house has said that there is going to be another war or that Canada will be in it. Certainly that has not been said by the Minister of National

Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) or by the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) in any speech he has delivered during this or the previous session with regard to this question. Certainly no other minister of the government and certainly no hon. member on this side of the house has declared he is convinced there is going to be a war, that Canada is going to be in it, or that it is necessary to prepare for it. Why this statement:

I am convinced, therefore, that if we in Canada are to progress we must stand clear of this mad race for armaments which can lead only to war.

Then the hon. member proceeds to say that if the government is going to prepare for a modern war, certain methods ought to be followed. No person in the house has suggested anything about preparing for war. But in considering a question as important as this, I think we ought to know something about the causes of war throughout the ages. Every hon. member must agree with me when I say that if we look back over the pages of history we shall find that the one inevitable cause of war in the past has been that some people have not had sufficient room in which to maintain homes and families in ordinary comfortable circumstances. Whenever they have found themselves in that position they have sought to find new territories in which to settle their families. Sometimes they have found others in possession, and have attempted to drive them off, with war as the result.

What I want to say in that connection is this: We happen to be a people living in one of the most sparsely settled countries in the world. We are a people confronted with conditions similar to those which prevailed in Europe at the beginning of the last century, over a hundred years ago. We are a people who have had the experience of settlement in the last century throughout the United States, Canada and the South American continent. Yet if anybody goes into western Canada today, or in fact into any part of Canada and talks about taking some of the people from the overcrowded countries of Europe, even though those people be from British countries, bringing them over here and settling them on some of the sparsely settled lands in western or eastern Canada, the first people to complain are the group to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar belongs.

In that connection I want to say that if we are going to settle ware, if we are going to stop wars, we must grapple with them at their source, and deal with great world problems which are the fundamental causes of ware. In other words, there will have to be

National Defence

Mr. Gardiner

some movement in the population of the world. The history of mankind has shown that when any race of man, black, yellow, white or brown, is confronted with the alternative of starvation or fighting, it fights. I have no doubt that will continue to be a characteristic of the human race for a long time -to come. In other words, if we are going to prevent wars we must think of a solution for problems not only within Canada but throughout the world. We cannot adopt a "Canada First" policy; it cannot be one which is confined to narrow ideals with respect to the trade of Canada alone. It must be a policy which takes in the world, and eventually we shall reach a point where people will think of conditions from a world point of view rather than from the narrow nationalistic standpoint.

There is -another phase of the matter about which I think we should say something. In some years out in western Canada we produce as high as 500.000,000 bushels of wheat. In an average year we produce enough wheat to feed 30.000,000 people. Yet in that part of the country we have only between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 people, and not all those are employed in production. I should like to suggest: It is all very well to say that we have food piled up, and that we do not know what to do with it. After all we can consume only so much wheat in a diet. Even if they made wheat their sole article of diet those two or three million people could eat only so much of it. Whether we like it or not, we could pile that wheat as high as an elevator, go and siit on it all night when the temperature is forty degrees below zero and, although we did not need to be hungry, we would be frozen stiff in the morning, and would be just as long dead as if we had been hungry.

There are two sides to the question. The people in western Canada cannot live on wheat alone. Last summer for the first time I visited the central part of Great Britain, that densely settled strip of country between Liverpool and London, and I realized that those people cannot produce even a percentage of what they must eat. I sat in a -room with a young man who had served in the last war. He began by asking me questions about conditions in Europe, and wound up by asking me why I had gone to London in the first instance, instead of coming to Manchester. " Well," I said, " I went there because I thought there were more people in London, and because the centre of government was there." His answer was this: "Do you know you are sitting in the centre of an area which, within a radius of fifty miles, contains more people than -are to be found within a fiftymile radius of any point in the city of London." I said, "I did not know that; I have not studied your geography." " Well," he said, "that is a fact." I calculated in my mind, knowing from what I had heard in London, that there are about eleven million people in London -and the district immediately surrounding, and it would seem there is an equal number in Manchester and its immediate surroundings; we must add the great numbers of people in between those districts, and arrive at the teeming millions to be found in that great industrial area. Then we might transfer ourselves to France, where the fighting was done, stand on the monument at Vimy Ridge and look down upon the thousands upon thousands of people in the cities across the plain on which men fought in time of war. We might go up into Scotland and look at the area between Edinburgh and Glasgow; in fact we might go throughout the world and see the great masses of population in the industrial districts, or at the foot of the Himalayas and at the foot of the Alps. We could then come back to this house and talk about maintaining peace merely by saying we are going to keep Canada to ourselves, not only by occupation of it but in matters of trade and everything else. When our friends from the west sitting in small groups want to solve -our difficulties they will go -over to Europe, pick up some system of quotas, some system of price setting, some system of production of foodstuffs established there in order that men and women may be fed in time of war; they will transfer them into this peaceful country, and in that way try to settle all our problems.

We get too much of this kind of thing in western Canada; we hear it in all parts of Canada. We hear the kind of argument and kind of thought expressed1 in the last paragraph of the hon. member's speech. I want to say that this kind of argument in western Canada should cease. We should build the future -of that country-yes, upon that doctrine of Christian love mentioned, if you like, in the last phrase of the speech, *a doctrine which would make room in this old world for the people in some sections of it who are now pressed into such small areas that they cannot exist. That is one of our difficulties.

It has been indicated to us that some things have already been arranged to take care of the future for us. We are told that we need not worry, because the United States is alongside our borders. We are told that we have a great mother country which has always been friendly; that we need not worry, because if she finds herself in trouble we may make up

952 COMMONS

National Defence-Mr. Gardiner

our minds as to what we want to do. I am one who believes, with Cartier, that the last gun fired in Canada in defence of British institutions in Canada will be fired by a French-Canadian. He asks, "why?" and then he answers his own question by saying, "because they have enjoyed peace, progress and prosperity under British rule in such eminent degree that no change of allegiance could benefit them." That is the reason why people remain loyal to their countries without any coercion. That is the reason why we have a great empire. That is the reason why we are all proud of our empire. That is the reason why we Shall be in this empire as long as there is a British Empire to belong to. But this does not mean that there always will be a British Empire if we sit back and say that we are going to depend upon someone else to look after our welfare. Empires are not maintained in that way; institutions of government are not maintained in that way and the ideals in which people believe are not maintained in that way. Ideals, institutions of government and empires worth saving are saved by men and women standing up for the ideals in which they believe and maintaining those institutions along with other people and in cooperation with them.

In so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned, our future will be in the British Empire. Let us examine our position for a moment to see under what circumstances we would be possessed of the greater independence. Where would we find ourselves with our millions of bushels of wheat in the central prairies, with our cattle on the plains from one end of the country to the other, with our minerals being mined in our mines from one end of the dominion to the other and with our forests turning out lumber products required in all countries of the world; where would we find ourselves with no defences at all in our ports, no mine sweepers on the St. Lawrence or on the Pacific coast, no protection whatever? If Great Britain were at war and we were in a situation of that kind and did not go into the war and we desired to sell her our food, our minerals and our lumber, her ships would have to come to our ports, not ships to carry freight, but her ships to protect that freight; they would have to come to Quebec or perhaps to Montreal, and the first ship that sailed into either of those harbours or into the gulf of St. Lawrence would put this country into war whether we liked it, or not. Either that or every bushel of grain we had in Canada, every beeve we had in Canada and every munition we had in Canada, our minerals and our lumber, would be shut in behind closed doors at the mouth of the St. Lawrence, or at our other ports.

'

I doubt very much whether we shall be able to do all that the minister thinks we ought to do with the few mine sweepers he proposes; I doubt very much whether we shall be able to do all that he thinks we ought to do with the few destroyers we shall have; I doubt very much whether we shall be able to do all that he thinks we ought to do with the few aeroplanes we shall have, but at least it is doing something. We are at least telling the world that we shall deliver our freight to the three mile limit. If it is delivered to the three mile line, then no one can say that they must come in after it. If they do not have to come in after it, we shall be in a far more independent position to say whether or not we are going to declare war. For that reason I say that in so far as we as a government are backing up the minister in the position he has taken up to date, we are merely putting ourselves into a position of independence within the British Empire where we can at least talk on an equal footing.

No, it will not be an equal footing,because after all, even when we spend what it is suggested we should spend this year, we are spending only one dollar per capita for every ten dollars they are spending. Weare certainly not on the same footing.Let us proceed a little further. Let us suppose that everybody did stand back and when it was all over, this empire, of which we think so much, was no more. We would have but one choice, if we had provided ourselves with sufficient forces to keep ourselves outside the war, and provided no one would attack us when the war was over,

for the time being we could declare ourselves to bo an independent nation. But is there any one in this house who believes that would bring our defence costs below what we are considering to-day? Supposing we found ourselves in that position? Every port in the dominion would be open then as it is open now.

One of my hon. friends-I think it was the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson)- said this afternoon that we did not need to worry as the United States would not permit anyone to establish himself on the northern half of the North American continent, even though we were in a position where they could come in because of what might have happened to Great Britain. I suggest that that brings us dangerously near to the position in which Belgium found herself at the outbreak of the last war. We would not be allowed, it is true, to leave open the ports on the northern half of this continent; we would not be allowed, it is true, to leave open the ports along the Pacific because they would

National Defence-Mr. Boulanger

be an inlet to this continent. We, as an independent nation, would protect those ports in so far as it was possible to protect them. In order to do that we would have to go a great deal further than we have to go to-day as an associate in the empire to which we belong.

If we found ourselves in that position, what good would it do us to say that we had a great friendly neighbour to the south? The very fact that they were friendly and the very fact that we had neglected our own house would compel them to insist in self defence that we protect that long coast line which has remained unguarded for over a hundred years because of the peace that has existed between us. They would be compelled to take that action in order to prevent other nations which might be dangerous to them securing a footing in this country. That would not lessen our burden, that would not lessen our costs; that would not put us in any better position as a country; that would not make us more independent. Our position then would not be as enviable as the position we are in to-day.

I think I have said sufficient to indicate to the house that I am going to support the estimates which have been brought down by the Minister of Defence (Mr. Mackenzie, Vancouver). If the government of Canada has done anything at all in this matter of which we might complain, I think it has waited just a little too long. I do not intend to be too critical in saying that as we have been going through some very difficult times. Before I rose to speak this evening I was looking through an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen this morning and which pointed out the costs of that very difficult period. These costs were reckoned in dollars, which are perhaps too material to be the only factor considered, but there is also the human suffering. This suffering perhaps has not been as great as the human suffering during the war, but there has been intense suffering on the part of women and children and most of the men who went to war did so to preserve their women and children from suffering.

We have had suffering since the war. There are difficulties in peace time as well as in time of war; we have experienced many of them in the last few years. But it seems to me that Canada can best hold her head up among the nations of the world, as a great independent nation within the British commonwealth of nations, as a great peaceful neighbour of the United States, as one of the largest food producers in the world, by going on to produce food, by striving to maintain her people in as great security as she possibly can, and by seeing to it that we can deliver our food and other products out at least to the line for which we are responsible. Our function as a people is for the time being that of a great producer of food. And I may say this in conclusion: Food is needed in time of peace almost as much as in time of war. In war you cannot get along without it, and in peace time you cannot exist without it very long. We in Canada have that food in trust. We can satisfy that trust only in one of two ways, either by distributing our production as freely as possible to the peoples of the world and getting in return at least a little more than the cost of production, or by bringing people here to enjoy it with us. Our opportunity to produce food was not given to us for our benefit alone; it was given to us for the benefit of all the world. Mr. Speaker, I shall oppose the amendment.

Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Belle-chasse) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I have followed with a great deal of attention the present discussion since the beginning, and I have come to a conclusion that must have been arrived at by everybody. There are more points on which we all agree than there are on which opinions differ. For instance, nobody wants war, as we are all hoping for peace. The whole population is against war preparedness and opposed to Canada's participation in any foreign war. Every citizen is against the race for armaments and1 deplores the loss of human lives and the property damage that has befallen Canada as a result of the last war. Nobody would like to see that occur again; there is unanimity on this point. Public opinion is in favour of Canada having an army and a navy of her own proportionate to her resources. I do not think there is a single person who would like to do away entirely with the defence estimates. So there only remains one point on which the hon. members of this house do not agree; it is the question of determining whether we should include in the defence estimates the same expenditures as last year or spend a little more.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Azellus Denis

Liberal

Mr. DENIS:

That is all.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger

Liberal

Mr. BOULANGER:

If I were not a poor countryman who can hardly visualize what millions really are, I would say that we are discussing for nothing, or merely to find out if we should spend $13,000,000 in defence estimates instead of $12,999,999.99.

In fact, we are discussing a question of degree, as to what limit we should go in these defence expenditures, or the amount we can reasonably afford for national defence.

954 COMMONS

National Defence-Mr. Boulanger

I am not an expert on military tactics nor on questions of national defence; but at the last election, the people of Canada have entrusted the government to men who are supposed, to be better informed than I or the other laymen. The Canadian people placed confidence in them for the administration of public affairs and I shall do so also until I am satisfied that such confidence was misplaced. Our present administrators have proven in the past that they were good Canadians, or citizens who. had but one thought: that of serving their country. So long as it is not clearly shown that their attitude has changed altogether overnight, I will trust them and continue to give them my support in questions of public administration, of national defence, and1 when the question of determining what is needed for the efficient protection and defence of our national1 territory comes up.

I claim that the government, on this national defence issue, is absolutely in the same position as a farmer, merchant or manufacturer who has gone through the depression and who during that period, did his utmost to keep his farm; his business or his manufacture. During the depression, they had to curtail all expenses, effect every possible economy, allow their equipment to depreciate, their stock to be exhausted', and forego all necessary repairs to their farms or buildings. Now that the hard times are over, the farmer, the merchant and the manufacturer will make the necessary expenditures for repairs and maintenance that they were prevented from making owing to depression.

The hon. the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) told us last night that during the depression his department was forced to effect similar costly reductions and retrenchments in the expenses that we all had to make dtiring that period, and that as a result of such economy, our army and navy were in a deplorable condition; also that the time had come to spend vast sums of money in order to re-equip them and place them on a basis of efficiency. The hon. Minister of Defence is only doing what all the owners, manufacturers and farmers will do as soon as the return of prosperity will permit. It is quite obvious that if we were to overlook completely our national defence, do away with our army and navy and the defence estimates, this would entail a debate, as a question of principle would be involved. But I fail to see in this discussion any principle involved, as everybody agrees on the subject of preserving our national defence and in stating that Canada should provide for her own

defence within our means and as necessity warrants.

Since it has become necessary to maintain a Canadian army and navy and to do something towards the defence of Canada, we must act like businessmen, like prudent and good administrators. If we do not spend enough to keep our army and navy in a state of efficiency, the expenditures for that purpose, however slight they might be, will be useless. If we want these amounts to be effective, if we want this country "to have value for its money," according to the commercial dictum, we must spend whatever sum is necessary. ,

Reference has been made during the debate to the so-called peregrinating imperialists; they have been blamed for all sorts of things, and reproached with having lacked discretion and having come here to meddle with affairs in which they were not concerned. There is only one thing for which they have not been blamed-'and perhaps they should have been -it is machiavellism. I am under the impression that these individuals came expressly to Canada for the purpose of meddling with affairs in which they were not concerned. May be they said that Canadians were so sensitive that the best way to have them do what they wanted was to ask exactly for the opposite. Probably their method of reasoning was as follows: If we tell the Canadians that they should organize their defence, that they should do such and such thing for the navy, for the air force, and for the army, it is the best way to prevent them from doing so. Possibly they have been guided by the old principles, so dear to the heart of Englishmen of another era and that present-day Englishmen still follow, that the colonies, or call them dominions-to them it amounts to the same thing-offer a potential supply of raw materials, men and money for the metropolis. And what confirms me in that impression is the account given by the Canadian Press of a speech delivered on February 5 of this year by Sir Samuel Hoare, in which I find the following significant sentence:

Speaking at a dinner of the Bradford chamber of commerce, Sir Samuel stated the sister states of the empire would find any system of isolated local defence extravagant and inefficient.

This conveys to me the impression that possibly the metropolis is not anxious to see the dominions or the colonies set up their own national defence system. And it seems to me as though the metropolis would probably prefer to see Canada contribute men and money to the mother country in order to assist her in her future wars.

National Defence-Mr. Boulanger

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the best way to destroy that impression which may be in the minds of these gentlemen in the mother country, and to dismiss completely their idea that Canada is just a potential supply of materials, men, and money, would be to set up our own defence, within our territory, and according to Canada's needs and resources. Once our defence is thus organized, should we be asked later for men or some contribution, we shall be in a position to tell the mother country: Deal with your war in Europe as you see fit; we shall look after our own country, our own defence; we shall keep our men and our financial resources for the protection of our own nation; we shall preserve all our national resources solely for the defence of Canada and we will not participate in any scheme of national defence other than by making our own Canadian territory secure.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of this discussion, two small European countries have been mentioned whose position would be similar to that of Canada, namely Switzerland and Sweden. However, there is an enormous difference between the position of our dominion and that of these two countries. Instead of being situated in Europe, Canada, thank God, is in America. But these two other countries are about of equal strength and power with our dominion. Like Canada they are peace loving nations; they have been at peace for over a century; however, just like Canada at the present time, they do their utmost, according to their means, to set up their national defence.

I have read in the Ottawa papers a report of an interview of Mr. Gordon Murray, of the Manchester Guardian, with the social-democrat prime minister of Sweden, Mr. Hansson, for they have a social-democratic government there at the present time. In connection with national defence here is what Mr. Hansson, the prime minister of Sweden, a nation at peace for over one hundred years, stated. The following words are those of Mr. Murray who interviewed the Swedish prime minister:

I remember that Sweden, the land of over a century of peace, was at that moment active with rearmament. At one period in 1936 the Social Democratic party had endeavoured to make a step forward in strengthening the defences, conditional upon a further instalment of social reform. Hr. Albin Hansson spoke freely on this subject, though he gave permission only for what follows to be published: "The question of Swedish defence has now been accepted as a national matter, and on the necessity for its increase all parties are agreed. It was remarkable that at the general elections rearming was not a matter of party controversy.

Its need was generally realized. Though the Social Democrats had declared that rearming should be conditional upon an increase in old age pensions, I made it clear that if the people wished for rearming it would be undertaken in any case. So last session the Riksdag passed a great rearming program, and from 1936 Sweden is preparing itself. Like all small countries, we are strongly in favour of the League of Nations and greatly desire its reform. But that is not preventing us from now facing the necessity to rearm."

Has not Your Excellency to encounter any pacifist opposition?

"My party of Social Democrats," the premier answered, "has long had a highly pacifist tradition. But our pacifist is not of the type which is prepared to receive a punch without replying."

Let us see now what was done in Switzerland with regard to rearmament. I find in La Croix, a Paris newspaper, a statement concerning Switzerland's rearmament expenditure. The report first explains that there lies a vulnerable section where the Rhine flows out of Switzerland to enter Germany, and further says:

Berne realized this so well that it decided recently to issue a national defence loan with a view to fortifying their line along the Rhine, which means the whole of their northern frontier. This expenditure is estimated to cost about 200.600,000 Swiss francs, or a little less than a billion in our money.

In order not to frighten the taxpayers, the Swiss government-that is the federal council, whose president, who has just been reelected for the fifth time, is a Catholic from Tessin, Mr. Motta, a man known for his lofty moral attainments, his ardent patriotism, and his administrative ability-decided to issue a first share of the loan to the extent of 80,000,000 Swiss francs. Do you know how this first issue was covered? In the face of an eventual menace the reaction of the national feeling was such that the incredible amount of 330 millions was subscribed in a short time, or 130 millions over what was estimated necessary for the construction of the Swiss "Maginot line." This fact of which our newspapers made but little mention,, is nevertheless a most significant sign of the uneasiness of our friends in view of the European situation, as well as a wonderful evidence of their strict determination to defend tenaciously their traditional neutrality and the integrity of their land.

But there is something better yet. One would be tempted to believe that the Swiss banks, with an ample supply of funds that escaped from those countries where the financial policy frightens the large money interests, have subscribed the greatest part of this first share of the loan. That would be a mistake. A district bank manager, who is particularly well posted to know how this first share of the issue was covered, assured me that the great majority of lenders were small property owners who brought in either 1,000, or 500 francs, and most of them as little as 100 francs.

And now those who oppose this increase in the national defence estimates are asking:

956 COMMONS

National Defence-Mr. Boulanger

Why should we do it? Against whom do we arm? Who are our enemies? Of course, it is something that it is impossible to foresee. We are arming not against somebody in particular, but rather against anybody. It is impossible to foresee what we shall do with this army that we wish to make more efficient and more mobile. What we can say to our fellow-citizens is that we want an army which is really useful and which we can use in case of emergency. Against whom do we arm? Many of us have an accident insurance policy for which we have been paying premiums since 15, 20, 25 or 30 years. We have not yet been hit by a motor car, and still we keep on paying the premiums. It is impossible to say on which date, at which time and by which car we may be hit some day.

Mr. Speaker, mention has also been made of the protection which we may find among our American neighbours. It was urged that on account of that protection we ought perhaps to spend one or two millions less than the amount asked for by the government for the purpose of modernizing our military and naval forces, in order that they may be more mobile and more efficient. But, strange to say, those who wish to put us under the protection of American imperialism are the very people who most strongly and most constantly denounce British imperialism. They are the same people who charged the former prime minister of the province of Quebec with having sold away the natural resources of that province to the Americans, whereas he simply wanted to attract industries to our country. They are the same people who charged Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1911, with betraying his country and seeking to make Canada an adjunct of the United States, simply because Sir Wilfrid Laurier wished to establish trade relations with our American neighbours. They are the same people who, in the last election, and more particularly last year censured the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and his colleagues, saying that they were betraying their country, their fellow citizens and the best interests of Canada, simply because the present government signed a trade agreement with the United States.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying in my part of the country which is perhaps not very refined, but you will pardon me if I quote it. It says: "Whether you are bitten by a male dog or by a female dog, you are bitten just the same." As regards imperialism,

I think that American imperialism is not any better, nor any brighter, nor any more desirable than British imperialism.

Of course, Canada is not in a position to maintain a navy or an army powerful enough

to defend our land against the great nations of the world, at the present time. It is admitted that we must co-operate with someone else, that somebody must help us; but if we want others to assist us, we should at least show some good will, prove that we intend to defend ourselves, that we are ready to do all we can in that regard according to our means, and that is exactly what we want.

Of course, if the increase of a few million dollars for the purpose of modernizing our army and making it efficient meant a declaration of war, or should we thereby be involved into a conflict, I would be the first ito vote against it. But, I would 'however be consistent enough, I hope, having thus recorded my opposition to the increase in tlhe military estimates, not to give my support to the government immediately after. I do not presume to speak on behalf of the province of Quebec. I am but a humble representative of a rural constituency, witih no great fund of experience, but I may nevertheless state, on behalf of that province, that she still remembers what happened in 1911, and is not ready to repeat the error she made at that time and which she has regretted ever since. We know what happened that year. The province of Quebec put the Conservative party in power by voting against the Laurier naval policy. The following year, could those valorous champions, those bold opponents of the Laurier naval policy, those great defenders of the nation, prevent the government of the time from voting a debasing tribute of 35 million dollars to the British navy? Soon afteT, war broke out, and then came conscription. Have men like Mr. Bourassa, Mr. LaVergne, Mr. Lavallee, who had been returned as a Nationalist member for my constituency, and Mr. D. O. Lesperanee, been able to prevent that war? Did they prevent conscription? Did they prevent Canada from disgracing herself to the point of voting a tribute of 35 million dollars to England? No, they never did that.

And if, this year, the province of Quebec were to do the same thing, she would probably be repeating the mistake of 1911, but I do not think this will happen for, along with the rest of the country, she has entrusted the administration of her affairs to men who had and still enjoy her confidence. We are not experts in such matters but the government can avail themselves of the information which experts are in a position to give them. Let us trust the government without haggling over a million dollars more or less for our national defence, for the protection of our homes, and for the safety of Canadian men, women and children.

National Defence-Mr. Boulanger

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the defence of Canada, a thing with which we Frenchspeaking Canadians are familiar. For three hundred years, ever since our ancestors landed in America we have been defending our territory. We began in 1690, under Frontenac and d'Iberville, to fight in defence of our country. And I a>m wondering whait we might gain, what advantage we, the oldest Canadians, the sons of those pioneers who lived three hundred years ago, would derive in giving to understand through the length and breadth of Canada that we are no longer desirous of defending ourselves, that we no longer wish to protect ourselves, that we are no longer willing to do anything to ensure the integrity of our national territory.

We began in 1690 to defend our country. We did it again under Montcalm in 1759. And on September 13, 1759, when Quebec fell, while the French regular soldiers were running away, Canadian militiamen engaged Wolfe's army in skirmishes, fighting in the Canadian fashion among the bushes of the Sainte Genevieve hillside. Again in 1775, French speaking Canadians, occupying the Pres-de-Ville barricade, under Dumas and Chabot, and the Sault-au-Matelot barricade under Dambourges, prevented the Americans from taking Quebec, thereby saving Canada for the Canadians.

That gave me an opportunity, a few years ago, of proudly reminding one of my good friends from Vancouver that if the British flag was still waving over the citadel at Quebec, French speaking Canadians were to be thanked for that, and that it was as a result of the defence which those same French-Canadians put up on December 31, 1775, that the Domine salvum fac regem was still being sung in the Quebec basilica. And what our ancestors achieved in 1690, in 1759, in 1775, they did again in 1814, when the "voltigeurs canadiens" under Colonel de Sala-berry, hurled back American invaders at Chateauguay. These are historical facts, these traditions are our own, and I am wondering why we, the descendants of those gallant men, should disown our history, renounce our traditions, and for the sake of two or three million dollars more or less, convey to the people all over the country the impression that we are no longer willing to follow the example of our ancestors and stand up against invaders, that we are prepared to lie down as meek victims, and that we rely upon American or British imperialism, upon outsiders or neighbours for our own protection.

Let me revert to the subject of American imperialism; does anyone believe that the

American navy and army would defend us out of pure kindness? Does anyone believe that the United States would not demand some kind of compensation for thus protecting and defending Canada? As I was saying, American imperialism is on a par with British imperialism, and if we were to hitch Canada's wagon to the star of American imperialism, the time would possibly come when we might have to help in the expansion of American imperialism in south or central America, and to join in those expeditions, of an economic and financial rather than a military character, described by General Smedley-Butler, whom one of our fellow members quoted this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, I was reading in a magazine an article in which Ralph Connor, an outstanding Canadian writer, tells about a trip which he made last summer in New Zealand, the country of the Maoris. I hope our right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) will listen to what I am about to read; it will probably recall to his mind a speech which he delivered in 1932, during the Ottawa conference. Ralph Connor tells about the struggle between the Maoris and the British, a struggle which did not come to an end until 70 or 75 years ago. He describes the siege of the last stronghold of the Maoris by the British army. The Maoris had entrenched themselves in a kind of camp called "pah" in their language. Here is Ralph Connor's description of that last battle:

The British general, realizing that he was engaged, not in warfare, but in slow murder, tried again and again to bring the enemy to surrender, offering them fair and honourable terms, but the Maori warriors with their wahinis (wives) at their side to load their muskets, utterly refused to surrender. In reply to a final appeal a Maori chief leaping upon a parapet hurled this challenge at the enemy: "This is the land of the Maoris. For their lands and their homes they will fight on forever! forever!! forever!!!"

"Send your women away then," said the British officer, hating his job.

Immediately a tall and splendidly moulded wahini leaped upon the parapet, and standing beside her man echoed his defy: "For our lands, for our homes, we will fight forever! forever!! forever!!!"

"Why did you not surrender?" asked the British general of a wounded Maori, when the destruction of the pah was completed. " Did you not see how overwhelming our forces were?"

The Maori warrior answered proudly: "That is nothing. This is our land, these are our villages. Men who dare not defend their homes are not fit to live."

Mr. Speaker, it will perhaps be claimed that the Maoris are uncivilized, but they gave vent to feelings that all civilized people ought

National Defence-Mr. Parent

to entertain. Those are feelings which I share and which I have most humbly expressed in this house in order to justify the vote I am obviously going to cast against the nonconfidence motion that has been introduced.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Charles Eugène Parent

Liberal

Mr. CHARLES PARENT (Quebec West and South):

I shall endeavour to speak in the language of the majority, but if I feel I cannot bring home in English what I wish to express I shall revert to French, and that without any apologies to anyone. It has been said that no one should sit in this parliament who does not realize that there is no part of the world to-day which is not menaced from without and few parts which are not menaced from within.

Hearing the speeches that have already been made on the national defence estimates now to be introduced, one would be inclined to recall to this august body the geographical situation of Canada. Switzerland, Belgium, Greece and all the other small European countries are situated on the frontiers of the great European powers, and in order to preserve their neutrality and to safeguard their citizens it is necessary for them to keep armies day and night at their respective borders. As to the geographical situation of Canada, it cannot be compared with that of these countries. On the north we are bounded by the Arctic ocean, and no one will venture to say that the Eskimos or the polar bears are a menace to the peace of Canada. Many thousands of miles to the west there is the powerful Japanese nation. To the south of us there is the United States and to the east, 4,000 miles away, the European volcano.

Let us consider the situation from the point of view of the menace from without. Let us deal first with the western menace, that of the Japanese empire. Where and when did Japan ever make a move or utter a word that would justify Canada in preparing against aggression from that country? There is no doubt that the population of Japan is increasing at an astonishing rate and that the time has come for that country to place her surplus population somewhere. Japan has clearly indicated to the world what she wants and where she desires to enlarge her empire. She had the wisdom to attack China, taking advantage of the political situation in that country and of its powerless army. Japan has conquered land as rich as Canada, land of such magnitude that hundreds of years will pass before it is populated by the Japanese people. Yesterday I heard the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) pointing to the danger of a conflict between Japan and the United States and the difficult

situation in which Canada would be placed in such an event. Well, I shall frankly admit that such a menace does not alarm me. It would be practically impossible to move a large army to that part of Canada, and the Rockies are a natural defence. What is more, there are three nations deeply interested in the future of Canada, three nations which are financially interested in this country to the extent of billions of dollars. These nations are: Canada herself, the United States of America, and England. Up to now Japan in her diplomatic relations has never made a move which would lead us to conclude that there is a real menace from that source. When did Japan ever show signs of willingness to test her power on land and sea against the British Empire, against the United States of America and against Canada-and I might add, against the Russian bear? Moreover it is not with the military equipment contemplated in the present estimates that Canada could ward off the menace of war with a population of seventy millions, with one of the greatest military forces on land and sea.

This leads us to examine from the second angle the menace from without. The United States of America are our neighbours to the south. There are 3,000 miles of border separating Canada from the United States. Needless to say we do not require any Maginot defence line to protect us there. Over one hundred years of peace and good will have done more than any army could do in that respect, and the best thing for Canada is to keep that imaginary line which separates us free from military guards or anti-aircraft guns. And as Canada will keep the present leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) for many years to come, I believe I am right in stating that he can do more by his tact and diplomacy with our neighbour than any army which we could raise and equip, and by the time he will retire, the equipment bought will have become obsolete.

Then I come to the third angle of the menace from without: the menace from the east. Nearly four thousand miles separate us from the countries which might possibly attack Canada from the east. We have heard of the danger of air raids. These might be by airship or aeroplane. An airship would have to fly over France or England, and the speed of such aircraft is such as to make them of little utility in war. They are difficult to conceal and an easy target for antiaircraft guns. As to aeroplanes, very few have succeeded in crossing the Atlantic from east to west on non-stop flights, and with bombs

National Defence-Mr. Crerar

aboard I believe such airplanes are a menace more in imagination than in reality. To support this contention I might say that Lloyds of London, the world-famous insurance group, are actually cancelling all insurances against war in every country in the world except in Canada and the United States. If there were any real danger to this country and the United States, why would men of such knowledge and experience not treat Canada as they are treating all the other countries of the world?

As to our navy, it is claimed to be for use on our shores exclusively. Little danger is to be feared there, for to assume such a menace to exist would be to deny the power of England on the sea, and proof has yet to be brought forth to show that Britain does not still rule the sea.

Much more could be said, but I do not wish to take too much of the time of the house. However, I am not convinced that with $14,000,000 we can stop the menace from without, and no one can convince me that we need such an amount to protect ourselves from the menace from within. What is the menace from within? It is twofold: communist agitation and labour trouble. Do we need an army to deal with these two prospective menaces? I think not. If any real danger exists, it is from the communists, and they should be dealt with accordingly. The federal police should be reinforced; the provincial and municipal police are actually being reinforced and should be equipped to protect the property of the law-abiding citizens of this country.

As to labour troubles, I have faith in the ability of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), by his justice and knowledge of the labour situation in Canada, to deal with these problems with equity and justice to the employees and the employer. Some may say it is not within my province to judge the military situation of my country, that experts in military matters have recommended these expenditures. Well, Mr. Speaker, this recalls to my mind an occasion when I was reading law at the university. One morning I attended an important criminal case being tried before a jury. Six doctors had been called by the crown to prove that the accused was sane, and six had been called by the accused to prove that he was insane. The trial judge, who at one time was a member of a Conservative cabinet, after the witnesses had been heard, said to the jury: "Gentlemen of the jury, you have heard twelve experts, but you are twelve intelligent men, you do not need to believe them." What we need is not a

defence expenditure, but to be defended from military experts.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall vote against the increase in the national defence estimates, because it is my sincere conviction that by this increase of $14,000,000 we shall be just knitting one sleeve of Canada's military uniform, which when completed will have cost Canada millions and millions of dollars. I perform my duty to my country to the best of my judgment and conscience. I regret that I cannot see my way clear to follow my party on this matter. I disagree with my party in regard to the national defence estimates, but I stand with my chiefs on the general policy of the government.

There are precedents for the stand I am taking. I shall vote against the motion of want of confidence in the government as moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), for the issue at stake does not justify such a motion. But I shall not support the increased estimates for national defence when they come before the committee of the house, because in my humble opinion it is putting a useless additional burden on the shoulders of the taxpayers of this country at a time when this country cannot afford such an expenditure.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
LIB

Thomas Alexander Crerar (Minister of Mines and Resources)

Liberal

Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):

It is not my intention to trespass on the patience of the house for any length of time. This discussion, however, is very interesting and important.

I should like to say a few words in regard to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). This amendment, of course, constitutes a direct challenge to the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that this house go into committee of supply, and as such it is a direct vote of want of confidence in the government. If this amendment is adopted, of course this House of Commons changes, but I am certain thait will not happen. If that should take place, however, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who leads the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group in this house should be called upon to form a government, what would he do? Would he abolish the Department of National Defence in Canada? It is all very well for my hon. friends to criticize and to take a lofty, superior attitude in this house, but what would they do if they were faced with responsibility and with the practical question of what should be done in connection with the defence of this country? A good many years ago, when this country was engaged in

National Defence-Mr. Crerar

the titanic struggle of the great war, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre announced himself as entirely opposed to war. I have no fault to find with that; indeed I may say that I have a great deal of respect for the moral courage shown by my hon. friend at that time. But I recall also that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who at that time was the leader of the Labour party in Great Britain, took a similar position. Mr. MacDonald was an out-and-out pacifist during the war. He was opposed to Great Britain entering the war; he was opposed to military expenditures. Well, a few short years after the war he became Prime Minister of Great Britain and his party had the responsibility of government. What was their attitude in their new responsibility? I am bound to say ithat Mr. MacDonald took a much more realistic view of what was his responsibility while he was in office than he did while he was a member of the opposition without responsibility. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that if my hon. friends in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party ever come to power in Canada, they will take a much more realistic view of the whole problem of defence in this country than has been indicated in the speeches which have been made in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North.

No one likes war. For myself I can say that I detest war from the bottom of my heart. I believe I am the only member of this house who was a member of the unionist administration in Canada which was formed to concentrate Canada's energies on the war, and at that time I saw a little from the inside as well as from the outside of what war means to a country. No one wants a war in Canada. It is the last thing that is desired by any person from one end of this dominion to the other. But the fact that we do not want war and that we may detest war with all our hearts does not touch the question of these estimates which are before parliament for consideration at the present time. If I could base my attitude towards these estimates upon my detestation of war I would oppose the estimates, but that is an unrealistic attitude and one which this dominion cannot afford to take at this time. W'hat are the other countries in the world doing? I think perhaps if my hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party were a little more frank with the country, they would come out openly as a socialist party. Outside this house I have criticized my hon. friends on that score. Their program is one of socialism.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink
CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

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

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Hear, hear.

Topic:   SUPPLY-NATIONAL DEFENCE CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Permalink

February 16, 1937