February 19, 1937

CCF

James Shaver Woodsworth

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

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Mr. Speaker-

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

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. gentleman must not interrupt without permission.

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

James Shaver Woodsworth

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

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

As a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I ask that no rhetorical question be put to us across the floor when we have no opportunity of replying. We shall speak when we have a proper opportunity.

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

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

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

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I will not ask any rhetorical questions but I shall make this positive assertion. There is not a member of the group that has moved this amendment who has stood up in his place and said that he would not support what the government is proposing to do, although supporting an amendment which purports to criticize what the government is doing.

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

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

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

Mr. DOUGLAS:

I am prepared to do that when the Prime Minister is through.

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

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Now I come to further expenditures, the expenditures for militia purposes. The Minister of National Defence made very clear wherein the provision that is being made for the militia is required. It was pointed out that so far as the equipment which exists at the present time is concerned, much of it is obsolete. It is totally inadequate, and so far as the supplies of munitions are concerned they too are wholly inadequate. Does any hon. member take the view that we should not make good supplies which are deficient? Will anyone say

that at a time like this we should expect members of the militia to be prepared to defend our coasts, our harbours, terminals, to support the naval and air forces and not give them the necessary ammunition, not provide them with the necessary guns, not- provide them with the anti-aircraft, and other essential equipment? The Minister of National Defence has made perfectly clear what equipment and armaments are necessary if we are to make our militia effective at all.

The view that the government has taken is that we need certain defence forces and needing these forces we should see to it that they are made efficient.

Just to give an idea how Canada stands as compared with other countries in outlays on defence, let me give the amount that was spent per capita on defence by the leading countries of the world for the year 1935-36:

Mexico, $1.12.

Peru, $1.30.

Brazil, $1.31.

Canada, $1.41.

New Zealand, $2.38.

Venezuela, $2.39.

Denmark, $2.50.

Norway, $3.31.

Argentina, $3.72.

Chile, $4.01.

Finland. $4.12.

Japan, $4.30.

Australia, $4.37.

South Africa, $4.53.

Belgium, $4.59.

Sweden. $4.95.

United States, $7.11.

Switzerland, $7.56.

Italy, $8.11-not including extraordinary expenses for the Ethiopian war.

Russia, $9.77.

Great Britain, $14.14.

France, $16.79.

I think, Mr. Speaker, in the light of those figures, that the small amount we are asking by way of provision for defence should not be taken exception to by any hon. member of the house.

The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said that he hoped some statement would be made of the government's foreign policy. He thought it was important that such a statement should be made in dealing with these estimates. May I say to my hon. friend that I think the government's foreign policy has been put before the house pretty clearly this session and last session. Last session I made a very clear and extensive statement, and this session I have spoken several times on foreign policy.

My hon. friend says that foreign policy and defence are necessarily bound together. I think he makes a mistake in assuming that foreign policy has to do mostly with war.

1054 COMMONS

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King

Foreign policy has to do with maintaining peace, and I have indicated over and over again that so far as this government is concerned, its policy is to follow after the things that make for peace with all the nations of the world, and to do the utmost that it possibly can towards that end. Our whole fiscal policy is based on that view. It is a part of our foreign policy, part of our relations with other countries. We believe that getting rid of trade restrictions, quotas, and other barriers, doing what we can to break down economic nationalism, helps to make for peace. Having regard to the extent of its trade, this government has gone further, I believe, than any other government in existence to-day towards promoting trade with other countries by reducing tariff barriers and getting rid of trade restrictions of one kind and another. When we did away with the embargo against Russia, we were making it clear that we did not wish to maintain an attitude of unfriendliness towards a single country. My hon. friend knows what are the relations between this country and the United States, the relations between this country and France and our relations with Japan, and how they have been promoted in a friendly way. All of that is part of our foreign policy. Interested persons outside this house have not had much difficulty in discovering what are the essential features of Canada's foreign policy. There have been many articles and many debates of late, in which features of our policy have been very fully discussed. Let me quote as a sample from an article which appeared in the University of Toronto Quarterly of last month; it is written by Mr. Escott Reid. It deals with Canada's foreign policy. I cite it because it gives in a concise form certain phases of that policy. Mr. Reid has based what he has written very largely upon what has been said in this House of Commons and which should be as familiar to my hon. friend as it is to any writer beyond these walls. He says:

Mr. King's foreign policy, as declared from his statements and actions since his reassuming office on October 23, 1935, can be summarized as follows:

1. The guiding principle in the formulation of Canada's foreign policy should be the maintenance of the unity of Canada as a nation.

2. Canada's foreign policy is, in the main, not a matter of Canada's relations to the league, but of Canada's relations to the United Kingdom and the United States.

3. Canada should, as a general rule, occupy a back seat at Geneva or elsewhere when European or Asiatic problems are being discussed.

4. Canada is under no obligation to participate in the military sanctions of the league or in the defence of any other part of the commonwealth.

5. Canada is under no obligation to participate in the economic sanctions of the league.

6. Before the Canadian government agrees in future to participate in military or economic sanctions or in war, the approval of the parliament or people of Canada will be secured.

7. Canada is willing to participate in international inquiries into international economic grievances.

That, I think, is a very good statement of some of the features of Canada's foreign policy. Possibly it stresses too much what has to do with possible wars and participation in war, and it does not emphasize enough, in my opinion, what has been done in the way of trade policies and removal of causes of friction between this and other countries. But it does point out certain features that have a direct bearing on these estimates.

Take, for example, the very first statement, that "the guiding principle in the formulation of Canada's foreign policy should be the maintenance of the unity of Canada as a nation." That bears immediately upon these very estimates. If this government, faced with the situation that I have described, had done nothing with respect to Canadian defences, does my hon. friend imagine, does anyone imagine that we would have had unity in this country? We should have had from all over Canada very strong demands that the government pay attention to the world situation and see to it that Canada's defences were properly taken care of. On the other hand, if we had taken extreme measures, if we had become jingoistic in our attitude and had asked this parliament for huge appropriations for purposes of defence, we should have met with decided protests the other way. What we have sought to do is to bring down estimates which would commend themselves generally as reasonable to the Canadian people from one end of this country to the other. In that I believe we have succeeded. Not only the people of Canada generally, but the people of each province of Canada are, I believe, behind us in what we are doing at this time. We have sought before all else, as I have said, to maintain the unity of our country in what we have been proposing. If we have not proposed more, if we have not proposed less, it is because of that guiding - principle, we have sought to keep the country united.

I should like to put on record one statement which I regard as important in this discussion of defence, related as it is to foreign policy. It comes from a source which I believe should be considered at all times by hon. members

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King

of this house. It is from the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, through the executive of that body. Before I read it, may I say further to my bon. friend that while it is true our own foreign policy does not include any consideration of objects to be attained beyond Canada in the way of territories to be acquired, or resources to be obtained, or colonies to be restored, the foreign policies of other countries in some of these particulars have a bearing upon the estimates which are now before this house. The statement I am about to read will indicate wherein a consideration of such matters by the government has been deemed necessary by those who served their country in the great war. This communication was sent to me on January 30 of this year by General Alex. Ross, the Dominion president. General Ross' letter states:

At a meeting of the Dominion Executive Council of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League, held in Ottawa this week, consideration was given to the question of national defence, and as a result a resolution was adopted which I think may be taken to correctly represent the views of our membership as a whole on this very important question. A copy of the resolution is enclosed herewith.

This is the view of the Canadian Legion:

The Dominion Executive Council of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League being of the opinion that, in view of the international situation, it is desirable to define the position ofc the Canadian Legion of the B.E.S.L. on matters of national defence, resolves as follows:

(1) That the Canadian Legion believes that the first essential toward the promotion of world peace is universal disarmament to a point consistent with preservation of order within national territorial limits, and the efficient policing of the seas.

(2) But in view of the fact that efforts made since the war towards procuring universal disarmament have, thus far. been unsuccessful, and that as a result the nations of the world are now rearming to a greater degree than ever before and, in view of the fact that certain of the great powers do not adhere to the League of Nations, and that others, on occasion, have flaunted its decisions, the Canadian Legion believes that the time has now come when the people of Canada should give consideration to the problem of national defence.

(3) That in view of the fact that since the passage of the Statute of Westminster Canada is now an independent nation within the commonwealth of the British Empire, it is necessary that Canada should assume the responsibilities of nationhood, and that we should not rely upon the United Kingdom for our defence by sea or land.

(4) That we, therefore, believe that it is essential that Canada should, forthwith, develop a defence policy which, in the first place, would be designed to enable us to effectively defend our neutrality in case of war and protect our trade and commerce, and ultimately enable us to defend our eastern and western coasts from aggression by enemy forces.

(5) That in so declaring we definitely exclude a policy of arming for purposes of aggression; that we regard our frontier with the United States as one which does not require protection, but we feel that if Canada is to retain her place as an independent nation in the world, she must be able to defend herself from threats of aggression from overseas, which in the present state of world polities cannot be regarded as idle.

(G) That accordingly, we endorse the proposals of the government to increase our national defences and trust that such defences may be developed along the lines suggested, to make our coast secure from attack by sea, land and air, and to preserve our position as an independent nation which does not seek to interfere with the rights of any other nation but only to develop its national life in a world where peace should prevail.

That declaration, of the legion sets forth in, I think, as concrete language as could be expressed, very much the views of the present administration. I endorse every paragraph in that communication.

I have spoken longer than I intended, but there are one or two matters to which I should like to refer before I conclude as they have been touched on in the course of the debate.

The first is the suggestion that we need not defend ourselves because we have the Monroe doctrine to rely upon and also because we have Great Britain, to protect us.

So far as the Monroe doctrine is concerned, that doctrine itself in its application has been undergoing of late a certain amount of change. The visit of President Roosevelt to the South American republics made it clear that in so far as the Monroe doctrine was to apply to them, they in turn were to be prepared to consult with the United States upon what should be done to help to maintain peace on this continent. Far from interpreting the doctrine as obliging the United States to undertake the policing of the whole of the western hemisphere, its meaning has come to be that where the United States undertakes an obligation of the kind she expects to do so in consultation with the other countries that may be affected, and consultation, I take it means something in the way of cooperation as well. But as far as the Monroe doctrine is concerned, may I ask this house whether, having regard to our relations with the United States and our desire to maintain the friendliest possible relations with that country, we are prepared to surrender to that country the whole of our obligation in the matter of protection against foreign aggression? Is it likely that we shall be able to maintain friendly relations with the United States if we do nothing to defend our own coasts but simply take the attitude that we shall look

1056 COMMONS

National Defence

Mr. Mackenzie King

to them for our defence? Similarly with regard to England. Are members of this government who are to represent Canada at the imperial conference to be asked to assert Canada's equality of status with all the nations of the British commonwealth and at the same time to tell the British government that we are relying upon Great Britain to protect our coasts, and will do nothing to help ourselves because we have their protection? In a word, so far as looking to either the United States or Great Britain for the defence of our coasts or of any part of the dominion, while naturally we are glad to know that we can count on that additional safeguard in any great emergency, to suggest that we should depend upon it entirely and do absolutely nothing for ourselves is simply to be lacking in self-respect as a nation; it is simply sponging. I submit that sponging by a nation is, in the eyes of other nations, exactly the same as it is in the case of individuals. An individual who is prepared to look to his neighbours to guard his own home and is not prepared to do anything himself for its defence lacks that kind of manliness and self-respect whieh entitles him to be classed as a citizen of his country. While we may congratulate ourselves that we are fortunate in our proximity to the United States, while we may be glad of the Monroe doctrine, while it is our good fortune to have both the United States and Great Britain as close friends ready to come and help us should we ever be the victims of aggression, let us realize that if we are to look to them for help all the more we must be prepared to lend a hand ourselves, and that certainly in the defence of our own country.

With respect to neutrality, if we are to look to the United States for assistance, that is all the more reason why we must be prepared to see that the United States at least is not embarrassed by reason of any failure on our part to safeguard our own neutrality. I will not go into the question of neutrality this afternoon beyond observing that any nation that does not wish to become a belligerent in a war must at least be able to see that the waters adjacent to its own coasts are so patrolled by its own vessels that no belligerent can come and operate from that base against some other country with which it may be at war. As was ably pointed out the other evening, a ship coming from overseas from some country at war and entering our waters might immediately involve us in conflict. Unless we are in a position to safeguard our own commerce within our harbours and rivers we cannot expect to be able to maintain neutrality even if we have decided so to do.

I have spoken already of the support of the league and I will not discuss that point further at the moment, though I hope at some other time to have an opportunity to make an additional reference to it. Let me conclude with a word in reference to the imperial conference and imperial defence. I have already, I believe, made clear that so far as participation in any war is concerned the position of the present government, and indeed of all governments in Canada, is that there will be no participation by Canada in a war overseas except by the consent of our own parliament. As long as that is understood, hon. members should have sufficient confidence in themselves to believe that the right course will be followed with respect to any possible participation by Canada in foreign wars.

A good deal has been said in the course of this discussion about the danger of attending imperial conferences and of what may take place at such conferences. May I point out, first of all, that an imperial conference is only a conference; it is not a cabinet. An imperial conference is not a body that exists for the purpose of making policies for the empire and with authority to make such policies and to carry them out. An imperial conference is simply a meeting of representatives of different parts of the empire for the purpose of conferring together on matters of great common concern. Undoubtedly at conferences efforts may be made to introduce imperial policies and gain acceptance for them; but every government is responsible for the atti-' tude that it takes at an imperial conference and I wish to say, here and now, that the attitude which this present administration will take at the forthcoming imperial conference is that which it has taken at every other conference, namely, that it is not in a position to bind Canada to anything. We shall be glad to get and to give as much information as we can on matters of common concern, on matters of trade, of defence, on constitutional problems and the like; but we shall be as free to take our own action with regard to these matters as we are at the present time. Unless its government permits it, there is nothing that an imperial conference can do which can in any way bind this country without the knowledge and consent of its parliament. Therefore I do not think that there need be much fear concerning what will take place by way of commitments at the conference.

Resolutions have been adopted at previous imperial conferences. I should like to read those concerning defence which were adopted

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King

at the conferences of 1923 and 1926 so that the house may see how far they committed this country to anything which this parliament would be likely to take exception. At the imperial conference of 1923 a resolution was passed-and was reaffirmed in 1926-to the effect that, while it was for the parliaments of the different parts of the empire to decide the nature and extent of defence,

The primary responsibility of each portion of the empire was for its own local defence.

This was based upon a finding of the chiefs of staff subcommittee of the committee of imperial defence in 1923 as follows:

His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom is mainly responsible for the security of communications between the several parts of the commonwealth.

And:

Each of the several dominions is responsible for protecting its territory and coastal trade against aggression, until support comes from the outside.

Is there in that resolution anything to which hon. members would take exception? The imperial conference of 1926 laid down the following formula :

It was frankly recognized that in this sphere (i.e. foreign policy), as in the sphere of defence, the larger share of responsibility rests now, and must for some time rest, with His Majesty's government in Great Britain. Nevertheless all the dominions engage to some extent, and some to considerable extent, in the conduct of foreign relationships, particularly those with foreign countries on their borders. ... the governing consideration underlying all discussions of this problem must be that neither Great Britain nor the dominions could be committed to the acceptance of active obligations, except with the definite assent of their own governments.

Can any exception be taken to these resolutions? I will guarantee that there shall be no resolution that will go further than either of these with respect to any demand on Canada at the forthcoming imperial conference.

Much has been said about a recent speech made by Sir Samuel Hoare. Does a speech made by a member of the parliament of the old country bind this parliament? It is a mighty fortunate thing for the old country that some of the speeches made here do not bind government there. That is equally true of all parliaments no matter where speeches happen to be made. Fortunately the British community of nations is one in which we are all free to say pretty much what we like, but none of us is bound by what the other fellow says. An imperial conference in London is no different from a dominion-provincial conference here in what it involves in the way of commitments by governments participating. We have had some speeches by members

31111-67}

of this parliament, in relation to what might take place at a dominion conference, which have not altogether pleased some of the provincial governments and provincial premiers. But they have not found themselves in any way bound by what was said. They have taken exception to what was said if they wished so to do. and they have acquiesced if they so wished. That is exactly the position this government will be in when it meets with other governments at the forthcoming imperial conference. However, it is quite clear that the concern and doubts of some hon, members have reached the ears of members of the government in the old country and that its members have seen there were those in this parliament who fear that in some way Canada is being committed at the present time with respect to what is being done for purposes of defence in Great Britain, or may be committed later on. Ministers of the crown have lost no time in making very clear that, as far as the defence of the different countries of the British Empire is concerned, it is for each part of the empire to decide for itself what it is going to do.

The first of these ministerial statements is one made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain. It leaves no room for doubt. Mr. Chamberlain, speaking in the British house of Commons on February 17, after referring to the fact that the United Kingdom was dependent for supplies upon overseas countries, which laid an especial responsibility upon the British forces, especially the navy, to preserve freedom of communications, said:

It is perfectly true we are dependent largely for supplies of essential materials upon the dominions and in that sense therefore the dispersal of the dominions over the world does lay this special duty upon the navy.

As far as the dominions are concerned it is not the intention to call upon the dominions to make any contributions to a common fund. The dominions as a matter of fact have spent a great deal of money upon perfecting or improving their own defences and that is their contribution to the common fund but there is no other form of contribution of which I am aware under discussion at the present time.

Even that statement was too much for the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). Speaking yesterday in the house he quoted this statement, and said: " So you see after all there is a common fund."

The hon. member quoted Mr. Chamberlain's statement:

So far as the dominions are concerned, it is not the intention to call upon the dominions to make any contribution to a common fund. The dominions, as a matter of fact, have spent a great deal of money-

1058 COMMONS

National Defence-Mr. Mackenzie King

Some hon. Members: Time.

Mr. Maclnnis: May I finish reading this?

Mr. Mackenzie King: Yes, let the hon.

member finish.

Mr. Maclnnis: I shall continue:

The dominions, as a matter of fact, have spent a great deal of money upon perfecting or improving their own defences, and that is their contribution to the common fund, but there is no other form of contribution, of which I am aware, under discussion at the present time.

And then the hon. member said:

So, you see there is a common fund to which the dominions contribute.

Now what did Mr. Chamberlain mean when he spoke about a common fund? He meant common security. At last the hon. member has discovered that after all there is a common security, towards which we may perhaps be contributing something. I ask hon. members whether they think it is inadvisable to contribute to common security, to a common fund in the nature of security against aggression, against invasion, by making some effort to maintain peace and this in the present instance by defending our own coasts, in our own country, and nothing more.

But Mr. Chamberlain's statement, possibly because it referred to a common fund, was apparently not regarded as sufficient on the part of British statesmen to relieve the fears of some hon. members, because the next day another minister spoke, this time Sir Thomas Inskip, minister for defence coordination. Sir Thomas only yesterday made the following statement in the House of Commons, which is equally emphatic. I read from the Associated Press report in the evening papers of yesterday:

So far as the dominions have opinions on our foreign policy let them be expressed by them, not by persons in this house. We shall this year enjoy the full measure of a conference with dominions' representatives. Let us not embroil them in our commitments.

The defence coordination minister also repeated previous assertions ths t the dominions will not be asked to share the bill.

"We ask this country to pay for the colonies and dependencies in those parts of the empire for which we are responsible, on which we depend for much of our raw materials," Sir Thomas Inskip declared.

"The dominions, of course, are conscious of the value of their associations with this country and they are making their own preparations at their own expense for their own defence."

As if that were not enough the Prime Minister of England also felt that he should make clear the position that in no way was Canada, or any other dominion, in connection with what it is doing for defence, necessarily committing itself to expenditures for some scheme

of imperial defence. The Canadian Press report in last night's Ottawa papers contained the following:

Geoffrey Mander. Liberal, asked for a statement concerning proposals that the government lay before the imperial conference suggestions that a greater share in the cost of imperial defence be borne by the dominions.

Mr. Baldwin: "While welcoming the opportunity afforded by the imperial conference for discussion of defence and other problems, I may remind the hon. gentleman that the defence expenditure of the dominions is entirely a matter for His Majesty's governments in their respective dominions."

Could anything be clearer than that? That statement by the Prime Minister of Great Britain should remove all possibility of doubt as to defence commitments not sanctioned by our own parliament.

In the course of this debate it has been necessary at different times from this side of the house to repeat that what we are doing we are doing for Canada and for Canada alone. That has been necessary for the reason that an impression had been created that what we were doing had relation to some expeditionary force which would be sent overseas. When we say that what we are doing we are doing for Canada alone, we mean that what we are doing is for the defence of our country within the territorial waters of the coasts of our country, and within Canada itself for the defence of Canada. But I hope it will not be thought that because we have laid emphasis on the fact that what we are doing we are doing for Canada, we are not thereby making some contribution towards the defence of the British commonwealth of nations as a whole, or that we are not making some contribution towards the defence of all English-speaking communities, that we are not making some contribution towards the defence of all democracies, that we are not making some contribution towards the defence of all those countries that may some day necessarily associate themselves together for the purpose of preserving their liberties and freedom against an aggressor, come from wherever he may. I say that while we are doing what we are doing for Canada we believe that in this way we can make the most effective contribution towards the security of all countries that may have like institutions, like ideals, and principles of freedom similar to our own.

May I say this word in conclusion. We have heard in this debate that we ought to look to the United States, that we ought to become members of some pan-American conference, that we ought to take up with new friends, that we ought to seek our security in

National Defence-Mr. Douglas

the league, that we ought not to incur expenditures for defence because there are others upon whom we may lean, that we ought to borrow our ships, that it is unnecessary to look after ourselves. A nation is not unlike an individual. A nation has many attributes that the individual has. A nation has character. A nation has duties and responsibilities. A nation has moral as well as other obligations. And a nation which is going to be worthy of the name will seek to discharge all its obligations and its duties in a way befitting a nation among the nations of the world.

I have in my hand a little volume of Shakespeare's Hamlet, a play the key to which will be found in the following words:

The time is out of joint; 0, cursed spite, That ever I was born to set it right!

That is the frame of mind that a good many people are in to-day. The time is out of joint, and, each, for himself, has to decide whether he is going to help shoulder the burden, help put things right, or do as Hamlet did, because the burden of the obligation is a great one, fail either to bear it or to throw it off and so confess his soul unequal to the performance of the great deed laid upon it.

I say to those who fail to realize the stature to which Canada has thus far advanced, and what is expected of her as a nation, that they will do well to heed and to apply to our country the words of profound wisdom addressed by Polonius to his son Laertes, as Laertes set out upon his own:

My blessing with thee!

And these few precepts in thy memory Look thou character- Give thy thoughts no tongue,

Nor any unproportion'd thought his act.

Be thou familiar, but by no means vulgar; Those friends thou hast, and their adoption tried,

Grapple them to thy soul with hoops of steel, But do not dull thy palm with entertainment Of each new-hatch'd unfledged comrade. Beware

Of entrance to a quarrel, but being in, Bear't, that the opposed may beware of thee. Give every man thy ear, but few thy voice. Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment....

Neither a borrower nor a lender be;

For loan oft loses both itself and friend,

And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.

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

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

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

Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) and my deskmate, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), I

wish first of all to deal with some of the statements made by previous speakers in the debate.

At the outset may I say a word about the amendment. A number of hon. members have endeavoured to interpret it in such a way as to give them a reasonable excuse for voting against it, on the ground that to vote for the amendment is to vote for socialism and to endorse the philosophy of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. The first person to advance that point of view was the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), and others have taken refuge in the same interpretation. Well, if giving people jobs; if taking care of them when they are out of work, through no fault of their own; if looking after the aged, widows and orphans and giving medical and hospital assistance to people who cannot pay for it, are associated in the mind of the Minister of National Defence with the principles of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, I have no objection. But that is not what is intended by the amendment. It states two things clearly, first that this group is opposed to increased expenditure for military purposes.

Let me say here to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that while we did not choose to sit like a group of school children saying Yes, Yes, Yes, while he asked rhetorical questions, I speak for my colleagues and myself when I say most categorically that we are opposed to the increases in the defence estimates. Second, the amendment states that not only are we opposed to the estimates, but we oppose them especially in view of the lack of economic security to be found throughout the dominion. We are saying that we believe bread is more important than bullets, that homes are more important than aeroplanes, that giving people the means to attain physical well-being is more important than building up a military clique within the dominion. When the Minister of National Defence seeks to interpret our stand as one asking for an endorsation of socialism, may I say to him that there are many people across Canada who have taken exactly the same stand as we have, and who could not by any manner of means be called socialists.

The Prime Minister read a press report of Mr. Lloyd George's interview at Jamaica, but may I point out that he did not read all of it. He may have had reasons of his own for not doing so. I shall be pleased to read the rest of it, which runs as follows:

The veteran British Liberal leader was bitter about the huge sums the mother country was spending on rearmament while we have found

National Defence-Mr. Douglas

it very difficult to get a few millions for the relief of suffering in the distressed areas. For a very small proportion of that sum of money we could have had unbelievable empire development, but, no, the whole of the money is to go to the dogs of war.

That is the part of Mr. Lloyd George's statement which the Prime Minister did not see fit to read. May I point out that there are other people in Canada who feel as we do in the matter. The city council of Montreal could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered a socialist body. Yet I have before me, from the Montreal Gazette of Wednesday, February 3, a report of the following resolution:

Whereas our country, in the last few years, has gone through an unprecedented crisis and unemployment is still in the acute stage;

Whereas this council, on numerous occasions, has declared itself favourable to the carrying out of public works in preference to the granting of direct relief;

Whereas the precarious state of public treasuries has often been used as an argument against our requests in this connection;

Whereas it is now intended to increase considerably the appropriations for national defence;

Whereas there is no indication that Canada will soon be called upon to defend its territory;

Whereas this council is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate to apply the millions which it is proposed to spend for armaments to the carrying out of works which, while improving and beautifying the municipalities where they would be carried out, would give employment to a large number of persons and would reduce proportionately the list of assisted unemployed;

Moved by Alderman Bray, seconded by Aider-man L'Archeveque,

That this council declare itself strongly opposed to the proposed increase in the appropriations for national defence purposes and request the federal authorities to consider the possibility of spending in public works the sums specified in the dominion budget now under consideration for the purpose of armaments.

May I refer to another public body which, I am sure, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler), were he here, would not describe as a socialist group. The city council of Kitchener, Ontario, with only one dissenting voice passed the following resolution:

Whereas our country, in the last few years, has gone through an unprecedented crisis and unemployment is still in the acute stage;

Whereas this council, on numerous occasions, has declared itself favourable to the carrying out of federally-directed public works in preference to the present granting of demoralizing direct relief:

Whereas the precarious state of public treasuries has often been used as an argument against our requests in this connection;

Whereas it is now intended to increase considerably the appropriations for national defence;

lint. Douglas.]

Whereas this council is of the opinion that it would be more appropriate to apply the millions which it is proposed to spend for armaments to the carrying out of works, which, while improving and beautifying the municipalities where they would be carried out, would give employment and wages to a large number of persons and would reduce proportionately the list of assisted unemployed;

Whereas our federal representative was admittedly originally elected because of his anticonscription and anti-war representations:

Whereas a large section of the people of our community have conscientious and religious objections to war, and the preparation thereof;

Be it therefore resolved to petition the federal government by forwarding the above preamble and the following motion to the federal authorities and leaders of the three political groups: -

"That this council declare itself opposed to the proposed increase in the appropriations for national defence purposes, and request the federal authorities to consider the advisability of spending in public works the sums specified in the dominion budget now under consideration for the purpose of armaments."

This resolution, in company with other resolutions from returned soldier bodies and church organizations, and letters which, as the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Factor) said the other evening, have been pouring into him and no doubt to many other hon. members in this chamber, points conclusively to the fact that this point of view is not confined to any political party or to any political philosophy, that it is a point of view held by many thousands of people across the dominion.

I should like to turn now to a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) in his speech the other evening. As an exponent of international affairs, the hon. gentleman is a splendid Minister of Agriculture. The picture he drew of our navy giving protection to our shipping out to the three mile limit seemed almost ironical. The minister did not say whether he was going to build piers there in order to enable these ships to transfer their cargoes. However, he did say that the root causes of war were twofold, namely, the restriction of trade and the congestion of population. I think many hon. members will agree with me when I say there are other factors, such as the race for markets and raw materials and the struggle for economic control. The minister's suggested solution was unique. He said that we must be prepared either to distribute our foodstuffs or to bring people to this country to enjoy them. I should like to suggest to him that right at this moment we have over a million people in Canada who would like to enjoy some of our foodstuffs but who have not the purchasing power to buy them.

He said that the group in this corner of the chamber had refused to have anything to do with immigration, the one thing that

National Defence-Mr. Douglas

would solve the problem of war. This group has not opposed immigration. What we have opposed is the idea of bringing men and women out to this country when we already have over a million people who are not able to get along without government assistance. The minister told us that western Canada was able to support 30,000,000 people while it had only 3,000,000 at the present time. Is it proposed that these 30,000,000 people will all produce more wheat and cattle which we cannot sell? Is it proposed that they are to dwell in the drought areas and be assisted by the federal and provincial governments?

The Canada Year Book shows that since 1931 a total of 150,000 people have left the prairies, and that since 1921, leaving out the natural increase, more people have left Canada than have migrated to Canada. When immigration is suggested to this house as a solution for the problem of war, it seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture is talking very much like the president of a certain railway company.

I should like to say just a word with reference to the speech made by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), and other odds and ends. He chided the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) with not being exactly honest, in that he had failed to call the party of which he is the leader the socialist party. The minister said we were flying false colours. He ought to know that the term "socialism," like the term "Christianity," covers a great variety of points of view. The term "socialism" covers many fields of economic doctrine and the term "Cooperative Commonwealth Federation" denotes a particular form of socialism as distinct from Marxian socialism or guild socialism, from Fabian socialism or syndicalist socialism. When the minister suggests that we ought to call ourselves the socialist party, he should go to the Presbyterian church and the Anglican church and suggest that they call themselves the Christian church.

I am not very old but I can remember that another party came to this house fifteen years ago. It seems to me that that party had a false name as they called themselves the Progressive party. Many felt that it should have been called the Liberal party since that is where it ended. Instead of being a progressive party, it turned out to be a retrogressive party.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

Which showed it was

truly Liberal.

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

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas

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

Mr. DOUGLAS:

I should like to say a few words with reference to the speech of the Minister of National Defence. I am always a little suspicious when an eloquent debater like the minister has to resort to poetry. To me that would indicate he was running out of facts. On page 897 of Hansard the minister is reported as having said that the mover of the amendment (Mr. MacNeil) was purely academic in talking about the nationalization of industry in the event of war, but then on page 904 the minister is reported as saying that his department has spent eight or nine months in surveying this whole field. These two statements are rather inconsistent. If this matter were purely academic, I hardly think his department would waste time on it. If his department is spending time on it, then, it must be a live issue.

What has his department done with reference to this all-important question? The minister says that they have made a survey. The government seems to be constantly confusing diagnosis with cure, and the means with the end. They are like the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) who thinks that when he has made a survey of the unemployed he has cured unemployment. The minister thinks that when he has made a survey of the possibilities of nationalizing industry, the problem has been dealt with. He believes that if you appoint a committee, a commission or a board of inquiry, then the problem can be shelved. This problem has not yet been dealt with. The minister has made no statement as to what he proposes to do with respect to this matter of preventing the making of millions in profits out of a country engaged in war. He says that a survey has been made, but he has not suggested any legislation. He has given no indication that legislation will be introduced or what the nature of that legislation will be. He reminds me of that character in Dickens, Mr. Micaw-ber, who kept thinking that something would eventually turn up.

The time for dealing with this important question of taking the profit out of war is the present. I need hardly remind hon. members that great financial concerns on the North American continent made fortunes during the last war while men were laying down their lives for a mere pittance. I have Engel-brecht and Hanighen's Merchants of Death before me. On page 179 appears a list of the average annual profits made by certain corporations in the four years before the war and in the four years during the war. I shall give only one or two instances. The average annual profits of the United States Steel

National Defence-Mr. Douglas

Corporation in the period prior to the war was $105,331,000, and during the war, $239,-

653,000. The average annual profits of du Ponts before the war was $6,092,000, and during the war, $58,076,000. Bethlehem Steel made $6,840,000 a year before the war and $49,427,000 a year during the war. We find that the Canadian Car and Foundry made an average of $1,335,000 a year before the war and $2,201,000 a year during the war. General Motors made $6,954,000 annually before the war and $21,700,000 annually during the war. I have 'before me statistics in connection with certain British and European firms, but I do not think it is necessary for me to give them as hon. members know just what went on during the last war. I should like to refer to a statement made on April 1, 1935, by the present Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, as reported on page 2307 of Hansard of that date.

He said:

I would like, however, to say with regard to disarmament, that I do not think it is sufficient for this country simply to say that it supports the League of Nations in its policy of disarmament. I think we ought to name a concrete policy in that regard. Having observed what has taken place in investigations in the United States, where beyond all question it has been shown that there are those who are prepared to traffic in the manufacture and sale of munitions and armaments for the sake of gain, that there are large interests that are even selling simultaneously to countries that are at enmity with each other, it behooves this country, and I believe all nations, to begin immediately to investigate the whole business of armament manufacture and sale. I should like to see a beginning made in this country of a thorough investigation into the whole business of the manufacture and sale and distribution of munitions of war and armaments, and that step put forward as part of a policy to govern British countries, a policy that we would hope might be followed in all parts of the British Empire.

That was the statement made by the present Prime Minister. Recognizing the need for further investigation and action along this line he suggested that this should be the policy not only of Canada but of all parts of the British Empire. I hope the Prime Minister will not forget his own statement when he goes to the imperial conference at London this year for, while the Minister of National Defence and his department are making surveys, profits are being made even now out of preparations for war.

I have before me two very significant tables. The first one shows the amounts of nickel exported prior to the last war. I take these figures from the report of the Royal Ontario Nickel Commission, 1917:

Shipments of Metallic Nickel for ten years before the war

(in pounds)

To Great To

Date Shipments Britain Germany1908

11,965,948 1.916,492 4,826,4391909

19,668.665 2,299,410 7,168,0971910

24,138,588 2,841,184 8,182,5251911

26,714.205 4.366,640 7,957,4691912

33.624,982 7,258,813 8,519,2221913

33,876,214.. 8.399,827 10,869,2601914*

20,468,602 5,740,685 4,949,750

* January to July inclusive.

I shall not read the figures for the other countries, but the increase in shipments is in about the same proportion. What I am interested in reading to the house is a statement of the exports of nickel for the last few years as given by the external trade branch of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. I would like the house to notice that the proportionate increase in shipments of nickel from 1908 to 1913 coincides very closely with the increase in shipments of nickel from 1933 to the present time. The figures are as follows:

Dominion Bureau of Statistics - External Trade Branch Exports of Nickel and Products from Canada, by Countries (Calendar Years, 1929-1936)

Calendar Years

Country 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936

Total Exports 325,535,684 320,505,324 314,181,565 37,283.964 322.795,968 328,913,230 336,285,,482 344,594,296

Exports to-

United Kingdom. 2,784,045 5.887.593 4,305,081 1,272,127 6,648.908 10,087,351 12,572,741 14,115,970Germany

172,863 197,713 412,961 76,973 242,939 257,129 16.233 436,551Italy

365,870 186,695 252,622 121,811 113,527 323,004 1,392,787 1,077,582Japan

172,696 79,323 75,228 130,064 268,076 799,909 665,907 1,223,677

I have read these figures to the house, Mr. Speaker, first of all to show that since 1933, coinciding with the tremendous preparations for war in every part of the world, there has been a proportionate increase in shipments of nickel to those countries which are most likely to be the aggressor nations. As to whether

or not profits are being made, it has already been suggested in this debate that for the first nine months of 1936 the profits of the International Nickel Company were $23,000,000; profits are being made out of this country's shipments of copper and shipments of nitrate for high explosives. If any move is

National Defence-Mr. Douglas

going to be made by the Department of National Defence to take the profit out of war, this is the time to be doing it. The minister says that a survey is being made. A few nights ago I moved in the house a motion asking the government in the event of war to bring down the necessary legislation to conscript automatically all the industrial, financial and natural resources of the nation to meet the event of war. The government took no steps to accept that resolution; it was talked out. If the government is perfectly sincere, it has a great deal more to do than merely make a survey. It ought to take steps now to see to it that in the event of war we shall go out and not conscript men only but the materials with which to equip the men who go out to do their duty.

May I now state the three reasons why I cannot vote for the increase in armaments. First, I do not feel that the government has shown that we are in any way more menaced this year than we were last year. This group has not said that it is not in favour of defence, but we are opposed to an increase in the defence estimates because it has not yet been demonstrated that the danger has become any greater now than it was twelve months or twenty-four months ago.

Against whom are we arming? What potential aggressor is more aggressive to-day? Oh, I know that bogeymen have been trotted out in this chamber. It has been suggested that it might be Italy, it might be Germany, it might be Japan. I cannot suppose that the government has any real fear of the intentions of these nations, for I noticed in the figures I have just read that Canada is shipping nickel to them. Knowing that we control the major part of the world's nickel supplies, I cannot believe that we would ship to them material which we feared would be returned to us in the form of high explosives. Surely those who talked about the Italians bombing this House of Commons did not imagine that the government of the day would allow us to send them the nickel with which to make those bombs, or did they?

The second reason why I cannot support these increased expenditures is that I am convinced they will not be used purely for national defence but will inevitably lead us to participation in war. I know this has been categorically denied by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence. I am sure that they are sincere. But may I point out that, no matter how sincere governments may be, there are understandings and obligations which are very difficult to avoid when a country once starts on a program of armaments. On April 1, 1935, at

page 2307 of Hansard, I find the following statement: ,

It is quite easy to say that we would stay out of the war, that we would not send men to fight in Europe, but after the experience I had of the pressure which was exerted at the time of the Chanak incident,.. .1 have very grave doubts as to what might happen in Canada if war were to break out again in any part of the world.

That is the statement of the present Prime Minister of Canada, then the leader of the opposition. He then doubted if in the event of a world war Canada could stay out. I wonder whether he has changed his mind today? Those who have read the memoirs of Viscount Grey of Fallodon, who was Sir Edward Grey, foreign secretary of Great Britain, at the outbreak of the war, will remember that he says that, unknown to the cabinet, understandings had been made between the British and French naval staffs, with the result that Mr. Asquith seriously thought of resigning because commitments had been made without the knowledge either of the cabinet or of parliament. The Prime Minister says that Canada will pursue at the imperial conference the same policy it has pursued in days gone by. I hope that is true. I am sure that hon. members on this side of the house were very glad to hear that statement. But the fact remains that the statements of Sir Samuel Hoare, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, and the minister for co-ordination of defence show that a great rearmament prr gram is going on in Great Britain. To me it seems no accident that coincident with the increased armament program in other parts of the British Empire there is an increased expenditure for armaments in Canada. It seems to me we are preparing a program that will fit neatly into the great jigsaw of imperial defence.

The third reason why I cannot support these increased estimates is that I feel they are the price the Canadian people are being called upon to pay for the weakness and spinelessness of those who have been responsible for Canada's foreign policy, particularly during the past eighteen months. A great deal has been said about bogeymen in Europe and the rearmament that is going on. Why is it going on? Because every country to-day has lost confidence in collective action based upon collective security. Why? Because the whole ideal of collective security has been sabotaged. It started when Japan was allowed with impunity to ravish Man-chukuo. At that time Sir John Simon, British foreign secretary, made an impassioned defence of Japan's action at the Assembly of the League of Nations. In 1935 Italy embarked on a similar program in Ethiopia.

National Defence-Mr. Hansell

The Minister of Justice tells the house that the reason why Canada would not support oil sanctions was that she was afraid this might lead to war; that seems to me a flight from reality. As a matter of fact we had imposed other sanctions, and if sanctions lead to war why did we impose the first sanctions? If we were afraid of war why did we impose any sanctions? Why did we impose some and not others? The Prime Minister says that all he intended doing was to clear up a misunderstanding that Canada was leading in the demand for oil sanctions. That was not the impression which went around the world. I remember the shock to world opinion which resulted from that action. People who believed in collective security were stunned by the statement which came from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who was acting Prime Minister at the time. And now, when we see the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister shedding crocodile tears over the demise of the League of Nations, I feel that the situation is ironic indeed. At that time the interpretation hy most people in Canada, and the world at large, was that Canada would not participate in oil sanctions, and no attempt was made to give a contrary impression until this parliament met and it was too late then to remedy this situation. It seems to ^ me that both this government and the British National government are in the position of Frankenstein; they are seeking to defend themselves from a monster of their own creation. We have created this situation and now we are proceeding to ask the Canadian people to pay with their money for the folly and the weaknesses of the foreign policy of this government and the British National government. In the same speech to which I have referred, on April 1, 1935, the present Prime Minister used these words:

Our country, small as it is, might well lay down a definite policy in that regard as expressing Canada's attitude toward any country which, upon the facts being disclosed, was found to be guilty of attempting to destroy what otherwise might be collective security. If that example were followed by other parts of the British empire, as I believe it would be, it would soon be followed by other parts of the world.

That is a fine statement. I wonder whether the Prime Minister is prepared to reaffirm it to-day? I wonder whether he still believes that? Certainly the foreign policy of the present government has not shown it; and if, as one of the London papers has said, nothing but rags and tatters is left of collective security, much of the responsibility can be attributed to the action of the present government in the Ethiopian affair, plus the

speech which was made by the Prime Minister at the League of Nations last September, when he announced to the world that Canada would not participate in economic sanctions.

I object to increased armaments. If they were a contribution to some collective security system, it would be an entirely different matter. What this house is being asked to do is to pay for the weak and vacillating attitude that has been taken by the government in connection with international affairs. I, for one, will never give either my voice or my vote to send young men out to lay down their lives because of the incompetency and, in many cases, the stupidity of those who have directed the foreign policy of this country.

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

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit

Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):

I had it in mind to give a somewhat extensive speech on the subject of this amendment, but .time is passing, a good deal has already been said about the matter, and, I may add, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has in part expressed my sentiments concerning it. Only a few minutes remain between now and recess, and I think what I have to say can be said in that time. I wish to say simply a word. As the previous speaker has said, the intention of the amendment is to express the sentiment of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group, that they are opposed to the house going into committee and passing estimates for defence.

Mr. COL'DWELL: Increased estimates.

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

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit

Mr. HANSELL:

Increased estimates for

defence-very well. I must say I have little confidence in the present government's economic administration. I do not believe that they can bring us economic security while we remain within the confines of the present financial system. But even though that is my attitude, there are certain facts that I cannot disregard in a world of unrest such as this. We can say what we like about it, but Canada is an integral part of the British Empire; the British Empire might become involved in any international struggle, and once the British Empire is involved, whether we like to think so or not, Canada itself becomes involved. I cannot, therefore, bring myself to believe that we should not make provision for a moderate defence program. While, therefore, I do not agree with the government in their policy with respect to economics, I cannot vote for the amendment.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

National Defence-Miss Macphail

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I was sorry not to be able to be in the house during the past week; it was my bad luck but certainly not my responsibility. I would have been very much interested to hear all the speeches made on this question of increased armaments. I was not able even to read all the speeches in Hansard, but I was able to follow the reports in the daily press; which is possibly not the best medium, but at any rate is better than nothing. I would particularly like to have heard the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). I would like to have heard his justification for the increase in the estimates, and I would like to have heard him quoting poetry. Of course I can read it, but poetry never is quite so enjoyable when read. I would like to have known from his speech just when it was that Canada arrived at the present very dangerous position. When did he come to the conclusion, and what brought him to that conclusion, that this country and this government, which had no money for many things which it seemed necessary to find money for, suddenly had thirteen and a half million dollars with which apparently they could find nothing better to do than submit increased military estimates? I fear I really shall have to read his speeches to find out what it was that brought him to that conclusion.

Then too, I wanted so much to know against whom we are arming. It is only sixteen months or so since we had a general election, and although I read the press diligently I do not recall any speeches by the Minister of National Defence at that time, or indeed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), telling Canada of her great danger, of the bombs that were to drop on the elevators in western Canada. About eighteen or twenty months ago people were wishing that would happen; it would have been one way of getting rid of the wheat. Someone says, "Drop them on the grain exchange," but the worst thing about bombs is that they are often dropped in the wrong places. Some member was greatly worried about one dropping on the House of Commons. I am sure the country listening to this debate would not think it such a calamity, certainly not this week when I was home in bed. If the Prime Minister during the election campaign had made such eloquent speeches as the one he made this afternoon-because it was an eloquent speech; I did not like it, but it was eloquent-if he had made such eloquent

speeches on this subject from coast to coast throughout Canada, these coasts which now stand in such need of defence, would there have been the same deadening monotony of Liberals in the house as there is now? I doubt it. Therefore I wish he had made the speeches. The speech he made to-day was a very different one from those he made during the campaign on the same subject or similar ones. I am not clear as to how many cruisers we are to have. We are to have four mine sweepers, but if we spelled "mine sweeper" differently, changing the "e" in "mine" to "d," it might not be bad to have half a dozen.

It is said that all this increase of expenditure is to be for the defence of Canada. My first fear is that if we increase our military estimates, if we increase our fighting forces, they will not be used for the defence of Canada but will make us much more liable to be drawn at the heels of Great Britain into a European or world war. There are very good reasons for thinking that. I admire the dexterity with which the Prime Minister explained away Sir Samuel Hoare's speech, but I believe even the right hon. gentleman would admit that it was to him an embarrassing speech and took quite a lot of explaining. We have had in Canada in the last year a good many imperialists, most of them from Great Britain but some of them Canadians, making throughout the country speeches which lead me to believe that there is a very real danger that an increase in military estimates will make it more likely that we shall be drawn into a European war. Then, too, I noticed the Prime Minister's anxiety that he should not turn up at the imperial conference with empty hands. He does not appear to be going to. And apparently he is not the only person going to the coronation, which brings me to my second worry. We are going to send to the coronation and to the imperial conference-it is hard to distinguish one from the other-334 officers and men of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

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

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

No, no.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

Well, I am quoting from the paper, with a picture of Assistant Commissioner S. T. Wood.

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

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

That is incorrect. The total for the mounted police is thirty-four.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

Well, that is another indication that we should not rely too much on the papers. But 364 officers and men from the military forces-are those figures correct?

National Defence-Miss Macphail

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

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

The total is 334-air force, militia and mounted police.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

Well, 334 officers-

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

Ian Alistair Mackenzie (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

No; all ranks.

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

Agnes Campbell Macphail

United Farmers of Ontario-Labour

Miss MACPHAIL:

I was going to say "and men" if the hon. member had waited a moment. It is surprising that there are some men going; that is better than all officers. Three hundred and thirty-four officers and men-

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

February 19, 1937