No; they were within twenty-five miles of shore. As I have already indicated, in this report there will be found reference to no less than twenty-one such schooners, and there were some 737 claims, chiefly of individual fishermen or other persons on board those vessels. That was what happened in the last war. Just try to imagine what will happen if we have another war I We shall have submarines and airships to contend with, particularly if the same countries are involved. Can anyone argue, in the light of these facts, that we should not make provision for our defence?
In the maritimes we have two particular interests: First, the defence of our person and property and, second, the defence of our trade routes, as indicated in the policy of the government. There may be some people in some parts of Canada who care little for our person and property. I submit, however, that as Canadians we are entitled to defence proportionate to what the whole of Canada can adequately provide. It must not be
forgotten that if one portion of Canada is seized, it means wreck and ruin for the remaining portion. A foothold anywhere in Canada means disaster to the whole country.
The second interest of the maritimes is the defence of our coastal trade routes to the United States, Great Britain, the West Indies and other parts of the world. We live by the sea. In my constitutency of Yarmouth-Shel-burne-Clare, for example, the new wealth produced each year through commodities being shipped out of Canada comes from fisheries, lumber and farming. From fisheries we receive approximately $1,150,000; from lumber, approximately $250,000, and from farming, roughly $300,000. That is all new wealth created by reason of these trade routes. That is the only way in which we can buy the manufactured articles, clothes and flour produced in the other portions of Canada. Do away with these routes and we cannot buy. The people have nothing but starvation facing them, particularly in my constituency, if, for example, trade routes to the United States are interrupted in such a way that we cannot ship our fish, particularly lobsters. If that takes place, we can no longer buy from any other portion of Canada. One must also remember that through these trade routes pour out the products not only of the maritimes but of all the rest of Canada. Cut off these life lines, and not only the maritimes but every other portion of Canada will suffer.
These are all possibilities, and every serious Canadian must realize that such eventualities must be provided for. I ask hon. members to keep in mind what happened in the last war on the Atlantic coast in general. We were obliged practically to borrow a patrol squadron, and even with that the German submarines were all along our coast. At the same time I ask hon. members to try to visualize the probabilities in case of another war, to understand the necessity for maintaining as far as possible adequate protection of our coast lines and trade routes. I should like to suggest also to the Minister of National Defence that we in the maritimes look with what I might call a bit of jealousy, perhaps, at the steps taken for the defence of the Pacific coast. I suggest to the minister that so far as possible the defence of the two coast lines should be developed along the same lines and as nearly as possible at the same time. The amount estimated and the policy of the government in the expenditure of that amount should have the support of every hon. member. [DOT]
In conclusion, I compliment the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie)
and other members of the government upon the sound and orderly procedure they are following in the defence of Canada.