[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 35, to incorporate The Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada-Mr Luchkovich.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in measures to provide for the construction prior to the 31st day of August, 1932, of the following Canadian National Railway branch lines:-
1.	From a point on the Murray Harbour branch to a point on the Georgetown subdivision of the Canadian government railways in the province of Prince Edward Island. Estimated mileage, 10; average expenditure per mile, $37,000; estimated cost, $370,000.
2.	From Sunnybrae to Guysborough, in the province of Nova Scotia. Estimated mileage, 67; average expenditure per mile, $52,238; estimated cost, $3,500,000.
3.	From a point on the Dundas subdivision near Brantford to a point on the Dunnville subdivision near Cainsville, in the province of
Ontario. Estimated mileage, 6-1; average expenditure per mile, $221,311; estimated cost, $1,350,000.	-	„	,	, .	.,
4 From a point on the Garson branch to the Falconbridge mine, in the province of Ontario. Estimated mileage, 4; average expenditure per mile, $46,250; estimated cost, $185,000.
5.	From a point on the Sudbury branch to a
point in the township of Fairbank, in the province of Ontario. Estimated mileage, 25; average expenditure per mile, $74,000; estimated cost, $1,850,000.	p	. .	„
6.	From a point near Mejfort to a point near Aberdeen in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage, 89; ;iverag| expenditure per mile, $31,460; estimated cost, $2,800,000.
7.	From a point near Central Butte or
Mawer to a point in township 18 or 19, range 10 or 11, west of the third meridian, in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage, 50; average expenditure per mile, $36,000; estimated cost, $1,800,000.	n
8 From Neidpath to a point on the Canadian Pacific Railway near Swift Current, in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage, 31; average expenditure per mile, $3S,/uy, estimated cost, $1,200,000.	.
9.	From Ridgedale, in the province ol Saskatchewan, thirty miles towards I he l as, in the province of Manitoba. Estimated mileage 30; average expenditure per mile, $3b,bbb, estimated cost, $1,100,000.
10.	From a point near Unity to a point near
the provincial boundary ill township 36 or 37, in the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage,	50;	average	expenditure	per	mile,
$35,000; estimated cost, $1,750,000.
11 From a point near Hamlin to a point near' Glenbush, Medstead or Robin Hood, m the province of Saskatchewan. Estimated mileage,	33;	average	expenditure	per	mile,
$34,848; estimated cost, $1,150,000.
12.	From St. Walburg, in the province of
Saskatchewan, to Bonnyville, in the province of Alberta. Estimated mileage, 117; average expenditure per mile, $36,000; estimated cost, $4,212,000.	.	„
13.	From Alliance to a point near Youngstown or Dobson, in the province of Alberta. Estimated mileage, 82; average expenditure per mile, $36,000; estimated cost, $2,952,000.
14.	From a point at or near Bulwark to a point in township 38 or 39, range 8, west of the fourth meridian, in the province of Alberta. Estimated mileage, 25; average expenditure per mile, $35,000; estimated cost, $875,000.
15 From Hemaruka to Scapa, in the province of Alberta. Estimated mileage, 41; average expenditure per mile, $35,000; estimated cost, $1,435,000.	„ _ _	. ,16. From a point near Swift Current to a point near Tete Jaune, in the province of British Columbia. Estimated mileage, 12; average expenditure per mile, $60,000; estimated cost, $720,000.	_	.
17 From New Westminster to a point on Lulu island, in the province of British Columbia, with branches therefrom. Estimated mileage, 29; average expenditure per mile, $51,724; estimated cost, $1,500,000.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.
Railway Act


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved that it is expedient to amend the Railway Act and to provide for a grant to the railway grade crossing fund of $200,000 per year for ten consecutive *years from April 1. 1929.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. GEARY:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. DUNNING:: Not debatable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the general treaty for the renunciation of war, which was signed at Paris, on the twenty-seventh day of August, nineteen hundred a"d twenty-eight, on behalf of His Majesty for the Dominion of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein, and that this house do approve of the same.
And that a message be sent to the senate to acquaint their honours that this house unites with the senate in the approval of the above-mentioned treaty;
And that the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the senate.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, this resolution asks
the approval by the House of Commons of the genera] treaty for the renunciation of war which was signed at Paris on August 27 last year. Approval has already been given to a similar resolution by the senate of this parliament. The British government and the governments of the several British dominions and India have all expressed approval of the treaty, and at least sixty-two of the sixty-four nations of the world have intimated their intention to adhere to its provisions.
I might say a word as to the genesis of the treaty, although I imagine that to most hon. members the story is already a familiar one. The treaty had its origin in a communication from M. Briand, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the United States, Mr. Kellogg, which communication was sent on IMr. Dunning.]
April 6, 1927, the tenth anniversary of the entrance of the United States into the Great war. In that communication the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the French republic suggested to the Secretary of State of the United States that the two republics should join together in a treaty which would formally renounce war as a means of settling any of their controversies in the future. After its receipt, due consideration was given this communication by Mr. Kellogg, the Secretary of State, and before the year 1927 was out Mr. Kellogg suggested to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the French republic that the different nations of the world should be invited to 'become parties to such a treaty: in other words, that any agreement reached should not be one confined to the two countries but should be enlarged in a manner which would enable all the countries of the world to participate in it. It was agreed that in the first instance the great powers should be asked formally to become signatories to the treaty, and at the time consideration was being given the matter by the great powers, it was decided that separate invitations should be sent to the self-governing dominions and to India in addition to the government of Great Britain. Accordingly, invitations were sent to the six great powers and to the dominions and India. It was then decided to go a step further and include all the nations which had become parties to the Locarno treaties. Altogether fifteen different countries were invited to become signatories to the original treaty. All these countries accepted, and on the 27th day of August the treaty was formally signed at Paris. That, in outline, is the story of the formal presentation of the matter.
The fundamental origin of the treaty lies,
I think, much deeper than anything that appears on the surface. It is to be found in a general feeling of revolt against war on the part of all nations which in the recent past have had to do with war. There is a general feeling that war has become futile and obsolete as a method of settling any question which may arise between countries, and that if ever war were resorted to again as a means of settling controversies between nations it would be of a character more hideous than possibly the human mind can conceive, and that the perverted ingenuity of science would be used to cause the destruction of cities by means of bombs from the air, poison gases and the like, so that whole communities would be wiped out; in other words, that war will annihilate civilization unless civilization undertakes to annihilate war. That is the funda-

International
Peace-Mr. Mackenzie King
mental feeling which, I believe, the nations of the world have had since the recent Great war; and this treaty is one expression of the various attempts which the nations are making to prevent in future, if possible, any recurrence of the kind.
There is no royal road to peace, but there are many paths which lead in that direction, and the Briand-Kel'logg pact is one of those paths. The movement towards peace has had several important manifestations since the Great war, the most important being, perhaps, the formation of the League of Nations. That league, by bringing together some fifty different countries to meet in conference every year, has established a means of creating public opinion and enforcing that opinion in the relations of nations one to another as to the manner in which their controversies shall be adjusted. It has also provided practical means of settling controversies between nations. It has established an organization for publicity which lends effectiveness to the instruments of peace which the league has provided. It has come to have a recognized place in the world as a forum before which the highest interests of nations will be served. In addition to the League of Nations, there are the various treaties for conciliation and arbitration which have been enacted between nations as a means of settling their differences; there have been important international conferences; and there has been considerable progress in the movement towards disarmament. It is true that the progress made towards disarmament has not been as rapid as many would wish it to be; nevertheless considerable progress has been made, and one of the reasons why this treaty should appeal to the nations of the world is that once it goes into force, all nations having declared that they will renounce war as an instrument of national policy, it should be easier for the forces working for disarmament to establish the reasons why disarmament should rapidly follow a treaty of this kind.
Now as to the treaty itself: it is a contribution to this peace movement, another expression of the will to peace-a contribution in two particulars: first, in the formal renunciation which is made by the nations of an appeal to anything in the nature of war as an instrument of national policy; and, secondly, in the wide acceptance of the terms of the treaty itself. As I have stated, sixty-two nations out of sixty-four have indicated their intention of adhering to the treaty; the only two countries in the world which, so far, have not expressed a favourable opinion or given any opinion are the Argentine and Brazil. The
treaty has the merit of being very brief and very direct; indeed, brevity and simplicity must in the nature of things be a part of any agreement which seeks to gain the adherence of all the nations of the world. It is in the main a statement of principle; it does not pretend to establish machinery which will prevent war, but it does call forth from the nations of the world a solemn renunciation of
war as an instrument of national policy.
It would be well, I think, for me to put on record the few words which constitute the preamble to the treaty, together with the three articles constituting the treaty itself. They convey, better than any other wTords possibly . could, the full conception of the treaty and its significance. After enumerating the heads of the different nations who have expressed their willingness to become parties to the treaty, the preamble reads:
Deeply sensible of their solemn duty to promote the welfare of mankind;
Persuaded that the time has come when a frank renunciation of war as an instrument ot national policy should be made to the end that the peaceful and friendly relations now existing between their peoples may be perpetuated;	.	.	, ,.
Convinced that all changes in their relations with one another should be sought only by pa^ cific means and be the result of a peaceful and orderly process, and that any signatory power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by this treaty;
Hopeful that, encouraged by their example, all the other nations of the world will join in this humane endeavour and by adhering to the present treaty as soon as it comes into force bring their peoples within the scope of its beneficent provisions, thus uniting the civilized nations of the world in a common renunciation of war as an instrument of their national policy;
Have decided to conclude a treaty-
Then follow the names of the respective plenipotentiaries of nations appointed to sign the treaty, together with the statement that- -having communicated to one another their full powers found in good and due form have agreed upon the following articles:
And the articles of the treaty then appear as follows:
Article I
The high contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
Article II
The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.
238	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Mackenzie King
Article III
The present treaty shall be ratified by the high contracting parties named in the preamble in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, and shall take effect as between them as soon as all their several instruments of ratification shall have been deposited at Washington.
This treaty shall, when it has come into effect as prescribed in the preceding paragraph, remain open as long as may be necessary for adherence by all the other powers of the world. Every instrument evidencing the adherence of a power shall be deposited at Washington and the treaty shall immediately upon such deposit become effective as between the power thus adhering and the other powers . parties thereto.
It will be seen from the terms of the treaty as I have read them, Mr. Speaker, that its objective is to focus the opinion of the world upon resort to war as an obsolete method of settling controversies between nations and to create a solemn covenant which binds the nations of the world not to go to war with each other as a means of settlement or solution of the disputes or conflicts which may arise among them, but to settle their differences by pacific means.
Perhaps I might say a word or two as to the actual signing of the treaty itself. As hon. members know, the several signatories met at Paris on August 27 of last year. The treaty was presented for signature in the famous clock hall-the Salle de l'Horloge- in which in former years had assembled those who had to do with the drafting of the terms of what ultimately became the treaty of Versailles, and in which also were drafted the terms of the League of Nations which became subsequently a part of that treaty. There was very little of note in the ceremony itself beyond an address by M. Briand, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of France, which set out in clear and memorable language the purposes of the treaty and the objects which it was expected to serve.
There were, however, two attendant incidents Which I think were of the greatest interest to all who had the privilege of witnessing this ceremony, two incidents which were of real significance. The first was that on that occasion over the ministry of foreign affairs of France there floated the flags of every nation of the world. Never before in the history of the world, so far as I am aware, have the flags of all the nations floated over the foreign office of any government. This was intended by France to be a symbol to the world of what is aimed at by this treaty, namely, an effort to bring together all the nations as signatories to its terms. The other incident, which perhaps was even more significant, was the meeting immediately prior to the signing of

the treaty in the ministry of foreign affairs of France between the Minister of Foreign Affairs of that country and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany. For the first time in over half a century a German Minister of Foreign Affairs was received on the soil of France. That act was intended to demonstrate on the part of France her desire to begin the new era which it is hoped this treaty may serve to inaugurate by an open expression of friendliness towards the nation with which she recently had been at war.
After the treaty was read and the gathering had been addressed by M. Briand who, as the house will recall, had been Premier of France during the crucial period of the Great war, the treaty was signed by the various signatories representing the different countries. The first to sign the treaty was Doctor Strese-mann, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was followed by the Secretary of State of the United States, then by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium, then by M. Briand and then by Lord Cushendun as the representative of Great Britain. Following Lord Cushendun the representatives of the several British dominions and of India affixed their signatures, and they were followed by the representatives of Italy, Japan, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The fifteen signatures there affixed constitute the total of the original signatures to the treaty, but as the house will have noticed, one of the terms of the treaty was to extend an invitation to the other nations of the world to become parties to it, and as I have indicated practically all the nations of the world have already expressed their intention of adhering.
For the purposes of record in this parliament, I would like to read to the house, with its permission, one or .two extracts from the speech delivered by M. Briand on that occasion. They are memorable words, doubly so when one recalls by whom they were uttered and the circumstances under which they were delivered. In the course of his memorable address M. Briand said:
It will, I hope, be no exaggeration to say that to-day's event marks a new date in the history of mankind. . . .
For the first time, and on a general plan that is open to all the nations of the world, a congress of peace has done something more than make a political settlement of the immediate conditions brought about by some particular peace imposed as the results of war. For the first time, on a scale as absolute as it is vast, a treaty has been truly devoted to the very establishment of peace, and has laid down laws that are new and free from all political considerations. Such a treaty means a beginning and not an end. We have not met to liquidate a war. The pact of Paris, born of peace and breathing freedom and law, is of its nature a true treaty of concord.

International Peace-Mr. Mackenzie King
Then, a little later M. Briand said:
The essential feature of the pact is that for the first time, in the face of the whole world, and through a solemn covenant involving the honour of great nations who all alike have behind them a sad record of political conflicts, war in its most specific and dreaded form-selfish and wilful war which has been regarded from of old as springing from divine right and has remained in international ethics as an attribute of sovereignty-has been at last deprived by law of what constituted its most serious danger, its legitimacy. For the future, branded with illegality, it is by mutual accord truly and regularly outlawed so that a culprit must incur the unconditional condemnation and probably the hostility of all his co-signatories. It is a direct blow at the institution of war, a blow against its very life.
It is no longer a question of a defensive organization against this scourge, but of attacking the evil at its very root. War as a means of arbitrary and selfish action, is no longer to be deemed lawful. No longer will its threat hang over the economic, political and social life of peoples. Henceforth the smaller nations will enjoy true independence in international discussions. Freed from their old bondage, the nations that have signed the new contract will gradually abandon the habit of associating conceptions of national prestige and national interest with the idea of force; and this single psychological fact will not be the least important element in the evolution there is needed for the final stabilization of peace.
Then, concluding his address, M. Briand said:
Gentlemen, in a few moments the cables will be telling the entire world of the awakening of a great hope; and from now on it must be our sacred duty to do all that can be done so to bring it that that hope may not be disappointed. Peace has been proclaimed, and that is well. That is much. But peace has yet to be organized. For settlements by force we must substitute settlements by law. That must be the work of to-morrow.
At this unforgettable hour the conscience of peoples, freed from all national egotism, is making the truest of efforts to reach those high regions where human brotherhood can be felt in the beatings of one and the same heart. Bet us seek a common ideal within which we can all merge our fervent hopes and put away all selfishness. There is no country represented here that has not poured out the blood of its children on the battlefields of the last war. I ask you to dedicate to your dead, to all those who died in that great war this solemn agreement which we are now about to consecrate with our signatures.
It may be asked: What is to be the binding foroe of this treaty? If the words of M. Briand in concluding his address, do not constitute a force sufficient to bind the nations that have affixed their signatures to it, I question if any force can be discovered in the whole world which will serve that end. In the name of the multitude of their dead, the nations that have signed this treaty have pledged their honour in the face of mankind never again to resort to war as a means of
settling controversies between them. Surely, if there is such a thing as national honour existing, this treaty must hold a large place in the future of the world.
May I say a word in regard to the relation of this treaty to the League of Nations. There are some who are of the opinion that the League of Nations has gone as far as it is possible to go in the endeavour for peace, and that possibly this treaty was therefore unnecessary. But when one reflects on what the League of Nations has accomplished, great as it is, it will be found that there are one or two important gaps in its endeavour to prevent resort to arms as a means of settling international controversies. In the first place, the League of Nations does not include within its membership all the nations of the world. The United States, which is a signatory to this treaty, is not a member of the League of Nations. Neither are one or two other countries that have become signatories to this treaty or will become adherents to it. There is one important gap closed. Virtually all the countries, whether they be in the League of Nations or not, have agreed by this treaty to renounce war as an instrument of national policy.
Hon. members will recall that under the terms of the covenant of the League of Nations a nation may at a certain stage resort to war. It has even been held by some that the covenant is so worded as to make war permissible. That is a debatable point, but this much is clear; That the league provides that where war is threatening between nations, if they are parties to the covenant they must first of all submit their differences to the council of the league, but in order to restrain the parties the award of the council must be binding. If the council is unable to make a binding agreement there then comes as the next step the possibility of war. Even where the council is unanimous, the provision restraining countries from war does not extend beyond a period of three months after the decision has been given. It is hoped that within that period of time passions will have cooled and means will have been found of adjusting the differences between the nations that have referred their difficulties to the league. That gap also has been closed by this treaty for the renunciation of war, inasmuch as under the terms of this treaty even those nations who are parties to the covenant of the league have gone a step further in agreeing formally to renounce war at any and all times.
There is no doubt that the work done by the League of Nations during the last ten
10	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Mackenzie King
years has in large part been responsible for this treaty coming into existence. It is hardly conceivable that the nations that have signed this treaty would have come to the frame of mind in that time which would have permitted them to sign so far-reaching a document, had it not been in part at least for the educational work, which has been carried on by the league. So far as the league is concerned its work is supported and supplemented by this treaty. As M. Briand said elsewhere in his speech, referring to the insurance against war given by the league, there is " reinsurance " in this treaty. The league is reinsured in its work in the prevention of war by the treaty for the renunciation of war.
The work of the league has been helped immensely in another particular. Now that all the nations of the world have stated that they will formally renounce war as an instrument of national policy, and will settle their differences only by pacific means, the work of the league to discover pacific means which will settle the differences between nations gains a new emphasis and importance. The work of disarmament, to which the league has been devoting so much of its efforts during recent years, will attain a new significance. With the nations committed on their honour never to resort to war, obviously the necessity for competitive armaments has been lessened materially, if not altogether obliterated. In this regard may I read a few paragraphs from the speech delivered by Lord Cushendun, the representative of Great Britain at the League of Nations, in which reference is made to this particular treaty and its significance so far as the work of the league is concerned. I think Lord Cushendun's speech admirably sets forth the relation of the two, and the purpose which the treaty should serve in supplementing the splendid work of the league in the cause of peace. Speaking on behalf of Britain on September 11, at Geneva, as Acting Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Lord Cushendun in the course of his remarks said:
In the great and eloquent oration delivered here yesterday by M. Briand there was no passage which I admired so much as that in which he spoke of the spirit of peace as the flower of the world which must not be allowed to wither or fade. But if that flower is to be kept fresh we must water it with our confidence-confidence, not merely in the ideals that we profess, but in the sincerity with which each of us is striving to attain them. What the world chiefly needs to-day, in my judgment, is to cast aside suspicion and distrust as between nation and nation, and not merely to feel greater confidence in each other, but to display it; and I believe that this will be one 
of the results to be achieved by the great venture of faith which was entered upon in Paris a fortnight ago. I have very little doubt that this treaty renouncing war as an instrument of national policy will thus give a very wholesome stimulus to the process of international disarmament.
But do not let us be discouraged or disappointed if we find that the full effect turns out to be neither immediate nor spectacular. It will not necessarily be of less value on that account, for rapid demonstrative action, if due to emotional impulse, often brings about reaction. There is an element in the British character which makes us shrink from expressing in exuberant language the ideals which nevertheless supply the motive power of our action, either as individuals or as a nation. I do not hesitate to say that I look upon the Paris pact as an instrument that proclaims a new era and creates a new outlook. We may not be able immediately to observe this; human beings have to adjust themselves to a new environment, but the up-growing generation, assimilating the new Zeitgeist, will be nurtured in the idea that war, except in bona fide self-defence, is not a gallant adventure, but a national dishonour.
Armaments beyond what are requisite for national safety as prescribed by the covenant will be recognized as a costly and discreditable anachronism. If this hope should be even partially realized then assuredly this year, 1928, will be remembered as a notable land-mark in human history, for it will be the fulfilment of the dream of the most ancient visionaries of our race, who imagined an almost incredible golden age, when weapons of war would be beaten into implements of peace and war itself should cease among men. Throughout the long intervening ages, never till to-day has man made any concerted and determined effort to translate into action the vision of the ancient seer. We are making it now. The Paris pact, in complete harmony with the work of the League of Nations, is at once our proclamation of purpose and our testament to posterity. It is the faith of to-day and the hope of tomorrow.
Hitherto, it has been on conquerors and the great masters of the art of war that history has bestowed her most glittering decorations. Hereafter, a fresh scale of values will be called for. When this new page is turned, we may be sure that we shall find the names of those who initiated the Paris pact inscribed among the greatest benefactors of mankind.
After what I have read from Lord Cushendun speaking for the British government and from M. Briand in his eloquent statement at the time of the signing of the treaty, and, indeed having in mind what one knows to be the sentiment of this nation from coast to coast, I feel it is almost superfluous to ask why Canada should sign this treaty. May I, however, briefly review the reasons which, it seems to me, not only make it imperative for us to sign but would make it the wish of every hon. member to be a party to a transaction of that character. In the first place, Canada perhaps as much as any country

International Peace-Mr. Mackenzie King
in the world is united in its efforts to further the work of the League of Nations. It is united in that effort because this country holds strongly to the cause of peace and desires to see peace furthered not only within its own borders but amongst the nations of the world. We who are supporting so splendidly the work of the league in all its activities will wish to see that work strengthened and furthered as it will be by a treaty such as the one which is now before the house. But in addition to that, this treaty itself marks a place of new beginning in the relationships of nations; this treaty affords a new basis for international law. Heretofore in discussions on international law there has always been the assumption that war may be an instrument of national policy on the part of nations, and much of the international law that exists has, whether it is so avowed or not, this thought lying behind it and to some extent determining what is there defined. Hereafter, the relations of nations cannot appropriately be expressed in terms of the possibility of war between them, because all nations have agreed by this treaty to renounce war as an instrument of national policy. When I speak of the possibility of war between them, I mean war as an instrument of national policy, as a reliance upon force rather than a reliance upon reason or on law. The difficult questions of the freedom of the seas, rights in the matter of embargo and the like, should all, it seems to me, be made less difficult of solution between nations where there is not only agreement but a solemn covenant between them that they will not go to war with each other. That is another reason why I believe this treaty will commend itself to the people of Canada. It helps to establish a place of new beginning in the relationship between nations in the settlement of their differences.
But there is another reason and one which should make a special appeal to Canadians. It is that in approving this treaty we are simply placing the seal of approval on a policy which, as regards Canada in its relations with the country to the south, has been in existence for more than a hundred years. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) asked me the other day why the Rush-Bagot treaty was not revived. May I say to him that the Rush-Bagot treaty, or rather agreement-it was called an arrangement, I think-has never lapsed. That arrangement remains and has been in force ever since 1817, when the British government on the one hand and the United States government on the other agreed
that it would be a huge mistake to develop the competitive arming on the great lakes which had begun at the time of the war of 1812, 1813 and 1814 and which threatened to reach considerable proportions unless competitive arming were stopped. Under the Rush-Bagot treaty it was laid down that the construction of armed vessels on the great lakes would be thereafter discontinued; that such vessels as existed would be dismantled, and that the armed force on the great lakes between this country as part of the British empire and the United States would be limited to four vessels each of 100 tons burden and carrying one eighteen-pound gun apiece. That was the Rush-Bagot agreement and it was provided that either country could terminate it on six months' notice. But so wise have men recognized that arrangement to be that neither from the United States nor from Canada nor from any part of the British empire has come an expression of a desire to discontinue the arrangement. It has not been and I believe it will never be allowed to lapse. That agreement was a renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy as regards the Great lakes, but it has extended very much further than that. Not only has it resulted in putting an end to competitive arming on the Great lakes as between this country and the United States but it has prevented competitive arming from the Atlantic to the Pacific along a frontier of between 3,000 and 4,000 miles, and it has helped to keep the peace for more than a century. Canada to-day in agreeing to adhere to this treaty is simply at the end of a hundred and some odd years taking the step which was taken that long ago as a part of the history of this continent to renounce war as an instrument of national policy.
Speaking of the example of Canada in that regard, one might mention that we have an additional reason for wishing to be signatories to a treaty of this kind. I have said that having agreed to refer matters to pacific settlement and not to resort to war, the nations must now busy themselves in discovering the most effective means of keeping the peace one with another. We on this continent have established a tribunal known as the International Joint Commission to which we are in a position to refer those questions which are apt to lead to difficulty between the United States and ourselves. That body was instituted in 1911. Some twenty-three or more cases have been referred to it, and I think that in twenty-one out of the twenty-three cases there has been unanimity in the finding which was given,
aBVISED EDITION
242	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Mackenzie King
and in all cases the findings have been accepted. There is an example, it seems to me, of value to the entire world. If the countries of Europe had had an arrangement similar to that prior to the great war, it is questionable whether the war would ever have taken place. I think it may well be said at the moment that, knowing as we do the value of the machinery that is there provided for the settlement of differences by the method of compulsory investigation and conciliation, we might well as a country make this method a part of our policy in all that-relates to our own affairs with other nations and, in so far as we are concerned, to the affairs of the British Empire, in order that in the event of something better not being discovered, at least some method of this sort should be resorted to as a means of settlement.
But another reason, and this I shall make the final one, is that as a country, we are interested in making our position as secure as It can be made in its relations with other nations. It is obviously to the interests of Canada to have from her neighbours, from the countries that surround her, an assurance upon their national honour that never will resort be had to war as a means of settling any differences which may arise. That reason has been mentioned elsewhere as a prudential reason, a reason of prudence, if nothing else, why this country should become a party to a treaty of this kind. Canada is fortunate perhaps in her geographical position. We have no countries to the north of us with which there is the possibility of any international difference or conflict. So far as the east and the west are concerned, we are separated by great oceans from any countries that might conceivably come to have differences with us. We have but. the one neighbour to the south, and this neighbour one with whom we have lived at peace for over a hundred years, on a policy based on the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy and which to-day, along with the other nations of the world, gives its solemn pledge that never for all time to come will it resort to war as a means of settling any controversies that may arise.


Mr. CAHAN:: Does the right hon. gentleman understand that to be embodied in this document?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Most decidedly so. I cannot see how this document is capable of any other interpretation than that as between Canada and the United States-let me enlarge that-as between the British Empire

and the United States. Neither will ever resort to war as a means of settling differences which may arise between them, but they will settle all differences by pacific means, and to that end each has pledged its honour before the entire world.
That brings me to my concluding word. More and more we are being told that this Dominion should help to shape the policy of the British Empire in many matters of foreign policy, matters Which will be referred to us from time to time for consideration and opinion. I maintain that having regard to Canada's position, having regard to her desires with respect to the relations that should exist between herself and her neighbours, having regard to what she would wish to 'have prevail among the nations of the world, we should make the principle underlying this treaty a basis of consideration in all matters of foreign policy; in other words, in any questions that come up as between the British Empire and other countries, we dhoulld insist upon the importance of the agreement that has been solemnly entered into by the different countries of the world to renounce war as an instrument of national polioy and to find pacific means for the settlement of their controversies.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the right hon. gentleman concludes, may I ask him if he has anything to say with respect to reservations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Reservations? Yes, I would Say what Sir Austen Chamberlain said, for where I am able to do so, I like to follow the example of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Great Britain. Sir Austen Chamberlain said, when asked the question that my hon. friend has asked me, that there were no reservations so far as Great Britain or the United States were concerned. But may I say this: If my hon. friend .has in mind possible interpretations as they have been made but which have not been recognized by governments as a part of the treaty, assuming that he wishes them to be taken into consideration, I do not wish to eliminate them. But this treaty will have two effects: One effect within the nation concerned will be to arouse its conscience to a pretty close examination of how far any interpretation or alleged reservation may run counter to the spirit of peace Which is the underlying principle of this document, and any government that seeks through an interpretation, or alleged reservation, to resort to war, with the nation's honour binding the country to a course of peace,

International Peace-Mr. Bennett
will find itself in a very difficult position. The other effect will be in relation to the League of Nations, a body that is continuing from day to day and from year to year. The League of Nations may be expected to examine more Closely than otherwise would have been the case any alleged reservation or interpretation, and in so doing, the league will be in a position to mobilize all the countries that are members of the league against any country that seeks by means of an interpretation of its own to evade what obviously might be considered to be its obligation under this solemn covenant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the right hon. gentleman say that there are no reservations with respect to other things? I ask the question for information, because Lord Cushendun, whom the right hon. gentleman quoted, made a special reservation, "unless in bona fide self-defence."
Mr. MACKENZIE KING': So far as selfdefence is concerned, self-defence is inherent in human nature and in nations, and as my hon. friend' has just observed, Lord Cush-endun's language carried before the words selfdefence the word "bona fide", and neither the League of Nations nor any other organization on earth regards bona fide self-defence other than as a right residing in every individual and in every nation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does not the United States interpret this as implying that each nation in its discretion may determine for itself what measures constitue self-defence?-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon, friend will have to ask the United States that question. Mr. Kellogg, the Secretary of State of the United States, expressed the view that the treaty meant exactly what it said, nothing more and nothing less.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am suggesting that as the right hon. gentleman and his government have constituted themselves as interpreters of the United States government to the people of the British Empire


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why should the hon. gentleman wish to throw suspicion or distrust on other nations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because we have had experience.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The facts now speak louder than words.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, speaking the other day of the United' States, said that the United States newspapers-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, that debate is closed, and the right hon. gentleman is out of order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am answering my hon. friend; I am not out of order. I say that my hon. friend the other day referred to articles in the newspapers and periodicals and to speeches in the United States, all of which he said meant war against the British Empire, and I ask him now to point out to the house the source he then had in mind, if he had any in mind. I say to him now that he cannot give the house the sources which he had in mind, if he had any. I challenge him to give his authorities.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, referring to the last observation of the right hon. Prime Minister, I did not say what he alleges I said. In the second place, if he will take the trouble to go to the library he will find the authorities for himself, not only in reputable magazines but in reputable newspapers of the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend give me the names?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have on my desk a
number of clippings from reputable newspapers of the United States in which these matters are thus discussed. The right hon. gentleman need not manifest such heat, he need not become so warm in his desire to apologize for the country to which he is so greatly attached.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am making no apologies for anyone except my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I remind the right hon. gentleman that his attitude is hardly in accordance with those principles of peace which he is so loudly proclaiming? May I venture to say that he is wholly lacking in that calm repose which should characterize the preparation for this peace fest that we are enjoying.


Charles Avery Dunning: Self-defence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, his excuse for the assertion may be regarded as self-defence; but I think not. Now, I venture to say that the reason for the right hon. gentleman's manifestation of heat was that he asked a question to which I gave the answer-experience. I may be permitted to remind him once more of what I read to this house last session, namely, an extract from Lord Charnwood's life of a great president of the United States, the late Mr. Roosevelt, who negotiated a treaty with Great Britain for the settlement by arbitration of differences with respect to the Alaskan boundary. According
244	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Bennett
to Lord Charnwood, he intimated, through one of his friends in London, that the English plenipotentiaries would have to agree with those representing the United States, otherwise he would take his soldiers and run the line. That is what I meant by experience. If desired I will get the book from the library and give my right hon. friend the page where that passage will be found. Those words made a profound impression upon me when I read them. And when the right hon. Prime Minister referred to the International Joint Commission it brought to my mind that our friends to the south have always insisted upon an equal representation on arbitration tribunals, which usually necessitates one of our representatives giving in in order that their will may prevail. This was the case in the Alaskan boundary award, which caused so much discussion in this country. I could multiply those instances. If the right hon. gentleman desires, he will find them pet out at length in a book written by a prominent gentleman across the line. The work is entitled Conquest by John Carter, and in it are reviewed all the activities of our friends on this continent during the last hundred years by force of arms, by economic pressure and by other means. That was the reason why I made my observation in answer to the question of my right hon. friend, and I am rather surprised that the Prime Minister of a great British dominion should display such heat, because I take it that every member of this house has a deep and abiding anxiety for peace.
No form of democratic government can survive without peace. The very essence and basis of democracy is peace. Everyone realizes that. And when the right hon. gentleman referred to the fact that we had attained to a position where we were consulted and had the opportunity to express our approval by becoming a signatory to this great Briand-Kellogg pact, I could not but think that that was won for us by the gallant men who gave their all on the battlefields of France. If to-day we rejoice in the fact that we have some position in the world as a people, a position that enables us to attach our signature to a pact that makes for the world's peace, we should never for one moment forget that that position was won for us through war and all! that war involves in the way of sacrifice of blood and treasure, the latter being the least significant; and this country will not for a half a century recover from the loss sustained in the sacrifice of her gallant sons, a sacrifice which won for us the position which now enables us to become a party to this treaty.

It does not seem to me necessary that any member of this house should take any length of time in saying that we welcome, and the Canadian people welcome, every effort and every instrument that will make for the preservation of the world's peace. But when we speak of peace being maintained by treaties we must never forget that the stream of time, as I said the other day, is strewn with the wrecks of nations that have broken solemn treaties to which they were parties; and as long as human nature is as it is we cannot contemplate, in view of the lessons of history, the possibility of a golden age being ushered in by the mere signing of a document that outlaws war and says that it shall no longer be had recourse to as an instrument of national policy. Merely to say that we abhor war, that we outlaw war and will no longer have recourse to it as an instrument of national policy, is but to say something that has been said by statesmen during the last nineteen centuries. We started for a golden era when our Saviour himself was on earth, and down through all the centuries you will find men making these declarations. But we' know what has followed. It will not be forgotten, for instance, that a solemn treaty was signed recognizing the integrity of Belgium and that it was violated, and that this violation by Germany brought the British Empire into the Great war. Yet great nations, mark you, pledged their honour to uphold that treaty. In the same way the honour of nations is pledged to the treaty now before us.
We are practical people, and when we speak of peace we must not for one moment forget that the price of peace is effort, and that means effort for peace. It was President Wilson who in one of his addresses to congress said: If we are to have peace we must have the will to peace. The will to peace means much more than the mere expression of words, it means .that we live in accordance with that will, and that instruments of war are not created. For there can be no peace, even with the will to peace, if the concrete effort finds expression in the creation of great armies, great navies, and great aircraft squadrons, and the manufacture of chemicals with which to carry on diabolical chemical warfare. These things we must recognize and realize, and the first step to be taken, if this treaty is to be maintained and enforced by the Canadian people, is to bring about disarmament. It must be remembered that this treaty contains no sanction, other than the sanction of honour, it contains no provisions as does the League of Nations covenant by which pressure may be exerted, even to the

International Peace-Mr. Bennett
extent of pressure by force; no provisions of that kind. It is, as the Prime Minister has said, a document based entirely upon a national sense of honour. There are no punishments provided; the only punishment that we can impose upon the nation that breaks it is by our abhorrence of and revulsion in such a breach of plighted honour.
That being so, it does seem to me that we, being a practical people and living in an age of actualities, must see to it that there is behind that will for peace itself an expression in concrete shape by disarmament, by bringing about the lessening of armies, by bringing about the lessening of navies, by bringing about the lessening of aircraft, by bringing about the cessation of manufacture of the materials by which chemical warfare is carried on. Unless we do that this covenant becomes something, a little higher perhaps than covenants of days gone by, but it becomes after all a byword and a reproach. The very essence of this instrument is that those who sign it-not this country alone but every other nation in the world that becomes a party to it-begin at once to destroy by peaceful means those instruments by which peace is rendered impossible.
I think it was Shakespeare who said that the sight of means to do ill deeds makes deeds ill done; and so long as there are armies and navies, aircraft and chemicals, just so long will men and women think in terms of war instead of peace. The very presence of these instruments of war induces thinking in terms of war. It seems to me, therefore, that the complement of this obligation which we have incurred is that on every occasion, at all times, we should be glad and willing to assist in every possible way to see to it that these instruments, by which men are led to think in terms that are the very opposite of peace, shall not be maintained and supported by the people. Failing such an effort, any treaty becomes nothing more than sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. There is no doubt about that. I think of the language of Lord Cushendun with relation to the emotional reactions that follow moments of great exaltation, when we speak in terms of peace as though the golden age had come; but we must not forget that in this world to-day there are great armies- hundreds of thousands of men under arms, owing allegiance to the very nations that have executed this pact. There are great navies built and building; there are thousands of aircraft built and building; there are great factories being erected and organized for manufacturing chemicals to be used for purposes of devastation and destruction during war. If,
therefore, we desire to realize the purpose of this pact this can be done only by the complete recognition on our part of the educational obligations that rest upon us to see to it that there shall be more than the mere signing of an agreement-that the instruments by which the purpose we have in view will be nullified shall not be created or maintained.
This is all I think it is incumbent on me to say at the moment. I am as anxious and desirous as every thoughtful man or woman must be in Canada to see peace prevail. Believing as we do that the one great means by which peace throughout the world is to be established and maintained is to create that will for peace which finds expression in disarmament and in the lack of preparation for war, or the destruction of the instruments whereby war may be carried on, whether on land or sea or in the air, we execute a document such as this, which marks one more step forward towards the end we have in view. But any student of history, whoever he may be or however casually he may read, cannot but be struck with the fact that during all the long centuries of which we have a record men and women have been striving for peace as the great ideal, only to see their hopes shattered and their expectations disappointed, because the human equation has been what it is, because in moments of great stress the multitude, the masses under democratic forms of government, fired by emotional appeals, exalted for the time being to think that their eagerness for war really expressed their patriotism, have shaped and moulded and controlled public opinion through statesmen and governments, so that governments and men who would willingly and gladly have refrained from war have been compelled to rush into conflict with other nations. That is the history of mankind; and until such time as mankind has no longer before it the means by which war may be made possible, so that when men's emotions are aroused by appeals to false sentiments of patriotism-appeals to the jingoistic spirit that sometimes manifests itself in every country-until such time, I say, the possibility of war will remain. We must, therefore, destroy the instruments that make for war, so that when such appeals are made to the emotions there will be no response-* no cannon, no navy, no troops. That is the only means by which peace can be made lasting in this world; and we must not be misunderstood if we suggest that this document, great as it is, is not nearly so great as people are sometimes led to believe it is. This is a document which, based upon principles of high honour, records the view that war, here-
246	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Bennett
after, shall be considered illegal and no longer an instrument of national policy. But let us bear in mind, there are no sanctions, and for the maintenance of the principles it embodies it is essential, in my poor judgment, that there should be no means by which the purpose aimed at may be frustrated. We know the weaknesses of human nature, we realize all the difficulties which in the past have surrounded treaties in relation to peace- difficulties such as found expression at the time the boundaries of Belgium were disregarded and the German troops marched through that country.
I certainly desire to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the part he has taken in connection with the execution of the treaty. We Canadians realize that the first minister of the crown, in dealing with the matter as he did, spoke not for the government but for the Canadian people in his capacity of leader of the government of Canada, and to that extent we are proud to think that our country had an opportunity thus to associate itself with the other nations of the world in declaring the Canadian people's abhorrence of war and their view that war as an instrument of national policy should hereafter be regarded as illegal and a menace to the world. This, I think, is a fair and reasonable attitude to take. Canadians are proud to reflect that we have had this opportunity to be associated with the other nations of the world in the outlawing of war and in the endeavour to maintain, as far as possible, the peace of the world. But if there are amongst us, as there are, men who believe that the best means to effect peace is to insist that the instruments which would wreck peace shall not be allowed to exist, then I am sure we shall not be charged with wrong motives, or with any other than a sincere desire to do what we can so that when we have pledged our honour, as other nations have done, to prevent war, [DOT]there shall not Ibe a gradual accumulation of the very instruments that make peace impossible and war but an inevitable consequence. For those who know most, those who have written most carefully on the subject, those who have investigated it most closely are all agreed that but for the instruments which one great nation and empire sustained before the war there would have been no war; because where there are millions of men under arms, millions of tons of warships, great guns, great arsenals and great factories for the production of explosives, these instruments must ultimately 'be used for war. It is because people demand a use for them that 
the inevitable end comes; and there will be no success from this or any other treaty until the time comes when the instruments of war are made no longer available. It is for that reason that I made the other day the observations to which attention has been called. We are endeavouring to ensure the security [DOT] of Canada, and we believe that the creation of instruments of force, which would be all-powerful even as against ourselves, if it were the desire of others to use them, are but an incentive, an invitation to arouse the passions of mankind which, during the long centuries of which we have record, have manifested themselves at critical moments in one way and one way only. Since the days when the old orator stood in the Roman tribune and thundered his attacks against a rival city, closing with the four words, "Carthage must be destroyed,"-since then until the present day, war has always been the result of an appeal to the passions of people, who have been only too ready to resort to the use of the instruments at hand. We must, therefore, strike at armaments and navies, armies and aircraft, if treaties are to be inviolate and we are to achieve the end we have in mind.
I have no desire for a single moment to betray any spirit of recrimination or suspicion. But after all one realizes that history is indeed a useful guide; and with the long record of mankind before us to guide us to the high and noble purpose we have in view, we should be indeed false and recreant to the trust reposed in us if we did not take advantage of the lessons which history has taught us. These lessons are there: he who runs may read, and the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein. I associate myself with what has been said as to the great advantages that will accrue to the world by having this open declaration of all communities as to the desirability of peace.
There are certain matters with which I might fittingly deal when the estimates having to do with the League of Nations come before this house; it is not necessary for me to refer to them now, but I do say that upon these two continents of North and South America we have had striking indications during the last few weeks that the power of the League of Nations is very little indeed. That power has not amounted to much with regard to these two continents, and the reasons which induced Brazil to withdraw from the League of Nations, and I assume the same reasons which have induced Btazil to refrain from signing this peace pact are those reasons which must be in the minds of thoughtful

International Peace-Mr. Woodsworth
Canadians, which demand that if we are sincere and honest in our purpose we will, to the extent of our ability, use every effort to bring about the destruction and disappearance of those instruments without which war is impossible. I conceive that to be what was in the mind of the seer of old to whom Lord Cushendun referred, who spoke as with a vision when he said that talk of peace was indeed purposeless unless the time arrived when men beat their spears into pruning hooks and their swords into ploughshares.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, after the very
comprehensive and eloquent presentation of the cause of peace by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and the equally eloquent plea by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), that we should banish those instruments without which war is impossible, it seems to me almost too bad to utter anything of a jarring nature. Someone behind me suggests the word "cynical." I hope what I say will not be cynical, but I think we must look at things from the standpoint of reality, and we must understand very clearly the implications of this solemn treaty which *we have to consider. Ten years ago the treaty of Versailles and the covenant of the League of Nations contained undertakings providing for a general reduction and limitation of armaments. As Mr. Lloyd George pointed out recently in the British house, Germany is the only nation which has honoured that undertaking; since Locarno the British, French and Italian armaments have increased. What about British honour and Canadian honour with regard to those provisions of the treaty of Versailles? Further, ten years ago in connection with the peace treaty a charter of labour was drawn up which proposed to grant to organized labour almost all the things for which it has stood for many years and was solemnly signed by the members of the League of Nations. Canada was a signatory to that treaty. With very small exceptions these labour clauses have not been ratified by Canada. I know the difficulties in the way; under our British North America Act, of which we hear daily, there are certain Dominion-provincial difficulties, but I maintain that if Canada were in earnest means would have been found long ago for the ratification of those sections of the treaty. Again I ask, what about the obligations of honour into which Canada entered ten years ago?
One phrase uttelred by the Prime Minister goes a long way to reconcile me to the action which we are asked to take to-day, and that is that this treaty should be the basis in the
future of all our relations with foreign countries. If that is carried' out in its entirety it means that this is indeed the dawn of a better era.
' We are told by the Prime Minister that war is an obsolete method, and again that war must be abolished or war will annihilate our civilization. I do not need to say anything further in that connection, but let me bring out some points which it seems to me may be glossed over at this time of enthusiasm. In the first place, what about the limitations of the treaty? I can hardly understand how the Prime Minister can say that Great Britain made no reservations. We recall the letter written by Mr. Austen Chamberlain at the time this pact was being negotiated, in which he said:
The language of article 1, as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, renders it desirable that I should remind Your Excellency that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty's government have been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with these regions cannot be suffered. Their .protection against attack is to the British empire a measure of self-defence. It must be clearly understood that His Majesty's government in Great Britain accept the new treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect. The government of the United States have comparable interests any disregard of which by a foreign power they have declared that they would regard as an unfriendly act. His Majesty's government believe, therefore, that in defining their position they are expressing the intention and meaning of the United States government.
We sometimes boast that upon the British Empire the sun never sets, and to-day there are regions which undoubtedly are considered by the present administration as vital to the interests of England, such as Egypt and India. The idea of self-defence is so widely interpreted in this letter by Mr. Austen Chamberlain that it may be made an excuse by the British Empire for war in almost any part of the world. I think that should be made quite clear, and hence I was sorry when the Prime Minister undertook to tell us there were no reservations. If we come to the United States the interpretation given by Mr. Kellogg surely is a form of reservation. He stated that there was nothing in the American draft of an anti-war treaty which restricts or impairs in any way the right of self-defence. Then he said:
Every nation is free at all times and regardless of the treaty provisions to defend its territory from attack or invasion, and it alone is competent to decide whether circumstances require recourse to war in self-defence.
248	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Woodsworth
Instead of that being an advance over the peace treaty of Versailles, Mr. Speaker, it is a distinctly retrograde step. The peace treaty undertook to say that the league would decide whether or not a war was a war of selfdefence, but here Mr. Kellogg enunciates the dangerous doctrine that each nation must decide whether or not a war will be a war of self-defence. Until some way is provided by which wars of self-defence may be much more clearly defined it does not seem to me that we can hope that this declaration of the outlawry of war will carry us very far. Did Great Britain ever wage anything but a war of selfdefence? I will venture to say that almost every Conservative in the British Empire will say that every war was a war of self-defence, although practically every historian denies it. Of course, all British wars are wars of selfdefence. I believe Mr. Norman Angell ironically made a statement of that kind not long ago in the city of Toronto. To his astonishment, doubtless, the Torontonians all cheered him not that they caught, his point, but that they could not conceive of Britain as other than always right. We must remember that all large nations claim that their wars are wars of self-defence. What about France? She is the Ruhr to-day and I suppose if the League of Nations undertook to move her out, or the Germans tried the same thing, immediately we would have a war cf selfdefence.
A very excellent editorial appeared in the Free Press a few weeks ago, dealing with the second clause of the Kellogg treaty. This clause reads as follows:
The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.
The editorial reads:
The optional clause grows slowly in favour. Additional signatures to it forthcoming in recent weeks are those of Hungary and Spain. Meanwhile the official attitude of all the British nations, as frankly is stated at a recent meeting of the league council, is that while they heartily approve of other nations signing the clause they do not intend, for the time being at least, to sign it themselves.
Is that the British way, to approve of everyone else signing but refusing to sign themselves? In this connection I asked a question of the Prime Minister the other day regarding Canada and the optional clause. He very kindly answered one of my questions, but the most important one still remains unanswered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my hon. friend like it answered?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I should like
it answered now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will recall that during the last imperial conference a desire was expressed on the part of the governments assembled there that no one part of the British Empire should formally accept the optional clause without giving to the other parts of the empire an opportunity of discussing that particular subject. We have advised the other parts of the empire that in our opinion Canada should sign the optional clause, and we are at present receiving communications from other parts of the empire in reference thereto. We are carrying out our undertaking at the conference not to sign formally until there has been an opportunity for discussion, but we have made known that it is our desire to sign the optional clause.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am delighted to hear that. May I ask when Great Britain was notified to that effect?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not recall the exact date, but it was either the end of last year or the early part of this year.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When the question was raised in the British house last July I note that the Prime Minister of Great Britain stated that no communication had then been received from Canada. Personally, I am delighted to know that Canada is moving along that line.	.
There is another question I asked the other day as to whether Canada is taking any steps towards the signing of what is known as the general act for the pacific settlement of international disputes, as drawn up by the ninth assembly of the League of Nations. Possibly the Prime Minister could answer that to-day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have the answer, and I will give it to my hon. friend. The general act or model convention referred to was only drawn up in September last, and so far as we are informed, has not yet been accepted by any member of the league. As it covers in some measure the same ground as the permanent statute of the court of international justice, which Canada has accepted, and the optional clause under the statute which is at present under discussion, we have thought it desirable to have the optional clause question finally determined before proposing further action.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me it would be a splendid thing if Canada, could be the first of all the nations of the world to sign that agreement. But are the nations really

International Peace-Mr. Woodsworth
in earnest in this matter? The leader of the opposition has rather suggested that the United States may not be. We have had the cruiser bill, which certainly does not seem to be a very consistent action on the part of the United States. I would remind the house that only a short time before that we had the Anglo-Franco naval compromise, which perhaps, in part at least, provoked the cruiser campaign, Great Britain was undoubtedly responsible in being a party to that compromise. I asked the Prime Minister a question the other day as to whether Canada was consulted in this matter. I think we should have an answer to that, and if the Prime Minister feels he can give it here I shall be delighted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe in March of last year we were advised that the British government intended to enter into conversations with the French government with respect to the consideration of armaments and their possible reduction. The information we received in this particular was public knowledge within a week after. We were not kept advised of the progress of the negotiations. At the imperial conference of 1926 it was laid down that before one part of the British Empire entered into negotiations with another country, whieh negotiations were likely to affect other parts of the empire, all parts of the empire should be advised. If these negotiations were calculated to impose obligations upon other parts it was understood that those parts of the empire would be kept advised of the progress of the proceedings and their assent obtained. I take it that the British government felt that the negotiations were not likely to impose any obligation on Canada and that, therefore, we were not advised of the progress of the negotiations. Our first knowledge as to what had actually been arrived at was received after some of the governments had had their formal notification through the British Embassy.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Were these negotiations not
purely tentative for submission to the United States?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand they were.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I venture to
comment on that by suggesting that the Prime Minister's statement would show that the present arrangements with regard to our imperial affairs are decidedly inadequate? If we can learn of important decisions of this kind on the part of Great Britain only after they are public property, it would appear that to me we are absolutely helpless with regard
to the most vital matters in our world relations. It seems to me that the Prime Minister and the government have taken too narrow a view of the position of Canada in world affairs when they thought we were not directly involved in a matter of this kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I never said anything of the kind. We were advised that certain conversations were about to take place, and that was all the knowledge we had of what was going on until we learned of the tentative agreement that had been reached.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Whatever the details may have been, it seems to me that any proposed arrangement along naval lines between Great Britain and France must have been known to involve the whole question of the freedom of the seas. The merest tyro in international affairs must know the great difference of opinion that exists between Great Britain and the United States with regard to that matter, and surely, therefore, our government must have been aware of the seriousness of the situation. I happened to be in close touch with members of the British parliamentary delegation when the opposition of the United States was announced, and the resentment of the British parliamentarians to what they considered American interference was very keen. Anyone who has been in touch with British statesmen knows how widely conservative opinion in Great Britain differs from the American position. ^ My point is that the position of Canada in relation to the United States is a very peculiar one and that we must safeguard our own interests. Whilst we are members of the British Empire-and some of us are glad to belong to the great association of the British commonwealth of nations-we must recognize that we have distinct responsibilities towards our own people, and that we ought to know, clearly just where we stand in matters of this kind. The other day in my speech on the address I read a paragraph from an editorial which appeared in the Western Producer, and I should like to read a little more from the same editorial as it places this situation squarely before the people of Canada. The editor of that paper, I suggested, could not be called unpatriotic or pusillanimous. We know him and his record. This is what he said in referring to a book of Commander Kenworthy, in which the latter had suggested that if there was a possibility of war between Great Britain and the United States, Canada would find herself in an impossible position :
Canada might manage to save herself if she immediately severed all connection with the
250	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Woodsworth
British Empire and crawled, squirming on her hands and knees, with a couple of Mackenzie King's speeches held out before her. If she did not do that, and it is doubtful if that would be of any use, she would be in the war five minutes after hostilities had been declared. The war between Canada and the United States might last a week. Without moving off her own territory, American gunners could paralyse all the industries in Ontario depending on water power. American aeroplanes could reach every commercial and industrial centre in Canada within an hour or so. Navigation could be stopped on the St. Lawrence without much trouble. The industries which depended on coal in Ontario could not function for a week because the supply of coal would be cut off from Pennsylvania. The transcontinental lines of railway could be cut in a dozen different places on the prairies. Industry, transport and commerce would be at a standstill. The port of Vancouver could not be saved. It is true that the Hudson Bay railroad might be kept in operation for month or so if the Americans were not in a hurry, but there is little doubt that Canada would be abjectly defeated in considerably less time than it took the Germans to subdue Belgium at the outbreak of the last war. The truth is that Canada, with the British fleet standing by her with every gun and ship, could no more fight the United States than could the newest Canadian baby fight Gene Tunney. Canada cannot hold her place as an independent nation by military strength any more than Holland, Denmark, Haiti or Baffin-land.
Then came the paragraph which I quoted the other day followed by this in conclusion:
If Kenworthy is right, and British diplomacy is liable to involve her in a war with the United States, British Statesmen should also understand that they can count Canada out in the deal. Full acceptance of the Kellogg antiwar pact, both in letter and spirit by Great Britain and an airtight understanding that, under no circumstances, will war be resorted to between the two countries are the only terms upon which Canada can consent to remain a working partner in the British family of nations.
It is as well that we should face the actual facts in the situation, and while none of us likes to contemplate the remotest possibility of war between Great Britain and the United States, we make that absolutely impossible only if we take the strong stand that under no circumstances shall we and our neighbours to the south of us be involved in war. I am glad to know that this is the interpretation which the Prime Minister places upon the treaty which he is asking us to ratify.
It seems to me, then, that we should vote in favour of such ratification with a distinct understanding on two points. First, that so far as we are concerned there are absolutely no reservations, and, second, that we are willing to implement that ratification of this treaty by ourselves taking the lead in the reduction of our armaments. I have spoken about the inconsistency of Great Britain.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Of the United States.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Of Great Britain.
I will say also the inconsistency of the United States; it seems to me that both have been inconsistent. But what about our own consistency when this year, according to the estimates brought down yesterday, we are increasing our defence estimates by a million dollars?
If we are in earnest about this matter we might rather expect the government to bring down a bill to abolish the Department of National Defence. If we really mean what we say according to the terms of the treaty, namely, that we are denouncing war as an instrument of national policy, why do we any longer need a Department of National Defence? The United States, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, is our only neighbour, the only country with which we are likely to come into conflict. Why, then, do we need this Department of National Defence? These are matters that ought to be considered.


George Reginald Geary: When the hon. member
speaks of Canada signing the treaty without any reservations whatsoever, does he mean to withdraw from Canada the right of self-defence?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think if we are serious about this, we shall have to recognize that we pass to a sphere that Lord Cushendun in those eloquent words of his has spoken about as a venture of faith. You cannot very well shake hands with a man and at the same time hold on to your gun. If we are going to shake hands in real earnest, we shall have to lay aside our arms; we shall have to trust our neighbours.


George Reginald Geary: I think the hon. member
does not quite understand me. He said that one condition should be that we should enter this treaty, if at all, without any reservations. What is in his mind when he makes that statement about reservations?


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is a reservation implied in our very relationship to the British Empire when that Empire assumes the position implied in the statement that Mr. Austen Chamberlain made at the time of the negotiations. Further, there is undoubtedly a reservation of self-defence, and as I endeavoured to say a little while ago, selfdefence has been and may be so broadly interpreted that almost any war may be undertaken on that ground. WTe have to move away from the old idea of always being prepared to defend ourselves by force and recognize that under modem conditions the best self-defence that we can have is the active promotion of goodwill among the nations.

International Peace-Mr. Woodsworth


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question in order to clear up this point? The hon. gentleman has just intimated that he thought there was some implication in which we were involved because of the so-called reservations of Mr. Chamberlain. Surely the hon. gentleman does not mean that Canada is compelled to observe or to honour the implied reservations of Mr. Chamberlain's letter?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not want to be so understood. I wish to be clear on that.
I think that Canada ought to decide this question entirely on her own responsibility, that she is quite capable of doing so, but at the same time, I do recognize that Canada is a part of the British Empire, and that so long as we remain a part of the British Empire we cannot escape all responsibility for certain decisions upon the part of other members of the empire, particularly upon the part of Great Britain herself. Mr. Chamberlain has so interpreted the Kellogg peace treaty, and unless we expressly repudiate his interpretation it may very well be that the British government may be inclined to think that we might accede to their position in these matters. I mentioned that the other day with regard to the freedom of the seas. Do we or do we not accept the British interpretation of the freedom of the seas?


Mr. McGIBBON:: May I ask if my hon. friend accepts it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, decidedly not, and I think no one who has studied the developments of history could possibly accept it to-day. I suggested my position on that the other day when I referred approvingly to a statement of Commander Kenworthy and my hon. friend might have saved himself the trouble of asking the question-that is if he is simply desirous of knowing my position. Commander Kenworthy said:
The British will have to envisage now the eventual renunciation of the right of independent blockade, instead of as now, tacitly recognizing that in future it will be impossible to enforce it without American approval; while the Americans will have to envisage now, eventually recognizing, that freedom of the seas and sea law cannot be guaranteed without an Anglo-American convention which will have to be brought into relation with the covenant of the league.


Peter McGibbon: Does the hon. gentleman think we could have won the war on that ground?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, but if this
treaty which we are asked to ratify to-day had been in existence in 1914, and had been taken seriously by the various nations, we
would not have had any war. I would close from a quotation from a very respectable source, the Montreal Gazette, which in its issue of October 25, 1928, says:
It remains with the political casuists to explain just how the augmentation of armaments, alongside the increase of national debts, is going to further the economic recovery of nations from their crushing burdens imposed by the Great war, or how a gesture of this sort can be made to chime with the disarmament proposals still in the offing of international diplomacy, but not as yet piloted into dock.
A little 'later the editorial says:
Nor is it at all olear by what logic it can be maintained that the increase of armaments tends to preserve peace. Lord Grey said: "The moral of the last great war was that great armaments did not prevent war, but brought it about." And speaking upon the same topic, Lord Asquith said that armaments are not accumulated and builded for ornament and display. They are intended to be used and will be let loose upon the world.
I would say in answer to my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary) who asked me a question a few moments ago, that I think we shall have to adopt that attitude. If we have our own navy, small as it may be but easily capable of becoming a unit in the British navy, if we have our own airships more or less standardized so that one day they might readily become a unit in the defence of the empire, if we have our own army and maintain that army and train our boys for these services, we are doing so having in the back of our minds the thought that some day these armaments and these soldiers and these cadets may be used.
Some of us on occasion have been accused of not being loyal to the British Empire-this simply because we undertook to criticize certain policies that have been adopted in the past by certain administrations in Great Britain. I do not think that is a fair accusation. My own hope is that before very long a new regime will come in Great Britain, and I feel that it may be quite possible that we shall then be able more fully to endorse the stand that will be taken by the then existing government of Great Britain. Some of us have been accused of not being patriotic because we criticized the policies that prevailed here in Canada, but I want to say in all sincerity that I believe that those who are trying to create armaments in this country and are insisting upon increased defence are, from my standpoint-doubtless not from theirs-playing into the hands of the so-called patriots of other countries, the armament people of other countries, Our attitude will be used in other quarters to enable the patriots of other coun-
252	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Thorson
tries to advocate larger armaments for their nations. I would like to think that if we take the lead in disarmament, although we are a comparatively small country, our example may encourage a still larger measure of general disarmament. It is only as we do this that we can hope-in the excellent phrases of M. Briand-to organize the peace that we are seeking to proclaim.


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the welcome that was
extended to the Prime Minister on his return from Europe last summer was not that of a political party to its leader; it was the voice of Canada in wholehearted approval of his services in the cause of international peace. The Prime Minister was a central figure at Paris in the opening of the Canadian Embassy, and in the signing of the general treaty for the renunciation of war. He was likewise a central figure at Geneva in the deliberations of the council and of the assembly of the League of Nations. It is the declared policy of Canada to promote international amity between herself and the nations of the world with whom she is associated and the people of Canada may well be proud of the manner in which her representative expounded that policy to the other nations of the world. All of the events in which the Prime Minister and those associated with him participated are closely interwoven in that they indicate the growing importance of Canada among the nations of the world and reflect the increasing interest of the Canadian people in international affairs.
This parliament is now asked to approve the general treaty for the renunciation of. war, commonly called the Briand-Kellogg Treaty, or the Paris peace pact, signed at Paris on the 27th of August, 1928, on behalf of His Majesty for the Dominion of Canada by His Majesty's plenipotentiary, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada.
It is now almost ten years since the League of Nations was formed in an effort to establish world peace by the substitution of reason for war in the settlement of international disputes. There have been criticisms of the league even in this house, but thoughtful men are of the opinion that the league has grown in prestige and value to the world year by year, for it has created among the nations of the world a new sense of security, based upon an international public opinion that acutely realizes the horrors of war, and is keenly anxious for peace. The great value of the League of Nations, and of the covenant that binds together fifty-five nations of the world, lies in the abandonment of much of

the old diplomacy, with its cold exchange of formal notes, and its ultimatum that so frequently resulted in war, and the substitution of open conference and public discussion. The covenant of the league sets up machinery for the investigation of international disputes, and- for their settlement by pacific means, either by a reference in appropriate cases to the permanent court of international justice, or through the processes of arbitration, conciliation or conference. The covenant of the league also prescribes a period of delay before war shall be resorted to, during which efforts may be made to settle the disputes by pacific means. The league does not depend upon force, and is essentially a pacific institution. It seeks to bring the disputes of its members into the clear light of day, relying upon open conference and public discussion as safeguards against war.
No greater tribute has ever been paid to the value of the league-and this statement may answer the question put forward by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) -than the considered opinion expressed by Viscount Grey and supported by General Smuts, that if the present machinery of open conference and public discussion provided by the covenant of the league had been in operation, the outbreak of the Great war in August, 1914, could have been avoided.
The covenant of the league did not, however, preclude the possibility of war. In fact it recognized the legality of war as a last resort in the solution of the disputes that might come before the league. There was a very good reason for the recognition accorded at that time, for those who drafted the covenant were trained in the old schools of international law and in the old conceptions of sovereignty. It was the old view that no limitations whatsoever could be put upon the rights of sovereign states to act as they might desire, and therefore the framers of the covenant felt that they could not deny to sovereign states the right to wage war as a last resort in the furtherance of their national interests. There have been remarkable changes in international conceptions during the last decade and it is manifest that if there is to be international peace the old doctrine relating to the sovereignty of states must be recast. Membership in the league is itself inconsistent with the old conception of sovereignty, since it restricts the liberty of action of its members. No nation in the world, whether limited in status or not, can be permitted to act in whatever way it may desire to do if lawlessness among the nations is to be prevented and the peace of the world assured.

International Peace-Mr. Thorson
Therefore it was necessary to go further than the covenant of the league had gone, and this further step was taken when the peace pact was signed. Article I of that document provides:
The high contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
Fifteen nations of the world, of whom Canada was one, signed this solemn pledge, and since that time forty-seven other nations have expressed adherence to its terms. Under Article I of the peace pact war as an instrument of national policy has been declared by sixty-two nations of the world to be illegal, and the rights of sovereign states have to that extent been abridged. It is no longer the legal right of a state that has signed or expressed adherence to the peace pact to wage war in furtherance of its national interests. A great forward step was taken, for as long as the legality of war was recognized competition in armaments could be justified as preparation for the exercise of a legal right and the settlement of international disputes solely by pacific means was impossible. The gap in the covenant of the league caused by its recognition of the legality of war as a last resort in the settlement of international disputes has been closed.
The peace pact has been criticized as a mere gesture of peace with no substance to support it, and an echo of that criticism has been heard in this house. It is urged that " war as an instrument of national policy " is not defined in the pact; that is true; that wars of self-defence are not affected by the pact; that also is true. It is pointed out that all nations, in recent years particularly, realizing the national dishonour involved in wars of aggression, have claimed that the wars in which they themselves were engaged were wars of self-defence. Secretary Kellogg and Senator Borah agreed with Sir Austen Chamberlain that there was no way of defining legitimate wars of self-defence as against wars of aggression. The critics argue further that no visible test exists whereby to determine whether violation of the pact has been committed; that no machinery is provided for the punishment of those who break its terms; that there are no international obligations involved;-in fact that the peace pact is a glaring example of international hypocrisy. As proof of their view that the nations of the world have no real intention of renouncing war as an instrument of national policy, they point to the armament programs of the nations who signed the pact.
It must not be assumed that international peace has been secured by the mere signing of the peace pact. The pact is however more than a mere gesture of peace, for it has one very important result-it has brought the United States actively into the struggle for world peace. Furthermore it is an additional guarantee of peace, for now a warring nation that is a member of the league and refuses to settle its disputes by pacific means breaks two solemn covenants instead of one, and thus doubly runs the risk of international disapproval. The critics also forget the importance of Article II of the peace pact, which provides as follows:
The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.
Article I of the peace pact is important as an article of faith, declaring, as it does, the illegality of war as an instrument of national policy. It brings the nations of the world to the threshold of a new era. The second article is however the more important of the two, for it sets forth the positive commitments of the contracting parties; it does furnish a visible test as to the honesty of the nations who signed the paot. Article II is the mansion of the new era whioh the nations now agree to build in place of the shambles of war.
It is true that the term "pacific means" is not defined in the pact, but it is clearly wide enough to include the machinery set up by the League of Nations-the permanent court of international justice and the processes of arbitration, conciliation and conference. The signatory powers are, of course, not confined to the pacific means provided by the league, but they are committed, positively and definitely, to one of two courses: either to leave their international disputes unsettled or to settle them only by pacific means; settlement through the medium of war is illegal.
What are the guarantees of the observance of the pact by the nations who became parties to it? The pact itself, in the preamble, suggests one which might better have been a separate article:-
That any signatory power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by the treaty.
A violating nation will lose the pledges of peaceful relationships afforded by the pact. It has been realized that we are at the beginning of a new era in international relationships, and several suggestions have been made as to additional guarantees of peace. General

International Peace-Mr. Thorson
Smuts makes a special appeal to the United States to apply to the peace pact the same moral and economic sanctions by way of boycott of the aggressor as are provided for violators of the covenant of the league by Article XVI of the covenant. Somewhat the same idea is behind the resolution presented by Senator Capper to the United States Senate and Mr. Foster to its -House of Representatives, empowering the president to forbid the export of munitions to any belligerent nation that has violated the peace pact. Both suggestions are of value even although there is an element of danger in economic boycott in the disturbance of the ordinary channels of trade that ensues from such boycott, but there is a greater guarantee than either of these two.
Philip Kerr, writing in the Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in November 1928, points out that the greatest obstacle to the peace of the world has been fear of aggression and its resultant desire for security. This desire for security resulting from fear makes for alliances and ententes, based not so much upon mutual friendships as upon common enmities and common hatreds. Nations build up armaments to increase their sense of security; this leads to counterarmaments, and counter-armaments increase the sense of insecurity; and so the mad competition proceeds, with the necessary consequences of war. There is no possibility of lasting peace if each nation is to be allowed to proceed along its own way in providing for its own security, anxious always to seize points of strategic value to itself. It is essential that the sense of fear that is behind the desire for security at the present time should be overcome: a new basis of security must be found. That basis is, in my humble opinion, the international will for peace. Secretary Kellogg expressed the same idea very simply when he said at New York on Armistice day:
If the people are minded that there shall be no war there will be no war.
The value of the peace pact depends, therefore, upon the strength of its acceptance by public opinion rather than upon any special sanctions. The rule of law in a properly organized state does not depend upon force but rather upon the willingness of the people to submit to it and, similarly, the rule of peace among the nations of the world will depend upon their will for peace. It is for the peoples of the world to decide whether there shall be lasting international peace.
The old platonic idea of the state, in which each class had its special functions to perfMr. Thorson.]
form, has gone. It is not long since it was considered that only those had the right to govern who were specially trained in the art of government. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, is a new conception. It is the ideal of democracy based upon the right of man to his self-realization and his self-determination in so far as these are possible. The ideal of democracy that pervades a normal and well ordered state will pervade the international field. We are on the threshhold of a new era, where the conUwl of international affairs will no longer be in the hands of men trained in the old schools of diplomacy, or in the hands of naval and military experts trained by the precepts of war, but in the hands of the people themselves, desiring international peace and amity among the nations. War is to the world what anarchy is to the state, and as the rule of law has become the foundation of the state, so peace among the nations will prevail if the peoples of the world will that it shall be so. In order that the idealism of the peace pact may not be lost, it is essential that a strong international public opinion should be created, based upon a determination that there shall be no war.
The senate of the United States ratified the peace pact without reservations, and with but one dissenting vote. This must be taken as an indication of the will for peace in the great republic to the south of us.
How can Canada assist in promoting the cause of world peace? In order that she may play her proper part in promoting amity among the nations, she must become one of them, and this she is rapidly doing. She became an independent member of the league in her own right and she has been honoured by election to the council of the league. She has successfully asserted her right to negotiate her own treaties with other countries and she has sent her own ministers to represent her at the capitals of the United States, France and Japan; and these countries are all now or soon will be diplomatically represented at Ottawa. Canada has emerged definitely as a nation having a separate international personality of her own. The best proof of this fact is to be found in its official recognition by the countries that have entered into separate international relationships with her. Will anyone seriously deny that the presence of Mr. Massey at Washington and of Mr. Phillips at Ottawa are powerful factors in promoting international understanding and good will between this country and the republic to the south? So, too, I think we may safely assume that our

International Peace-Mr. Thorson
other ventures in international relationships with France and Japan will have similar results. In any event the ventures were made in pursuance of Canada's foreign policy of promoting international amity and I have no doubt that further appointments will be made when it is in the interests of Canada to make them in furtherance of her policy of peace.
The appointment by Canada of separate ministers to represent her in foreign countries has been strongly criticized by the hon. leader of the opposition; last session he referred to the proposal to open a Canadian embassy in Tokyo as "a bogus representation of nationality." Frankly I find some difficulty in understanding that criticism; I do not know whether he meant that the representation was bogus or that the nationality was bogus, but I pass the criticism by. Later, on September 24, less than a month after the signing of the peace pact, he addressed the Winnipeg Conservative club and is reported as follows:
He declared that the presence of a Canadian ambassador and a British ambassador in a country would not make for that "decisiveness and rapid action" that Spender had declared to be the first requirement in foreign policy, and he quoted Napoleon as saying that an ambassador was useless unless he had the backing of force.
It may be well to review briefly the changes that have taken place in the matter of foreign policy as far as Canada is concerned in order that we may properly understand the force of the criticism and be able to reply to it. I shall not go back farther 'than 1911, when the Prime Minister of Great Britain declared to the representatives of the dominions and to the world at large that responsibility for foreign policy, for the making of treaties, for the maintenance of peace and the declaration of war was for Great Britain alone, and could not be shared by the dominions. That was the doctrine of centralized control thus strongly expressed, but that doctrine was repugnant to the growing desire for autonomy on the part of the dominions and it has been definitely abandoned.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Was it Premier Asquith
who made that statement?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am not certain. In
1917	the right of the dominions bo an adequate voice in foreign policy was recognized, and centralized control over foreign policy gave way to a joint control in which the dominions weTe to have an adequate voice. Then in 1926 the question of foreign policy received further consideration; at the Imperial conference of that year the doctrine was laid down that the dominions were autonomous
communities equal in status to Great Britain and in no way subordinate to her in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs. Therefore it follows as a consequence that Great Britain can no longer commit Canada to any foreign policy unless Canada concurs in it. War will be more difficult for Great Britain to wage since she does not automatically carry the dominions with her. The necessity for consultation with the dominions is a guarantee of delay and therefore a guarantee of peace. The change is as beneficial to Great Britain as it is to Canada and it is beneficial to the world at large.
It is fortunate for the movement towards international peace that "decisiveness and rapidity of action" are not as readily possible as they once were. The covenant of the league prescribes a period of delay as a safeguard for peace, and the new relationship of the British nations towards one another is likewise a guarantee of peace in as far as they are concerned. The world has suffered too much in the past from "decisiveness and rapidity of action"; it would often have been better for the peace of the world if rapidity of action had given place to delay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the hon. member realizes that the observation by Mr. Spender was directed to the fact that if England had been prompt in saying that she would support France, in his opinion there would have been no war.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am glad to have that
explanation from the hon. leader of the opposition; an utterance of the kind made by him without some explanation is unworthy of the leader of a great party.
Canada has declared her policy to be one of peace, and by her declaration that she would decide for herself what active participation she would give in time of war, after full knowledge of the facts had been given to her, she saved the peace of Europe in 1922. I refer to the Chanak incident; delay upon that occasion guaranteed peace. For over a century Canada and the United States have set an example to the world in settling their international disputes by pacific means. I quite agree that the settlements have not always satisfied Canada, but who w'ill say that the pacific settlement of these disputes was not better than war. Canada lives in no fear of aggression, and she knows the value of peace. She is peculiarly fitted, by the composition of her people and by her understanding of the differences of language, race and creed which exist in this country, to be a competent instrument for the promotion of
256	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Church
peace among the nations of the world and to assist in the task of bringing about by the force of public opinion that state of international society where war as an instrument of national policy shall be no more.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, one thing that stands out in connection with this treaty is the failure of open diplomacy during the past ten years. We have just concluded ten years of pacifist rule on two continents, with the result that we have had nothing but pacifist speeches and a legion of peace pacts and agreements. The net result has been the complete failure of open diplomacy. I look upon this particular treaty as in the nature of a New Year's resolution; one makes the resolution to-day and to-morrow it will be in the waste paper basket as a scrap of paper. Canada does not need any treaty with the United States for the continuation of peace; we have had a hundred years of peace with the United States, and that peace was not founded upon pacts or agreements or documents but upon something higher than the written law, namely on ties of race and of blood and of friendship. We are of the same kith and kin and the same stock and have the same high ideals of civilization.
The ink was hardly dry on this treaty at Paris before the powers who had signed it were getting behind doors and seeing how they could break it. If this is a treaty, why are the big powers arming to-day? Mr. Kellogg of the United States is the author of this scrap of paper, because that is all it is, yet on one side of the capital of that country at Washington you hear proposals of peace and on the other side they are voting 274 millions of dollars for additional armament. There is an article and a picture on the front page of the Ottawa Journal which says that the United States are about to " junk " airplane carriers which cost $86,000,000. They have been in service only fifteen months, but already the cost of running them has shown that their design is a mistake.
We are sitting here to-day dealing with this treaty and we are not even a nation. We have not even a rowboat to protect us in case of war. We must rely upon the motherland for maritime freedom. We are content to rely on this mythical society known as the League of Nations.
We have this farce down in Washington of one secretary with a peace note and another with a war vote of 274 millions, and it is strengthened by the election of Mr. Hoover. He is a big navy man, and so have been Mr. Smith and Mr. Coolidge. Increased votes

are being made by the United States for armaments both on land and sea. There has been more criticism of this treaty in the United States than anywhere else. They regard this treaty as a lot of humbug. Mr. Mussolini of Italy called it a lot of horse-play. It would be far better for Canada if it would draft a respectful note to the incoming administration of Mr. Hoover and tell him that this country wants a proper reciprocity pact with the people of the United States. Tell him that we are no longer content to take a smash on one side of our face and then turn the other side and get another crack. We would get the same treatment from either the Republicans or the Democrats. We should write a note to the people of the United States and. tell them that we can no longer continue to buy $800,000,000 of high priced manufactured goods each year, nearly all of which could be manufactured in Canada, and pay for it out of our raw materials. That kind of one-sided reciprocity has gone forever. So I say, instead of putting our scrawl on some scrap of paper, it would suit the people of Canada far better if we showed a little national spirit and told the people of the United States in a note that this kind of reciprocity can go on no longer.
Mr. Clemenceau said that Lloyd George thought he was a second Napoleon. Woodrow Wilson was the author of this League of Nations, and he looked upon himself as a second Messiah or a Prince of Peace. Ten years after he has gone, what do we find? We find an utter failure of the very policy which Mr. Woodrow Wilson proposed, namely, the policy of open diplomacy as an aid to peace.
This particular note, designated in the resolution before us by the high sounding name of " General Treaty for the Renunciation of War " was signed at Paris on the 27th day of August, 1928, on behalf of His Majesty by the Dominion of Canada. This is a new effort at separatism. We are separate countries and we are making treaties over the head of the British parliament and over the head of our sister dominions of New Zealand and Australia. We are a separate country but we have no fleet. We have a little navy that hugs the shores; it is too proud to fight and too proud to put out to sea. The Prime Minister of this country would not sail over to Paris on it or from our maritime ports. He goes to New York and sails on the steamer George Washington, accompanied by Mr. Kellogg, the author of this note. If we are a nation, why did he not sail in this wonderful little fleet of ours, flying the flag of Canada instead of the Union Jack? Did the Prime Minister have a British passport, or did he take a pass-

International Peace-Mr. Church
port of our new status and our new Canadian nationality? I have never been across the ocean, but if I ever go I will never take a passport of the Canadian Department of External Affairs. I would want a British passport if I had any respect for my life, and I think every member of the house would want one too.
I said a moment ago that it was said that Lloyd George thought he was a second Napoleon. In my opinion, Woodrow Wilson thought he -was a second Messiah or a Prince of Peace. The Prime Minister of this country seems to think he is the author of a new ten commandments on peace for the nations of Europe, and the big powers are going to keep them by writing notes and agreements, and before the ink is dry on them openly treat them with contempt.
This particular treaty or note was not drafted originally by Mr. Kellogg at all, he just copied it from somebody else. It was written by M. Briand as an agreement between France and America. It was enlarged upon by Mr. Kellogg to include sixty nations who were members of the League of Nations. He got in all the little fellows. The big powers like Italy would have nothing to do with it; Mussolini, the sovereign head of that country, called it a lot of horse-play. Russia would have nothing to do with it, neither would the Balkan states. The United States would not join the League of Nations and follow in the footsteps of the late Mr. Woodrow Wilson. The Kellogg note has been signed by all the little fellows in the League of Nations and they go over there and sit around the table and talk in hundreds of languages. If you went over there you would think you were in a tower of babel. There are some sixty of them now and every one of them is for the Kellogg peace note. No doubt before they are finished they will have about a hundred of them and every petty kingdom on earth will sign this magnificent note to which we are asked to put our signatures as a separate nation with a- seat in the League of Nations. As I said yesterday, in regard) to the decline of the House of Commons and the decay of parliament, it is just notes like these that bring about the decay of parliament and the decay of Canada as a nation. We are not a nation; we never were a nation. God forbid we ever were a nation. Ini the late war, but for the protection of the British fleet, the German fleet would have been across the Atlantic and up the St. Lawrence and would have blown down the citadel at Quebec. Dear knows what would have happened to us, not only in
Canada but in the United States, in Boston and New York harbours, only for the protection of the British fleet.
In this particular Kellogg note and policy, what do you find? It is a sort of shorter catechism of the peace party. By the first clause it talks peace and renounces "the pomps and vanities of this wicked world and all the sinful lusts of the flesh." The first article reads:
The high contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.
They solemnly renounce war as an instrument of national policy. It does not matter whether those sixty petty little countries renounce it or not because the five great powers could gobble them up at any time they feel like it should war break out again. As regards Canada, some day we shall have what is called the Pacific question on the Pacific coast and then Canada, after ten or eleven years of passiveness, will wake up to find out how we stand and to whom we owe our maritime freedom. This parliament repudiated a treaty with Japan; it declined to give a contribution to the Singapore base, which is the Gibraltar of the Pacific for the protection of British Columbia and our empire and of maritime freedom in the Pacific. New Zealand and Australia contributed something toward it; as a matter of fact, New Zealand, a country smaller than the city of Montreal, contributed five million pounds spread over a period of years. On the other hand, Canada is content to sponge on the mother country for protection. Canada wants to do all the talking it likes from the housetops about peace, but you are content to do all the sponging on the motherland for your maritime freedom.
Many of the papers in this country have spoken out about this particular New Year's resolution or Kellogg note. If the nations of the world could have ten years' rest from these peace pacts and agreements, there would be some chance of peace. Every peace pact that is proposed breeds distrust among the nations. There was one at Washington under the Harding administration a few years ago. What do they all lead to? They lead to an open distrust of one large power against another. In my opinion the League of Nations is comic opera at its worst and the Kellogg note is burlesque at its worst. The Kellogg note is nothing; the Monroe doctrine is nothing, and nothing plus nothing equals

258	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Church
nothing. If there is a Kellogg note there can be no Monroe doctrine; if there is a Monroe doctrine, there can be no Kellogg note, because they are the antithesis of each other. This note says that it does not interfere with any country that fights in self-defence. Did you ever know of a war in the history of the world when one party did not say that it was in self-defence they went to war? Both the high parties of the late war so contended that it was a war of self-defence. Where does the Monroe doctrine enter in this particular matter? It is, like the Kellogg note, just a scrap of paper, and I am surprised no members of parliament, knowing what we owe to the motherland, do not rise in their seats and oppose this particular pact. Lord Birkenhead had something to say to the United States in reply to Mr. Coolidge's speech attacking Europe some time ago about this matter. He had resigned his position as Secretary of State for India and he said:
As far as England is concerned, I am not sure that we specially require it. We have not asked the United States, as far as I am aware, to do anything for us.
Asserting that the United States entered the war, not from any desire to assist the allies, but solely because U.S.A. nationals were being murdered by German submarines, he said:
"My answer to the President of the United States would be that we ask nothing from them except goodwill."
All Canada wants is goodwill when we discuss questions of naval policy, whether we are pacific or not. The same thing applies to the Kellogg note. The United States senate, after a day's deliberation, passed a huge war vote amounting to 8274,000,000. After a great debate, which meant nothing, they decided to pass Mr. Kellogg's note, but they believed in something more practical and tangible and so they voted $274,000,000 for naval armament. The Kellogg note was automatically placed in the discard and in future will have a place in vaudeville. Time will prove that it is nothing but a lot of cant and hypocrisy. Nations are judged by acts and facts, never by aspirations or pacts, or cheap notes which nearly always turn out as scraps of paper. Let us take some of the treaties that this country has passed. We do not need a treaty with the United States to preserve peace, because if we look over the list of these treaties, we shall find that they are all scraps of paper as I call them, more so by the United States. There is the Monroe doctrine, the Jay treaty, the Rush-Bagot treaty, which has been openly treated as a scrap of paper on the great lakes where armed cruisers are enforcing United States revenue 
and liquor laws, then there is the Boundary Waterways treaty, 1909, which is treated as a scrap of paper by the Chicago steal. There is the Jay treaty permitting free passage of citizens between the two countries, and the .United States treaty with Belgium in 1839. These were all treated as scraps of paper. The Kellogg note is not even a scrap of paper; it means nothing and it will amount to nothing for world peace. The Harding administration, five years ago, called the Washington conference and then made a scrap of paper of their resolutions as to the reduction of capital ships by passing a larger navy and army vote and a reopening of war plants as peace plants to add hundreds of ships to their merchant marine in order to catch up with and pass Britain's merchant marine supremacy. That is the way in which they kept the Harding pact. England observed that pact; she suspended the building of capital ships, but the United States did not.
The Kellogg peace pact is a fine example of smart American politics last summer with a presidential election in view. Now with the election over, the senate and the president have practically vetoed the Kellogg note. We have an example of Canada as a nation in what happened in the past two or three years in the disasters on the great lakes. We have a sample of the hypocrisy of Canada calling herself a nation and leaving the brave Canadian sailors on the great lakes to the mercy of the United States life-saving stations. When disaster threatens, instead of shouting from the housetops about Kellogg peace notes they have to wait for hours until American lifesaving stations blow their sirens, and our sailors have to be saved by American lifesaving crews. That is a sample of the cant of Canada as a nation and of Canadian nationalism under our new status.
Canada has made a great fuss over the Kellogg note. What does it amount to? It will amount to nothing so far as world peace is concerned. I represent a constituency of Canadian soldiers, one of the largest soldier constituencies in Canada, a constituency of British born, and the people of my riding do not believe in this peace note. They know what war is, and the harrow of it. In one large block in my constituency, in Earlscourt, there are twenty war widows, and God forbid that this country should ever see war again. These people suffered more than anybody else, but they do not believe that the government of this country is going the right way to produce a lasting peace by supporting almost every other year some new kind of peace note or peace pact and at the expense

Railway Act
of the freedom of the seas for the motherland which protects us.
I wish to refer for a moment to the English Review, of November, 1928, in which the great patriotic experts of the motherland write articles. It speaks of the folly in our time and of how Europe after ten years of peace talk is still an armed camp. It goes on to refer to the naval pact and its lesson, and to the danger of open diplomacy. It says:
The voice of the peacemonger resounds today over continents, to a never-ceasing accompaniment of treaties and undertakings, but we are drifting toward war. How easy it would be if we could simply scrap our armaments, sign a few more pacts, and preserve that peace which is the only serious political interest of ai! decent and Christian men. Instead, we must do our duty, and face naked facts. We are approaching the tenth anniversary of the armistice, and of a genuine and lasting peace there are no signs. The practice of open diplomacy and the august patronage bestowed on international intercourse by the League of Nations and Mr. Kellogg have created an atmosphere of open and public suspicion more alarming even than in the years immediately preceding 1914. Apostles of the new methods can ingeminate peace as much as they like, but they cannot shirk their terrible responsibility before the bar of history for the disastrous practical consequences of their ten years' experiment.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 23, respecting certain patent application of Stanley W. Hayes.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 27, to incorporate Barclays Bank (Canada).-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 28, respecting the Pension Fund Society of the Bank of Montreal, the Molsons Bank tension Fund, and the Merchants' Bank of Canada Pension Fund.-Mr. Guerin.
Bill No. 29, respecting a certain patent of Catelli Macaroni Products Corporation Limited.-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri).
Bill No. 30, respecting the Protective Association of Canada.-Mr. Boivin.
Bill No. 32, to incorporate The Wapiti Insurance Company.-Mr. Thorson.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 31 to incorporate the Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company- Mr. Thorson.
Charles Avery Dunning: This is not indicated on the order paper as having been printed.
78594-17$


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: This bill, according to the copy I have, has been printed and distributed.


Hewitt Bostock: It is not so indicated on the order paper. Any objection?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not printed.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved the second reading of Bill No. 12, to amend the Railway Act (return tickets).
Mr. STEVENS:: I hope the hon. member will favour us with some explanation of the intent of this bill.


Mr. JACOBS:: The explanation is contained in the bill itself, Air. Speaker.
Mr. STEVENS': My hon. friend might elucidate it.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is drafted in very simple language.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not legal language.


Samuel William Jacobs: No, not legal language. It is intended as an amendment to section 336 of the Railway Act, chapter 170 of the revised statutes of Canada, and reads as follows:
(4) A return ticket issued by any railway company between any two point in Canada shall be acepted by any other railway company whose line runs between the same terminals.
I do not know that any explanation is
necessary.


Mr. MANION:: Except as to why it should be so.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is intended for the convenience of the public. I think that is a good reason for bringing the bill before this house. The railway companies state it would be somewhat inconvenient as a matter of auditing for them to make this exchange. For example, a return ticket is issued, we will say, from Montreal to Toronto; the party reaches Toronto and finds it will be more convenient for him to return to Montreal on the other line; he turns in the return half to the other line and asks to be carried to his destination; this other line takes the return half, hands it over to its auditors, it passes through the clearing house, or whatever it may be called, and a refund is made by the company that issued the ticket. In England this is the rule. There they seem to have advanced a little further than we have in meeting the
Railway Act

convenience of the public. I myself have travelled from Glasgow to Edinburgh on the Caledonian railway with the return half of a ticket issued by the North British Railway.


Charles Avery Dunning: When?


Samuel William Jacobs: Not within the last week I will admit.


Charles Avery Dunning: Recently, I mean.


Samuel William Jacobs: No, not recently; but I have no reason to believe that that practice has been changed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Some years ago?


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Some years ago it was
not the practice. I remember having the return half of a ticket rejected by one railway to which I presented it, the ticket having been issued by another railway for a return trip between Edinburgh and Glasgow.


Samuel William Jacobs: Perhaps they raised the
question of the character of the passenger.


Robert James Manion: According to the immigration law they would be more likely to raise it against my hon. friend.


Samuel William Jacobs: When I presented the return half of my ticket to the North British Railway it was at once taken up and I found myself in Glasgow within an hour. If the only objection is a question of auditing between the two railway companies, I do not think it ought to weigh with this house. My hon. friend can understand that in the case of a return ticket issued to a person travelling, say, from Montreal to Toronto, he may find when he wishes to get back to Montreal that there is no sleeping accommodation on the issuing line, but that he can secure a berth on the other line. In that event why should not the return half be accepted by that other company? It can be turned in by the passenger himself when he reaches Montreal or even when he arrives in Toronto. It is only a question as to who shall collect the money, the passenger himself, who may have run short of cash after he has been in Toronto one or two days,-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Not if he came from
Montreal.


Samuel William Jacobs: That may be;-and he may find it necessary to get home as fast as he can. There ought to be no reason in the world why the two railway companies should not get together and provide a convenience of this kind for passengers. It is purely in the interest 
of the passenger that I present the bill, and not for the convenience of the railway companies. The bill might reasonably be sent to the railway committee and there be threshed out. I understand that the railway companies in the past have retained counsel to oppose such a bill, and from 1921 to this date I am sorry to say, they have been successful. At any rate, I submit that the bill should go to the railway committee. I am inclined to think that the intellectual calibre of the house is a little higher than it has been in the past, and for that reason I hope the bill will go through.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	I do not desire
to oppose the hon. member's suggestion that the bill be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. I do not oppose it, for the reason that such a reference would give to the railway companies and to the officers of the companies an opportunity to put forward all the reasons why, in their opinion, the bill should not pass. The information I have regarding the matter indicates that more difficulty and more expenses would be involved than my hon. friend appears to believe would be the case. With regard to the statement he made respecting British practice, my information is that during and shortly after the war it was possible for a time in Great Britain for persons to travel by one road on a return ticket of that railway and to come back by another road, as my hon. friend intimates. I am also informed, however, that a number of years ago this practice was discontinued in Great Britain and exists to-day only under special permit conditions where the rail service, by reason of the financial difficulties in which the transportation companies there find themselves at the present time, has been curtailed. There has been a reduction in train service, and in such cases, where the curtailment operates to make it difficult for the holder of a return ticket conveniently to return on the same line, he may obtain a permit to use the ticket over another road. My hon. friend would not desire to have his bill so amended as to involve the necessity of securing a permit before one could use the ticket over another line. My advice is that this is the condition that prevails in Great Britain at the present time.
The objections advanced by the railway companies-with which objections the hon. member, in view of the previous experience he has had with a similar bill in other sessions, is reasonably familar-rest broadly upon the

Railway Act
basis of the confusion which would result, and the difficulties surrounding contractual relations of this kind as between the passenger on the one hand and the company which has entered into the original contract on the other, and also a third company which might under the law be compelled to assume part of that contract notwithstanding that it had not been a party, in the first place, to such contract. I am merely re-stating in this connection the objections registered on former occasions by the railway companies themselves to the proposed arrangement. However, in view of the convenience to the public which my hon. friend urges would result from the adoption of such a measure, the government will be perfectly content to have the bill pass its second reading in order that the possibility of the suggestion may be thoroughly examined by the railway committee.


Robert James Manion: As I asked a couple of
questions regarding the matter, it is possible that I may be taken as opposing the bill. As a matter of fact, I was neither opposing nor supporting it. As regards the incident to which my hon. friend has referred, when, as he says, he was going from London to Glasgow-


Samuel William Jacobs: Glasgow to Edinburgh.


Robert James Manion: -Glasgow to Edinburgh, the stations were exactly the same. A few years before that, a similar incident occurred in my own experience and there was a refusal to give a return ticket, so that I had to pay a second fare to return from Glasgow to Edinburgh after I had gone by one road from Edinburgh to Glasgow.


Samuel William Jacobs: They should have issued a return ticket to a returned soldier.


Robert James Manion: I was not a returned soldier at that time. I mentioned this in order to show that the rule has not always been the same. I do not know what it is now, but at the time of which I speak the rule was not as has been indicated. As I say, I am neither opposing nor supporting the bill, because I think it should go to the railway committee. The point I make, however, is this: A man, in buying a return ticket from one railway or the other, gets a special fare by reason of that very fact that he buys the return ticket from the one company; the railway gives him a favour because it gets the return passage. I do not see, therefore, unless it can be proved that the return fare is equitable to both railways, why another railway should be forced to accept it. That is why I asked the
question. I am on the railway committee and I am open to conviction either way in this matter.


Samuel William Jacobs: In my bill it could be provided that when the ticket is turned over to the other railway company the passenger will have to pay the additional sum, so that he does not get the advantage of the reduction due when a return ticket is bought.


Robert James Manion: That is different; I did not understand that.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: The reason, I believe, why the railway companies give return tickets at liberally reduced rates is to secure the double travel on their lines. My hon. friend's bill proposes to give a privilege to the travelling public. I do not believe the Railway Act compels the railway companies to sell return tickets, and therefore if the bill passes, instead of giving an advantage to the public, the railways will in all probability discontinue selling return tickets, to the detriment of the public.


Samuel William Jacobs: In Canada we have two railway systems issuing tickets, in the summer months, at any rate,-I do not know whether it applies all the year round-


Hewitt Bostock: Does the hon. member intend to close the debate? If so, I may inquire whether other hon. members wish to speak.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Hewitt Bostock: This is not the committee stage, but the hon. member may speak to the question.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: On one occasion this year I was at a point where the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National join, both railways going to Calgary. One route is longer and the charge over that line is four or five dollars more than in the case of the other. How would that work out?


Samuel William Jacobs: I was going to remark-


Hewitt Bostock: This will close the debate.


Samuel William Jacobs: -that, without reference to other countries, we have in Canada two railway companies who have an arrangement whereby in the summer months-this may be done perhaps at other times also, although I am not aware of it-a return ticket is issued from Montreal to the Pacific coast returnable by Prince Rupert; you travel to Vancouver on the Canadian Pacific railway and
Railway Act

return via Prince Rupert on the Canadian National railway. That is the system I want to have legalized, so to speak, for every part of the country. If it is not an inconvenience for the railways to carry a passenger across Canada surely it would not be an inconvenience to carry a passenger two or three miles.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is it not a fact that in
the case of a ticket such as my hon. friend refers to, issued over the Canadian Pacific railway to Vancouver and over the Canadian National railway from Prince Rupert, it is a part of the contract that the holder of the ticket must travel by that route?


Samuel William Jacobs: Being bred to the law I
do not place so much value on so-called contracts as my hon. friend may. This contractual relation referred to could be easily established by legislation providing that the same contract entered into by the issuing company shall be followed by the company bringing the passenger back.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and1 telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved the second reading of Bill No. 14, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
He said: This bill seeks to amend chapter 140 of the revised statutes of Canada, known as the Navigable Waters Protection Act; which was placed on our statute books before cheap hydro light and power came into being in the province of Ontario or practically anywhere else in Canada. The object of chapter 140 and the act ahead of it was to provide that no works should be constructed which would interfere with navigation, but since that day over 800,000 horse-power of electricity has been developed in Ontario. Some years ago the late Sir Adam Beck proposed to erect a dam at Morrisburg for the generation of electrical power; that application preceded the application of the Beauharnois company by four or five years, but the government of Ontario and the hydro-electric commission could get no satisfaction from this government. The application was held up for approval and was finally refused. Now it is proposed to allow this Quebec company to divert 40,000 second feet of water from that international stream, and if this is done it will sound the death knell of the St. Lawrence waterway.
A leading paper in this city went to bed one night opposing this proposition and woke up in the morning in favour of it, for some reason which I do not understand. In the old 
days when the Grand Trunk Pacific was launched by Hon. George A. Cox and others the promoters told the people what great benefits it would bring to Canada, anil the Liberals watchword was, "Cox can't wait." Now the battle cry of the Liberal party is 'Jones can't wait; Gundy can't wait, but the parliament of Canada can wait. This magnificent Evening Journal of Ottawa, which has been a mill-stone around the neck of the Conservative party for years-in Ottawa so much so that we cannot elect our candidates here-says that parliament has no more to do with this proposition than it has to do with the pyramids of Egypt. That is wonderful logic. On the one hand we have the papers complaining about the Chicago diversion of 10,000 second feet from lake Michigan, yet we are told that parliament has nothing to do with this proposition. If 40,000 cubic second feet are taken from the St. Lawrence there will not be enough water left for navigation or the har-hour of Montreal. Officials of the Canada Steamship Lines who appeared before the Minister of Public Works on this application said there would1 not be enough water in the rapids to permit navigation, and we know that there is some danger now in that respect. I think we should postpone this application until May and then have the members of parliament and the senate go to Cornwall and take a steamer over the river and look over the situation. They could do that in five or six hours and it would show the folly of handing over this waterway to private individuals to make millionaires overnight of Mr. Gundy of Toronto, Mr. Jones, Sir Herbert Holt and others.
Let me tell the government that they are doomed if they grant that permit; there are still a number of papers throughout Canada upholding public rights, and they will not be quiet if this permit is granted. The farmers now are asking for cheap light and power for their farms. The great issue in the United States during the last election between Mr. Hoover and Mr. Smith was farm relief; what is this government going to do in the way of farm relief? One of the greatest boons given the farmer in the United States is cheap light and power, which greatly lessens his labour. In. the monthly publication issued by the National City Bank of New York City there appears a table showing how farm labour has been reduced and efficiency increased through the utilization on the farm of hydro-electric power and its use in machinery of all kinds on the farm. According to the table one hydro-electric machine can do

Nmnohble Waters Protection Act_
the work of eighteen or twenty hired men.
ister Was nr/t strong enough to hear the merits nf eoco qs Vip lpfiTipfl towards Dublic rights
I have not time to go into that at present, but I must say that the farmers of Ontario want this power and are opposed to handing it over to private ownership.
There was a debate in this house on the Great Lakes and Beauhamois application on the 9th and Uth of May last year, when the bill was up for a second reading and I moved the six months' hoist. It stood in the name of the then hon. member for Joliette Mr. Denis, who is now on the bench of the Supreme Court of Quebec, and when he was asked to explain this Beauhamois canal proposition he was unable to do so. He did not know whether he was in favour of the principle of the bill or not. When a vote was taken it stood fifty-six for the six months hoist and about fifty-name against it, but as it was after nine o'clock before the vote was recorded the bill was 'laid over. In that particular debate it was stated by some members on this side of the house, and the members of the Progressive party, that the issues involved were sub judice, having been referred to the supreme court of Canada on the St. Lawrence waterway reference. The whole question of the ownership of this St. Lawrence waterway, and the division of authority between the federal and the provincial governments was in dispute. The provinces contended that they owned the bed of the river, and the banks and rapids subject to the rights of navigation, and also the surplus waters of these boundary international waterways subject to navigation rights.
Another fact enters into this proposition, and that is the rights of the United States and the state of New York in this international stream. What are the rights of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in the flow of this international river? Our government to-day is not a government by the people, of the people, and for the people. As I said the other day, democracy has been a failure in this country. I notice the decay and decline of parliament and of parliamentary institutions, as is evidenced by the application made a few days ago and which was heard by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott). The Minister of Public Works is the only minister named in this particular act, chapter 140 of the revised statutes of Canada, known as the Navigable Waters Protection Act. While the minister always hears these applications himself, on this particular occasion he had to have two gentlemen known as Alphonse and Gaston beside him. It looked as though the government thought the minand their protection.
I will admit that some of the members for the province of Ontario, on both sides of the house, have not had the backbone to stand up for this empire province of Ontario in this house. This great empire province of Ontario has more economic problems to solve than all the other provinces put together, you might say. We hear something about maritime rights, prairie rights and Pacific coast rights, but you very seldom see a representative from the province of Ontario standing up to protect, the vested rights of our province and the solution of its economic ills.
When this application came on for a hearing before the minister, he was quite aware that there had been a debate in this house. He was aware that the very questions involved there, as to the division of authority and the sovereign rights of the provinces and the Dominion, had been referred bo the courts by an order in council. The other day the supreme court gave a decision on these veiy questions, but I must say they gave it in a very futile manner. The very same questions are involved in this Beauhamois permit and the passing of this application for 40.000 second feet of water for power purposes, which will ruin navigation and kill forever the St. Lawrence waterway.
When this application was heard the minister had to be flanked on the right and left by two other ministers, and you would think that the Minister of Public Works was incompetent to hear this question. The government decided that he should have two official guardians, one sitting on his right and the other on the left. The official guardian on the right was the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who the other day at Windsor said it was good-bye to the St. Lawrence waterway.
This is the same gentleman who, when he was asked last session to produce the papers referring to the giving away of the Seven Sisters falls to a monopoly in the city of Winnipeg known as the Winnipeg Electric Company, gave us to understand that there would be no grant or lease made in the recess of parliament. But a few days after parliament prorogued, notwithstanding the opposition of the Liberal members from the city of Winnipeg, and the Progressive members, he handed over to this company a grant of the water power of the Seven Sisters falls. _ But they are going to have a general election in Manitoba on that particular question in a few days, and it will be found that the farmers of
264	COMMONS
Navigable Waters Protection Act
that province will stand up for the boon of cheap light and power and oppose the Seven Sisters raid.
On the other side of the Minister of Public AVorks was the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin). He also was one of the official guardians present to help along the permit. Was anyone there to stand up for the rights of the public, or to point out on this application of these water-power private company grabbers that the public had some rights in this river? Was there no one there to tell the minister that these very questions were involved in the reference to the supreme court and that navigation would be ruined on the river? That reference to the supreme court is sub judice still at the present time for some people, but not for others. When the Alberta resources question was said to be sub judice, a debate on it was ruled out of order, but so far as this Beauharnois proposition is concerned it did not matter whether the question was 'before the court or whether it was sub judioe, as Jones and all the others could not wait.
When the Prime Minister was asked the other day if the government would issue a permit for the canalization and water-power development of the St. Lawrence, he replied to the hon. member from Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) that the application would have to follow the procedure under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and that it would have to go through the ordinary procedure. That procedure would be all right if it was to apply to a small harbour at Oakville, Ottawa, Three Rivers, Chicoutimi or some other place, but when they propose to take 40,000 second feet of water out of the St. Lawrence river, an international stream, and divert that for private purposes then it is another matter especially as there are joint relations with the United States and Ontario in this river to consider.
The object of my Bill No. 14 is to amend chapter 140 of the revised statutes of Canada.
It provides that the jurisdiction now vested in the Minister of Public Works shall be repealed in so far as it affects any international boundary waters. Section 1 of the bill provides that the following shall be inserted immediately after section 9 of the act:
9a. (1) No work except harbour improvements shall be commenced or constructed in, upon, over, under, through or across any international navigable boundary waters between the Dominion of Canada and the United States of America, or any part of the river St. Lawrence, without the approval of parliament or on any terms or conditions other than those approved by parliament.

(2)	Plans of any such work, in duplicate, and a description of the proposed site, shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House of Commons.
(3)	No order in council, regulation or permit purporting to grant the right to commence or construct such work shall have any force or effect unless authorized by parliament.
In the Navigable Waters Protection Act " work " is defined as follows:
"Work" includes any bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, wharf, dock, prer or other structure, tunnel or pipe, or telegraph or power cable or wire and the approaches or other works necessary or appurtenant thereto, or any work, structure or device, whether similar in character to the foregoing or not, which may inter-iere with navigation.
This particular bill does not interfere with any legitimate harbour development, but it places on parliament the responsibility of deciding whether it will give away, under the guise of power, this magnificent heritage known as the St. Lawrence waterway to a few private millionaire citizens of this country who are only too eager to get hold of the title deeds. As I said the other day, what the present government needs is a chief bouncer to clear out of the parliament buildings these gentlemen who spend most of the year in the city of Ottawa trying to grab the public domain and the natural resources of the mines, the timber, the forest and water powers of Canada; this magnificent heritage, and divert it to private gieed and gain over the head of parliament.
What is parliament for? We might just as well all go home, because to-day in this country democracy is a failure. The cabinet rule; if they had their way they would have given the Beauharnois people what they asked for. Of course they would, because we have in office to-day a government that is just a combination of big interests and appetites in regard to the preservation of these water-powers for the people. That was shown in connection with the Gatineau river when Sir Clifford Sifton and his friends came here a year or two ago and almost got away with the Calumet and Gatineau power proposition in the Ottawa valley. It was shown last session when the then hon. member for Joliette brought in a bill known as the Great Lakes bill to give this Beauharnois company this magnificent heritage away down in the St. Lawrence. By that particular bill the company asked not only for power rights but for power to build that section of the St. Lawrence waterway as a navigation canal. As is shown in the discussion which took place on my motion for the six months' hoist of this bill on May 9 and 11 of last year, this company was going to be a canal company as well, in order to take toll from ships passing

Navigable Waters Protection Act
through the St. Lawrence. They had in the bill of 1928 an application to build the navigation canal as well as a power canal and it was one of the most barefaced applications ever made in this legislature. In asking for permission to build this navigation canal they were asking for power to upset the whole settled canal policy of Canada from 1854 when the government of Canada took over the canals of this country. There was never any trouble in this regard from 1854 until last year when this company came along and asked parliament to upset the settled canal policy of the country in order that they might collect tolls for navigation canal purposes by their bill in this part of the St. Lawrence waterway. Did anyone ever hear of such a thing? Where is it going to end? I can tell you where it is going to end. The government to-day has simply made a football of the St. Lawrence waterways; the government of the day can solve no great economic question in this country. They do not govern at all; they are just a government of standpatters. They believe in the doctrine of laissez f<aire-let well enough alone. The government do not believe in the St. Lawrence waterways. If this permit is ever issued to these gentlemen, many of whom have been made millionaires by acts of parliament and power privileges under the guise of the Navigable Waters Protection and other acts, it is good-day and goodbye forever to the St. Lawrence waterways. What do the members from Ontario and the members of the Progressive party think of the way in which this matter has been handled by the government and the Department of Public Works?
I can only say in conclusion that the bill before the chair to-night places the responsibility on parliament instead of on the government. Are you or are you not in favour of allowing these people to divert 40,000 second feet of water for power purposes and so destroy the river for navigation purposes? It may be wholly in Quebec but the waters are international waters. Are you going to have this grab principle adopted all the way from lake Superior to the port of Montreal on both sides of the boundary line? Chicago is taking water out of lake Michigan. They propose to build another canal at Sault Ste. Marie; they propose to divert water at or near Cleveland by another canal down the Ohio valley as far as New Orleans. They propose to take water from the watershed of Canada right down from Cleveland or near there to the Mississippi valley and river to New Orleans for a waterway. Further down at the port of Ogdensburg they propose to take more water out of the river and divert it to Albany
in the state of New York for power and navigation purposes. Last but not least we have this application.
The St. Lawrence waterway proposition is the greatest economic problem there is on this North American continent to-day and the two political parties in the house seem to be running away from it. The party that settles the problem aright will rule Canada for many a day. If this permit to the Beauharnois power people is passed-and it is wrapped up in this particular bill before the house to-night -if this application is passed under the guise of Navigable Waters Protection Act allowing 40,000 second feet of water to be handed over to these people, it is good-bye forever to the St. Lawrence waterway.
I move the second reading of the bill and the responsibility is now on the house and on the government to decide whether we are going to preserve for the people for all time this magnificent waterway.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to
point out-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.
And the result of the vote having been announced :


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I was about to direct your attention, when I was ruled out of order, to the fact that there are hon. members in the chamber who did not vote on the motion, and the matter before the house being a private bill, unless there are specific reasons the rules require hon. members to vote. I was proceeding to direct the attention of Your Honour to that fact before the vote was announced, in order that Your Honour might take the necessary steps to see that the hon. members present and not voting should have the opportunity to have their votes recorded.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted for the second reading of the bill.


Mr. POWER:: In connection with the remarks of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, I am paired in a species of gentleman's agreement with the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Rennie). I consider that the agreement I made with the hon. member for East Hamilton concerns myself and him alone, and nobody else. I consider that I was paired with him on this vote, and therefore I did not vote.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. TUMMON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Langlois). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I was paired
with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: I
was paired with the hon. member for Toronto South (Mr, Geary). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I was paired with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Bissett). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Baldwin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before Your Honour rules on the point I raised, may I direct your attention to rule 68, which says:
If a member who has heard the question put does not vote, and the attention of the Speaker is directed to the fact, the latter will call upon him to declare on which side he votes; and his name will be recorded accordingly.
I rose before Your Honour declared the result of the vote to direct attention to the rule, with which I was familiar in order that Your Honour might ask the gentlemen who had not voted upon which side they desired to vote, so that, in the language of the rule, their names should " be recorded accordingly." The hon. members who did not vote are the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ward), the hon. member for one of the Winnipeg constituencies, and the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen).

Navigable Waters Protection Act


Hewitt Bostock: If my hon. friend will
read a little further down, he will see in paragraph 77 the following:
There can be no parliamentary recognition of this practice (pairing), although it has never been expressly condemned; and it is therefore conducted privately by individual members, or arranged by the gentlemen known as the "whips" who are entrusted by their political parties with the office of collecting their respective forces on a division.
I can quite understand that if an hon. member was not paired and did not vote, he might be forced to declare his vote but this rule or parliamentary custom is rarely enforced. It is left to the conscience of the hon. member to do his duty.
As regards pairs, pairs are not recognized by the Speaker. As the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has just said, pairing is a gentleman's agreement between hon. members themselves, but out of this custom of pairing has grown another custom, that of recording the pairs in Hansard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I trust that Your Honour realizes that I was not in any sense dealing with the question of pairs. I directed attention to the fact that three members of this house who do not claim to be paired did not vote, and the rule requires that Your Honour shall ask them how they desired to have their names recorded on the question. That is the only point I raised.


Hewitt Bostock: I took it that the hon.
gentlemen who did not vote were paired.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Hewitt Bostock: If they were not paired,
they should have declared how they would have voted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is why I am asking Your Honour to call them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote; I am not paired. I came in at the latter part of the discussion, and when the vote was called I was attempting to read the bill. Having read it, I say I would vote against the bill because I believe it to be utterly beyond the powers of this parliament to pass.


Mr. GLEN:: Mr. Speaker, I am mentioned
as one of those who did not vote. I did not vote because I had no opportunity of giving the vote I wished to give. We on this side of the house were never asked whether we were in favour of the motion or not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hear, hear.


James Allison Glen: Had I been asked if I was in favour of the motion, I would certainly have voted for it.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Before there is any attempt to enforce the rule that has been referred to, I should like to draw to the attention of Your Honour the fact that last session under somewhat similar circumstances you ruled that, it being then the custom in the British house not to insist that members who were in their seats should announce the manner in which they would vote, you would adopt the same practice here. Having so ruled last session, I fail to see why there should be a change made now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the rule.


Hewitt Bostock: There were so many rulings made last session that I cannot exactly recall the circumstances to which the hon gentleman refers.


Charles Avery Dunning: I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that while I voted on this motion I was paired with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), but I was under the impression that on this occasion I was not bound by the pair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Mr. WARD:: Mr. Speaker, had I been given an oppprtunity to cast my vote as I desired, I would have voted for the motion.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am in the same position as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). I came in after the discussion, and I am of the same view as he-I would vote against the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: The hour for private bills and public bills being exhausted, the house will now revert to the debate on the motion respecting the treaty for the renunciation of war.



INTERNATIONAL PEACE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister):
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the general treaty of the renunciation of war, which was signed at Paris, on the twenty-seventh day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight, on behalf of His Majesty for the Dominion of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein, and that this house do approve of the same.
And that a message be sent to the senate to acquaint their honours that this house unites with the senate in the approval of the above-mentioned treaty;
And that the clerk of the house do carry the said message to the senate.
268	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Church
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I spoke for twenty minutes and I quoted the first article of the peace pact. Now-


Hewitt Bostock: Order, please. I cannot hear the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Langton Church: This is article II:
The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.
Very charming and very laudable words for a pact with the people of the United States! The ink was scarcely dry on this treaty when the three great powers publicly and otherwise showed what they thought of all this nonsense. Only yesterday the British ambassador at Washington, Sir Esme Howard, in an interview announced that another disarmament conference would be called shortly, to which the overseas dominions would be invited to discuss another note, if you please, between Great Britain and the United States for the reduction of naval armaments. I do not know if he is speaking for the British cabinet. How many more of these notes or pacts are we to have ratified by Canada?-a separate nation and a separate country. Because that is all we are. We are a separate nation without an army or a navy to protect us.
The note sent out by the United States was treated with a great deal of levity by the United States and by many newspapers, so much so that in the United States senate, Senator Burton denied the necessity for naval parity between Britain and America. He pointed out the peculiar needs of Great Britain for a powerful navy and many light cruisers. He ridiculed the suggestion that the British navy might be used against the United States. The proximity of Canada, he said, was one of the many potent reasons why Great Britain would never attack the United States. He pleaded with the senate not to make " a mockery " of the multilateral treaty by providing for increased armaments.
Is Canada to play America's dual role as peacemaker and advanced war voter all along the line? The Kellogg note is a sham, for every war is a war of self-defence, and notes cannot alter facts nor acts of parliament change economic laws. The Kellogg note, like its ancestor the Monroe doctrine, is a mere myth and has produced more distrust than ever and one result of it will be a design to rob England of her naval supremacy. The note will deceive only those who are as blind to the real situation in 1929 as they were from 1909 to 1914. It seems to me after the

stormy career of the Kellogg note in Europe and America, the said note should be referred to a psychical clinic for investigation as to what it contains. It needs a tonic.
I should like to read to the house the views of some of the greatest writers and economists in the motherland. For instance, the editor of the English Review in the November issue holds the Kellogg note up to ridicule and scorn in these words:
Ten years ago the central empires, which pursued with a fatal diligence the philosophy of force, were beaten to their knees. Europe was dominated by a coalition of peoples fundamentally peace-loving. Russia, the black sheep of the victorious allies, had gone down in defeat. England, France, and America dominated the scene. Here was a chance, it seemed, for a new start; for here, we assumed, were three nations each content with their place under the sun. To-day, what do we see'/ America, arch-organizer of peace, has exacted a heavy tribute from Europe which she is using to finance a vast programme of naval and military expenditure. Having increased her army and navy, she comes to Europe to preach disarmament-not to Russia, which maintains millions of men under arms; not to Italy, which pursues with almost devastating candour an openly agressive nationalism; not to the Balkans, where there is no more sign of peace to-day than in 1912; but to France and England and Poland; to France, who can see the Italian army openly manoeuvring along her frontier but who is yet reducing her own army by two-thirds; to Poland, already once invaded by Russia; to England, who has surrendered voluntarily the two-,power naval standard. Leagues, covenants, pacts and disarmament conferences have become the diplomatic weapons of the new Real-Politik as pursued by at least three great powers. The chief abettors of the campaign, watched with cynical amusement by the armed nations of southern and eastern Europe, have been the so-called progressive press and the intelligentsia in this country. If they are satisfied with their handiwork, they are either fools or knaves. Europe is drifting toward war because certain European pressmen and statesmen refuse to face facts. Let us state the facts plainly!. It is not yet too late.
The first fact is, as Mr. J. 0. P. Bland points out in his article in this issue, that you can have national sovereignty or a supernational sovereign authority, but you cannot have, as we pretend to have, a supernational power without either sovereignty by right or authority based on force. The league, in plain English, is merely an international post office, and as constituted can never be anything else.
The second fact is that the scale of armaments is a matter for each nation. Armaments are not the weapon of the strong but the refuge of the weak; negotiations about armaments mean, in the long run, a scaling up, not a scaling down. The nation which accepts a maximum armament is sacrificing its freedom of action and must place that maximum high, and the maximum becomes the minimum. The third fact is that every pact which is propounded widens the danger area and adds to the risks of war. The fourth is that open diplomacy is a fraud, not only because it places nations at

International Peace-Mr. Church
the mercy of formulae, which mean one thing and appear to mean something else, but mainly because it prevents plain speaking between nations. Burke said truly that you cannot indict a whole nation, but you could not practise open diplomacy honestly without doing so. Lord X. can say "no" to Count Y., but Ruri-tania cannot say "no" to Cisalpania. A world, however, where the direct negative cannot be employed is a world where the trickster will flourish and honest man will be fleeced. There is only one reason why I do not speak more plainly, and that reason is the justification of my argument.
Now let us see what Bernard Shaw has to say in regard to this wonderful mock parliament known as the League of Nations, which is doing more to create strife than any other agency I know of. In my opinion they should change the name from League of Nations to League of Humbug, because that is all it is. In an article entitled "The League of Nations -A First Visit Impression" Bernard Shaw has this to say:
When my presence at Geneva during the annual assembly of the League of Nations was mentioned in the Press, I received several letters, of which the following is a fair sample:
"I cannot help being rather surprised and shocked to read that you 'sit on the bench of mockers and hyprocrites' ... In this country every little child knows that the League of Nations is only a bluff and nothing but an instrument for the policy of the Allied forces. ... I really am at a loss to understand why you don't feel your responsibility as a Mental Tutor of the World, when taking such a step as taking part in the comedy of Geneva, which is a tragedy for every country that does not find mercy in the eyes of the -world's High C Finance."
This letter is not a statesman's utterance. It is a crude expression of the popular impatience which sees no more in the league than an instrument for the instantaneous extirpation of war, and is ready to throw it on the scrap-heap the moment it becomes clear that no such operation is possible, and that the big powers have not, and never have had, any intention of relinquishing any jot of their sovereignty, or depending on any sort of strength and security other than military.
Roughly and generally it is a fact that the pacifist oratory at the Assembly is Christmas card platitude at best and humbug at -worst. The permanent departments of the league have to fight hard to defeat the frequent attempts to sabotage it by the big powers through their deciduous members.
Whilst I was there the press was keeping the public amused, not to say gulled, by gossip about the assembly meetings, at which nothing happens but pious speeches which might have been delivered fifty years ago. It -was so impossible to listen to them, or to keep awake during the subsequent inevitable translations, that the audience had to be kept in its place by a regulation, physically enforced, that no visitor should be allowed to leave the hall except during the five minutes set apart for that purpose between speech and translation. Fortunately, the young ladies of the secretariat,
who have plenty of dramatic sense, arrange the platform in such a way that the president, the speakers, and the bureau are packed low down before a broad tableau curtain which, being in three pieces, provides most effective dramatic entrances right and left of the centre. When a young lady secretary has a new dress, or for any other reason feels that she is looking her best, she waits until the speaker-possibly a Chinese gentleman carefully plodding through a paper written in his best French-has reduced half the public galleries to distraction and the other half to stertorous slumber, when she suddenly, but gracefully, snatches the curtains apart and stands revealed.
That is all the League of Nations is. Bernard Shaw continues:
A very able administrative official, whose heart and soul are in the league, told me that he has been at Geneva eight years, and never attended one of these assemblies yet. He expressed no intention of remedying that hiatus in his experience.
Then at page 528 of the same issue he says:
I stress this because, as a matter of fact, Mr. Kellogg has been duped into taking a stealthy stop backward towards war under the impression that he was making a colossal stride towards peace. By the original covenant of the league, the powers were bound not to make war until they had first submitted their case to the league; that is, without a considerable delay. Since then the big fighting powers have been trying to extricate themselves from this obligation and recover their old freedom to make war without notice whenever they wanted to. Their first success in this direction was the Locarno agreement, the second the Kellogg pact. Both of them established conditions under which the covenant might be violated; and the Kellogg pact put the finishing touch by providing that the powers might go to war at any time "in self-defence". What this means can be appreciated at once by the fact that the German attack in 1911 was, perhaps, the most complete technical case of self-defence in military history. Germany's avowed enemy, Russia, having mobilized against her. But, indeed, since such excuses for war became conventional there has never been a war which lacked them. Of all the wars which Commander Ken-worthy, in his significant book, "Will Civilisation Crash?" has shown to be on the cards, including, especially. a war between the British Empire and the United States, there is not one that could not be and, if it breaks out, will not be, represented as a war of self-defence on both sides. Mr. Kellogg had better have privileged wars of aggrandisement or revenge, because any power claiming the privilege would at least have been in an indefensible moral position. The only possible policy for the league is steadfastly to ignore all the much-advertised proceedings at Locarno and Paris exactly as it was itself ignored on both occasions, and insist on the covenant as still binding.
So far as the league is concerned, it runs coupter to the Monroe doctrine. The Kellogg pact does not apply where war is waged in self-defence. But all wars are wars of selfdefence. At page 139 of the February issue of the English Review the editor says:

International Peace-Mr. Church
America has ratified the pact after an amazing debate, unreported over here, in which the pact was energetically defended on the ground that it committed no one to anything, and left the United States with a free hand to interpret the Monroe Doctrine as, when., and where she liked. The debate was not reassuring for lovers of peace. It disclosed a very strong determination on the part of America to do what she wanted in her own good time, and a healthy contempt for the status quo, to preserve which, as we had imagined (or rather as others had imagined), was the whole object of the pact. The object, of course, as we have said all along, was to leave the United States free to do what she wanted without risk of interference. To the pressure of wealth there is one answer only, and that answer is force. That the United States know this well enough is shown by their vast expansion of armaments. They anticipate the answer with singular accuracy. They are, however, to be heartily congratulated on their diplomacy, if we take the Machiavellian standpoint. The increase in expenditure on armaments since 1914 by the United States (alone of all the countries in the world) .substantially exceeds 100 per cent, but she has succeeded in persuading progressives of all countries that she alone is the real lover of peace. And she does not even belong to the League of Nations! How is it done?
The past ten years have shown that open diplomacy has been a flat failure, and at page 6 of the January number of the English Review there appears the following:
The international politics of the last ten years have been most notable and will be chiefly remembered for the failure of open diplomacy. With President Wilson's ideal of open covenants no one will quarrel, but the attempt to arrive at them openly has been a disastrous failure. Almost every embitterment of national feeling in the last ten years has been due to the public discussion of international arrangements. The decade of conferences has ended in an atmosphere of disillusion, in growing armaments, in a tangle of pacts, treaties and understandings. Happily there are signs that public opinion will soon enforce an ending to this orgy of folly. Statesmen inevitably lag behind, but they will not be allowed to do so indefinitely. The risks of another war are altogether too great. We must have ten years' silence if we are to have for the first time in our generation ten years of peace.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: 
Mr. BOURASSA:: You would suppress the department in a year.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I would finish it.
I do not intend to say much on the question of the reservations, but let me say that I do not like them. I think Lord Cecil put that very well when he said:
I feel that the attitude taken nip by the German government in the matter was the right one.
This quotation appears in the Toronto Star of July 25, 1928. The attitude of the German government was that they were willing to sign the original draft, that they made no reservations. However, I am not going to take the reservations too seriously, because they do not appear in the text of the pact or treaty. They are not put in words except in the notes which passed between governments, and, so far as Canada is concerned, I think we should see to it that they do not affect us; that Canada does not stand for reservations; that she means exactly what the text of the pact says. I believe the people who believe in peace all over the world will gain most by reading into the text of the Kellogg pact the full meaning as written, and then holding the governments to the letter and to the spirit of that text.
The greatest danger I see from the Kellogg pact is that the peoples of the world will feel that when sixty-two nations out of sixty-four have signed a peace pact, they can sit back and rest, that there is really nothing more to be done. It would be fatal to do that, because this is but the beginning. It is true that words mean nothing unless actions follow, but they mean much if actions do follow. It is the duty of each of us as Canadians and the people of other countries who, I believe, are as good as we are, to seek the economic causes of war and then shape our national policies, and indeed our private endeavours, so as to remove them. We should as a nation put international concord above everything else and we should shape our policy to that end. We need to develop a peace technique. In the positive field of education something has been done, it is true, but very much re-78594-18
maiins to be done, and in the negative field of undoing what has been the custom of the ages, almost no start has been made.
We might very well listen to the Right Hon. Stanley Baldwin, Prime Minister of Great Britain, who, addressing the League of Nations Society of Great Britain this year, said that all those who really desire peace should be missionaries for peace. I take it that he is a missionary for peace and that he is exceedingly desirous of the peace of the world. It is well for us at times to be idealists, not to be scoffers and doubters, not to be cynical, but to believe that all the people of the world, regardless of colour, regardless of the country in which they live, are fine people, and if we treat them as though they were, they will treat us in the same spirit. It is well for us sometimes to go to the hilltops, and when we do as individuals and in great moments as nations, we see a fairer world. That fairer world is no dream; it can be made a reality if each of us takes the matter seriously and works towards that end.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, it was not my privilege to follow the debate this afternoon upon this very interesting question. I have not prepared anything with regard to it, but I think I owe it to my good constituents and to the people who have confidence in me in the province of Quebec, or elsewhere, to express at this juncture my strong and unreserved approval of the position taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) at Paris and Geneva in relation to this treaty. I read the speech of the right hon. gentleman; when it was published I reread it; I translated it for my own sake and I commented upon it. The more I thought of it, ithe more I considered it one of the most complete, and may I say, perfect expressions of what should have been in the past and what ought to be in the future the attitude of Canada in international affairs at large, but especially in those endeavours of all nations to eradicate the roots of the evils of war.
I concur entirely in most of the remarks that have been given to the house by the lady member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). We ought, and all peace loving people ought, to take the Kellogg pact at its face value. We ought to trust the conscience, the common sense and the true sense of interest of the masses of the people in every country to make that treaty good. I also agree with her that we should not discourage the idealist, either by scoffing at him, or by exaggerating, or perhaps simply by emphasizing too much, the obstacles, permanent or

274	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Bourassa
occasional, present or future, which may prevent this pact from bearing all the fruits which the suffering peoples are expecting from it. On the other hand, I think all parliaments and all thinking people would be untrue to their duty if they did not point out some of the obstacles, human or material, which may in fact prevent the fructification of this great peace endeavour.
Let us take first our position in Canada. On this point again I congratulate the Prime Minister for having spoken at Geneva in the name of Canada, and of Canada alone; for having affixed the signature of Canada to this treaty, for Canada's sake, in the interests of Canada, and as a contribution from Canada to the cause of peace. For once, the first time, perhaps, in the most unequivocal fashion, Canada has spoken and acted in her own name, has shown herself worthy of the confidence of her own people, and also of the confidence evinced during the last twenty or twenty-five years by the people of Great Britain, in the virility, determination, dignity and self-confidence of their young brothers of Canada, proving that they are capable, may I say, of butting into those international gatherings, modestly, but proudly, in their own name, and expressing their own views for the benefit not only of their own people, but also of the other British communities and the world at large. The Prime Minister was especially happy upon that occasion in showing that in her modest sphere of action, in the sphere of action where Canada can do something, she may render greater and more important services to Great Britain with whom she is associated, and to the United States, her only neighbour, than perhaps is thought of either in Washington or in London.
I was struck once-I have never forgotten the incident and frequently commented upon it-with the profound truth of an observation made by a distinguished diplomat who represented Great Britain in Washington for many years-I refer to Sir Esme Howard- when he said that he considered the peculiar, the particular service which Canada could render to Great Britain, the British Empire and the world at large, was to act as the normal interpreter of Great Britain to the United States and of the United States to Great Britain. That is quite true, because, on the one hand, the United States is our only neighbour, and a very close one; and on the other, we are associated with Great Britain. From Britain we have derived those political institutions of which we are proud, of which we French-Canadians are as proud as Eng-lish-Canadians may be, and for excellent rea-

sons: the first being, as recently demonstrated by our distinguished fellow citizen, Mr. Ewart, that we have nationalized those British institutions; we have borrowed from them their spirit, the kernel out of which grew that magnificent tree of liberty, of order, of continuance in action, of tradition and progress, and at the same time we have grafted upon it those legal or constitutional dispositions which are necessary to make it a constitution, not one to which the people of Canada must be adapted, but one adaptable to the people of Canada. Likewise, in international affairs I think the best service we can render to the British Empire-and I say this for the consumption of those who put empire first and Canada	after-is not to follow
blindly every dictation, every attitude, every instrument of international policy that may be decided upon in London by this cabinet or that other cabinet. On the contrary, we should give not only a sympathetic but a free and independent support to every move of the British government which makes for peace and liberty, and on the other hand, oppose courageously and openly every attitude of the British government, for the time being, whether it be Tory, Liberal or Labour, which makes for greater misunderstanding and equivocations as between Great Britain and other countries, or with the world at large.
Therefore while approving unreservedly the ratification of the treaty, and offering to the Prime Minister for what they are worth my humble congratulations, at the same time I think we must take cognizance, to a greater extent perhaps than the hon. member for Southeast Grey has done, of the reservations which have been-I will not say, put upon that pact-but which 'have been, so to speak, planted around it by some of the most powerful governments of Europe and America. If these trees of distrust, these threats of practical disallowance of the treaty, are left to grow, the time will come when they will act, not as a bulwark against war, but as a moral barrier between the principle of peace evinced in the treaty, and the practices of war as carried on by the various nations that have adhered to it.
Let me remind the house that practically every treaty, public or secret, that was entered into during the forty years, let us say, which preceded the war, either those that were finally gathered together in the system of the Triple Alliance, or those that paved the way to the less defiant but more mysterious and perhaps a little more hypocritical Triple Entente to which we adhered during the war-all those

International Peace-Mr. Bourassa
treaties, all those conventions, all those understandings, preparing for war, fattening the ground out of which the plant of war grew and nearly killed civilization and humanity, were entered into in the name of peace. Every one of them contains these or similar words: "The high contracting parties, desiring to ensure and maintain peace," enter into such-and-such an agreement. All the treaties entered into between Germany and Austria, and later on between Germany and Italy, were made in the name of peace. The secret agreements between Russia and France first, and then between England and France, and then between England and Russia, were all framed in the name of peace. Poor Sir Edward Grey believed till the third day of August, 1914, that he had been working for peace, while as a matter of fact, quite honestly but just as surely, he had been working for war during the ten years which preceded the war, because he let himself be dragged from one agreement to another, made always under the pretence of peace, but always making for war.
In that respect, as a Canadian, and in spite of all that may be said, as a candid but true friend of Great Britain as well, I am especially proud and happy at the attitude taken by the Prime Minister, at his emphatic declaration, that as far as Canada is concerned there is no reservation secret or public, tha-t Canada is not a party to any understanding written or unwritten, public or secret,, defined or undefined, either with Great Britain or any othei country on earth, to prepare war behind the curtain while talking of peace before the public.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey made reference to the splendid speech of M. Briand. Undoubtedly M. Briand is to-day, with Mr. Stresemann, with Lord Cecil, and to a lesser but also to a certain degree with Sir Austen Chamberlain, one of the men who have done most to undo the hellish work which brought the world to the crucifixion which lasted from 1914 to 1918. But perhaps the lady member did not realize the tragic irony of a casual reference she made to the France of Briand and the France of Poincare, apparently forgetting that Briand and Poincare are in the same government.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: They might be, but they are not the same people.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, but in France, as in England, as in the United States, as in Canada and everywhere, more especially in those countries which have not known the bitterness of defeat and humiliation, in those 78594-18J
countries which can boast of their victory of 1918, there are, as the lady member said, both the forces of peace and the forces of war; but unfortunately the forces of peace and the forces of war are very often united in the political sphere, and I am afraid they are a contributing factor in keeping over the eyes of the people a veil which prevents them from seeing the truth.
It is useless to entertain illusions. The political situation of Europe, and the economic situation perhaps more so, is such that to-day there are more standing causes of war alive than there were six months before the war of 1914. Without committing an indiscretion, without naming anybody, I might here give the opinion expressed 'before me in private, two years ago, by one of the leading statesmen of Europe, one who has much, and who in the near future perhaps may have more, to do with the direction of policies in Europe and the world over. This statesman told me quite pointedly-I will not say cynically: "Of course there will be war again. At present no government, not even my own, would risk declaring war, or would even accept a declaration of war, because the memories of the last one are still too fresh in the people's minds. There are still too many mothers whose hearts are bleeding from the losses of the last war. But when this generation has passed, if the political, international and economic causes of war that are in existence to-day are allowed to grow, although you and I may not see it, because we are old enough perhaps to be spared, yet our sons will see the day when there will be another war, and the last war with its cruelties and devastations will be nothing compared with the experiences of the next."
Of course, no responsible statesmen dare utter such feelings in public, but when you talk to them in private, it has been my experience during the last seven years, in the various trips I have taken to Europe, that almost every one of the men who are responsible for the welfare, or the contrary, of the various peoples of Europe do not know when the next war will break. They realize that there are tremendous causes of war, moral, ethnical, economic; causes which preceded the last upheaval and which have not been eradicated; new causes created by those abominable, absurd, nonsensical treaties concluded at Versailles, at Neuilly-sur-Seine, at Trianon. Those treaties would be denounced to-day by every government in Europe but for the fact that some of the men responsible for them are still in power and obliged to maintain in the minds of the people the

International Peace-Mr. Bourassa
delusions under which the treaties were con-duded and imposed upon Europe.
Let me quote here the opinion of one of the leading spirits of Europe. In Mr. Ramsay MacDonald I see, from a certain point of view, the most eminent statesman of the British Empire to-day-I repeat this not for the first, the second or the third time, and I am going to repeat it yet again in the future. One of his staunchest opponents was telling me a year and a half ago: "We may differ with MacDonald in his home policy, we may disagree with his economics, but we must admit that he is the best foreign minister that England has known in the last half a century. Of course, he added, you must make allowance for party prejudices; but had Ramsay MacDonald been foreign secretary in the two years which preceded the wrar, had he held that portfolio either in a Tory or a Liberal administration, he might have spared us the agonies of war." I thought that was a remarkable testimony to the statesmanship of MacDonald. Now, when that statesman was in our midst not very long ago, I was struck with one of his observations, right here in Ottawa. All his speeches of course were permeated with his love of peace, but also with dread of a still possible war. He indicated as the main moral cause of future wars the one question of the treatment of minorities in the various countries that have been created artificially or carved out from the map of Europe by those absurd and nefarious treaties.
At the next meeting of the League of Nations, this question of minority rights is to be discussed in its entirety; and I am happy and proud to say that that action will be taken upon the initiative of our own representative, Senator Danduraod. What Mr. MacDonald said practically amounted to this. We made an issue of the maltreatment, real or imaginary, of two or three minorities at the hands of our enemies, the Alsatians and the Poles under German rule, the Slavs and the Italians under Austrian rule; we fought for those minorities and defeated the countries which dominated them. Then we carved out various nations among whom at the present time twenty million people are distributed as minorities. Some of the majority-nations maltreat those minorities much worse than the Prussians ever maltreated the Poles or the Alsatians. And those majority-mations are of our own making. We Canadians affixed our signatures to those treaties which recited that ali minorities should be given equal rights in matters of language, equal rights in matters of religion, and equal rights in matters of education. All those minorities are knocking . 
from year to year at the gates of the palace of peace at Geneva, begging for justice and protection. They invoke the principles of the league, and they call upon the letter and the spirit of those sacred treaties that are supposed to have put an end to all the injustices inflicted by our late enemies. Those minorities come to us, the protectors of the weak, to us who during four years waged war to save civilization and make the world safe for democracy. I am afraid I must repeat here what I have said once before to an American audience: If we go on at this rate, a slight correction will have to be made in Mr. Wilson's famous text, and we shall have to say that we fought four years "to make the world safe for hypocrisy."
Well, I hope that Canada shall not be a party to making the world any safer for hypocrisy. I hope and trust that this government, or any other government, will not err in this respect. I would be prepared to trust the leader of the opposition nearly as much as the leader of the government, because I believe that once loaded with the responsibilities of office my hon. friend would have enough sense of his duty to the people of this country, to the people of the empire, and to the people of the world at large, to realize and to put into practice the profound truth of that saying of Sir Esme Howard, a saying that should always remain as the motto of our international relations-first make America safe, as between Canada and her only neighbour. Then make the safety of those cordial relations between the United States and ourselves the means to impress upon the British government-with whom I am proud that we should remain associated for so long as it suits both nations, but no longer-the necessity of carrying all over that spirit of amity.
Under the new condition of affairs, the United States have become practically the economic arbiters of the world. Germans and English, French and Italians, whether they like it or not, go to the Americans and ask them to act as arbiters between them in the partition of the war indemnities. Similarly,
I think we have a noble task to perform, without doing anything derogatory to our national honour. Let us make use of our being neighbours, not to make money out of the United States, not to ask them to remit any debt that we owe them, but to give them our help, weak as we may be in point of numbers, but strong as we are if we stand by a moral right, to impose, not in the low provocative sense of the word, but by the strength of reason, by the strength of political and economic

International Peace-Mr. Irvine
causes, to impose, I repeat, upon the British Empire a policy of peace that will determine the relations of that great empire with the rest of the world. That would be far better I think than to let the British government understand that in all they do we are prepared to uphold them, because at times that would land us in a pretty bad fix.
In conclusion, I am very happy in supporting the adoption of this motion and endorsing the views expressed by the Prime Minister this afternoon, as well as those of my hon, friend from Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Southeast Grey. If I have insisted a little more upon the pessimistic aspect of the question, it is not because 1 wish to throw cold water upon the enthusiasm of any sincere peace seeker, but because I have always believed that there is no salvation in delusion, no salvation in either pessimism or optimism. The true solution of all problems, national or individual, lies in the sincere search for truth and the courage to stand by the truth.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I desire to make a very brief comment on the important matter before parliament and on some of its implications. It does not require an undue gift of imagination to conceive the possibility that subsequent generations will regard the treaty now before this parliament as an epoch making event, and to the extent that such a possibility materializes in the future this is a great occasion. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been signally honoured by good fortune in having been associated with what may well prove to have been the most significant human episode in many centuries. We, too, are honoured in being privileged to endorse, in the name of the people of Canada, the sentiments of peace embodied in the treaty now under discussion.
This. I think, is a time when one may be pardoned for even going so far as to pay a compliment to the Prime Minister and one to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) at the same time. We all regard the presentation of the case for peace by the Prime Minister this afternoon as one entirely creditable to the leader of a great people, and I am sure that, in view of the high expressions which he gave and the very high ground he took in the interpretation not only of the treaty but of its implications, there is reason for us all to feel quite proud indeed. I think, also, that we are highly indebted to the leader of the opposition, who, while agreeing with the sentiments expressed, laid his
finger upon some of the immediate and practical things which must be done if any real fruits are to result.
The Prime Minister indicated that this treaty is not merely something that has come about as the result of a pious wish on the part of the nations concerned. As he indicated, war itself has become such an impossible thing that the intelligence of mankind is being compelled by circumstances to find a better way of dealing with international disputes. As we have seen in the past, war does not settle anything but tends rather to unsettle everything. We have seen, also, that war methods have become so destructive that, in the words of the Prime Minister, war will destroy civilization if civilization does not destroy war. So that the necessity of the times in which we live is back of this treaty; though it may be regarded by some as a mere pious gesture, there is necessity behind it. As the Prime Minister pointed out, it implies that we renounce war as an instrument of national policy, and by so doing we focus the attention of the world upon war as an obsolete method. He also further cautioned us that there is no royal road to peace but that there are many paths which lead thereto. Furthermore, he implied that there is no immediate hope of arriving at peace and that we must regard this treaty as merely the beginning of what we hope to accomplish. He intimated that the binding force of the treaty was to be found in the bonds of the dead. While that is true, yet at the risk of appearing to be pessimistic I am bound to point out that the bonds of death have been snapped a thousand times in the history of mankind. We must not rely on the bonds of the dead to maintain the spirit of reality in a great international bond of this character; we must somehow find the bonds among the living- bonds in which we may be able to place a great deal more confidence than we have ever been able to repose in the bonds of the dead. The great feelings which are common to humanity, which well up as a reaction from the Great war which shook the world a few years ago and which brought about the signing of the treaty before the house, are only feelings after all. These feelings will rise just as speedily twenty years from now to bring about once more the condition which to-day we so much deprecate.
May I be permitted to refer to the utterances of men who have not only given a great deal of study to this question but some of whom are playing parts on the chessboard of international politics while we are speaking here. The first one to whom I would refer

International Peace-Mr. Irvine
is Premier Mussolini. This is from a report of the Roman celebration of the Italian victory over Austria at the battle of Vittorio Veneto:
Mussolini: "If it is necessary, Trill you do to-morrow what you have done, what we did together, yesterday?"
Seventy thousand Italian World War Veterans: "Yes!"
That is just a little glimpse. Let us turn now to what the Right Hon. Philip Snowden, former Chancellor of the British Exchequer, had to say on peace sentiments in general and this treaty in particular. This is what he says:
There is still talk about renouncing war, and pious platitudes about universal peace are on everyone's lips. But there has been no real progress toward the abolition of war. Locarno agreements ami Kellogg pacts are mere eyewash to bamboozle the people while statesmen carry on their secret negotiations to prepare for the next great war.
I think we can understand something of the pessimism which is here expressed when we realize the conditions prevailing at the moment, as referred to a few moments ago by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). When we think, for one thing, of the new map of Europe which was drawn up after the last war, and when we think of the treaty which has been referred to, we can understand the sentiments of the Right Hon. Philip Snowden which I have just quoted. Let me refer next to the Right Hon. David Lloyd George. He says:
As our relations are getting better, our armaments are growing bigger. The nations are sharpening their arms on the stones of the Temple of Peace. The armaments of Prance to-day are four times as powerful as those of the great German army of 1914.
Let me also quote what General Sir Ian Hamilton has to say:
Though cannon may be muzzled and poison gas manufacture in suspense, our gigantic war propaganda plaint has never been properly scrapped, and, undeT cover of night, the factories still go on stealthily pumping out a few extra special samples of the good old fumes. There s hardly a morning passes when some ot it does not drift on to the breakfast table, tolded up, usually, in twenty-four sheets of paper.
I think it would be fitting to mention here a statement by Right Hon. Arthur Henderson, former British Home Secretary, who said:
The armies of the world are ready to fight, the navies only await the order to lift anchor and go into action. Aerial armies are ready to destroy our cities in one night. Within a few weeks the world's war machines could again imperil civilization.

Four years of war are now only unthinkable because they would be unnecessary. The apparatus of war, evolved since the end of war to end war. would probably destroy civilization in a few months.
Finally let me quote what Lord Riddell, British journalist and publicist, has to say:
There is grave danger that the world will allow itself to be chloroformed by general declarations in favour of peaceful intentions. If a man says he is against shooting and, at the same time, purchases two new revolvers, what would you think of him? He might say he did not intend to use them, but I think you would have your doubts.
I &iye these quotations, Mr. Speaker, not to indicate tha.t I have no faith in the moral qualities and in the intelligence of mankind generally to find ultimately a better way of settling international disputes than by war, but merely that I might give emphasis to what I regard as the implications of the Prime Minister when he stressed the fact that in itself this treaty is only a beginning.
I wish to close my few remarks by indicating through analogy what I regard as the real significance of this treaty, which I have no doubt will be unanimously endorsed by the representatives of the Canadian people. It might be said to be a new-born child, born of the noblest sentiments of the races, its potentialities great but with many dangers besetting its life. It may be nursed, educated and developed to make a great contribution to mankind, or it may be strangled or starved or maimed and never allowed to give full expression to its potentialities. If the nations of the world sit back now and say, " No more war; behold the treaty we have signed," then our treaty means less than nothing; it will not be Tvorth the paper upon which it is printed. If, on the other hand, the nations of the world who have subscribed to the principle of that treaty can rise to the occasion and accept the responsibilities which it implies, then Sir, I say that we have here one of the greatest documents of many centuries of history.
What are some of the responsibilities which it implies? It does not merely imply a negative response by getting rid of armies, navies and arsenals; in my opinion those are the last things which will go. You might as well ask a sailor to jump from his sinking ship and be drowned immediately as ask that the nations who have hitherto found in armaments their only supposed means of defence throw them overboard before we have actually set up and established that which is to take their place. So I think it is not merely a negative action now morally imposed upon every nation subscribing to this treaty; I

Montreal
Harbour Commission
think some positive action must be looked for, and I would suggest that the first positive action should be re-drawing the map of Europe. In the treaty of Versailles, the treaty of peace, we have the seeds of many wars, and we must not think that by any artificial means we shall avoid the aftermath of that treaty. Any action we take must be natural; it must appeal to human nature, and I do not think human nature is always bad. I know that those who advocate war think that as long as human nature is what it is we shall have war, but I recognize the fact that in human nature we have the source of all the good that humanity has ever accomplished just as we have all the bad, and I believe that humanity will respond to the good just as readily as, and perhaps even more readily than, it will respond to the bad.
The treaty will prove a mere delusion without positive action, which will have to be in line with the natural law and with the best in human nature. Our first action should be to endeavour to apply human methods in repairing the evil brought about by the last peace. We should begin to set in motion an international co-operative effort which will call upon every nation subscribing to this treaty to yield perhaps a little of that sovereignty of which it is so proud and a little of that pride which sometimes keeps nations apart, and to take part in some actual international co-operative organization which will deal first of all with questions of territory, questions of economics and international trade generally, questions of politics and racial problems. There is no use leaving these questions and just hoping they will be settled sometime; if we are to abandon the navies and armies we must begin immediately to set up that which is to take their place.
That, Mr. Speaker, is all I desire to say. I am sure that whether or not these great possibilities which we visualize become actualities, no one will blame us in ages to come, in view of the circumstances existing to-day, for having made even this feeble attempt. Should wars succeed wars in the near future I shall still be glad that we had this treaty before this parliament and that I was privileged to say what I have said in its favour. I do believe that no really intelligent, constructive action can be taken by mankind until such an idea has been conceived. The idea of a human world has been conceived. This treaty is a new-born child of peace. Let us hope that the best of human nature will nurture it and that the best leaders of the nations concerned will help humanity forward if only in the first step toward a new
human relationship which will regard humanity as paramount in all dealings national or international, rather than that lust for power, economic aggrandizement or other things material which have characterized and even dictated the diplomacy of nations in the past.
On motion of Mr. Cahan the debate was adjourned.



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved tlhat the house go into committee to consider the following proposed
resolution:	>
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize a loan to the harbour commissioners of Montreal in an amount not exceeding $10 000,001) to carry on the construction of terminal facilities, upon approval by the governor in council of detailed plans, specifications and estimates for such works and the deposit of debentures ot the corporation to cover said loan.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the resolution is put I think the minister might make some explanation to the house. The resolution involves $10,000,000 of the credit of Canada, and it should not be passed without explanation.


Mr. CARDIN:: The resolution is for consideration by the house in committee of the whole. If my hon. friend does not object I will make the explanation when we are in committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The proper time is to
give it before we go into committee, but I am not concerned as long as we get it some time.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The resolution contemplates the advance of $10,000,000 to the harbour commissioners of Montreal. The object of this advance is to permit the harbour commissioners to proceed with the developments required by the increasing business in this important port. The port of Montreal-and the same may be said of Vancouver-has shown some very interesting results. The receipts of t)he port of Montreal for 1924 were $4,000,000, and they have increased to over $5,500,000 for the year 1928. The exportation of grain through the harbour of Montreal has also very materially increased. Anyone who has any knowledge of the conditions prevailing in the port of Montreal at the present time knows that they need increased facilities for the shipping business passing through that port.
2S0

Montreal Harbour Commission
We must keep in mind the fact that the money we advance through these bills is not a gift to an organization of any kind. This is money which will be lent to an organization created by the laws of the country, and in the case of Montreal the country is getting back the interest on al the money which has been advanced. Besides paying the interest on the money advanced, the port of Montreal has provided for a sinking fund for the repayment of the principal. This year, after taking care of the interest and providing for the sinking fund, the harbour commissioners are left with a very substantial balance an the form of a real surplus. These harbours are to-day in a very satisfactory condition. Anyone who believes in the general development of the country must realize that this development is due in large degree, to the facilities provided in the different harbours throughout the country. Money spent in the harbours will prove very profitable to Canada at large. We have passed the time where we have to wait for business before providing facilities, and have reached the point where we should provide the facilities in order to take care of business which may come later. I do not think anyone seeing the need of these transportation facilities would hesitate to advance the money. There is a certainty that the government will get the interest on the money so advanced.
If we did not follow this procedure of advancing money to these harbours we would have to make the same expenditures through the Department of Public Works. There are certain harbours less important than the ports of Montreal and Vancouver towards which the government has been contributing large amounts of money with a view to developing the facilities for the shipping interests at large. The procedure we have been following with regard to Montreal and Vancouver and the other harbours is as sound as any procedure followed in any other country of the world.
I am not in a position to-night to give a comparative statement of the great harbours of the world, but I have caused the officers of my department to prepare a statement showing how the great harbours in foreign countries are administered and maintained. I am sure this statement will show that while our procedure is not perfect-nothing is perfect in this world-it compares favourably with the system followed in all foreign countries.
The proposal of the harbour commissioners is to provide for the enlargement of the Laurier pier. They are also providing for the reconstruction of the King Edward pier and the Alexandra pier, the 
extension of the electrified railway system across the Lachine canal, the extension of the grain conveyor system, industrial wharves, additional berthing facilities and the acquisition of land. This last item is brought about as a result of an adjudication by the privy council. Parliament first authorized the harbour commissioners of Montreal to extend tbeir facilities and to build wharves on certain properties under the control of either the provincial government or individuals. This question was brought before the different tribunals and the privy council decided that the harbour commissioners, under an amendment of their act, had no right to take over properties which were under provincial jurisdiction without making compensation therefor. In the S10,000.000 asked for the commissioners have provided the necessary amount to pay for the lands upon which they have already built wharves.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To whom would the
compensation be payable?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: To the proprietors of the
land. One case was brought before the privy council, but there are two or three other properties in the same position and the commissioners will have to compensate the proprietors.
I think at this stage the resolution should go through, without any commitment, as has been stated on previous occasions, on the part of any other hon. gentleman who can make his comment when the bill is brought down and we go into committee of the whole thereon. I do not see that I should add anything at present in support of the resolution.
M.r. STEWART (Leeds): Might I ask the minister whether I understood him to say that the proprietor of part of this land was the province of Quebec?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. Individuals were proprietors. The court 'held that it was a matter of civil rights.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason I was rather anxious that the minister should make some explanation with respect to this particular item was that, he might unfold to us any scheme he had in mind, in the light of his observations last session, looking towards a more comprehensive dealing with the whole problem in connection with port expansion in Canada. The minister will recall the discussions that took place last year. It appears to me that before we vote further sums of money we should have upon the table of the house the report of the harbour commission for the last year. We are called upon to vote large

sums not only for this harbour but for some others, and it is important that we should have a comprehensive realization, in the light of what the results may have been, of what is involved in the way of expenditure with regard to the whole. In Montreal we know that they have very large revenues derived to no inconsiderable extent from the elevating and shipping of grain that comes from western America. If I carry in my head correctly the returns for last year, they would indicate a very large volume of traffic originating in a country other than our own. It is important, in the light of possible developments that have been foreshadowed, and if the Hudson Bay railway is to carry the traffic that it is expected it will, to know to what extent this may result in a curtailment of the handling of grain traffic through the port of Montreal. I suppose the minister will recall the recent meeting that took place in It inni-peg and the discussions of an extension of the railway directly from Winnipeg to the bay in order that the traffic that they believe is contiguous to it in the United States may find easy access to Fort Churchill for shipment to Europe. That would have an important bearing upon the development of the port with respect to grain business, and I observe from the explanation given by the minister that some considerable portion of the proposed expenditure will be for the purpose of extending facilities to handle that particular kind of traffic. I assume, however, that the report for the year ended December 31, 1928, will be available before the house finally determines what action will be taken in connection with this and other cases of a similar character. The harbours of Montreal and Vancouver are at the moment paying their own way very handsomely, taking care of interest and sinking fund, but some of the ports into which 'money is being paid can hardly be said to be in that category. It was for that reason I had hoped the minister would make a statement of policy in a large way, such as was indicated last session. Knowing that Mr. Palmer was making a report on the terminal railway facilities and, to some extent, the handling of traffic on the river front, I suggested he make his explanation before we went into committee. With the understanding that we are not committed without having some explanation as to details, I have no objection to the bon. gentleman's resolution proceeding to committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. McPhee in the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose the minister would like to get this resolution reported out of committee, and there is no reason why that
Questions
should not be done provided it is understood that an opportunity will be afforded to discuss the matter in detail when the bill is in committee.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, that is understood.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Cardin thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 37, to provide for a further loan to the harbour commissioners of Montreal.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 20, 1929