[Stage Direction]
Third report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.'-Mr. Vien.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 54 for the relief of Mary Lorraine Ward Williamson.-Mr. Plaxton.
Bill No. 55 for the relief of Lyall Gibson Hodges.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 56 for the relief of Esther Laza-rovitch Cohen.

Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 57 for the relief of Dorothy Reaves McMartin.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 58 for the relief of Mary Dorothy Picard Whitcombe.-Mr. Plaxton.	.
Bill No. 59 for the relief of Emil Kastus.->' Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 60 for the relief of Eva Fleming Hislop.-Mr. Betts.

Questions
Bill No. 61 for the relief of Sigmund Oravec. -Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 62 for the relief of Robert Parry. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 63 for the relief of Nacha Ferszt Klajner (otherwise known as Nora Firstenfeld Klein).-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 64 for the relief of Leonora May Howard.-Mr. Walsh.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What salary was paid by the federal government to Dr. Stapleford for his services in distributing relief in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What salary is paid to Dr. Stapleford for his services in connection with the survey he is conducting with respect to relief in the province of Saskatchewan?


Mr. GARDINER:: Dr. Stapleford has been paid at the rate of $500 per month from October 7, 1937, to date, for his services in distributing relief in and making a survey with respect to relief in the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What are the names of the forty-five federal government inspectors in the province of Saskatchewan in connection with relief administration?
2.	What were their respective former occupations?
3.	What are their respective salaries, including expense allowances?


James Garfield Gardiner: List of inspectors in Saskatchewan as at February 1,. 1938:
1.	and 2. S. Banks, farmer; B. J. Brock-mann, farmer; R. V. Cameron, farmer; J. A. Davis, provincial agricultural representative; A. W. Daurie, grain buyer; B. S. Dermody, real estate agent; S. Forsyth, farmer; T. P. Hagerman, grain buyer; C. Henderson, farmer; E. Hogan, farmer; A. P. Humphrey, insurance agent; J. L. Laurie, grain buyer; S. McBain, farmer; W. Mitchell, farmer; B. A. Newton, farmer; H. L. Roberge, farmer; D. M. Robertson, farmer; J. F. Symington, garage man;
H.	S. Thompson, farmer; F. W. Widdifield, farmer; A. S. Agnew, agent; W. Hagarty, farmer; O. Parker, farmer; G. Andrew, farmer;
I.	S. Bricker, farmer; J. W. Rose, farmer;
J.	W. Pennington, insurance agent; R. E. Gleiser, merchant.
3. $125 per month and actual expenses.


CANADIAN WHEAT SHIPMENTS
Mr. ISNOR:: 1.	What was the total shipment, in bushels, of Canadian wheat for overseas destinations during the months of January, 1936, 1937, 1938, and February, 1936, 1937, 1938?
2.	What	quantities,	for	each	period,	were
shipped from Canadian Pacific seaboard ports, Canadian Atlantic seaboard ports and United States Atlantic seaboard ports?
3.	What	quantities,	for	each	period,	were
shipped via port of Halifax, Nova Scotia, and port of Saint John, New Brunswick?
4.	What	quantity,	for	each	period,	was
shipped over Canadian National Railways to port of Halifax, Nova Scotia?
5.	What	quantity,	for	each	period,	was
shipped over Canadian National Railways to port of Saint John, New Brunswick?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Bushels
January, 1936	 15,307,667
January, 1937	 8,665.954
January, 1938	 5.012,093
February, 1936	 16,284.349
February, 1937	 6.695,806
February, 1938	 5,139,330
2.	Via	Via	ViaCanadian	Canadian	U.S.A.Pacific	Atlantic	Atlanticseaboard	seaboard	seaboardports	ports	portsBushels	Bushels	BushelsJan., 1936	.. 6,532,183	3,797,484	4,978.000Jan., 1937	.. 4,031,100	2,456,399	2,178,455Jan., 1938	.. 1,473,993	2,165,076	1,373,024Feb., 1936	.. 10,020,035	2,954,314	3,310,000Feb., 1937	.. 2,200,257 1,584,825	2,994,504	1,501,045Feb., 1938 3. Halifax-	1,772,082	1,782,423 BushelsJanuary, 1936	
629,185January, 1937	
343,448January, 1938	
47,994February, 1936	
533,746February, 1937	
1,133,060February, 1938	
16,040
St. John-
January, 1936	 485,268
January, 1937	 54,268
January, 1938	
February, 1936	 112,000
February, 1937	 68,219
February, 1938	
West St. John-
January, 1936	 2,682,492
January, 1937	 2,058,203
January, 1938	 2,115,668
February, 1936	 2,308,128
February, 1937	 1,792,885
February, 1938	 1,746,285
Questions

4. tQuantities received at port of Halifax (all
railways):
Bushels
January, 1936	 519,931
January, 1937	  87,884
January, 1938	 4,113
February, 1936	 295,649
February, 1937	 334,652
February, 1938	 16,039
5. tQuantities received at port of Saint John (all railways):
St. John-	Bushels
January, 1936	 417,973
January, 1937	 [DOT] [DOT]
January, 1938	
February, 1936	 166,701
February, 1937	
February, 1938	
West St.' John-
January, 1936	 2,979,479
January, 1937	 1,655,471
January, 1938	 2,198,977
February, 1936	 2,067,897
February, 1937	 1,516,093
February, 1938	 1,357,460
tA record of the separate quantities of grain shipped over the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways to the ports of Halifax and Saint John is not available from government sources.


*J. M. EDDY
Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Is one J. M. Eddy, of Bethune, Saskatchewan, in the employ of the farm loan board or the prairie farm rehabilitation?
2.	If so, for what period has he been employed? What was his salary? What were his expenses?


James Garfield Gardiner: This question presumably refers to work done under my department in connection with prairie farm rehabilitation. We have examined fully into the matter and find that there is no such person employed.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Answered.


DEMURRAGE ON RELIEF CARS, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What amount has been paid since the 1st of August, 1937, to date, to the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways on account of demurrage on relief cars in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What amount, if any, is still outstanding and to be paid to the said railway companies for demurrage on relief cars in the said province?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Canadian Pacific Railway, $477; Canadian National Railways, $246.
2.	Nil.


CHILLIWACK, B.C., POST OFFICE
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	What was the total cost of repairs, painting, alterations, etc., to the post office building at Chilliwack, British Columbia, during each of the years 1936-37 and 1937-38?
2.	Who were invited to tender for such work?
3.	Who were the successful tenderers and what amount was paid to each?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1. 1936-37, $27.65; 1937-38, $263.70.
2 and 3. As works were of a minor nature competitive tenders were not asked. The following works were done:-
Plumbing repairs-Farqueharson	&
Eckel Ltd	 $24 15
Glazing-Davies & Logan Hardware.. 3 50

Installing railing-J. F. Semple	$ 30 00
Repairs & painting-W. Bowman.. .. 140 00 Grates for furnace-Farqueharson &
Eckel Ltd	 51 41
New toilet and tank-Farqueharson &
Eckel Ltd	 35 94
Glazing-C. H. Semple	 6 35


$263 70 CANADA AND GULF TERMINAL RAILWAY
Mr. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: 1.	Has the federal government had any negotiations during the last fifteen years with the Canada and Gulf Terminal Railway with a view to the purchase of such railway?
2.	If so, what were the results?
3.	If purchase was not made, what reasons are given ?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Acquisition by Canadian National Railways, was proposed in 1927 and again more recently.
2.	Negative.
3.	Because of heavy losses which would be involved.


*VISIT OF CABINET MINISTERS TO ALBERTA
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	What has been the cost to the dominion government for the visit of each of the following cabinet ministers: Mr. Gardiner, Mr. Howe, Mr. Mackenzie, during the months of February and March, 1938, to the province of Alberta?
2.	What business was each man there for?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: With the consent of the house, so far as I am concerned I should like to answer this question orally.
I visited the province of Alberta while on the way to my constituency in British Columbia and on my return therefrom partly on personal and partly on departmental business. My stay in Alberta was for two days, and did not entail any expense whatsoever to the dominion government.
In answer to the second question: "What business was each man there for?" I will say, For the cause of good government, and in the public interest.


Mr. HOWE:: Mr. Speaker, I was invited to go to Alberta by an old friend of mine who was Liberal candidate in Edmonton East. I am sure he is sorry he asked me. However, I went at his request, and at my own expense.


James Garfield Gardiner: I was in Alberta on two occasions during the period mentioned, but on neither occasion was any expense charged up to the government of Canada because of my visit to Alberta. I may say we have 3,000 more Liberal votes in Edmonton East than we had before.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	In what year did the province of Alberta enter into agreement with the government of the Dominion of Canada for the policing of that province by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
2.	(a) What sums of money were paid yearly by the province to the dominion government for this service; (b) what sums of money were collected yearly by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in that province and paid directly to the dominion government?
3.	What has been the total yearly strength of all ranks from the beginning of contract in the province?
4.	(a) How many of the personnel of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police presently stationed in Alberta were members of the old Alberta provincial police force; (b) what are their names, ranks and present salaries?
5.	When was the present contract between the Alberta government and the dominion signed ?
6.	How long has that contract still to run?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Return
tabled.


CAMROSE, ALTA., SUB-COLLECTOR OP CUSTOMS
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	How many applications were received by the civil service commission for the position of sub-collector of customs and excise at Camrose, Alberta, recently?
2.	What were the names, ages, addresses and qualifications of the applicants?
3.	What was the name of the successful applicant, and what previous experience did he have in this work?
4.	Is he a returned man?
5.	How many of the applicants were returned men?


PERMITS FOR EXPORT OP WAR MATERIAL
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	How many permits were issued from 1934 to date for the exportation of arms, ammunition, aircraft or other types of manufactured war materials?
2.	To what countries were these shipments sent?
3.	What was the value of each shipment?


Mr. ROGERS:: Return, tabled.


DIVORCES GRANTED BY PARLIAMENT
Mr. FOURNIER (Maisonneuve-Rose-mount):: 1.	How many divorces were granted by the parliament of Canada since 1928 inclusive?
2.	What was the average age of men?
3.	What was the average age of women?
4.	What was the average number of children issued from parents so divorced?
5.	What was the total number of children issued from such marriages?
6.	How many years, in the average, had such persons been married before they were divorced ?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	What is the present indebtedness of the Canadian National Railways, and how is it
made up?
2.	How much is still owing the Grand Trunk shareholders?
3.	What amount would it be necessary for the Canadian National Railways to earn each year in order to pay its way?
4.	What percentage of the total mail in Canada does the Canadian National Railways handle, and what is the percentage of mail carried by the Canadian National Railways between competitive points?
5.	How much of the equipment in use by the Canadian National Railways is rented, and what was the total rental paid in the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937, and on what class of equipment was this rental paid?
6.	Which company operates the radio carrier system in the east and west? If any change was made in this operation lately, why was it made? What was the amount of revenue derived from this service by the Canadian National Railways last year, and what is the expected revenue for this year?
7.	What are the salaries of the board of directors, and what were their expenses for the year 1937?
8.	What is the present capitalization of the Canadian National Railways? By how much has it been reduced, and when?

Japanese Immigration

9.	Has the pooling of passenger train services in the east been successful, and what has been the increase or decrease in revenues (between pooling points) to the Canadian National Railways since its inception?



WHEAT POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) a question. In view of the fact that the Turgeon commission report has not yet been presented to parliament, and that the present minimum price of wheat is 87i cents a bushel for the year which expires on July 31, 1938, could the government give the house any information as to its policy, or the intention of continuing its present policy for the crop year
1938-39?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I had a word this morning with Commissioner Turgeon and it is expected the report on wheat will be ready very soon-long before expiration of the present fixed price for wheat.
With regard to the policy of the government may I say that it will be decided upon and, in due course, declared.



EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) a question. Has the final report of the national employment commission been printed, and if not will it be printed soon?
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, my latest advice is that the report will be available early next week. It contains a rather voluminous appendix, the printing and translation of which have caused delay in making the report available to the house.



JAPANESE IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) asked

for the names of the personnel of the. interdepartmental committee studying the question of orientals in British Columbia.
The immigration branch is represented by Mr. F. C. Blair, chairman of the committee, and Mr. A. L. Jolliffe. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police are represented by Inspector Armitage; the statistics branch of the Department of Trade and Commerce by Doctor R. H. Coats; the Department of National Defence by Major W. H. S. Macklin; the customs branch, Department of National Revenue, by Mr. P. L. Young; the Department of Fisheries by Mr. A. J. Whitmore; the Department of Labour by Mr. R. A. Rigg and the Department of External Affairs by Doctor 0. D. Skelton and Mr. H. L. Keenley-side. Mr. Keenleyside and Mr. Whitmore are the secretaries of the committee.
The members of the board of review are, from the immigration branch, Mr. Fred W. Taylor, District Superintendent of Immigration at Vancouver, British Columbia; from the Department of Justice, Inspector G. W. Fish, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Vancouver, British Columbia, and from the Department of External Affairs, Mr. H. L. Keenleyside, Ottawa, chairman.
The Pacific coast representatives of the Departments of National Defence and National Revenue are cooperating closely with the board of review.


Mr. NEILL:: Has the minister the date of those appointments?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not here, but I can obtain them.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
Departmental administration, $425,720.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, some days
ago the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) made a request that, when the estimates for the Department of National Defence were presented for consideration by the committee of supply, there might be a statement made by the responsible minister, in the first place with reference to the general principles of the defence policy, and in the second place with reference to the question of general administration.
I would therefore ask the indulgence of the committee if in response to that request I might be permitted, as briefly as possible, in the first place to review the general funda-

Supply-National Defence
mental principles underlying the present defence policy of the Dominion of Canada; in the second place to review the purposes for which the votes given last year were expended, and in the third place to make an analysis of the estimates for 1938-39. May . I say at once that I regret that the hon. gentleman who made the request is prevented through an indisposition from being here this afternoon. He will, however, be granted every facility in the way of general discussion on a future occasion.
In reviewing the evolution of the defence policy of Canada it might be important to examine, not for any authoritative purposes but purely from the historical point of view, some of the declarations made at former imperial conferences. We might review also the declarations of policy which were made in this House of Commons in 1936 and 1937 and refer briefly to some of the findings of the imperial conference of 1937 in connection with national defence.
It might be worth recalling that a resolution was passed in 1923, reaffirmed by the conference of 1926, which ended with this important declaration:
The primary responsibility of each portion of the empire is for its own local defence.
The conference of 1926 was responsible for the famous Balfour formula with reference to Canadian status. In connection with the matter of foreign relations, which is closely connected with the question of national defence, may I quote the resolution passed in 1926:
It was frankly recognized that in this sphere, as in the sphere of defence, the major share of responsibility rests now and must for some time rest with His Majesty's government in Great Britain. Nevertheless all the dominions engaged to some extent, and some to considerable extent, in the conduct of foreign relations, particularly those with foreign countries on their borders. . . . The governing consideration underlying all discussions of this problem must be that neither Great Britain nor the dominions could be committed to the acceptance of active obligations except with the definite assent of their own governments.
In historical retrospect I think I can safely deduce that the following principles emerged from these imperial conferences:
First, that each self-governing portion of the empire is primarily responsible for its own local defence. Second, that the security of the empire is a matter of concern to all its governments. Third, that military action taken at any time, in peace or war, is a matter for individual decision on the part of each empire government.
It might be interesting to recall the resolution passed by the chiefs of staff of the subcommittee on imperial defence in 1923-I quote:
His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom is mainly responsible for the security of the communications between the several parts, of the commonwealth.
And also:
Each of the several dominions is responsible-for protecting its territory and coastal trade against aggression until support comes from the outside.
Between 1926 and 1936 there was no pronouncement of major importance with reference to the question of national defence. May I just emphasize the fact that the pronouncements made by the imperial conferences of 1923 and 1926, after the promulgation of the Balfour formula in 1926, are practically synonymous with the pronouncements made under the new Canadian status acquired since 1926; in other words, the aspects of national defence and the defence of Canada have been emphasized. Speaking in this house on February 12, 1936, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had this to say:
While declarations on behalf of Canada on the subject of the defence of Canada have been made at various imperial conferences, as may be seen from the results thereof published from time to time, I am not aware of any commitments made on behalf of Canada with regard to imperial defence. At such conferences it has been expressly recognized that it is for the parliament of the several parts of the British commonwealth of nations, upon the-recommendation of their respective governments, to decide upon their course.
Then on March 10, 1936, the Prime Minister had this to say:
I should add that we have made clear at various conferences that any action in the-nature of military obligations of any sort would be entered into by the government of the day only after such had been recommended to parliament by the government and approved by parliament itself.
May I be permitted to refer again to the debate that took place in this house on February 19, 1937, when the general principles with reference to our defence policies were laid down very carefully by the Prime Minister. I do not intend to refer in detail to the remarks he made at that time, but I should! like to put the following on the record:
When some of us to protect ourselves and our country against the forces of blood and of death ask parliament to vote money for purposes of defence, that we may continue to further the law of peace and work and health we are told that we are preparing for and promoting war. We are doing nothing of the kind. We are trying to make the national
Supply-National Defence

position secure to enable the law of peace, work and health to prevail and progress. This we believe is only possible as we keep at bay those forces that are making for death and destruction.
And again:
By all means, let us make the most of our friendship with the United States. _ By all means, let us make the most of our friendship and kinship with Great Britain and with every other part of the British empire. By all means let us continue to be friends with every other nation, because in that direction, more perhaps than in any other, security lies. But let us realize that unless we do something to help ourselves these countries cannot be expected to help at a time of world crisis, or great peril. It is not contended that that danger is great for us. There is a danger but so far as Canada is concerned, it is, as I have already pointed out, an incidental contingency. Relatively our danger is small. Another great war, however, might lead to exposure to dangers, which might be great indeed.
May I be permitted to quote shortly from what I said on February 15, 1937:
National security, national defence, the *direct defence of Canada, of our coastal areas, *our ports, our shipping terminals, our territorial waters, the focal areas of our trade routes adjacent to our harbour mouths-these *are the matters dealt with in these_ estimates. May I tell my hon. friend there is no new defence policy embodied in these estimates. There is no new policy here at all. These estimates represent only an honest attempt by those who for the time being are charged with responsibility for the national wellbeing, to see to it that we have something effective and efficient for the purposes of direct defence of Canada or for defending our neutrality should it be assailed by anyone outside.
During the course of that discussion there [DOT]was in progress throughout Canada a comprehensive review from various angles of thought of the necessities of the defence policy. May I be permitted to submit to the committee this afternoon, without either comment or criticism, the various expressions of opinion that were in evidence throughout Canada during the debate in the house last year. I think it is safe to say that there were five schools of thought at that time in the dominion.
In the first place, there was what might be called the imperialistic school, which regarded Canada as an integral part of the British commonwealth, bound to support every other member of the commonwealth with military action and bound to accept the foreign policy of the United Kingdom government, Whether that policy was arrived at independently or through consultation. The slogan of that school probably was: When Britain is at war Canada is at war and is bound to throw her whole weight into the conflict.

The second school of thought was the isolationist or nationalist or North American, which held that Canada's geographical position and economic interest required that she dissociate herself from responsibility for troubles in other parts of the world, especially Great Britain's European complications and her imperial commitments in Africa, the far east, et cetera. In wars arising from such situations, according to this school, Canada would not participate.
The third group, in my judgment, at that time consisted of league collectivists, who would have Canada participate in international obligations for peace. Some of these would go so far as to have Canada participate in military sanctions. Others would not, especially if the hostilities were remote from Canada.
The fourth group, a very minor group, were the North American collectivists, who would have Canada join the Pan-American Union as a league of nations for the western hemisphere and unite with all other American nations in taking only so much interest in European and Asiatic affairs as might be consistent with purely American interests.
The fifth and I think largest group might be termed the moderate or the middle group, believing in no automatic commitments either for military action or for neutrality. These would join with Great Britain or with the league in war for a principle or for the safety of the liberty of the world if convinced that that liberty was seriously threatened. But they refuse to imperil Canadian unity by accepting in advance either one of the two following propositions: first, that when Great Britain is at war Canada must automatically go to her support with all her resources; or secondly, that when the league orders sanctions, Canada is bound to take action.
This I think is by far the largest group of Canadian public opinion; it was last year and I believe is this year, and the formula is that parliament, representing the public opinion and the public sentiments of the Dominion of Canada, must decide on every occasion as these issues arise. With reference to that sentiment the following declaration was made:
In practice this will not mean a rigid policy expressing itself in automatic action or inaction as trouble arises, but a policy in keeping with conditions and circumstances. In so far as we come to parliament with an expression of our opinion we will give it to parliament from the point of view that a certain course should be taken because, having regard to all the circumstances existing at the time, we believe it to be in Canada's interests it should be taken.


Mr. STIRLING:: Whose statement is that?

Supply-National Defence


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the Prime Minister of Canada speaking.
Having had the benefit of what was a very evident clarification of the issues surrounding public sentiment regarding the defence policy for Canada both in this house and in journals outside, ministers representing the government of Canada, the Prime Minister and four of his colleagues, were privileged to take part in that great imperial conference of 1937. To conclude the continuity of quotation with reference to the evolution of the present defence policy of Canada, based not upon any historic conference but upon the realization by those responsible for government in this country of the necessities of Canada at the present time, may I put on the record one or two short quotations from the findings of the imperial conference of 1937. But may I be permitted, first of all, to make this declaration, that every single minister who represented Canada at that imperial conference in 1937 was bound regarding declarations made there with reference to national defence or foreign policy, by the declarations made to this parliament during the debates last year, and no pronouncement of any kind was made during those discussions of the imperial conference except along lines similar to the pronouncements made in this house a year ago.
Referring to defence, the official findings of the imperial conference have these words:
The conference gave close attention to the subject of defence, and considered ways in which it would be possible for the governments concerned to cooperate in measures for their own security. The occasion was taken for a detailed review of the state of defence in each of the countries represented at the conference and this opportunity was generally welcomed. . . .
The members of the conference noted with deep concern that since the session of 1930, international tension had increased in a marked degree, and that there had been a large and rapid increase in the armaments of all the principal powers. They were impressed by the world-wide effect of these increased armaments on the international situation and on the financial and economic position of the nations concerned, and while their respective parliaments had already recognized the necessity for taking measures to put their defences in order, they thought it of the highest importance that negotiations for the limitation of armaments should be reopened whenever there was a reasonable prospect of success. They recognized with regret that . . . international conditions were not at the moment favourable to further progress in the direction of disarmament.
And this final quotation from the findings of the imperial conference:
In the course of the discussions, the conference found general agreement among its members that the security of each of their
countries can be increased by cooperation in such matters as the free interchange of information concerning the state of their naval, military and air forces, the continuance of the arrangements already initiated by some of them for concerting the scale of the defences of ports, and measures for cooperation in the defence of communications and other common interests.
Then this vitally important paragraph:
At the same time the conference recognized that it is the sole responsibility of the several parliaments of the British commonwealth to decide the nature and scope of their own defence policy.
This is very important-the conference recognized that it is the sole responsibility of each parliament of the commonwealth to decide the nature and scape of its own defence policy. That is all I intend to say, Mr. Chairman, with reference to the historical continuity of the evolution of what is to-day the defence policy of Canada.
Now I come very briefly to review the activities consequent upon the expenditures authorized by parliament in 1937. The main estimates voted last year were, roughly speaking, $36,000,000. The purposes for which these were asked were described in parliament in great detail in the debate to which I have alluded. May I say immediately that substantial progress has been achieved through the year in carrying out the program which was then described. Additional equipment, supplies, structures and premises have been acquired, and part of the increased vote went for pay and allowances and maintenance of an increased personnel in the naval and air services. Increased training for the militia was also provided.
Speaking directly of the naval service, there was last year for pay and allowances an increase of $358,000. partly accounted for by the pay and allowances of an increased complement of 13 officers and 360 ratings, as the new destroyers that were purchased last year from Great Britain required a greater complement than the old destroyers, which were demilitarized. The personnel also of the new mine-sweeeprs now under construction had to be trained. The net increase in the complement of the naval services was 345, including ten officers. The complement of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve was increased from 875 ratings to 1,017 ratings.
In regard to stores and allowances, amongst the items acquired were naval guns and mountings; torpedoes; ammunition for guns, including service and practice outfits; antisubmarine defences for Esquimalt and Halifax; mine-sweeping outfits, and anti-submar* ine equipment of various kinds for ships.
Supply-National Defence

Four new mine-sweepers are now under construction, and they can be discussed in detail when we come to the items that concern them.
With reference to the militia services item, there was an increase of $3,372,000. The chief purposes of these increases were as follows: to provide better training for the nonpermanent militia; to provide for preliminary work on new coast defence fortifications, chiefly on the Pacific coast; to add to the supply of ammunition and technical equipment, and for the construction of new buildings and works required for the activities of the several services.
Coming to the non-permanent active militia, there was an increase there of $220,000, nine-tenths of which was applied to improving the training efficiency of the non-permanent forces. To give details: Fortress and antiaircraft troops were given nine days' extra training; infantry troops were given two days' extra training, and the minimum of five days in camp for all cavalry and infantry units was reintroduced after some years. This meant an increased cost of $132,000. Other increases were occasioned by the tactical training of officers, the numbers attending the militia staff courses, and qualifying courses for personnel of units converted by reorganization.
Coming to the permanent force increase of $168,000, an increase of about three per cent, this is accounted for in part by increase in personnel of 22 officers and 173 other ranks. This was somewhat offset because 9 officers and 80 other ranks who were on the strength of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals were previously included in the estimates for civil aviation and are now transferred to the Department of National Defence. There was an increase in the ration allowance from 26-17 cents to 29-90 cents, accounting for a total sum of $40,000. For concentrated training the units of the Royal Canadian Dragoons, the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and two companies of the Royal Canadian Regiment were brought together for the first time in years for training in larger. formations.
With reference to construction, there was an increase last year of $188,000. This was devoted to normal maintenance, to coast defence works, to new constuction of $1,000,000, and revotes on the year previous. Four new projects on the Pacific coast were undertaken with the amount of $895,000 allocated for coast defence works. The four important projects were: Albert Head, estimated to cost about $557,000; Fort Macaulay reconstruction, about $30,000; York Island Battery, about

$125,000; and Stanley Park Battery, about $182,000. Construction works were also carried out at Barriefield (Kingston), Esquimalt, Ottawa, Halifax and Dartmouth, St. Johns, Kamloops, Yalcartier, Trenton, Montreal, Hamilton, Quebec, and on the various camps of Petawawa, Shilo, and Currie Barracks, Calgary; at Winnipeg and at London, Ontario.
In regard to general stores, there was an increase of nearly $3,000,000. This was for the increase of the stores of ammunition and to obtain new and modern equipment necessary for the mechanization of the militia as decided upon in last year's reorganization.
Under direction of the Master General of the Ordnance with the cooperation of the navy, army and air force supply committee, a survey has been made of certain industrial undertakings in Canada with reference to their capacity for manufacturing requirements of the department. They have surveyed now over 700 'firms in the dominion, and very soon, I believe, that work will be practically finished and a complete classification will be made in the department.
In regard to general stores, orders for ammunition for coast and mobile artillery were placed and a beginning was made in the establishment of a small domestic shell making industry; the productive capacity of the dominion arsenal at Quebec was increased; and orders have been placed for a limited amount of modern technical equipment, chiefly for instructional purposes at central schools and for mechanical transport for the permanent force.
The increase of approximately $3,000,000 was largely utilized in connection with the following major items: To complete payment on equipment ordered in 1936-37 and not delivered until 1937-38; for the acquisition of trucks and adapters to convert gun carriages for use with mechanized transport and otherwise in connection with the development of mechanized artillery and other equipment; for two light tanks and other training equipment for the training of newly established tank battalions; for four anti-tank guns and seven anti-tank rifles with ammunition; for coast defence armament; for coast defence ammunition; for field gun ammunition; for an inspection building at Quebec arsenal, and signal equipment; for operations of the navy, army and air supply committee and its functions in the matter of inspecting stores, arms and ammunition; for the operation of the dominion arsenal at Quebec for the production of small arm ammunition, due to the greater production, which is greater than last year by

Supply-National Defence
$198,000; and finally, for anti-gas respirators and other camp and barrack equipment.
With reference to the air services, there was an increase last year, as hon. members will recall, of $6,706,000. The authorized strength of the Royal Canadian Air Force was increased from 1,080 to 1,730, an increase of 650. The expansion during the last year was mainly concentrated on the completing Of existing units rather than on the increasing of the number of units. Three new training schools were established-a wireless school, an equipment training school, and a technical training school. Individual training was given to 643 persons, including 40 militia officers and 11 members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
As regards flying time, individual training occupied 5,435 hours, unit training 5,200 hours, operations 4,285 hours, and civil government air operations 1,731 hours.
In regard to stores and equipment, as hon. members will recall, last year's estimates made provision for the acquisition of 102 aircraft, including the 5 Stranraer flying boats ordered in 1936-37. In addition 137 engines were ordered, 38 with the aircraft and 99 ordered separately. A substantial increase has been made in the reserve of bombs and ammunition; and parachute equipment acquired in addition to replacements constitutes mobilization equipment for eight squadrons.
With reference to construction, there was an increase over the previous year of $1,742,000. These moneys were spent largely at Trenton and Vancouver. At Vancouver the year's expenditure was approximately $625,000 for the barrack block, the completion of two hangars, and a bombing range. A site for an advanced air base on Queen Charlotte islands has been acquired at Aliford Bay at a cost of $13,840, and magazines for stores have been established on the Pacific coast at Esqui-malt and Kamloops. In Nova Scotia an expenditure of $335,000 was undertaken last year. The development of the Yarmouth aerodrome absorbed $245,000 for the purchase, of land, clearing and grading. At Dartmouth $86,000 has been spent on the purchase of land and clearance. At Dartmouth seaplane station $55,000 has been spent, chiefly on the completion of a workshop and boiler house, but including paving and grading work. By the end of the fiscal year, it is expected, sites will have been acquired at Sydney and Truro and a floating dock at Dartmouth seaplane station contracted for. These three items will aggregate approximately $46,000. Developments have also taken place at Rock-cliffe, near Ottawa.
With regard to non-permanent Royal Canadian Air Force personnel, units have been formed at various centres throughout Canada, namely at Toronto, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal (two squadrons), Hamilton and Regina, and formation of squadrons at Calgary and Quebec is under way. In certain places the program has been somewhat delayed by the lack of proper training accommodation. The authorized expansion for the non-permanent Royal Canadian Air Force was from 97 officers and 666 other ranks to 118 offices, and 946 other ranks.
As regards the training of the Royal Canadian Air Force non-permanent section: Seven squadrons carried out unit training, four units attended fourteen days annual summer training camp, seven non-permanent officers attended the initial armament course at Trenton, and the Winnipeg squadron carried out a small amount of army cooperation with the militia. The flying time for the nonpermanent units was 5,360 hours. As regards stores and equipment, orders were placed last year for eleven new aircraft for the nonpermanent air force. Small sums for construction were expended at Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Regina.
This brings me to the last division of air operations in Canada, namely civil government air operations. The decrease last year in the vote was $153,987. Four aircraft were delivered in 1937 and four additional planes have been ordered out of the funds of the current year. The program of operations is supervised by the interdepartmental committee on air surveys and base maps. Last year eight aircraft were used on photography, with additional planes transporting supplies between bases in the Northwest Territories and northern Ontario. Two were operated in northern Ontario and Quebec, two in British Columbia, and four in the Northwest Territories, the total flying hours being 1,731; and all these were equipped with wireless, at a cost of $16,000, the total cost of photographic service being $100,000.
That brings me up to the estimates now before the committee, the estimates for 1938-39. Let me say at once that the purpose of these estimates is to continue work that was commenced last year, and within the same definite limitations announced to this house a year ago: in the first place, for the preservation of Canadian neutrality; in the second place for the defence of our Canadian coast line, the defence of our ports and terminals, and the defence of the focal areas of our trade routes in case of necessity. A certain amount of priority has been established after deliberation: first for the air services; secondly,
Supply-National Defence

for naval defence; and thirdly, in regard to the repairing of deficiencies in equipment of militia services, permanent and non-permanent. During the coming year it is proposed to acquire two new destroyers; seventy-five new aircraft, fifty-five for the permanent force and twenty for the non-permanent; additional weapons and munitions and other equipment for all three services. It is proposed to increase the training of the militia forces and to construct the second stage of the fortification works on the Pacific coast, for the first stage of which, authority was received from parliament over a year ago.
There is a total reduction in the vote from last year of $2,000,007. The number of aircraft has been reduced from 102 to 75, accounting for part of the reduction. The building construction program of last year is fairly well advanced to completion, accounting for another part of the reduction. Difficulty has been experienced with reference to obtaining deliveries, and that has accounted for another part of the reduction. There is an increase in the naval service of $1,938,311. This is to provide for the purchase of two destroyers from England, exactly of the same type, the same class as the two we obtained last year. Of the total, four will be stationed on the Pacific coast and two on the Atlantic. This is in pursuance of a definite statement made to the house last year, that the government was disposed to give priority to considerations affecting our problems on the Pacific.
The increase in the Royal Canadian Navy personnel will be as follows: As a result of these two new vessels the establishment will be increased by two officers and 240 ratings. The new establishment will then consist of 119 officers and 1,462 ratings; and the establishment of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve is to be increased from 77 officers and 1,015 ratings to 123 officers and 1,344 ratings. The total increase in all ranks is 375.
May I refer in passing to the resolution put upon the order paper by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) with reference to the establishment of a fishermen's reserve as part of the Royal Canadian Naval reserve. In my opinion the resolution was a very timely one indeed, and had it been reached on the order paper the government would have been pleased to accept it. As a matter of fact, two months before this session convened instructions were given to one of our most distinguished naval officers in Canada, who received the Victoria Cross at Zeebrugge,

to undertake an investigation of the possibility of establishing a fishermen's reserve on the Pacific coast; and once that is done it will be followed by the establishment of a similar reserve on the Atlantic. I am glad to say, therefore, to my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni that his resolution has already been acted upon and will be followed by the department in connection with the naval services.
The reduction in air services this year in the estimates before the committee is $1,017,000, but that is occasioned by a reduction in the number of planes to be obtained. This will be accompanied, of course, in the air services, by an increase in personnel from 1,590 to 2,070. This new establishment of the air forces will now comprise 247 officers and 1,823 other ranks. The establishment of the air force will be increased from 103 to 144 permanent force and instructional staff and from 1,064 to 1,312 non-permanent personnel. So that you may envision the exact situation with reference to our air forces in Canada, I may say that after the purpose of these estimates is carried out it will provide for the partial organization and development of two additional squadrons, making ten in all. The nonpermanent air force has at present nine squadrons in various stages of development, and this year's estimates authorize the initial organization of three more, making twelve in all. Thus, by the end of the year Canada will have in being, ten permanent force squadrons, and twelve non-permanent force squadrons, or a total of twenty-two air squadrons, although these will not by that time be fully equipped and manned. It will be seen, therefore, that we are approaching very closely to the objective indicated in the debate a year ago of twenty-three squadrons, eleven permanent and twelve non-permanent. With the completion of this year's orders the department will have 102 modern service aircraft, partial equipment for ten squadrons of the permanent air force; 62 training aircraft for the new personnel of the permanent air force; and 60 training craft of various types to meet the requirements of ab initio, advanced and service training for the twelve nonpermanent squadrons. Work will be carried out this year on the development of aerodromes and air bases as follows: On the Pacific coast-Aliford bay, Queen Charlotte islands; Patricia bay near Victoria; and Prince Rupert. On the Atlantic coast-Dartmouth, Yarmouth, Truro, and Sydney.
Substantial additions will also be made to the reserves of service ammunition for the air force during the year. The new magazine in the interior of British Columbia will be completed and a magazine near the Atlantic coast will be provided.

Supply-National Defence
Let me now say just one word with reference to the functions of the air force in connection with the government's program. A well equipped and efficient air force is, in my opinion, of primary importance for the protection of Canadian territory and waters, and in view of the rapidly increasing performance of modern aircraft the possibility of attack by such means is to-day a probability. Apart from its value as a highly mobile striking force capable of rapid concentration at any point in Canada, it is alsq required to assist the other services in their particular role of defence: in the first place, independent air action against enemy aircraft and bases, and air action in conjunction with ground antiaircraft defences of important localities; in the second place cooperation with naval forces in the protection of trade routes and focal points of shipping; and thirdly, cooperation with the militia by observation of coast artillery fire and assistance in the suppression of enemy landings and raids.
With reference to the militia services, in the present estimates there is a reduction of $2,733,216, accounted for by the fact that deliveries cannot be made and the amount is regarded as fairly reasonable. In regard to the non-permanent militia, provision is made for an additional day's training and for more camp training instead of training at headquarters. In regard to the permanent militia, provision has been made for increased training and allowances, has also been made for the increased costs of rations and fuel. In regard to fortifications, $1,000,000 has been allotted for the fortifications on the Pacific coast. Last year the amount was $895,000. In regard to general stores, provision is being made for the acquisition of coast defence guns and mountings, fire control equipment and communications; anti-aircraft guns and mountings; machine guns, mortars and anti-tank weapons and field battery headquarters equipment; searchlights, both mobile and fixed; mechanical transports, includings tanks, and ammunition. It is anticipated that delivery cannot be obtained during the coming year of all the equipment which is to be ordered, and the funds provided in these estimates will cover the extent to which deliveries are anticipated during the year.
With reference to militia services there has been carried out by the department what is known as an interim plan of armaments for both coasts. This is a result of the fact that heavy ordnance cannot be acquired from British concerns for a period of about three years. But interim plans have been carefully prepared, in collaboration with an expert adviser, and these estimates are to provide in
part for the completion of these interim plans. As I have said, these plans have priority on the Pacific coast, but eventually they will apply to the Atlantic coast as well. In regard to the survey that was made last year, that has been concluded on both coasts, and a complete plan is available in the department with reference to the defence of both coasts of the Dominion of Canada.
The next consideration, therefore, is this: Having analysed the general principle of defence policy; having explained what was done with the money voted last year; having made a brief review of the estimates for this year, what are the actual problems before a general staff with reference to the defence of Canada? In the first place, what are the possible dangers, and in the second place what are the objectives of the department, in preparing plans to meet them? Some of our critics might say that these estimates are inadequate. Others might say that possibly they will involve commitments. Others might say that any policy of military preparedness is a contribution to the international armaments race. With reference to commitments may I say that none exist. With reference to the adequacy of the estimates may I say that they are carefully prepared to meet the situations supposed to be those with which we might be confronted. In regard to the militaristic point of view, I think every member of this government and every member of this house would be very glad indeed if these moneys did not have to be spent on national defence at this time. But we must meet the conditions in which we live. These are most disturbing times, with the international situation full of tremendous possibilities of danger and disaster, and we owe it to our people, we owe it to our duty towards the security of Canada, to do something reasonable and rational to protect our people and our country.
The purpose of the armed forces of any country I think may be threefold: In the first place, to support peace time diplomacy; in the second place to provide a deterrent to aggressive nations; and in the third place in case of hostilities to be used after the methods of diplomacy have failed. The interests to be defended by arms, if that regrettable necessity should arise in Canada, are first of all the protection of our Canadian territory, and in these estimates, Mr. Chairman, there is not the slightest suggestion of aggression or of menace against any person or any country in the whole world. They are all based upon What is reasonably assumed to be necessary for the defence of our Canadian territory, and
Supply-National Defence

I feel sure that everyone, not only in this House of Commons but throughout Canada, if the need should ever arise is prepared in the ultimate issue to defend the homes and institutions of our people in this dominion. I feel that is a reasonable assumption. Then we have the defence of those institutions of learning, the cultural institutions and the great bequests of justice and freedom which are ours, despite economic strife in this country. As someone has said in regard to the essential requirements of the defence of Canada, patriotism and pacifism are combined in a positive form and a positive faith. The second necessity would toe in regard to our foreign trade. We are an exporting and importing nation. We produce tremendous quantities of food supplies, and in case of an emergency between two belligerents that would bring its own economic consequences. Therefore Canada must be ready to preserve her neutrality and to defend herself against raids from any quarter.
In regard to the exact position of Canada it is only fair to say that to-day the main deterrent against a major attack upon this country by a European power is the existence of the British fleet in north Atlantic waters. An attack on Canada's overseas trade at the most congested points on our coasts in the opinion of those most competent to observe and advise would be limited to minor raiding forces. Just as the British navy on the Atlantic is our greatest security in that quarter so I think it might be reasonable to assume that in a major conflagration we should have friendly fleets upon the Pacific ocean, and the severity of raids upon our western seaboard would be limited toy the strength and the position of these friendly fleets. Our major defensive buffer on the Pacific coast is not the Pacific ocean alone but the existence there of friendly fleets. There is no commitment or understanding in regard to these matters, but at this time I think reasonable assumptions are justifiable.
Now, sir, in regard to the scale of attacks upon Canadian territory or Canadian ports or terminals, these are considered by the experts who are supposed to be qualified to offer advice to be, in the first place, minor attacks by combined sea, land and air forces, to destroy something of strategic or commercial value, or to secure an advanced base of operations, and this applies to coasts, to focal sea areas and to the preservation of Canadian neutrality; in the second place, sporadic hit and run raids by light cruisers or submarines to destroy our main ports and focal sea areas. If that be the situation; if that is a 
correct description of potential dangers, then what are the defensive requirements needed in Canada to meet them? In the first place, for the defence of our focal sea areas we require sea and air forces capable of finding and destroying hostile service craft, submarine or aircraft raiders, and this requires aircraft and naval strength. That is why the small naval force of Canada is being increased by two destroyers at the present time. A slight increase in our naval forces is vital and essential, in cooperation with air and militia services, for the preservation of our neutrality, and the defence of our focal areas, our trade routes, our terminals and our ports. Secondly, for the defence of our main ports we have the anti-aircraft defences, army cooperation aircraft, fighting aircraft and ground troups. For the preservation of our neutrality it is considered that the requirements are a constant patrol of the coastal areas by auxiliary services, aircraft and bombing craft, and troops.
May I, therefore, summarize the situation in regard to defence policy. The task of a defence policy in Canada to-day is, first, to decide on the broad defensive requirements necessary to give effective protection to national interests which if necessary should be protected by force of arms; second, to define the individual and collective functions of each part of the broad defensive organization; third, to decide on the organization, strength, composition, equipment and distribution of the sea, land and air forces as demanded by their individual and collective tasks; fourth, to permit of effective organization, to control, coordinate and provide for not only the activities of the three fighting services in peace and war but of the whole national effort in war, and fifth, to provide the funds necessary to give effect to the requirements, I have just stated.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I say this: I have endeavoured to review Canada's defence policy up to the conclusion of the imperial conference of 1937. I have analysed the estimates of 1937-38 and the purposes behind the estimates of 1938-39. I have endeavoured to deal with the actual necessities confronting Canada, and the requirements of defence to meet these potential perils.
When, sir, as we do now, we contemplate the broad principles of Canadian defence, and endeavour to define with some particularity the responsibilities that rest with governments; when, as now, we are confronted with very grave international problems which at any moment may explode against the ordered progress of our national life in the Dominion of Canada; when we realize that the greatest necessity in Canada in regard to defence and

Supply-National Defence
other policies is the unity of our Canadian people; when we realize that no policy having regard either to national defence or to foreign affairs which does violence to Canadian unity is of very great value either to us in Canada or to others outside; when we witness the apparently inevitable divisions of modern nations into the friends of freedom and the friends of force; when the nations of democracy seem to be driven to the defence of their ideals against the nations of the dictators-if the clash is inevitable, and if the clash must come; if the cherished liberties of our civilization are imperilled, then it is that perhaps Canada, seeking to preserve national unity, must look back to the beginnings of her history, must assess the great treasure of culture that came from old France and the institution of ordered government that came from Great Britain; must realize how much the union of the great national legacies meant to the early days of settlement and of government, and also looking to the newer land to the south, consolidated through a valiant insistence upon the tradition of freedom; must be prepared, for the preservation of the best there is in these three nations and the best' there is within her own boundaries-the best there is in democracy itself

to take her stand, if need be, against brute force and might and ruthlessness, and, if need be, for high purposes to endure sore travail.
We are a free people. We are very free, but we are still subject in this Canadian land to old kinships, old sentiments and very old loyalties. We, all of us in this country, love peace. We hate and despise war. Governments with great sincerity proclaim policies and pronounce dogmas, but no matter what the dictates of government may be, the people and the opinion of the people always decide the ultimate issues.
In my judgment, Canada is definitely opposed to extraneous commitments of any kind and to any type of extraneous entanglements. But public opinion in Canada to-day is in favour of a rational policy composed of reasonable measures for the defence of Canada. And public opinion in Canada, the opinion of the people, regardless of the action or inaction of any government, in the final analysis will decide the issues which may arise in the future.
All we can do, then, in this house at the present time, in the consideration of these estimates, is, in the spirit of that old Greek sailor mentioned by Seneca, in the spirit of real unity, to do the best we can:
O Lord; you may sink me, if you will; you may save me, if you will; but at least I will keep my rudder true.


Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauhamois-Laprairie) (Translation):: The armament estimates provide the members of the house this year as last, with an opportunity to state their views on the question of national defence. I intend to deal with the subject, as I did on a former occasion, without regard to sentimental or ideological considerations, but in the light of facts and from the sole standpoint of Canada's best interests.
May I begin by briefly recalling the circumstances which attended the voting of the defence appropriations for the last fiscal year?
The consideration of last year's estimates was preceded by an educational campaign which assumed various forms; for weeks and months we were the object of a sustained effort designed to develop in this country an imperialistic sentiment. The London Times went so far as to hint that the dominions would assume part of the cost of British rearmament. The combination of war preparations in Europe and increased military appropriations in Canada afforded some reason for doubt, to say the least, particularly on the eve of an imperial conference.
In view of our geographical position and the international situation, existing at that time, all causes of conflict having apparently disappeared-the conquest of Ethiopia having become an accomplished and accepted fact; Germany having, by scrapping the Treaty of Versailles and reoccupying the Rhine demilitarized zone, satisfied its pride; Japan giving no cause for uneasiness; and the gentleman's agreement concluded between Great Britain and Italy on January 2, 1937, having apparently settled the difficulties which had arisen in connection with Spain and the Mediterranean-I could not see at that time any danger of attack justifying an increase which seemed to me disproportionate to our needs and our means.
I asked for particulars and guarantees, but those I received did not seem to me to be sufficient.
Nevertheless, though refusing my support, I stated my readiness to vote any amount required to ensure the defence of Canada, but in Canada only. I asserted my opposition to any participation in a foreign war and to any preparations for such a purpose.
We were told that the appropriation was solely for the defence of Canada. But when I asked the Minister of National Defence where our first line of defence was, I obtained no definite reply carrying any reassurance, but rather an evasive answer tending to inspire if not fear, at least serious doubt, for the
Supply-National Defence

dispelling of which not a single statement issued from the government before the vote was taken.
Such were the circumstances of my refusal to vote for the increased appropriation. My opposition, mark you well, was based not so much on the expenditure involved as on the fear that it was intended for war outside of Canada.
Has there occurred any change in the situation since then, either in Canada or elsewhere?
In the months of May and June last, there was held in London an imperial conference at which defence was the chief subject of discussion. Despite the appeals of those who wished to involve Canada in a policy of imperial defence, our delegates showed a most commendable attitude.
The Summary of Proceedings states that the Conference recognized that:
it is the sole responsibility of the several parliaments of the British commonwealth to decide the nature and scope of their own defence policy.
and that:
the increased programs of armaments were no more than sufficient for the defence of their (that is, the countries represented) territories and trade and the fulfilment of such obligations as each might have assumed.
Then the Prime Minister, in a speech he delivered on his return from the Conference, spoke as follows:
Canada made no agreement to participate in any _ military campaign undertaken by the empire or the League of Nations.
These definite statements show the truly Canadian attitude adopted by our ministers. They serve, Mr. Chairman, to dispel the apprehensions raised by the increased appropriations of last year.
Here is another important fact. Last October a highly-placed man made the following remark:
Canada is a sovereign nation and a Canadian's first duty is not to the British commonwealth but to Canada.
Then came the Lotbiniere and St. Henry elections.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere reminded the House of the statements made throughout the campaign, in which the Minister of Justice and the Minister of National Health took part. He said:
My friends and I stated at every public meeting that we were in favour of defending our country, that we believed that our first line of defence was now in Canada, but that we were against spending one cent to arm or equip an expeditionary force-in short that we did not intend to take part in any foreign war.

The same language was used in St. Henry where the Minister of Public Works and the Secretary of State asserted their opposition to joining in any foreign war and stated that not one cent of the 1937 appropriation had gone into preparations for war outside of Canada.
The Minister of National Defence, called upon for a statement, affirmed that- the estimates contained no appropriation for an expeditionary force, but provided only for the defence of Canada against those who might attack us or violated our neutrality.
And on January 21st last the Minister of Justice said to the delegates of the Federation of National Catholic Unions:
I notice that your brief contains this sentence:	The Federation of National Catholic
Unions is against Canada's participating in any foreign war. Such is also my view of the matter.
Finally, the estimates for the coming fiscal year show a reduction of $4,551,401 in the contested items.
All these facts, Mr. Chairman, tend to set our minds at rest regarding the aims of the government's defence policy.
I now come to the international field. The situation abroad, dominated by the armaments race, is far from reassuring. Fortunately Canada does not appear to be taking part in the race with any hope of winning, as she has diminished her appropriations while other countries have considerably increased theirs.
Let us examine the sequence of events.
Italy which, since the Ethiopian conquest, one would ibe inclined to class among the satisfied nations, is becoming more and more threatening; she asks her people for guns instead of bread.
Germany wants colonies and wants to obtain them by force rather than by compromise. "Less and less butter and more and more guns," was the statement recently made by a minister of the Reich. Germany seeks to extend her influence wherever there are Germans.
Japan, which we thought happy since her conquest of Manchuria, has developed a still greater desire to expand. One wonders where she will stop.
Nations no longer consider themselves bound by treaties. They adhere to them only so long as it serves their interest to do so.
These three great nations do not hesitate to say that they place their reliance on force and antagonism. They have made an agreement known as the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis. Though threatened by no one, all three consent to the greatest sacrifices in order madly

Supply-National Defence
to arm themselves by day and by night. For what purpose? Not to defend themselves, for no one thinks of attacking them.
So we see small, peace-minded countries of Europe, like Sweden, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland and others increase their armaments in order to defend their territory, to defend their neutrality.
Let us look further into the matter. What is Italy's present policy? Though no one is disputing her colonial empire, she is increasing her fighting capacity, despite her poverty.
Notwithstanding the gentleman's agreement which she signed with England on January 2, 1937, she continued her intervention in Spain not for the purpose of obtaining foodstuffs to improve the condition of her people, but in order to obtain raw materials needed for war. She has designs on all sides-in Spain, in Africa, in Egypt and elsewhere.
She is maintaining three armies outside of her home territory: one in Ethiopia, one in Lybia and a third in Spain, which are exhausting her resources. With an army, a navy and an air force whose needs are constantly increasing, she is practically devoid of coal and oil.
While claiming that her conquest of Ethiopia was dictated by vital necessity, her actions show that her policy is a policy of aggression and that she cherishes designs of conquest and domination.
The statements uttered by Mussolini at the beginning of the year regarding the laying down of further units do not indicate any slackening in that respect.
Germany's policy is still more alarming. Having torn up the Treaty of Versailles, of which only the territorial clauses and the dispossession of her colonies are left, having freed herself from all the restrictions imposed upon her national sovereignty, having provided herself with a formidable army equipped with modernized artillery, and an air force daily becoming more powerful, she intends reconquering her colonial empire, with the aid of Mussolini, whose visit to Berlin in September last has consolidated the alliance of the Italian and German peoples.
On November 20, 1937, Hitler said:
Within six years, Germany shall have reconquered her colonies.
On December 10, Mr. Goebbels declared:
Naturally, the four-year plan is also intended for war.
On December 12 when Mussolini announced Italy's resignation from the League of Nations he said, with a flourish of his sword:
On land, on sea and in the air, our arms are numerous and sharp.
And Hitler, in his speech of February 20, spoke as follows:
Year after year Germany will insist more and more on the return of its former colonies of which she was deprived by nations who have no use for them, while for us they are indispensable.
The return of the colonies remains one of the articles of the program which Hitler and Mussolini are together seeking to carry out.
Encouraged toy the success of her foreign policy, strengthened by her military revival, Germany has been demanding with ever-increasing insistence the return of her former colonies ever since Mussolini gave Italy's official approval to her claims at a great Fascist demonstration held in Rome last November. And she seeks to justify her colonial claims by economic reasons.
Let us see whether these claims are based on real economic need or simply on considerations of prestige.
In the course of a speech which he delivered in March, 1937, at the International Academy of Diplomacy in Geneva, Mr. Amery, a former Secretary of State for the Colonies and Dominions in the British government, showed with the aid of statistics that
-before the war the German colonies played a negligible part in the Reich economy; all together they accounted for only six-tenths of one per cent (0-6%) of Germany's exports and five-tenths of one per cent (0-5%) of her imports.
The loss of her colonies has obviously not prevented Germany from obtaining the supplies she needed and their restoration would not suffice to alleviate her scarcity of raw materials. In any case, Germany has since the war traded with her former colonies now under mandate on a footing of absolute equality with all the other powers, and she sells to them more than she buys from them.
As for essential raw materials, statistics show that 90 per cent of the world production comes from- independent countries and only 10 per cent from colonies properly so called.
Are the colonies necessary for the settlement of a surplus German population?
The answer is no, for in 1914 there were only 24,000 Germans in all the German colonies, of which only 18,000 were on the African continent. Moreover, if Germany needs space for her surplus population, how is it that she has just concluded with Italy an agreement under which she is to admit 30,000 labourers for farm work in the spring?-
In order to satisfy Germany, it would be necessary to redraw the boundaries of the entire world. And there is reason to believe
Supply-National Defence

that Germany's desire to recover her colonies is based on considerations of strategy or of prestige and pride.
How far will she go in the direction of territorial claims to satisfy her hunger for domination? Hitler's recent speech and the Austrian developments are rather disquieting. The Chancellor, speaking to the whole world, made known his intention to take under his protection the German minorities living in the neighbouring states. We might well ask ourselves, what next? There are now in Germany four to five million men employed in armament plants. And press dispatches report that the conscription has been decreed of all youths leaving school in order to enroll them in production.
Military conscription, economic conscription, everything tends towards war. Every budget contains national defence appropriations. The new improved motor roads were built with strategical uses in mind. From May, 1935, to November, 1937, Germany is said to have expended 8 billions of dollars in armaments and she has not finished. Where will all this lead to? Lucien Romier stated the question as follows in its relation to the Japanese aggression :
Seeing Japan make such profitable use of her armaments, how much longer will Germany, strained to the utmost, and Italy, exhausted by her efforts, restrain themselves from attempting to obtain some benefit from their own armaments ?
The attitude shown by Japan since last summer has injected into the international situation a new element of uneasiness and is most ominous for Canada. This new Japanese invasion of China has once more upset the friends of peace.
A proletarian nation, Japan, according to a French economist, has managed, without having in its islands a single raw material, to attain third place among the industrial empires of the world. Her population is overflowing. Had she not in Manchuria, which she conquered, and in her other possessions a sufficient outlet and source of supply? Nevertheless, without a declaration of war, she launches her forces once more upon China in quest of additional territory. It seems obvious that Japan, either to obtain raw materials for its industries and space for its surplus population or to enhance her imperial prestige, seeks to dominate the Pacific. In any case, at the end of December or the beginning of January a Japanese minister, Admiral Suyetsugu, launched an appeal to the yellow race to free itself from the domination of the white race.
Ever since last summer the Japanese have been bombarding civilian populations and at-

tacking neutral ships. In August last the British ambassador was machine-gunned while travelling from Nanking to Shanghai. Later on the American ship "Panay" was sunk and the British ship "Lady Bird" bombarded.
Whether it is a matter of economics or prestige, it is certain that Japan is pursuing a great war of conquest which not only affects China, but threatens the interests and even the possessions of other nations. The question is how far her ambition extends. Is she aiming at the conquest of the whole world?
In the face of the alarming attitude of these three great warlike nations which have joined forces in the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis, the other nations which do not desire war have deemed it wise to undertake themselves rearmament programs of inconceivable proportions. Great Britain's program for this year involves an expenditure of 1,700 millions of dollars. That of France, 1,000 millions of dollars. That of the United States, 1,200 millions. And smaller nations such as Holland, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, to name only a few of them, fearing the worst, have increased their armament appropriations to an extent that compels them to practise the most rigid economy in other matters.
The uneasiness felt by every country in Europe has crossed the seas and affected our neighbour the United States. In the early part of the year President Roosevelt proposed an expenditure of more than one billion dollars to strengthen his navy and aviation, specifying that it was not for purposes of aggression but solely for national defence. To Chairman Taylor, of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, he said:
Recent international developments have caused me a great deal of uneasiness. . . . It is my duty to maintain a jealous watch over national defence. When I say uneasiness, I have no particular nation in mind. It cannot be denied that many nations of the world are constantly increasing their armaments. I have made every possible effort to stop this disastrous race, but I have not succeeded. Facts cannot be denied. The United States, like all other nations, must recognize them.
Mr. Cordell Hull, Secretary of State of the United States, reaffirmed the ends sought by his country in its defence program. In a letter of February 12 last to Democratic Representative Ludlow, after stating that while guarding from extreme isolation the government wishes to avoid all alliances and entanglements, he said:
If every peaceful nation were to insist on remaining entirely aloof from every other peaceful nation and on pursuing a policy of armament limitation without reference to

Supply-National Defence
relative armaments, the inevitable consequence would be that other nations inclined to play-lawless roles would thereby be given great encouragement and even assistance towards so doing.
And in. connection with the naval rearmament program, he said:
All of the ships and auxiliary services provided for in the proposed program are needed for the national defence of the United States and its possessions. It is the desire of the people and the government of the United States that this country be not drawn into or forced into war. ... It is the belief of those of us who, with full sense of responsibility, advocate these increases in our naval strength that the making of these increases will contribute to the attainment of that end. . . . Even with these increases, our navy would not be able to embark upon offensive or aggressive operations.
This new orientation of American policy constitutes in the international field an event of decisive importance for Canada; it determines our own policy.
Glancing at the map and contemplating the immense body of water that separates the American continent from Asia, the possibility of a successful attack appears very remote indeed. But on the other hand, if we take into account the improvement and rapidity of means of attack, if we think of the defence preparations effected in the course of the last few months by the American people, the most peaceful on earth, for the protection of their Pacific coast, which adjoins Canada

an air base at Sitka Harbour, Alaska; another one at Dutch Harbour in the heart of the Aleutian Islands, 1,380 miles from the Japanese air base on the Kuril Islands; improvements to the Hawaii Islands naval base; an aerial station at Tacoma to protect the country against a possible threat from Japan by way of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska and British Columbia-is there not cause for uneasiness on our part?
Such is the history of the past ten months. An armament race accompanied by the pursuit of raw materials. An insatiable hunger for domination. World peace threatened from all sides by the dictatorships. The minds of these people instead of being directed towards peace are more and more directed towards war. The whole world is arming.
According to recent documents from Geneva, the expenditure on armaments in 1937 amounted to 33 million dollars a day, and it will be still greater in 1938.
In the face of such an international situation, where do we stand? Are we exposed to attack or to a violation of our neutrality? Wherein lies the guarantee of our security?
The League of Nations had for a time given hopes of security to peaceful nations. Unfortunately, following a series of successive
failures, she has lost the means of preventing conflicts. I will remind the committee of only a few of these failures, in connection with the great powers whose actions are the cause of the greatest worry for peaceful nations.
In 1931 Japanese aggression against China in Manchuria, in defiance of three basic treaties: the Covenant of the League of Nations, the Washington treaty (also known as the nine power treaty), and the Briand-Kellogg pact.
In 1935 Italian aggression against Ethiopia, violating four treaties: the League Covenant, the three-power convention of 1906, the Briand-Kellogg pact, the Italo-Abyssinian treaty of friendship of 1928.
In 1936 Germany reenters the demilitarized zone of the Rhine, in spite of the Versailles treaty and the Locarno pact.
In each of these three cases the League of Nations bowed before the fait accompli.
As a writer has said: "The fundamental principle on which the league is based, that of collective security, crumbled down when the disheartening fatality that, even to oppose the use of force one must be in a position to use force, was made known to the world."
Is our geographical position a protection in itself? Assuredly, on account of the distance between us and the three bellicose powers, the danger of aggression is rather remote, but not entirely abolished. With modern means of transport, which are constantly being improved, and with the greater speed of aeroplanes and ships, oceans grow narrower, distances grow shorter.
Are not the United States as far away from them as we are? They entertained no apprehension last year. But, see what they are doing now. If they feel the need of protecting themselves on the Pacific, does not the same need exist for us also? In the case of a conflict between Japan and the United States, what would become of our neutrality?
Last year, Mr. Bourassa said, in connection with the military appropriations: "Against whom are we rearming? Against Japan? There might be something in the idea."
Would England or the United States protect us? As far as England is concerned, we cannot expect from her anything that goes beyond her own interest. If we want to be free from any obligation towards her that would involve us in a world war, we cannot demand anything of her. But, even if her interest compels her to defend our country, would it be possible for her to do so in a scattered war? Recent statements in the British House of Commons settle the question.
Supply-National Defence

As for protection, from the United States, it cannot relieve us of the duty of contributing something. And let us bear in mind that protection inspired only by interest is not to be fully relied upon. Italy conquered Ethiopia to the detriment of English interests. Japanese have taken possession of part of China to the prejudice of English and American interests. However, neither England nor the United States have intervened in defence of the countries attacked.
What country could attack or invade Canada?
We cannot think of any possible enemy. But we see countries arming themselves to the teeth, not for defence purposes, because nobody is attacking or threatening them, but with a view to conquer new territories, to strengthen their economic independence and satisfy their appetite for expansion and domination. Their attitude is becoming more and more threatening.
We cannot think of any possible enemy. But our country is endowed with unrivalled and varied resources which arouse the cupidity of those countries hankering after raw materials. The visit of German engineers to Anticosti island, last December, was prompted by the desire either to secure raw materials or to establish a military base, and one is as alarming as the other.
Ethiopia had no enemies, but she had natural resources. China had no enemies, but she was a source of supply and an outlet for the surplus population of Japan.
To-day, countries always find a way of justifying any attack.
Belgium had no enemies in 1914, her neutrality was guaranteed by a treaty. She was nevertheless invaded. Sweden, Holland, Switzerland have no enemies, but they are arming for their own defence. Our neighbours, the United States, have no enemies, but they also are arming, and how!
If we have no enemies, there are at least those who disturb our peace and who give us cause for reflection.
What is Canada's duty?
In this early part of the year 1938, we are faced with three great powers: Germany, Italy and Japan, whose armaments, ambitions and (plans are the more alarming as the international situation grows more strained. Events seem to have conspired against the friends of peace and unarmed security. The moral appeasement that could be expected in the early days of 1937 has not materialized. Facts speak for themselves.
It is impossible for us to maintain an ideological policy; we have to face realities. Our

state of sovereignty involves the duty of providing for our own defence and safeguarding our neutrality. The best way to develop a Canadian sentiment is to be prepared to rely on ourselves rather than on others.
It goes without saying that we must avoid being entangled in any external conflict.
When we see what is going on in Europe, Africa and Asia, where Great Britain has interests to safeguard, we realize how our association with members of the commonwealth might have serious consequences if it involved for us any obligation of taking part in a war in which one member might be engaged.
As an aftermath to the Ethiopian conflict, we are faced with the Egyptian crisis, in which we can see the clash between English and Italian influences.-In Europe, we have a dispute for the control over the Mediterranean, as a consequence of the Spanish war. In the Far East, it is the Japanese thrust in China with all its effects in the economic field.
Assuredly, Great Britain appears to know how to take blows when necessary. Nevertheless, she has interests on the five continents and the cause of conflicts are numerous.
The Statute of Westminster has made Canada a sovereign nation with all the liberties implied by that word; most precious of all being the liberty to avoid getting killed for the protection of the interests of others. At the present time Germany is asking for the return of her former African colonies, which have been divided among all the members of the commonwealth with the exception of Canada. Well, can you imagine. Canada fighting in order to keep those colonies under their control?
Our interests are in America, because Canada is an American country, and our attitude in military matters must not be determined by the attitude of Great Britain, whose interests are so numerous and varied in all parts of the world, but by the attitude of our neighbour, the United States of America, who entertain no warlike views.
Let me read to you a resolution passed some time ago by the Canadian Students' National Congress, as reported by Le Droit of February 11:
Canada owes it to herself to formulate a program of moderate rearmament in order to strengthen her coastal defences. Canada must not be a party to a plan of collective defence for the _ countries of the empire, but must rather aim at a system of tacit cooperation with the United States in that respect.
And the newspaper commented on these resolutions as follows:
The two resolutions taken together are acceptable.

Supply-National Defence
Canada enjoys the great advantage of being in America. Defensive armaments, unimportant in themselves, become powerful in our country against a distant enemy who could attack us only under disadvantageous circumstances due to the great distance, and only at the risk of provoking a friendly nation or a nation interested in our defence.
Like all other peaceful countries, we are compelled by necessity. The defence of our country cannot mean preparing for war; on the contrary, it means striving to avoid it by discouraging in advance those who might have in mind to attack us for any reason whatever.
As Lyautey said:
Showing one's strength is the best way to avoid the necessity of using it.
We cannot advertise to the whole world or let everybody believe that Canada would be an easy and defenceless prey for anybody who would like to attack it or simply invade it. Therefore I am in favour of a defence policy, based on our autonomous condition, on our desire for peace, on our geographical situation, on our financial means, and having for its sole purpose the safeguarding of our neutrality and the protection of Canada, in Canada.
What estimates are we asked to vote for National Defence purposes?
According to the blue book, they amount to $34,034,384. As a matter of fact, military appropriations are not over $32,766,594.
There has been included this year in the estimates for National Defence, under item 180 and items 194 to 198, a total of $911,770, that had never before been included in those appropriations, but were in the estimates for Civil Government, Northwest Territories and Miscellaneous. Item No 193-Civil Aviation, an amount of $356,000, covers expenses in connection with topographical air surveys for the Mines and Resources Department, and is also a non-miltary item. All the above-mentioned items, forming a total of $1,267,770, though administered by the National Defence Department, are not actually military appropriations and must be deducted from the amount of $34,034,364.
I should have liked to make a few observations on the four items about which I and some members differed last year, but time will not allow. It will be sufficient to say that they have been reduced by $4,551,401, compared with the amounts voted last year and that I have satisfied myself, with the aid of the particulars printed in the blue book and the information I have received, that the four items cover, for the greater 51952-105
part, maintenance and renewal expenses. As for the votes in connection with the new undertakings, they will be used to erect buildings that cannot be moved from one place to another, to purchase two destroyers and a number of planes necessary for our Pacific coast defences.
I took the trouble to make a careful study of the defence appropriations. And, if I have decided to support them, it is for the reason that, having made a serious review of the international situation in the light of the developments of the last ten months, I believe them necessary for the defence of our country and the safe-guarding of our neutrality; it is because, following a careful study of the various items, I am satisfied that they will serve exclusively for the defence of Canada, in Canada only.
As I do not believe in systematic distrust any more than in blind confidence, and having regard to the attitude adopted by the right hon. the prime minister in a number of cases, particularly in 1922 on the occasion of the Chanak incident when he refused to embark Canada in a war at the request of Lloyd George-then on the occasion of the Locarno treaty,-at Geneva, in September 1936, and above all at the Imperial conference held in London during the months of May and June last, I have reason to believe that, always animated with truly Canadian sentiments, he never will entangle Canada in a foreign conflict in which she would have no interest to defend; and by so doing he will contribute greatly to maintain unity in our country.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: There is a reduction in these estimates of $2,000,000 from last year's total of $36,000,000 odd. This is a large sum of money compared with past votes, but it is necessary, and I am glad that the government has given to the house an opportunity to discuss the great question which at the moment means so much to the people of Canada, as it does to the people throughout the British empire. The defence of the empire is a matter of life and death, because if Britain fails the world will go out into outer darkness and we in common with the rest of the world will lose our liberties and the civilization we enjoy. The Canadian people are very much concerned about the whole question; it is one of the questions uppermost in their hearts and minds to-day-" Whither Canada "? That question is on everyone's lips.
So far as defence is concerned we are back where we were in 1812-complete dependence on the motherland for protection. We have never had any adequate defence policy nor

Supply-National Defence

have we had adequate defence forces to protect our shores. We have been depending upon the mother country for the preservation of our liberties and our civilization. We can talk about this estimate of $34,000,000, but it is a mere drop in the bucket compared to what the people of the motherland have to pay for the defence of the empire. I have a great deal of respect for the Prime Minister; he is a gentleman whom I have known for a great many years, and I am sure that everyone sympathizes with him, for his burden at the present time is a heavy one. Under our constitutional practice, 'however, as the Prime Minister is aware, seeing that he has had a great deal of experience in diplomatic affairs, it is the duty of parliament to inquire into estimates such as those we have before us to-day and to see how the trust reposed in the Prime Minister and the government has been discharged.
I do not agree with the policy of silence in matters of this sort. I remember that before the great war, in 1914, Pield Marshal the late Lord Roberts was laughed at in England and his speeches called pernicious and dangerous because, even up to three days before the outbreak of war, he predicted it. A number of public men in England-Asquith, Haldane, Runciman, and some of the most prominent men in public life there-were of the opinion that there would be no war; they had found a way of preventing it. There had been silence about foreign affairs and the defences of the country. That should be a lesson to us to-day in Canada in considering the question now before us. In my opinion silence is a mistake; it is far better for the government to take parliament and the country into its confidence and to indicate the exact state of affairs.
I am glad to see that the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Raymond), coming as he does from the province of Quebec, realizes the importance of national defence. The people of that province have always been loyal to the mother country and I am glad to see that its representatives are taking the stand that adequate defences and armaments are necessary. During the St. Henry by-election the Minister of Public Works and the Secretary of State, with other younger speakers, took the stand that adequate defences were necessary for this country. But adequate defences of themselves without adequate man power, as has been said very well by a great public man, are inadequate, and I believe the support of adequate defences for Canada is a sound position for the people of Quebec to take because, with British Columbia, it is

among the most exposed provinces of Canada, so it is necessary there for us to have adequate defence.
The second point I wish to advance in regard to these estimates is that every gun and every soldier to man a gun brings us nearer not war but peace, as was said by the minister for war in England the other day. I am glad that stand has 'been taken. Nobody in Canada wants war. The Minister of Pensions and National Health and the Minister of National Defence know what war means, but even those of us who could not or did not go during the last war have seen the awful suffering that resulted on the part of men, women and children throughout the country then and since. Everyone in England and Canada hates war and the very mention of war. The very idea of war is hated and detested by everyone; nevertheless preparation is necessary. You will not hear one word in favour of war either in England or in Canada. It is right to hate war, but we have to face the facts. There is the question of the defence of liberty and civilization. In England they have been slow to get started, but they have recognized the mistake they made in this army, and now they are a unit in rearming. At Norwich the labour unions voted in favour of rearmament by two and a half million to less than two hundred thousand. It has been forced upon England, and these expenditures have been forced upon the government and people of Canada by the situation existing outside this country. The government does not want it; the opposition does not want it. No one wants to spend all this money unless it is necessary, but it is necessary with the conditions that exist in the world to-day, and armaments for Canada are a necessity.
Canada has tried conscientiously to carry out all its various treaties, peace agreements and pacts. They have been carried out to the letter. The Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition, the former prime minister, as heads of the government of this country, did their best to carry out our obligations in regard to the League of Nations and peace. They did everything they could in the public interest, but what happened? The League of Nations has had no greater support than has been given by England and Canada. To-day England stands before God as the trustee of the peace of the world. It finds the league in ruins, and is brought to the very verge of war for disarming.
We have been slow to see this coming upon us, and I say to the government of the day that something should be done to take the people of the country into their confidence and let them know what are the real facts.

Supply-National Defence
No longer can officials of our external affairs and defence departments consider these matters as their sole responsibility. That was the situation in England up to 1914, but afterwards they were sorry for it. We should not make a similar mistake now. I only wish to offer constructive suggestions, and I believe the government should now trust the people completely in regard to Canada's foreign policy and Canada's defence policy. We should have all the information now, so that we can tell our constituents in order that the country may know what it is all about. This is not the private affair of our Department of External Affairs or the officials of that department. They should not keep these things secret. Let the government tell parliament plainly the extent of our obligations to Great Britain and the other dominions. We should have a statement of the facts. We should know who are our friends in world politics to-day, and who are not. We should know the differences of opinion that may exist between the. motherland and the south of Ireland and South Africa or between the other dominions and Canada on defence and foreign matters, if there are any differences, as I know there are. We should know the facts with regard to our obligations to these dominions, the British Empire and our friends in Europe.
I say we should not only consult and advise with Great Britain. We will have no time for that if the enemy sail up the St. Lawrence and blow up the citadel, or attack the Pacific coast. Then it will be too late, as it was in 1914. We should know what nations are threatening us, who are our friends, who are our foes; the extent of our own defences and arms on land, sea and in the air; what deficiencies there are in our armed forces, and what is required. This vote is only a drop in the bucket compared to what will be necessary in the future if this policy continues the world over. We should know what is necessary if we are to maintain adequate defences and adequate reinforcements, not only in regard to guns but in regard to munition plants in Canada. All the munitions used in Canada should be manufactured here, so far as possible by those out of employment. In the St. Henry iby-election the Minister of Public Works referred to the venerable cannon and the horse drawn artillery. We should know What guns, munitions, transports, equipment, clothing and rations will be needed, and what merchant marine we have to carry food to England. Our memory is very short, but we saw what happened to Belguim in 1914, when she was unprepared, and there was secrecy and silence respecting her defences until it was too late. Do we want it to happen again?
I am glad to see some advance in the policy with regard to the air force. Since we have been a country we have never had any policy of defence. To-day, as in the war of 1812, we are depending on the mother country. There is a vote of $10,000,000 for the air force, but you know as well as I do that with aeroplanes capable of travelling 250 miles an hour an enemy can leave their base, do damage to municipal institutions, public utilities, government buildings, schools and hospitals, and return very rapidly. So I think we should have a proper air force. During the last great war Canadians led the world as air men. They were the best at the front, and what we did then we can do again.
Then there is the question of national service. I have not heard any reference to this, although I believe the minister has done something about it. There should be some form of voluntary national service here, on educational, social and practical lines, and business men should help. We have a large number of young people out of work, walking the streets and taking the dole. If there were some system of training similar to that proposed by the minister of war in England they could enlist for a five year period, during which they could learn a trade, and get some pay and lodging, clothing and equipment, etc. They would receive physical as well as military training, and many of them could be employed as air mechanics, pilots and workmen. It would be a form of preparedness in regard to man power, which as I have said is just as necessary as adequate defences and adequate armaments. I think it would do a great deal to solve the unemployment problem.
I want to congratulate the Chamberlain family. The great Joseph Chamberlain gave us this dream of imperial preference and imperial federation out here, with a trade policy wrapped up in defence and migration. Great services were performed by his late lamented eldest son, Right Hon. Sir Austen Chamberlain, and the present Prime Minister of England, Right Hon. Neville Chamberlain, whose wise judgment and uncanny way of accomplishing things and steadying affairs in times of stress is a great asset in times like these. The Chamberlain family have always been well disposed towards Canada. Their trade preference policies have done much for this country. I am glad to see that in Great Britain at the present time a man who has kept a steady head is heading the government. If ever England needed a George Canning, she needs him now. We have to-day the same condition of affairs which existed in 1823 after the great Napoleonic war. At that time
Supply-National Defence '

England had a prime minister named George Canning, one of the greatest prime ministers, so far as his dealings in connection with foreign affairs were concerned, that the mother country ever had. He brought peace to Great Britain. For over a hundred years there has not been a civil war in that country.
I congratulate the present Prime Minister of Great Britain upon saving the dominions and the motherland from war. I believe he will go down into history for what he did in the past month. In addition to that, he is a modern George Canning. I believe that if the present government in Great Britain carries * out the commitments it has now in the way of promises and pledges and makes no more, the policy of the motherland will be based upon that of George Canning, of keeping out of European affairs as far as possible and preserving peace-at any rate until Britain is armed.
What is Canada's defence policy? Whither is Canada going in foreign affairs? Those are two questions which might be discussed under this vote. It has been said that we are not to have all the facts in this matter, but I Believe the government would be well advised to have our defence policy wrapped up with that of the mother country on land, on sea and in the air. The defence policy of a dominion such as Canada should be fashioned after and coordinated with that of Great Britain. The government has announced that it was not consulted but advised by the British government in connection with foreign policy, a distinction without a difference. The reason may have been that it did not want to be consulted; some have said that. The government says it has simply been advised. The distinction between " advised " and " consulted " may be a play on words.
We have no defence force. Would we wait to advise and consult the mother country if an enemy were to come here? No; we would be glad to advise or consult then, because we would not want this country to be overrun by an enemy dictator. Never in the history of Canada has it been more necessary than it is now to tell the Canadian people the exact state of affairs. There is no use in depending upon pan-Americanism and the Monroe doctrine. We have depended upon them in the past, and they have been found wanting. We owe all the freedom and liberty we have to the motherland, and are entirely dependent upon her for defence and freedom.
Our policy of defence, in all its detail, is wrapped up with that of the mother country. As I understand the defence policy of Canada, it must be wrapped up with that of Great

Britain. Our defence policy is wrapped up in Locarno, and in the League of Nations. Our policy is one of isolation. If Canada's reliance is on the League of Nations, then it is leaning on a broken reed, because the league is bankrupt. The policy of Woodrow Wilson, that of open diplomacy, is a sham and has gone forever. This is the tenth league of nations that civilization has witnessed. They have all proposed through a formula to prevent war. They would have stopped war two thousand years ago, if a formula was all that was needed, but never in the history of the world have they been able to do so. There have been leagues of nations before, throughout the civilized world, and they have been complete failures. If a league of nations was sufficient to prevent war, then former leagues would have stopped wars two thousand years ago.
Is Canada still a member of the league? If the league is in existence, for what purpose is it? Our expenditures in connection with the league are very great.
In regard to the vote we are now considering for national defence I would call attention to the law of Canada to-day as it appears in section 63 of the Militia Act, chapter 132 of the revised statutes, which states:
The militia or any part thereof, or any officer or man thereof, may be called out for any military purpose other than drill or training, at such times and in such manner as is prescribed.
Then section 64:
The governor in council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
Then section 66 gives the governor in council these further powers:
Whenever the governor in council places the militia, or any part thereof, on active service, if parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within ten days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of parliament within fifteen days, and parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by such proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.
The is the law of Canada to-day. In the belief that armies, navies and air forces were unnecessary, the politicians led Great Britain to disarm. That disarmament came about through the agitation of pacifists, the League of Nations and other agents of separatism. Great Britain was led to disarm in 1922. She had the finest army, the finest air force and the finest navy the world had ever seen, all of which she scrapped. The great peace mother

Supply-National Defence
of the world disarmed. She had relied on that force to protect her shores, and we, too, had relied on it. A force equal to that cannot be got together in a day, a month or in a generation. As a result of her disarmament she to-day faces insult, invasion, and eventually extinction unless armed. Since 1933 the Japanese have captured Manchuria; Italy has taken Ethiopia, and Germany has invaded the Rhine and Austria. Despots and dictators with armed forces that were illegal, the world over have been looking at Canada with covetous eyes. This great, rich country, with its magnificent natural resources and wide open spaces has been coveted the world over. To-day within the empire we are at the parting of the ways. An unarmed Great Britain or an unarmed empire invites invasion, insult and finally extinction. There is no better or more certain way to war than to have an unarmed British Empire, an unarmed Great Britain.
There is an old Italian proverb which says, "The world will always stand aside to let anyone pass who knows where he is going." These dictators know where they are going. We might have had them here in Canada. Do we know where Canada is going? The world let Hitler go where he is going to claim world hegemony and dictatorship. Some hon. members to the left, in and out of the house, a year ago were willing to depend upon the Monroe doctrine and pan-Americanism for our defence. If they followed that for a few more days they would soon know whither Hitler and other dictators were going. Canada faces in time not only the possibility but a strong probability of invasion.
We do not know where Canada and the dominions are going. We are just where we were a hundred years ago. We have no adequate defence force to protect our borders. We have been outdistanced by Italy and Germany. Another mistake was this: We spent $3,500,000 on the League of Nations; in order to please the league and to please the United States we quarrelled with Italy. I say it was not worth the loss of a boy scout to send a defence force to Ethiopia, or to quarrel with Italy, once one of our most devoted allies. It is a great stroke of good fortune that Great Britain's Prime Minister has now seen fit to 'bring these two old allies closer together.
As I said the other night, in connection with the bill sponsored by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, the dissolution of the Japanese alliance brought great danger to the Pacific coast. I have no quarrel with Japan. I shall not say a word against a country which has been our devoted ally. If we had stuck to our policy in the far east we would
be much better off in the Pacific to-day and have retained the Japanese alliance. We would have been much better off if we had given-our money, through the mother country, towards the maintenance of the great Singapore-base, a naval base established for the protection of Canadian, New Zealand and Australian interests in the Pacific. Australia and New Zealand have given about $5,000,000 towards the construction of that base. It was a project which would have protected us in. the Pacific.
It is too bad that in order to please the United States we lost an opportunity to keep our alliance with Japan, and to please a section of the people in South Africa and Ireland we consented to that lamentable act, the Statute of Westminster. We have seen the results of such a policy in what has happened' in the far east. We are depending upon the United States to keep order in the far east when we should be ready to cooperate with the motherland in her alliance with Japan there.
We are now realizing some of the mistakes that have been made. We have sided with the south of Ireland and South Africa in certain matters, and India has been given over to Gandhi through this policy of lack of preparation and pacifism. Because of the disarmed condition of Great Britain and the dominions, the British Empire was on the verge of war only a month ago.
In my opinion the league of nations' society is doing a great deal of harm in Canada. The British Broadcasting Corporation in Great Britain has stopped pacifist harangues over the air. They have been stopped in the United States and they should be stopped here. These people are hoping for the millennium described by Tennyson, but we cannot hope to escape the horrors of war on our own soil unless we have some force behind us. Great Britain was the only large country that stood by the League of Nations and promoted peace; the others all got out while the going was good. Great Britain disarmed and France disarmed, and as soon as there was complete disarmament by Britain and France, Germany, when fully armed crossed the Rhine and occupied the Rhineland. If the league had been any good at all it would have stopped that invasion. That was one-great mistake which was made. But France was disunited and disarmed, without a proper government and with communism rampant, and Germany stole a march on her and is still marching in Europe.
What we need to-day is another George Canning, and I think we have one in the present Prime Minister of Great Britain to.
Supply-National Defence

keep us out of European wars. The league Shas done more to provoke war than to avert it. It has been a source of mischief ever since its creation. The United States . would not even join it. We see the result of all this in a vote of $34,000,000 to be paid by the taxpayers of Canada for all this folly. One of our great Anglican bishops in England said the other day that the civilization of Europe is not worth preserving; that it is worse now than it was a thousand years ago.
A few years ago Mr. John Buchan was then a member of the British House of Commons. He had an almost uncanny knack of interpreting public opinion, and he certainly expressed the view of the vast majority of his fellow countrymen when he said "that the League of Nations and the league of nations' society were largely in the hands of the crank, the sentimentalist and that appalling creature, the publicist." I hope the government of the day will stop considering the voices of the pacifists in this country as the voices of all the people of Canada. They are not. They have had their day and generation and we have seen the results. The government should not mistake the babble of the pacifists for the voice of the people of Canada on foreign affairs and on the question of adequate defence nor the voice of the Isolationists.
I hope the minister will not think I am criticizing his estimates as I am not. First, I should like to refer to Camp Borden. During the war a large air camp was established at this point. There are four landing fields, and I think the camp is unsurpassed in Canada for natural drainage and the facilities offered for landing and taking off. This camp has now been to some extent abandoned for Trenton, where under the best of conditions it is not considered safe to train young pilots. I know some changes have been made during the past year at Camp Borden, but I would *direct attention to the fact that a large number of young men were killed at Deseronto during the war because of the winds prevailing in that part of the country. I consider *Camp Borden as being a more satisfactory place for large air force training of pilots. I have talked over this matter with men who ihave been there and they agree with me.
The signal corps has been transferred from Borden to Kingston where the training conditions are rather inadequate. When Sir Frederick Borden was minister of militia there was a great artillery camp at Petawawa. This was considered one of the finest artillery camps in the empire, and many generals have commented upon it. I think we should have something like that at Camp Borden, Niagara

and in all the provinces. Niagara should be used to a greater extent. Thousands of dollars should be spent on the Stanley barracks at Toronto, on old quarters and better quarters. These barracks have a historical interest and they should be retained.
I am sorry the government has not brought down a more definite policy with regard to the Pacific. We might have had a Locarno in the Pacific with Japan, England, Russia and the United States, but owing to the breaking of the Japanese alliance that was not brought about. I believe we would have better protection in a naval way on the Pacific if we were more closely allied with the motherland. We should take a greater interest in the Singapore base instead of leaving the matter of Pacific defence to the mother country and Australia and New Zealand.
There has been a definite change in our defence policy since the Statute of Westminster was passed. That statute was passed to please southern Ireland and South Africa, and the result is that New Zealand, Australia, Canada and all the other dominions are considered as separate countries which can make war or negotiate treaties. That folly called separatism divides us in war and separates us in peace. These countries have a separate defence policy from that of the motherland, and on the whole I believe the statute was a great mistake on the part of the dominions.
More consideration should be given to air defences. There is not only the possibility but a great probability that air raids will occur in the next war in which Canada is involved. The defence of our population from air raids should be considered. These raids will be the chief source of danger in all future wars, and we shall be living in a false paradise if we do not adopt measures to protect ourselves. Abyssinia was recently a theatre of war, and we all know the destruction of civilian population that occurred through this means of attack. Abyssinia is an open country with only a small density of population as compared with what there is on the island of Montreal and in other parts of Canada, and yet great damage resulted.
Air raids can work great havoc in time of war, and the menace will be a very real one in Canada, especially to the people of Quebec, the maritimes and British Columbia. I am glad that some preparation, although it may be only a beginning, has already been made by the minister to meet this danger. I know he has been out looking over the camps. A fleet of aircraft could pass up the Ottawa river without a moment's notice and blow up these buildings, the Chateau Laurier, the

Supply-National Defence
railway station and other large buildings. We should have very little warning of the approaching attack. Consultation and advice are words that are much used by the government nowadays, but we would not be consulted about any air raids that were contemplated against Canada. The enemy's aircraft would be upon us before you could say " 0 Canada," or sing God Save the King. An aerial bombardment is one of the dangers most to be apprehended in time of war, particularly in large cities with their dense populations; the protection of cities from aerial bombardment should be one of the chief objectives of the national defence department, and proper equipment for defence against this menace should be provided. Probably the minister will have something to say about that later on.
Large quantities of poisonous gas could easily be spread over a large area as was done in Abyssinia, and incendiary bombs dropped on our large cities, with great destruction and slaughter, and the enemy aircraft could get back to their base in practically no time. These attacks would not only bring ruin to our cities and towns but break the morale of our people and prevent us from developing a proper defence and mobilizing our man power and armaments.
In regard to foreign and defence affairs Canada should wake up out of its slumber before it is too late. We were just as near war a month ago as we were in July, 1914. We were told last August at lake Simcoe, Ontario, that war was gone forever; but here in the month of March this association with a high-sounding name, the Canadian Institute of Economics and Politics, received a very rude awakening. Pacifists and economists have had their day in Canada and the United States, and have failed. Real science, rightly understood, was the admiration of the world, but the way in which science has been applied with its inventions to making war more terrible has made science a curse to civilization.
In conclusion, I want to say a word or two about the schools and the way in which false and injurious information has been disseminated throughout Canada by many agencies in regard particularly to the League of Nations, defence, foreign affairs and the cadet movement. The cadet movement is not a military movement; it is more for physical training. I understand that the minister has been taking some steps along the line of having a national policy, a volunteer one in Canada for home service and home defence of all kinds. That is not a luxury but a necessity. I notice that the British Field Marshal Lord Milne, on January 7 last, was talking about this problem as it relates to the schools. He was addressing
the secondary school teachers in England, and I am glad that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) is going to address next Saturday the high schools of the city of Toronto. Lord Milne said:
Sometimes too much was made of learning when reference was made to education. Character, patriotism and discipline were equally important.
An article in the January, 1938, issue of the National Review at page 48 quotes the head master of a public school as saying:
A man may obtain a double-first and yet be uneducated.
The writer of the article makes this comment:
Conversely, one has known educated men who could neither read nor write. Until the Board of Education insists that formation of character, the obligations of duty, patriotism and self-sacrifice are the mainsprings of education, young men will be found wanting, when put to a practical test, in the responsibilities of citizenship. . . .
I have already commented on the lack of state teaching on the duties of citizenship, including service for one's country; but what is to be said of authorities in state-aided universities and schools who openly inculcate the principle of peace at any price?
Are we doing our duty and teaching the principles which Lord Milne advocated?


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I followed with great interest the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond). He has his opinion, and I have mine. My only regret is that they do not harmonize any more. For instance, I could not help noticing these words in the latter part of his speech which I quote from memory: "I am not prompted by blind confidence nor by systematic distrust."
I hope my hon. friend will not be offended when I tell him that neither are these the feelings which prompted hon. members to oppose an increase in military expenditures. They did it on principle just like the hon. member last session, and as they do it now, as a matter of conviction. I may add that I have never questioned for a moment the fine purposes of my colleagues who did not share my views on this important question of policy.
It is not because they were impregnated with blind confidence that the majority of my colleagues in this house voted for the defence estimates. Neither was it on account of a systematic distrust that we took a different view. Did not the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), Who is liberal
Supply-National Defence

and wide-minded, state on several occasions, and particularly at the recent demonstration tendered the hon. member for Ottawa-East (Mr. Pinard) that the Liberal party hated coercion which is necessarily derived from narrow-mindedness.
Mr. Chairman, the events which took place throughout the world since the last session of this parliament and the threats of war which are hanging over central Europe at the present time would not justify my change of attitude as regards military expenditures. Last year, while we were discussing the defence estimates in committee, I asked the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) on several occasions if he would require a larger sum every year. As a matter of fact, I foresaw the expenditures which we are now discussing. Although they were reduced by $2,000,000, these estimates for the present fiscal year still amount to $34,034,364.42. Therefore I am quite determined once again to oppose this increase in the expenditure for militia and defence, in order to revert to the figure set for that purpose in the 1936-37 estimates. Why? Because the present estimates are still $18,155,953 higher than those for 1936-37.
In the compiling of those figures I have taken into account the amount of $2,201,000 for the purchase of two destroyers by the Canadian government, which appeared in the supplementary estimates for 1937. There is another reason why I should continue my fight. Canada, although far removed from the horrors of the Far East, the Iberian Peninsula and Central Europe, must realize what a suicide she would keep in store for herself for the day when, going beyond her own borders, she would take part in a foreign war. Our country will grow peacefully and harmoniously only in so far as it keeps its eyes on its own people, on its immense natural resources, on its youth whose strength must be preserved for the furthering of the progress of Canada and of Canada only, of its industries, its trade, its agriculture which has saved it from bankruptcy, which has fed the children, the women and the men of Canada. Our country must have peace to prosper on this American continent which witnessed its birth, its growth and its attainment of nationhood. Let us be guided by our traditions of strength and courage. Let these traditions bind us forever and more exclusively to this Canadian land of ours, the sole object of our love, hope and admiration.
In conclusion, I would like to state that, in the account I have just made of a situation which I find alarming, I had no other idea in
[Mr. Lacombe.l
mind, I was animated with no other motive than an ardent desire to serve my country while being of service to my constituents. I know their views, I know that they are inspired by a truly Canadian spirit. Therefore I would consider myself false to my trust if I took an opposite attitude.
Mr. Chairman, it is very painful for me again to differ on this vital matter with statesmen whom I respect, whose talent, ability and courage I admire. But I cannot sacrifice to the noble sentiments of friendship and admiration firm beliefs, or an ideal and a mentality which the horrors of war have irrevocably anchored in my mind and my heart. Others will perhaps criticize me. Nevertheless I will stand indomitably, with my eyes fixed on the firm, clear and limpid manifestation of principles dear to my heart, while respecting the convictions of my fellow members.
Let me add just one word. There is not a single Canadian citizen worthy of the name who would want the ruin of Canada. Well, any new military adventure on our part outside our own territory would involve tremendous expenses from which we would never recover. What I want to avoid is the bankruptcy and the downfall of my country. That is what I will oppose with all my strength. That is what I will condemn to my last breath.
Far removed from the maddened old world, and from a civilization bordering on barbarism, let us live in peace at home. Let us concentrate all our energies upon the attainment of the destinies of a great nation where tomorrow will blossom forth the virile beauty of a great people.
The hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie stated at the beginning of his remarks, if I remember rightly, that he had not received from the Minister of National Defence in the course of the last session a satisfactory answer regarding the limits of Canada. Mr. Chairman, in my humble opinion, Canada's limits are clearly determined by the Canadian Militia Act. I had no intention of speaking on this subject; I have been impelled to do so by the turn taken by the debate. I wish to tell the truth, the whole truth, as I see it, and to be corrected if I am wrong. The Militia Act of Canada, chapter 132 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, volume III, section 64, page 2789 contains the following provision respecting active service.
The governor in council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.

Supply-National Defence
Now let us see what section 69 of the same act says, on page 2790:
The Army Act for the time being in force in Great Britain, the king's regulations, and all other laws applicable to His Majesty's troops in Canada and not inconsistent with this act or the regulations made hereunder, shall have force and effect as if they had been enacted by the parliament of Canada for the government of the militia.
I find nothing in the amendments brought to the Militia Act since 1927, that purports to repeal the sections that I have just quoted. True, there is chapter 21 of the Statutes of Canada for 1932-33, 23-24 George V, page 97, which was sanctioned on April 12, 1933. But this act refers only to forces of His Majesty from other parts of the British commonwealth or from a colony when visiting the Dominion of Canada. On the other hand, section 6 of the same act leaves wide discretion to the governor in council, particularly subsection 2, page 102, which reads as follows:
The governor in council
(i)	may attach temporarily to a home force any member of another force to which this section applies who is .placed at his disposal for the purpose by the service authorities of that part of the commonwealth to which the other force belongs;
(ii)	subject to anything to the contrary in the conditions applicable to his service, may place any member of a home force at the disposal of the service authorities of another part of the commonwealth for the purpose of being attached temporarily by those authorities to a force to which this section applies belonging to that part of the commonwealth.
Then, section 8, page 103, provides as follows:
So far as regards any naval force and the members of any such force, the provisions of this act shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in derogation of such of the provisions of any act of the parliament of the United Kingdom or of the parliament of any other part of the commonwealth as are for the time being applicable to that force and the members thereof.
I shall close, Mr. Speaker, with another quotation from the Militia Act of Canada:
All the male inhabitants of Canada, of the age of eighteen years and upwards, and under sixty, not exempt or disqualified by law, and being British subjects, shall be liable to service in the militia: provided that the governor general may require all the male inhabitants of Canada, capable of bearing arms, to serve in the case of a levee en masse.
Be it understood, Mr. Chairman, that in making these quotations I am not moved by bitterness towards any one. I feel that, in speaking as I did, I am fulfilling the trust placed in me by my constituents on October 14, 1935. On nomination day, that is October 7, 1935, at a great meeting attended by more than 12,000 voters of both sexes, I was asked
this question: "What will be your attitude in the matter of military appropriations?" I replied: "I will speak against them in the House of Commons and vote against them." Indeed, I stated this fact in the course of the observations that I made in this house last year. The profound convictions I hold in this matter, Mr. Chairman, make it impossible for me to change my attitude. This is my final word.
Mr. JOSEPH A. BRADETTE (Cochrane) (Translation): Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with what I have to say on this very important question, I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) for the splendid speech which he delivered a moment ago, when he set forth the whole situation before the House of Commons and the country so far as national defence is concerned. Of course, it required a great deal of courage on the part of the dominion government, last year, when he decided to carry on with the system of national defence which we had in this country, and which, on account of financial stress, during years of depression, had to be left more or less impaired. We very well remember the commotion brought about throughout the country by the announcement that the dominion government would spend for national defence purposes a sum of $36,034,371.42 during the fiscal year of 1937-38. Every member of this house remembers the discussions that took place about it. They also remember the controversy which was waged by newspapers of every political shade throughout the country. These press comments showed that the people realized that the government had displayed great courage under the circumstances, and appreciated the necessity of such a policy.
Once again the government is asking us to vote a considerable sum to carry out this national defence plan which was inaugurated last year.
Of course, there is not one citizen worthy of being called a Canadian, whether he come from the east, the west or the central part of Canada, who would dare say that he is not in favour of peace. However, Mr. Chairman, our people must, of necessity, be practical.
No doubt, Canada built great hopes on the League of Nations, which I am sure, has not yet completed the great task which it had mapped out, namely that of maintaining international peace in every part of the civilized world. We realize however the great difficulties which the League of Nations has to face. Again I say that I do not believe
Supply-National Defence

there is one man in Canada, whatever may be his race, religion, or political faith, who does not seek peace not only in Canada but in the whole world. But we must realize how serious present conditions are. There is no doubt that Canada is ideally situated as regards national defence. If we look at the map, it is easy to see that in the north we have not to fear any unforeseen danger, even with the tremendous development of aviation during the last years. However, in the present troubled state of the world who could say that we would not have to fear a possible attack on our Pacific or Atlantic coasts?
We need only to look around us to see that the nations in which we placed all our' hopes for peace have failed. That is why we must realize the seriousness of the situation. Just as the man who, leaving his home or retiring for the night, bolts the door, so we must prepare for anything that may happen. He does not anticipate anything, nor does he know anyone likely to seek revenge on him, but he takes precautions. The same might be said of towns and governments which have a police force, and also of a nation which wants to uphold as much as possible its system of national defence. I further believe that the great majority of our people who live in the various constituencies which we are representing are in favour of a plan of national defence, in order that the government may maintain peace.
Mr. Chairman, there are in my own constituency, just as there are likely in all parts of Canada, thousands of returned soldiers who took part in the great war of 1914-18. They risked their lives for what they consider to be the cause of humanity and peace. After the war, they returned to their activities, and they now have sons old enough to serve in the army. I know that they are just as anxious as anybody else not to see their sons enduring the sacrifices which they went through or witnessing the same horrors which were their lot for four years. Every veteran, whether of the South African war or the great war of 1914-18, is body and soul in favour of peace. There lies his ideal, as well as all that it implies.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively to the masterly speech delivered this afternoon 'by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). He stated 
that public opinion, in connection with defence, could be divided into five groups. We are sure of one thing at least, and it is that nobody in particular, no political party can boast of being alone against war. We all agree as to that, in Canada. That is why, recently and in certain circumstances, some members of parliament or certain parts of the population seem to assume the whole responsibility in avoiding war.
The Minister of National Defence briefly referred to the signification of nationalism and its possible results. The Larousse dictionary defines the word as follows:
Marked preference for anything pertaining to one's nation.
Undoubtedly all persons forming a country must belong to it, not in a sectional or provincial sense, but in a strictly national sense with all that the word implies. That is one reason why there should be no opposition to the appropriations for national defence, because, after all, when establishing a home or a business, one must accept all the responsibilities of that new situation. When young and living under our father's roof we do not realize our responsibilities. By the Statute of Westminster, Canada became an individual nation in the British commonwealth of nations, which means new responsibilities, national as well as international. To be fair in the circumstances, the least we can do is to be prepared to defend ourselves.
Before six o'clock, Mr. Chairman, I briefly referred to our geographical and national position on the north American continent. Fortunately for us, our neighbour to the south is a friendly nation, on whose cooperation we may rely for a great number of years. We are separated by a 3,000 mile boundary line along which there is not a single fortress, and where peace prevails.
This afternoon, the Pan-American Federation was mentioned several times. That reminded us of the famous Monroe doctrine so often quoted by those who are opposed to any increase in our national defence appropriations. What is the meaning of these words: the Monroe doctrine? They mean that the United States told the nations of the world that any attempt to conquer countries in North or South America or to interfere with their administration, would be considered as unfriendly acts. Let us suppose that Canada should decide to abandon its national defence-as was suggested on a number of occasions in certain parts of Canada- the responsibility would then fall on the shoulders of the American nation. Would it be fair? Let us go a step further. Let us

Supply-National Defence
imagine Canada being invaded by a foreign power without possessing any means of defence. Then, the American people, according to the Monroe doctrine, would be forced to protect us, because they would not want a foreign nation to secure a footing in Canada. Would not the Americans, who are a practical people, after defending us with success I suppose and after spending vast sums of money and sacrificing a great number of human lives, ask us to pay the cost if we had the desire of maintaining our national existence? It being so, we must realize that those who mention the Monroe doctrine are not on solid grounds when they say that we have no need to defend ourselves but that the responsibility belongs to the great nation to the south. We have to study this matter from all angles, Mr. Chairman. As I have already said, we are proud of our new status as part of the British commonwealth of nations. But that status does not go without responsibilities and one of them is surely to take the means of protecting our own borders and our coast line in case of attack.
Many people ask us: "Against whom are we arming?" We all know that Great Britain wants peace and is not looking for further conquests. Great Britain wants to maintain peace, not only in Europe but throughout the civilized world. Is France actually getting ready for a war of conquest? No, Mr. Chairman, France only wants to defend her frontiers and protect her homes, because she still remembers the two invasions she was subjected to during the last sixty years. The same may be said of the United States, where a billion dollars was voted for the navy only a few days ago. Against whom are the United States arming? Are they arming against Canada or against the nations of South America or Asia? No, Mr. Chairman, they are not arming for attack, they are arming for defence in case of attack. That is how I understand the situation and how it should be understood generally in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to say, and I would not go so far as to claim that I am thoroughly familiar with the feelings of the people in Quebec. However, may I be allowed to quote a short article by Mr. Eugene L'Heureux, published in L'Action Catholique a year ago, when the estimates for national defence were under consideration in the house?
I think that this article sets forth quite correctly the general feeling of the majority . of the people in the province of Quebec.
It is as follows:
For Canada Only
Actual conditions, however, must be taken into account. Lack of knowledge in matters of national defence organization deters us from passing judgment on the appropriations sought by the government for the organization of the country's defence. We think it possible to place confidence in the government on that score, all the more so as the Prime Minister has emphasized the purely Canadian destination of this military expenditure.
In such times as these, when danger threatens from all sides, even the most peace-loving nations feel the need of protection against the possible tragic outcome of domestic trouble as well as against colonial ambitions of the great powers. Under present conditions, Canada's armament budget may appear reasonable event in the eyes of the anti-militarists.
Approaching the question from the point of view of French Canadians, we think that instead of bemoaning these military expenditures (under present conditions), they should rather endeavour to occupy a prominent place in the country's armed forces, so as to partake fully of the nation's activities and to claim their full share even in the military domain, and also to find in military life the benefit of a certain discipline in which they are lacking, much to our general and oft expressed regret.
I consider this article quite logical and I know whereof I speak for the following reasons. I had the honour last spring to take part, in the province of Quebec, my native province, in a by-election campaign, during which I made it my duty to discuss in the Gaspe peninsula the national defence appropriations. I must say that the explanations I gave on that occasion were very closely followed by the electors who fully realized the soundness of voting these appropriations for the defence of their own country.
What are the other nations of the British commonwealth doing? This afternoon's newspapers tell us that Australia is to spend in the space of three years nearly 145 million dollars for its own defence. Has Australia any thought of aggression, either in India, in Japan or elsewhere? No, Australia wishes only to defend her own coasts, her own boundaries. The same principle applies to South America and New Zealand, and that is the principle which should be applied to the appropriations we are now asked to vote.
These appropriations include a fairly large expenditure for aviation. Necessity compels us to develop financially and commercially, in respect of machinery, of modern invention, and so forth,
I surely believe that a military air force if put to proper use, would aid the development of the natural resources in the northern section of the dominion. When, in Canada, one looks at a map of the country, one is astonished to see a narrow strip of settled land, stretching from east to west. It seems that there is a
Supply-National Defence

certain desire to live as close as possible to the American border. If we want Canada to become a great nation, our expansion must necessarily be caried out in the northern part of the country, where a bountiful Providence endowed us with immense and untold resources still undeveloped. I am also of the opinion that a military aviation would provide an excellent agency for the development of the northern part of Canada in its entirety.
No one in these dark days is unmindful of the enormous burden meant by the conditions which we are now called upon to face. There is no one who, in his daily prayers does not ask for the maintenance of peace throughout the civilized world. In Europe, in Canada, in the United States and in the whole world, youth realizes the problem with which it is confronted at the present time. How one longs to see such noble dreams of peace come true, just as one wishes the establishment of the United States of Europe, such as was advocated by Aristide Briand, eminent French statesman. How I long, for my part, to see the people of South America, United States, Great Britain, Germany, Russia, Japan, in short, all the civilized nations of the world, formed into one great federation, constituting a solid group, a single nation, so that the world may never again know such tremendous sacrifice of human lives as was witnessed between 1914 and 1918, during the war which was supposed to end all wars. But twenty short years have elapsed since that awful conflagration, and yet the diplomats of Europe are once more wondering what the following day has in store, and are apprehensive as to the future.
Before concluding, I wish to thank the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the noble and national attitude he has taken. During that critical situation, he was successful in not embroiling matters, and brought home the seriousness of the problem, not only to parliament, but to the people of Canada. I feel also, that I should express my opinion concerning the position taken by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Chamberlain, who showed us that one must keep a steady head in these momentous hours and whose desire is that the problem which the European nations are facing at the present time may find their solution in peace. I also wish to extend my congratulations to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). Indeed, it would mean a loss of faith in our civilization if the solution of these problems were to be secured only through the destruction of millions of young lives and by delaying the march of civilization. I pray to God that all men may work

in cooperation towards the solution of these problems, so that the tremendous sacrifices of 1914-1918 may be spared, not only to our country, but to the whole world, and it is my sincere wish that they may not be witnessed again by the present generation, otherwise it would be, unquestionably, the dawn of a new era of decadence.


Mr. L. A. MUTCH (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to attempt to compete with hon. members who have spoken respecting matters of national policy, in an attempt to evaluate the foreign policies of this country or of Great Britain, or of the circumstances obtaining in the world to-day. I have listened with great interest and, indeed, a marked measure of enthusiasm to the speech delivered this afternoon in this chamber by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), when he set forth a report of the situation with respect to the technical and mechanical developments of the problem of defence in Canada.
For the little time I propose to take tonight it is my desire to speak about another phase of our problem. I should like to direct attention to the situation which obtains in Canada to-day with respect to the man whom I may call the man behind the gun-the man who is a member of the permanent force. It is not my intention, nor have I the ability, to launch into an oratorical description of the position in which these all too few men find themselves, nor shall I deal with the question in a manner calculated to arouse either the enthusiasm or the passion of this house on behalf of these men. Within the constituency which I have the honour to represent is located one of the larger military districts. During my short tenure of office I have taken it upon myself to study, in some measure at least, the conditions under which these men serve their country. These men have behind them the same traditions as are behind you and me, and many of them took up army life as a career at a time when it was more of a career than it is at present. I am ready to confess that many of our young men would have been glad of the opportunity during the last few unfortunate years to enter the service of this country and find even the kind of security obtainable under such circumstances.
In the brief time which I shall allow myself I intend to refer to four or five phases of the conditions under which these gentlemen serve their country, my country and your country. I shall make some representations to the minister, and through the minister to the government, for an improvement of the conditions under which these men serve.

Supply-National Defence
Under date of March 10 of this year I read the following headline emanating from Great Britain:
Hore-Belisha's army estimates promise more attractive life for British soldier.
Less posture, polish, higher pay for Tommy.
I shall not deal to-night with either the posture or the polish as it concerns the enlisted man in Canada, but I want to point out that in the conditions obtaining in the world to-day the imperial government has seen fit to make a considerable effort to improve the lot of the enlisted man in the permanent forces of Great Britain. I think it is time that we should look at the picture that obtains in Canada and consider whether we cannot do something to attract to this service the type of young man who has a real contribution to make. I do not conceive it likely that in the immediate or near future we shall be maintaining in this country a military establishment on a large scale-I do not know that is even desirable-but in my opinion we should have a highly efficient military service. If we are to have that, then we must look to the condition of the enlisted man.
For my own convenience and the convenience of hon. members I propose to deal with some possible amendments to the Militia Act, without being technical in any way. I think in the minds of the men who serve us so loyally these amendments are considered to be advantageous, first of all for their own concern, second, for the government that employs them and, third, for all the Canadian citizens who support this establishment. For some period of time there has been considerable dissatisfaction with the exorbitant duty placed upon the importation of military kit from Great Britain. I appreciate the fact that this is not a matter which can be decided by the Minister of National Defence, but I have raised the question previously with other members of the administration. In putting forth this suggestion I am thinking more particularly of the men in the non-permanent force. My description of the non-permanent force is a force in which a man puts up his own money for the privilege of serving his country. Under these circumstances it seems to me that any representations by the Minister of National Defence to the council generally might well be listened to.
There is another condition obtaining in the permanent force to which I should like to direct attention. For the past forty years there has been a practice in the British army, upon which our Canadian permanent force is modelled, of making an allowance to a married man for his children. It is pretty
well established, even in military life, that two cannot live as cheaply as one, since an allowance, I believe of fifty cents per day, is made to the married man who has no children. No ration, allowance is made for the minor children of a soldier in the permanent forces, and I suggest to the minister that he consider the possibility of making some allowance in this connection. Allowances are made in Great Britain for children under the age of sixteen, and a suggestion has been made that in this country an allowance should be made for boys under the age of sixteen and girls under the age of eighteen years. In order to get this thing started I would be quite happy to have these allowances made under the same conditions as prevail in Great Britain.
There is another matter which I think the minister, and through him the government, might very well take into consideration. I believe that a portion of a pension due to a man who has served his time in the permanent militia should accrue to his widow when he predeceases her. At the present time a man serves a minimum of sixteen years, I believe, at the end of which time ,he may retire on pension. If he predeceases his wife, she receives no pension and in many instances becomes a charge upon the state. It seems to me that in trying to make the service attractive, we should consider doing something in this regard. When the spirit is upon us and we are prepared to do something about defence, we should enlarge this matter of pensions. The estate of the average enlisted man consists of his pay while in service and his pension after his service is completed, and I know of case after case where hardship has resulted. I shall not at this juncture recite individual cases as I believe that most hon. members who have had any connection with the permanent force will have personal knowledge of many cases of men who have retired on pension and then shortly after have passed away, and we have had the spectacle of the wife who has been the sustaining partner of her husband through a long period of service having to go on relief or being left to the charity of friends.
I had intended to develop that; but I pass on to another consideration, and this is one which particularly affects single men in the service. It is well known to hon. members that the enlisted man in the permanent force, whether he comes from Halifax or Vancouver or Winnipeg or Montreal, must serve in the military district to which he is sent; he has no choice in the matter. From time to time these. men earn a certain furlough, and a peculiar situation obtains in that regard. If a man who is to-day a member of or who has retired on pension from the permanent
Supply-National Defence

force of Canada goes to Great Britain, he is afforded the courtesy of half fare on the railways of the motherland, just as that half fare is accorded to members of the permanent force of Great Britain itself. But the only men enlisted in the service of Canada who,
I am informed, enjoy a similar privilege on Canadian railways, are the ratings in the naval service, and for a long time this has been a sore point with enlisted men in this country. I have in mind a couple of chaps who enlisted in the permanent force of Canada in the city of Halifax and were subsequently transferred to the city of Winnipeg. After an honourable and somewhat extended service they earned a furlough, and their natural desire was to return to their homes in the city of Halifax. What do we find? We find that there is at the present time no provision in the Militia Act to accord these chaps the consideration they would be accorded if they were members of the British force or if they were naval ratings or for any reason wished to take their furlough in the British Isles. I would commend to the consideration of the minister and the government the placing of our own Canadian enlisted men in at least as advantageous a position in Canada in this respect as when they go overseas as guests of the mother country.
Turning to the subject of living and working conditions, I was gratified to hear the minister speak to-day of the advancement in technical and mechanical devices in the defence forces of this country. I have had the experience of seeing service in a theatre of war, and I came away from that with a definite impression that the most important military detail in any army is the man who is described, as I said a few moments ago, as the man behind the gun. It may be the man behind the gun or in an aeroplane or in a unit of the military forces that serve at the front. It is the hope of this government and of all governments that our permanent force shall be the nucleus of whatever forces, defensive or otherwise, it may be necessary in the future to raise; that it shall be an inspiration and educative force for whatever forces it may be necessary to mobilize.
Certain conditions obtaining to-day in Canada with respect to the living and service conditions of these men do not commend themselves to me and will not, I think, commend themselves to hon. members who have knowledge of what is taking place. About three years ago I had occasion to look into the circumstances surrounding the living conditions of married men on the strength but not on the married men's establishment; that is to say, men who had married without

official permission. Those with any military experience know the vast difference between official permission and just plain ordinary permission. In the one case you have the support of the law in all its majesty; but in the other the law forgets its majesty, and says: If you get married, we will look the other way. To the enlisted man there is not anything like the same difference as there is to the official mind. Consequent upon representations being made, a serious attempt was made by the minister, and, I am bound to say, by the deputy minister, as well as, I hope, by certain officials of the department, to remedy the situation, which is far from satisfactory. I found and others have found that men who had served six, nine or twelve years satisfactorily but who had married without permission were not being reenlisted, but on the contrary were being thrown on the unemployed market without any consideration. I made certain representations to the minister, as did others, and some definite steps were taken to remedy the situation, but I am sorry to say they have not worked out as advantageously as we had hoped. I am of the opinion that further investigation of this matter might result in advantage both to the department and to the men who are most interested.
There are certain other considerations. Dealing with these men who have married without official permission and reverting to Winnipeg, part of which I represent, and in which constituency the headquarters of military district No. 10 is situated, I found on investigation that with respect to every building under the Department of National Defence in that city occupied by soldiers or by officials or officers of the department, a special additional allowance of twenty per cent was made for heating because of the building being located in the city of Winnipeg. This fuel allowance, I am told, does not apply to members of the forces who for any reason whatsoever maintain their residence outside the official barracks, and I would suggest to the minister that he seriously canvass the possibility of relieving the plight of these men. In some instances the men are entitled to be on the married strength but are unable to get suitable quarters, and they are forced to buy their own furniture and to go to considerable extra expense by living outside the barracks.
Finally, I should like to say a word or two about the question of married men not on the married strength, and by that I mean those who married without the official sanction of the department. I have investigated not merely one or two or three, but many of these

Supply-National Defence
cases. I have gone to the trouble to request from the department-and in every instance my request has been courteously granted- the military record, length of service, and kind of qualifications which these men possess. I have also gone not once but many times to the barracks and inspected the quarters in some detail, and I know the situation which obtains there. I wonder if, in view of . the stress which we are now inclined to place upon the question of defence, and in view of the clearly established importance of the men who constitute the first line of our defence, the minister might not consider now, at this session, the possibility of making some allowance and recognizing to some extent these marriages without official consent. I wonder if the minister has considered making an allowance of, say sixty per cent of the marriage allowance to these married men outside barracks until such time as they can come properly on the married strength, because on this question I feel that the department is or has been to no small degree responsible for a condition which obtains very largely in my own constituency.
For a number of years we have followed the practice of enlisting men in the permanent force and putting them in barracks in the very districts from which they come; and I suggest that it has been the tendency in the last seven or eight lean years to consider enlistment in the permanent force of Canada not so much in the light of a career as in the light of a job. When you take a young man of eighteen or nineteen, enlist him in the service and keep him in the district in which he was born, raised and educated, and so make no effort to change his environment, are you astonished that many of these young men come to regard the service as a job and their pay as wages just as much as though they were working for a private company, or that they begin to think before long of the possibility of maintaining a home of their own on that income, take a chance with a good-natured officer or one who conveniently looks the other way-as they all do-and so begin on that basis to build up something which they can ill afford to maintain? Perhaps, if we had used a little more foresight-and this consideration goes 'back further than three or four years-if we had trained at Halifax those who enlisted at Winnipeg, and at Vancouver those who enlisted at Halifax, and thereby completely broken the whole tenor and trend of their associations and their existence and brought them to think of the service as a career, this situation would not have arisen.
It was on these points particularly that I wished to present views which are not only my own but are shared- by a great many who have interested themselves in the welfare of these men. On their behalf, and in the interests of the kind of service in Canada for which I hope, I recommend to the minister and to the government consideration of these particular points.
M. J. A. CRETE (St. Maurice-Lafleche) (Translation): Mr. Chairman, when the question of Canadian rearmament came up last year, involving perhaps the most important change in policy of these last few years, I objected with some of my colleagues on this side of the house to increased military estimates. I did at the time give a few reasons why I could not support that new departure which, in my opinion, was ill-timed and dangerous.
This year, the military estimates which have been brought down are practically as large as those of last year. Having regard to various opinions expressed in the course of the debate which took place last year, having regard also to subsequent international as well as national events, I intend to deal briefly with this policy of increased expenditure for the purpose of military reorganization.
I do not think I need state again that, in dealing with that question, I intend to dismiss every personal consideration, and to be guided only by an eager desire to deal with this question on its merits. In order to clear up any misapprehension in the matter I must state that I have no grievance against the government; on the contrary, I am on the most friendly terms with my leaders. Although I approve of Liberal policies and although I have a high regard, as I think I should, for views and opinions held by the administration, I shall take the liberty, on this matter of rearmament, of discussing frankly and honestly two basic features of Canadian defence; the military estimates and the delimitation of our boundaries.
I maintained in 1937 that neither our geographical position, our political situation, nor our financial circumstances warranted the increased estimates of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). After this period of one year, let us ascertain whether anything has occurred which might in any way alter the problem.
I am aware of no changes in our geographical position which offers us an exceptional degree of protection on all sides. On the east, we are separated from Europe by the Atlantic ocean; on the west there is, by virtue of the Pacific ocean, such a tremen-
Supply-National Defence

Supply-National Defence

It will be remembered that twenty years ago we were asked to defend civilization rather than democracy and parliamentary institutions. What will it be to-morrow?
Imperialistic propaganda is active. We even hear Canadians like Mr. John Bassett, president of the Gazette Publishing Company, ask us to place the Empire before Canada. That shows the need of a clear, permanent and reassuring definition of our defence obligations if we are to embark in an armament program for the defence of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, looking at the armament question from the Canadian point of view must not be construed as disloyalty to the United Kingdom or to the Empire. We are justified in so doing because we have at heart the true interests of Canada, which are to be found here and nowhere else.
The question of autonomy is also involved. Canada has gained her autonomy, or what we call by that name, after lengthy struggles on the part of Canadian statesmen of both parties. In these difficult times, it is more important than ever that we should not retrograde, we must not lose ground. Opinions are divided on this subject and some people are so blind to Canadian autonomy that they would not speak otherwise if they still had colonial status. While repeating that Canada is a free and sovereign country, they want us to place our sovereignty and our liberty at the service of the Empire, in other words to enslave our liberty.
Prior to last year, Canada had maintained a prudent peaceful policy. Not content with vague humanitarian principles, she had shown the way in the betterment of international relations. I proudly support that policy. If I opposed an increase in military expenditures last year, it is because I was sorry to see our country join in the armament race. Are we not committing ourselves further in 1938? Could not that armament policy be interpreted as the forsaking by Canada of the wish for peace that we have been proclaiming for so many years? Would that not lead nervous, restless and suspicious nations to believe that we are following in the wake of some large powers towards a policy of armed peace? Who can fail to see where that might lead us?
I am all the more frightened by the fact that our military boundaries are not yet defined. So long as they are not defined and so long as the other inconsistencies I have mentioned are not cleared up, I think I express the wish of the majority of my electors, in reserving my approval for such items of the military estimates which I think reasonable.

Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at any length, but I feel there are one or two things I should like to say to-night. I think it would have been easier for -most if the statement by the minister had been made on one day and the debate proceeded with on some subsequent day. It was a lengthy address, and it did not seem to me clear. At one time the minister said we were preparing for the defence of Canada, and the defence of Canada only. At another moment we were hearing about the protection of Canada by the British fleet in the North sea. At another time we heard of the need which might arise for all democracies banding together once again to save democracy. It may be that in reading the speech it will be easier to understand the position of the minister than it was in listening to him. At any rate, after hearing it, and then listening to most of the speeches which followed, in a language which I am very sorry I do not understand, I find myself left entirely on my own resources, which possibly is the best place of all to be left. If we must fight another war to save democracy, we can be pretty sure that it will be the end of democracy. The one we fought to save democracy about half finished it, and another would be the end.
What we all feel, of course-and I do not feel it any more than other hon. members- is that it seems uncivilized to be able to find 836,000,000 or whatever it is we spend for defence, when, according to an authority on the schools in Saskatchewan, in that province we have thirty-five rural schools closed because money cannot be found with which to keep them open.. Yet we can find money to protect us from an enemy who was not named, although when the minister finished his speech I felt that the enemy would be here about next week. We can find money for defence; but we cannot find it to keep open the thirty-five schools in Saskatchewan, or for providing some sort of reasonable standard of living for almost, if not quite, a million people in Canada who are still on relief. When the minister waxed eloquent-and he was very eloquent, particularly at the end of his speech, about defending our homes-I was wondering just how eager the people who have been on relief for so long would be about defending their homes. I can understand that they would be eager to get into the army, but whether it would be in order to defend their homes or in order to obtain the assurance of something to eat and something for their families is another matter.

Supply-National Defence
One cannot help being extremely sad that we seem, not in Canada so much as throughout the world, to be turning backward instead of progressing and going forward to a civilization in which things of the mind and the spirit count, and that in the very day when we are being freed from the necessity of arduous labour, when we could use the leisure thus created for the development of the art of living. The whole world apparently is providing itself with instruments of destruction, and again all in the name of peace. We are all arming in order that we may have peace. Never again shall I be fooled by that one. It may be true that we must arm; it may be true that we are all arming, but not to bring peace, because the more we arm the more likely it is that the days of peace are numbered and that before too long we shall have an opportunity of using the instruments of destruction which now so many nations are furiously building and gathering together.
Too, I cannot help feeling-and I am now thinking in the terms of democracies, from a Canadian point of view

that if we were as anxious for peace as the eloquent speeches on defence would have us think, we would have stopped sending to those countries that we believe would turn them into munitions, the material for the making of munitions. That is true of Canada, and true in a larger way of the British Commonwealth of Nations and the other great powers. I cannot understand a nation attempting to protect itself against the onslaught of another nation, and at the same time supplying it with the instruments of destruction which will be used against it. It simply does not make sense. When a few years ago these various nations seemed about to crack up, from a financial and economic point of view, the great powers came to their assistance and put them on their feet again, thus strengthening their enemies. We should have started sooner in the cause of peace and in a different way. It is important, at any rate to me, to see that none of the bullets which might come back in the bodies of the nationals of any country are made out of materials from our own land. Surely that is only a reasonable request, that we do nothing to arm an enemy, either by munitions or by loans. I cannot help thinking that if the great powers had been serious in this matter of peace, starting even twenty years ago or ten years ago, we could have avoided much of the difficulty which now threatens the whole world.
There is one other approach to peace which some time all nations will have to take. That is the approach which they will make in 51952-106J
their own countries, by financial or economic changes in each country which will remedy the difficulties within the nation and do something to lessen the suffering from poverty, in this day when we all know poverty should not exist.
I notice that the minister outlined the many schools of thought there are in this country, and, I think, very well, indeed. Personally I have changed from one to the other. I once thought that collectively we could act together, and in time could prevent the difficulty which now seems to threaten the world. I still think it could have been done. Now I feel-I am speaking more from instinct than anything else-more and more North American in my point of view, because less and less I trust the great powers in their diplomacy, in their understandings and in their secret undertakings. I fear Canada being drawn into a world conflict which is none of our doing.
In my opinion our British connection is our gravest danger. It is our gravest danger because we all-I am not an exception-worry about what would happen in London, what would happen in Glasgow or what would happen in all the other cities or counties which, because of our families, have come to mean a great deal to us. Yet I wonder whether, if we all-and there are only eleven millions of us, if there are that many; we could not say that there are twelve millions and not be exaggerating-went over and died for Europe, it would make the slightest difference.
There is a possibility, in spite of any assurance the minister may have made in the house, that when trouble breaks out in Europe, membership in a commonwealth, the heart of which although not exactly on the continent of Europe is uncomfortably near to it, will, because of public sentiment, carry us intb a conflict which, after all, has very little to do with North America-and I hope I can say the Americas.
So from that point of view I am becoming more and more north American in my outlook. It may be an escapist idea; that may be the reason I have worked it out, I do not know. I just know that increasingly I am thinking in terms of north America, and am determined that from my point of view we shall do what we can to save North America, because I am not sure that, with such a small population, we can do anything to save Europe. If she is determined to bring about her own destruction, that is not our business. Our business is to do what we can on the North American continent. If,
Supply-National Defence

then, we are going to stress that fact, and if our national policy is going to be directed toward keeping out of European difficulties, and toward the protection of North America, I feel that more and more there should be understanding between the United States and Canada, because we share the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines. We are on the same continent; we think in the same continental terms, and, much as imperialists may deny it, Canada is becoming increasingly North American in her point of view. The young people growing up to-day are more and more aware that they are North Americans, and that the destiny of the Americas, or North America, is the thing which affects them most.
I do not say it will be impossible, but it will be more difficult than it was last time to inflame the youth of Canada to go again to fight in Europe. I think it can be done. With the radio, the press, an eloquent minister, and all the agencies which can be used when required, I think it can be done-and particularly when young men and women have little in life to interest them, when they have no economic security and when they have little chance of developing their capabilities. Here is a chance for adventure, even though it may mean death at the end. I think they can again be induced to leave our shores. I do not-and I am not speaking disrespectfully to the minister-believe that we can build up an efficient, mobile unit in Canada, and keep it in Canada, in the event of an outbreak of war in Europe. I am positive there is enough exchanging of staffs between Great Britain and Canada; I am positive there is enough imperialist sentiment in Canada to send our mobile force, or that part of it which can leave our shores, overseas; and that again, if war breaks out, it will be fought by us not here, but there.
I do not know that one can say more. I do not know whether one ought to strive to have the estimate cut down. I do not think we can defend our shores if this enemy which may come from either the west or the east is in dead earnest about it and has made up his mind to come in here. I cannot imagine a country the extent of Canada, with the small population we have, being defended by an expenditure of the estimate before the committee to-night. So that from the point of view of defence of the North American continent I think a great deal of it is wasted money. Frankly, I say to the minister I would rather open the schools in Saskatchewan. If we are going to do a lot towards killing everybody off, then let us do the best we can for them up to the last minute.
I Miss Macphail.]
There may be something to be said for coastal defence. But I say just the same thing again-I cannot think of any other way to say it: If there were a great onslaught on either the west or the east coast, any defence we have would not count at all. In such a case we would have to depend upon someone else.
I do not think we are going to have an enemy invade Canada; I may be wrong, but I do not think so. I do not think they are even going to try to.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I hope not.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I do not think there is any grave danger. But if they do, we would simply have to rely upon someone else. It might be the British fleet upon which we would have to rely-but I have a very peculiar idea about that. I do not think the British fleet would be in our waters in such an event. They would be in other places where need for the fleet existed. I do not think they would be coming here. So do not depend upon that. I believe if there was an attack on Canada, the United States-and I dare say that is what the minister was referring to when he talked about " friendly fleets "-is the one place we could look to for assistance which would be given rapidly, not so much for our sake as for their own, because we happen to be their northern boundary. And so they would come, if they thought there was any grave danger to us.
I believe the discussion on the estimates will continue for another day or so; at least they will not be concluded to-night. After I have read what the minister said1-and after all, he read some of it-and have had an opportunity to read the translations of other speeches, I shall have a better idea of what people are thinking. But I have not changed my mind on what war is; it is just the same as before. There is no difference. The total disregard for human life, which we have suffered in Canada and which has been suffered all over the world since the last war, is the price we are still paying for the war we fought. If we have to face a further disregard for human life, it will be just that much worse. We shall not be any more successful after the next war. The concluding treaty will be no better than the treaty of Versailles. Like breeds like, and if we go on using the same methods of preparing for peace by getting ready for war, we shall get ready for war and get war-but not peace.

Supply-National Defence


Mr. L. D. TREMBLAY (Dorchester) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, before I submit the few remarks which I feel compelled to make to the house, may I be allowed to extend my sincere congratulations to the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie)? I have listened very carefully to his splendid speech this afternoon,-as I always like to hear all his speeches in this house-and I was glad to hear the minister on the question of defence for Canada.
Last year, we took in the house the very position which the minister himself stated this afternoon. We were willing to vote for the estimates of the department of National Defence, but we also stated definitely our position which I would summarize in these few words taken from my own speech of February 18th of last year:
It is true that I am not an imperialist or a jingo, and I will say bluntly that I am entirely opposed to Canada's participation in extra-territorial wars. But I want my country to be protected from any invasion, no matter where it comes from-
And I voted against the motion then before the house. This afternoon, I was glad to hear the very interesting speech of my hon. friend from Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond), and I congratulate him. Everyone admits that the hon. member is serious-minded. everyone knows that he is anxious to vote not only according to his conscience, but also wisely, and since I am in this house I have always seen him live up to this. Events of the year show that the position we took last year was sound, and this year the hon. member endorses the policy of the present government. As we were not experts in matters of war or national defence, we had to rely on those who deserve our confidence, and personally, I deemed it was my duty to do so. Events of the past year show that we were justified in approving the government and that we had correctly interpreted the intentions of the present government. The hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie said this afternoon that several statements were made since last year by members of the government. May I be allowed to quote one made by the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), in Lotbiniere, as published in a Moncton paper? This is what the minister said:
Recent events in the Sino-Japanese war, such as the bombing and sinking of the United States gunboat Panay, bring home to us the daily danger of an international conflict and emphasize the necessity of adequate protection for our shores.
With the present development of aerial combat, the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of Canada are in danger of attack in the event of either
England or the United States becoming involved in war. It is all very well to say that England and the United States will protect us. but we must have something with which to protect ourselves until they arrive.
The article is entitled " Lapointe's sane words."
For the sake of comparison, the Minister of Justice also took the city of Westmount, which, although it has a fire brigade of its own, nevertheless relies upon the whole Montreal fire brigade in the event of a conflagration. The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cardin), and other hon. ministers during by-elections, have had occasion to set forth quite clearly the present government's position as regards rearmament. Personally, only a few weeks after the estimates of National Defence were passed last year, I took part in the Bonaventure by-election. Later, for three weeks, it was my good fortune to join in the campaign carried on by the present member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Francceur), then government candidate in that constituency. Irrespective of any statements made in this regard, the question of national defence and armaments was discussed in Lotbiniere and in Bonaventure counties, as well as in the other counties-the question of armaments was for ever dinned into our ears wherever by-elections were held. During those campaigns, an attempt was made to have the electors of the province of Quebec believe that the government was prepared to enlist citizens of Canada to carry on hazardous enterprises abroad, which is positively untrue.
The people of Quebec province, especially those who urged us last year by their representations to oppose armaments, gave the reasons which, in their estimation, should justify us in voting against them. The main reason offered was this: Canada's participation in another war would increase the burden of taxation, overwhelming as it is already, and would lead the country into financial disaster, if not into absolute bankruptcy.
Another resolution was practically to the same effect. All of these representations did not so much oppose any increase of particular estimates as the possibility of the government joining perhaps in a race for armaments in preparation for a war outside of our territory.
We have heard these objections voiced by some of our friends here this afternoon, much to my regret. As far I am concerned, I stated last year that I felt the government could be trusted and I say it again. People outside politics, without any party affiliation, particularly with the Liberal party-and I will quote testimony to substantiate this-state in this
167S
Supply-National Defence

connection that the government is perfectly justified in asking for increased estimates for national defence.
With your kind permission, I will quote from an article in L'Action Catholique, by Mr. Eugene L'Heureux, which appeared in February, 1937, and which reads as follows:
For Canada Only
Actual conditions, however, must be taken into account.
Our lack of knowledge in matters of national defence organization deters us from passing judgment on the amount of the appropriations sought by the government for the organization of the country's defence. We think it possible to place confidence in the government on that score, all the more so as the Prime Minister has emphasized the purely Canadian destination of this military expenditure.
These people, who are in no way bound to the Liberal party, find it possible to place confidence in the government on that score and add:
The Prime Minister has himself emphasized the purely Canadian destination of this military expenditure.
This afternoon the hon. member for Beau-harnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond) mentioned on several occasions the circumstances in which the right hon. the Prime Minister had publicly testified to his Canadianism for the greatest happiness of the country.
When people like that, in whom we have confidence and whose whole past is a guarantee that they will always place our country's interests before anything else, tell us that we should organize Canada's defence and that they have no other end in view, we should have confidence in them and support them as they were supported at the by-elections which have clearly expressed approval of the policy of the government on national defence.
Not being a great strategist and not wishing to give myself out as one before the house, I cannot say whether our defence, will cost 20, 40 or 50 million dollars. Neither am I ready to state, with all the equanimity shown by some of our friends, that Canada is in no danger of invasion and does not need to be protected. I am not disposed to take this attitude and, this year again, I intend to support the government and the ministers who have repeated, one after the other, that the appropriation asked for is solely for the protection of our homes against all possible danger from outside the country or against internal trouble.
Last year there was some discussion of dangers from inside the country. On March 30. 1937, speaking on the question of industrial disputes, repressive laws and communism, the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said:

This session we have taken means to increase another force we have available to maintain internal order in case of emergency, as well as to defend our coasts. I do not know whether it will astonish the house and the hon. member who has just spoken if I tell them that these increases in the estimates have been bitterly criticized by communists and those associated with communism in this country. I hold in my hand a circular which has been sent throughout Canada. One side is in English, the other side in French. It is the work of the association controlled by the communist party in Toronto, and is directed against those estimates.
It is strangesaid the minister of justice:
-that these people should be so strongly opposed to the provision I have mentioned.
Is it not your opinion? Here is an organization which is considered as extremely dangerous and undesirable, especially in the province of Quebec, an organization which we have the duty to fight and to annihilate in our country. When the government expresses the desire to provide the means of maintaining order in Canada, those who are opposed to communism are in league with the communists, unknowingly of course. But they cannot prevent a situation where the communists are associated with them when fighting against the organization for national defence and the maintenance of order in our country, a fact of great significance.
I will leave it at that. I just wanted to tell the government that, for my part, I am convinced that, in the circumstances, it is the duty of the government of the day to maintain in Canada, not a disproportionate army, but an adequate army for our needs. Such is the sentiment in my constituency and, I believe, in the province of Quebec.
I would have liked to quote the figures communicated to me last year by the deputy Minister of National Defence concerning our permanent force, but I do not have them here. However, it is a fact that the Canadian army, and more particularly the permanent force, is in need of reorganization and modernization. The government does not ask for anything beyond that. We have the assurance that the government of the day is not in favour of our participation in foreign wars. It is our duty to support them, to assure them that we appreciate their policy, and to tell them that, while voting increased appropriations for national defence we are irrevocably opposed to Canadian participation in any foreign conflict.
Mr. ARTHUR G. SLAGHT (Parry Sound): Mr. Chairman, in addressing the committee on this important subject I desire first to ally myself with the observations of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) in the

Supply-National Defence
tribute that he paid to our Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). Whether or not hon. members agree with the precise estimates which have been brought down, I think there can be but one opinion as to the fact that we in Canada to-day are singularly fortunate in having as our Minister of National Defence a man of the calibre of the gentleman who at present holds that important portfolio. He came to us from a race outstanding in British history, outstanding in the sacrifices that Scotland has made on the battlefields of the world; and those who believe in strict economy in measures of defence will have the added satisfaction that Scotchmen as a rule are not profligate with their dollars or the dollars entrusted to them to expend. So from the standpoint of the record of a race noted for its courage and its loyalty to the empire, and noted also for its economy where economy is desirable, we are indeed fortunate at this time in our nation's history in having at the helm of the national defence department the gentleman who occupies that position.
I support fully the estimates which he has submitted, and I propose to go a little farther than any hon. members who have so far addressed the committee, by making this rather humble suggestion that, in supplementary estimates perhaps, or in some other appropriate form, if not at this session then certainly at the next, a much more liberal expenditure be made by Canada in one of the branches of our defence services, namely in the service that comes under the heading of air force.	Last year we expended some
$10,000,000, and this year the estimates contemplate an expenditure of some $11,000,000 on this service. We have been given the details of the machines, the man power and the equipment of our present air service in Canada.
I was greatly impressed by some of the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) in the thoughtful contribution she made to this debate; they were sentiments which, in the main, inspire practically every hon. member. But may I suggest that, exercising the privilege which her sex have enjoyed for the last hundred years, she has changed her mind, in one respect; may I also suggest that, noble as those sentiments are, they failed to touch the exact point which is involved in the discussion of these estimates, and this I say with the greatest respect.
I desire to remind the committee, by citing a few figures, of what is the present armed state of the world. I believe that these figures are authentic, so far as it is possible to be accurate in matters of this kind; they
include not only standing armies ready for battle but reserves in the various countries referred to. Russia, with an enormous population, has an army of the type I have indicated of 15,000,000 men; France, an army of 6,000,000 men; Germany, with a population of 74,000,00, 2,900,000 men; Italy, with a population of 42,000,000, 2,450,000; Czechoslovakia, of which we have heard so much in recent days, approximately 1,250,000 men; Great Britain, 450,000 men. If I am correct, as I believe I am, our force in Canada consists of a permanent force of 4,000 men, and a paper force-and when I say that I shall be understood as meaning battalions which go to camp for perhaps two weeks in the year-


Ernest Lapointe: Not
every year.


Mr. SLAGHT:: And not every year, as
my right hon. friend was kind enough to remind me-a force, I say, including reserves, of 75,000 men, and with a training force of 45,000. It is in support of what may properly be termed relatively a very meagre force that these estimates are presented, and they are absolutely necessary. Would any hon. member, bearing in mind the figures I have just quoted, suggest that in this day and age they should be reduced? Surely to put the question answers it.
I proceed to the particular branch of the estimates which attracts my special attention and as to which I have some remarks to make. I have already given the figures of expenditures on our air service in the past year and the expenditures proposed for the coming year. The minister told us that a year ago there were 1,080 men in our air force and that there is an estimated increase to 1.730, or an increase of 650 men. I have a suggestion to make which conforms, I understand, with a sentiment expressed this evening by the hon. member for Beauharnois-Laprairie (Mr. Raymond), in a speech which, owing to my own lack of education, I regret I was unable to follow in the hon. member's native tongue. He referred to the viewpoint that the air force is a branch of the defence service which has an economic value in peace time, and it is in my view the only branch of our defence service which has an economic and constructive peace value. Soldiers on horseback, our infantry, and the branches of our service other than the air force have no economic peace time value. We are aware of the value of the air service because we are a party to the expenditures that are being made for the great transcontinental service which will come into effect next July. Those of us who follow air
Supply-National Defence

progress know that in the last year Canada carried by air five times as much freight as any other nation. That is a remarkable record.


Mr. MacDONALD (Brantford):: Is that per capita?


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Not per capita-gross. If I am correctly informed-and I believe I am- Canada carried five times as much freight in the air as any other nation, regardless of population. Therefore we should appreciate the strides which our country is making in this particular economic and military field, and the people of Canada and the members of this committee will be impressed by a viewpoint which has as its objective an increased expenditure on air service.
Let me remind the committee of one or two significent facts. I believe I am correct in saying that most of the machines in the military and perhaps also in the commercial branches of our air service are of low speed, and that the highest speed military machines we have, even including those under order, have no greater speed than 250 miles per hour.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Two hundred and eighty.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: 
Agnes Campbell Macphail: You had better not interpret them.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: The hon. member was absent when I endeavoured to pay her a compliment for her contribution to the debate.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Thank you.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Who will say that it is impossible for this country to become involved in war? If we had a trained force of the type I have indicated, and if we were obliged to turn our minds at all to the problem of actual defence, how could we make a greater contribution to empire war service and empire
defence-including our own selfish defenoe- than to have a force of 1,000 trained airmen equipped with a large number of machines of high-powered type, together with other machines of lower velocity and a mechanical force of 7,000 men to service that fleet of planes? Could we hope by any other means to make so great a contribution to ultimate world peace, which I assume is the desire of every hon. member.
I commend this suggestion to the minister. It must not be forgotten that such a force would have a definite economic peace time value. I believe that the development of air traffic, both passenger and freight, is in its infancy; and just as twenty-five years ago the first hard-tired small automobiles came upon the scene, so for the next generation progress in transportation will be in the air-transportation for economic and, I regret to say, destructive purposes. With a population of eleven million we cannot compete with the armies I have outlined; we could not begin to compete with them; it would be stupidity on our part to attempt to do so. But here is a branch of service that would be eminently useful-and I speak from the records of the last great war. By common consent, even on the part of Britain's enemies in that war, Canadian pilots and mechanics outshone the pilots and mechanics of every other nation. That is a well established fact.
I desire, with some diffidence, to present for the earnest consideration of the committee the observations I have just made as to a field in which we may engage. Do not let us wait until the nations of the world are at war before we prepare.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght), who has just taken his seat, had continued a little further with his discussion of the air service, perhaps I should not have arisen. As he proceeded with his remarks I thought, in connection with the aeroplanes to which he was referring, for bombing and so on, he would have coupled with that subject some remarks in reference to rescue work as a result of gas bombs being dropped from the air, and if that had been done perhaps I should not have said anything at this time.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I thank my hon. friend for that reminder. It is a real factor, and I overlooked it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I remember sitting in the Friedrichstrasse station in Berlin, Germany, for a matter of three hours last June, after I had finished my investigation into various matters in that city. I became attracted by
Supply-National Defence

the- large number of aviators who were entering and leaving that station. First, I was interested in the bands on their arms, which all seemed to be different; then I commenced counting the number who got on and off each train. According to my memory a train entered or left the station about every four minutes; there were many tracks. I was putting in my time and commenced figuring an average of how many got on and off. Finally, I computed that the average number of aviators per train getting on or off was twenty. At the rate of fifteen trains an hour that meant three hundred aviators an hour, and for the three hours I sat there it meant nine hundred aviators.
I must confess that I left Berlin that night feeling greatly depressed, thinking that if the British Empire should become involved in any trouble with Germany, that country would have a very large number of trained aviators. I inquired how many they had, and was told that they numbered something between eight and ten thousand aviators ready to take the air at any time. Throughout the city itself I found preparations being carried on to protect its inhabitants, who number some four or five million, by means of shelters where the people could go in the event of the city being gassed.
The point I am making is that whether or not we like trouble, it comes to us, and to every nation, and at this moment I might add that I certainly approve the minister doing the best he can. I have no comment to make at the moment on the estimates except the omission, as I see it, of a vote to provide some defence against attack by gas in this country. However, a moment ago I started to say that throughout the city of Berlin they were preparing or planning places of refuge. When I returned to England I found similar plans there, and on going to the Home Office I learned that adequate preparation is being carried on in that country. I do not know of any preparations along this line being carried on in Canada. The minister may have in mind some protection against the effects of air raids on the civilian population in regard to gas, but I do not see anything in the estimates for it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is being very carefully considered at the present moment.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am glad to learn that. I should like to take just a few moments to tell the committee the preparations that are being carried on in the old country. As I said, I went to the Home Office and found

that they had divided England into eleven districts; I do not know about Scotland and Ireland. These districts were as follows: London, Salisbury. Cardiff, Birmingham, Shrewsbury, Liverpool, Newcastle, Leeds, York, Nottingham and Cambridge. All these districts were again subdivided to take care of the counties and municipalities adjacent thereto. Hearing that a great demonstration was to take place in the city of Leeds, I went there to learn what I could. Perhaps the minister was there also. The evening I was there I attended a school held for the purpose of educating the people in how to protect themselves against gas. There is no use in fooling ourselves or, to use a common expression, in kidding ourselves that we are safe in Canada. To-day no country is safe, and it is only fit and proper that every country should make preparations to protect its civilians.
What did I find in Leeds, at that school? I found a gentleman, I suppose an officer from the Home Office, and I might add that the school was held in a large auditorium in the city hall, which was packed with people who were in deadly earnest, listening to what the officer from London told them. He said that an air raid might take place without anyone being notified about it; that the Home Office, through the air marshal, would try to advise the sub-air marshals in the various districts that an air raid was impending, and this officer did his best to tell the people there assembled how they might protect themselves. I believe this can be done here, outside any possibility of Canada taking part in a war. I do not believe any hon. member wants to see Canada engaged in a war; I think every hon. member wants Canada to keep out of war, but whether we like it or not, it may come our way, and we might come right up against what this officer told the people that night in Leeds. I attended a school in another city as well, but I shall confine my remarks to what I learned that night at Leeds.
What did the officer ask them? He asked the people there assembled to volunteer-to do what? To divide themselves into various classes; to make preparation for what might come like a thief in the night, namely, a gas attack, without warning. The first class was the first aid and medical service class. He invited doctors, nurses, people belonging to the St. John's Ambulance Corps and other similar associations to join that class and volunteer to give assistance in Leeds in the event of an air raid. They were to be ready to go to the aid of casualties; to give them conveyance by ambulance to hospitals, and to keep the citizens instructed as to how to put on their

Supply-National Defence
gas masks. Just in passing I might say that before I left Berlin I made inquiry as to how many gas masks the German government had available, and I was told about forty-five million. In England I learned that they had about thirty-five million gas masks. When the minister speaks on this matter again, I should like him to tell us something of the preparations which are being made in Canada in connection with the provision for gas masks.
WThen the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) was speaking this afternoon, I wondered what would happen if one of these great aeroplane carriers sailed into Hudson bay. The planes would have to go only a few hundred miles to reach Cochrane, and I doubt if there is a gas mask in that town. If Cochrane were showered with gas they would all be in danger; there would be no possibility of saving their lives. It would be the same thing in Toronto; I do not know that there are any gas masks in that city. Would the minister tell us what preparation is being made in Canada, so far as gas masks are concerned, and particularly for the protection of our coastal cities, both east and west, such as Halifax, St. John and Vancouver? If there is no expenditure indicated in the estimates to cover that point, I am one who believes that there should be some provision for gas masks to save the people who might live in cities or towns bombed from the air by gas.
The second division they were instructed to prepare for was in connection with rescue parties and the demolition of buildings. We see pictures in illustrated papers of buildings which have been bombed, showing what is taking place in Spain. Squads must be in readiness to tear down damaged buildings, because a wall leaning over as a result of a bomb presents a danger. Volunteers are called to do that kind of work. There must also be men to clear the roads, or to repair steam pipes which have been opened by an explosion. I do not know whether we are doing anything along this line in Canada.
We may be on the verge of attack-I hope we are not; I hope we are never attacked. But it would not do us any harm to be ready to take care of ourselves if we were attacked from the air or otherwise. The officer next called for volunteers to attend to the decontamination of buildings and roadways, as a result of a town or city being gassed from the air. This particular service calls for the cleaning up of roads and the sprinkling of lime on them, or some other decontaminator, which would destroy the effects of gas.
The officer next asked for air raid wardens. These are volunteers who would be ready to fly at a moment's notice to warn people by means of sirens that the city was about to be gassed. He also asked that volunteers, to wear the necessary protective appliances, be enrolled to go here and there throughout the city, to various sections and places, to detect places filled with gas. He gave long instructions with respect to the preparation of rooms.
I wonder if we have anything like that in Canada. I brought back the literature which was handed to me-all sorts of it. Pamphlet No 1, is entitled, Organization of Air Raid Casualty Services. Have we anything of that kind sent out in Canada? If we have not, then we should have. No. 2 is entitled. Rescue Parties and Clearance of Debris. We should have some organization ready, in the event of a city like Halifax being bombed from an aircraft carrier. Who can tell that Halifax could be saved by any surface craft if an aircraft carrier, coming within range of the city, sent out bombing planes and showered it with gas? How would the people know what to do? Has the department sent out literature? If the department has not literature along the lines of that published in England, it should have.
Pamphlet No 3, is entitled, Organization of Decontamination Services, and No 4, is Air Raid Wardens. I had not intended saying anything, but I was moved to do so by the observations of the hon. member for Parry Sound. All I can say to the minister is that if there is no service available at the present time, or no money provided through an estimate for the protection of Canadians against air raids, against bombing and gas attacks from the air, then any vote along that line should be supported by the Canadian people.


Mr. ERNEST BERTRAND (Laurier) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but certain statements were made which prompt me to make_ a few observations. Last year, when we discussed the question of armaments, I stood by the government. We were somewhat criticized in our constituencies, but I was glad to notice, this year, a change of opinion among the public, and even among some members of this house. I am sure that many of those who criticized us last year will have to admit now that we were right then as we are to-day in supporting the government.
War is a terrible thing. We are all agreed on that, and nobody wants war, neither those who are in favour of armaments nor the others,
Supply-National Defence

but, as the hon. member who just spoke said, war will break out when we least expect it, and without notice.
There is in the province of Quebec a most vulnerable spot, in case of war. I mean the St. Maurice valley. I want the people who inhabit this valley to hear what might happen if a war broke out. With the powerful aircraft that are in use to-day, we know that our enemies would attempt to attack mainly the spots where our war industries are situated. Tor instance, in the St. Maurice valley there are cities like Three Rivers, Shawinigan and Grand'Mere where many industries are apt to manufacture war materials. At the head of the St. Maurice valley there is the Gouin dam which w*as built, I believe, some twenty-five years ago, and which forms a reservoir containing so much water that, if it were bombed, it would flood the whole St. Maurice valley. It could possibly drown the whole population and completely destroy our war industries.
I do not wish to censure any of my colleagues, but I just want to ask those who are residing in the St. Maurice valley to ponder over this contingency. Supposing an airplane would get to that dam at a speed of 400 miles an hour, and destroy it with bombs, would it not be a terrible disaster? The hon. members from that district have every good reason to see Canada well armed.
Nobody likes war, either on this side or on the other side of this house, and we have finally agreed on the question of armaments. I notice also that hon. members of the opposition who, last year, remained silent during the discussion of these estimates, now come forward and are more ready than ever to support the government.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Chairman. I listened with a great deal of interest this afternoon to the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). I say I listened with interest, because one does become interested when expressions are given by ministers of the crown on such matters as national defence, and matters touching upon problems of the day and their relation to other nations. I do not think the minister could have said anything but what he did. If any of us were in the same position we could not have said anything more. I am not now speaking for the group to which I belong. My personal observation is that if we were to find ourselves on the treasury benches we would not know just what to do in connection with foreign policy. We have often been asked just what we would do in connection with finance, and although the 
answer has not always been to the satisfaction of hon. members opposite, I think we would know just what should be done. But when it comes to the problems being debated to-night, I doubt if we would know just how to act. In saying that, I do not think I admit any weakness on our part; it simply illustrates that the problems which confront the government of this and other countries are so exacting that it would be difficult indeed to determine the proper and exact course to follow.
I am in accord with some of the things said by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail). I cannot see any sense in spending money on armaments and then permitting war materials to go from this country to potential enemies. I imagine all hon. members will agree with that. However, there are other matters to be considered. We all like to be idealistic to a certain extent; we all know in our own minds what we would like to see done; but we cannot very well deal with things as we would like them to be; we must deal with them as they are. Things being as they are in the world to-day, who can say just what should be done?
I experience a little difficulty in knowing just where the work of the Minister of National Defence ends and the work of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs, begins. I have never been able to determine the exact line of demarcation. When we are debating or discussing matters pertaining to estimates on national defence, we are so likely to slide off into matters of foreign policy. In some instances we feel that we have to do this. However, I think we should appreciate the position in which the Prime Minister finds himself these days. Sometimes I have felt that he has not given an adequate and full answer to some questions concerning foreign policy; yet at the same time I do not think we should try to embarrass the government.
I do not believe there is a man living who can predict what will happen in the next few months or even in the next few weeks. I do not think it is wise for us to ask the Prime Minister for a specific and definite answer with regard to foreign policy because he may have to change that answer in a few months. I am reminded of a book written by Sir Norman Angell. I shall not quote from that book as some hon. members do not appreciate quotations. Prior to the great war he wrote a book entitled The Great Illusion, in which he dealt with the money aspect of a possible war. It has since been

Supply-National Defence
proven that when that war did break out, every one of his contentions were erroneous. His predictions did not come true. Sir Norman Angell is nobody's fool; he is a smart man in many ways; but he could not make accurate predictions at that time, and conditions to-day are tremendously more problematical than they were then. I am not saying that we are nearer to war, but it seems to me that the world's stage as it appears to-day is more intricate than it was then. If such men as he were unable to say with any degree of certainty what would happen in the future, who can do so to-day? I would be reluctant to embarrass the government in this connection.
There are one or two observations I should like to make with regard to the closing part of the minister's speech. These observations may seem trivial, but I should like to place them before the committee. The minister said that we were a free people, but I do not think we are. We may be free to vote and elect a government, but I doubt very much if that government is free once it is in office. We are not free, even as a nation, to do as we would like to do. Our contention is that the present system of finance will not permit it.
If I understood the minister correctly, he said that to a large extent governments were guided by popular opinion. He had better think over that statement a little more as I doubt whether it is so in fact. If he will reflect a little more, he must realize that certain factors go toward moulding public opinion and those factors are often brought into play by the action of governments. There are many illustrations of this in history. For instance, take the ease of the abdication of Edward. In that instance the popular cry was that he should remain, come what may. But Mr. Stanley Baldwin thought otherwise and paid little heed to the cry of public opinion.
We all recognize, I think, that statesmen must be very far-seeing. Sometimes public opinion is not right, and again, public opinion changes very, very rapidly. I would not advise our government to be swayed by public opinion, because public opinion to-day may be one thing and to-morrow it may be entirely different, and sometimes it does not take very much to change it. I suppose that public opinion with regard to conscription, for the sake of illustration, would be opposed to it; but if an incident such as that of the sinking of the Lusitania occurred, or if the newspapers were to print war atrocities and display cartoons showing babies stuck on the end of bayonets, public opinion would change very, very rapidly.
I have made these observations, Mr. Chairman, as my small contribution to this debate, and it may not be worth very much. I feel, of course, that money policy plays a big part in all these things, and this group goes a step farther in saying that until the money system is so adjusted as to bring about a conformity between money and the distribution of goods and services, there will in the end be no peace. Money knows no international boundaries, and until this adjustment is brought about, there will be no peace.


Mr. F. C. BETTS (London):: I should like to say a few words, Mr. Chairman, before this item carries. First, I should like to quote a remark made by the right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he was dealing with defence estimates in 1937, as reported at page 1040 of Hansard of that year. He said:
I should be inclined to believe that the security of one's country would rank as the first among all social securities.
That, of course, is a statement with which no one can quarrel, and it is as true to-day as it was then. Dealing with the principle which has been laid down by imperial conferences since time immemorial, and which was referred to by the minister in his remarks to-day, he said:
The primary responsibility of each portion of the empire is for its own local defence.
In dealing with the local defence of a country such as Canada, I would point out that the vital areas extend for some very considerable distance beyond our harbours on the east coast and on the west as well. Local defence, using the term in its narrowest sense, if it is to be adequate must include such sea-going craft as can cope effectively with enemy warships, and in particular with enemy craft of the type known as the cruiser raider, such as the Emden, which wrought so much havoc during the past war.
Dealing with the phrase " local defence " and with our naval situation in particular, I would submit that as we are now equipped on the sea, or as we shall be even after the present estimates have been appropriated and spent, we shall have nothing that could be described as adequate for the defence of Halifax, Saint John, Vancouver and Victoria. The failure to make provision for purchasing a cruiser is, I contend, a glaring gap in the estimates as they stand, and our destroyer fleet would be entirely ineffective in coping with the type of raid that the Emden carried on during the last war, and with the type of raid that we may expect with full confidence will be suffered by our ports, not some weeks after war breaks out, but within a very few

Supply-National Defence
hours after the declaration of war. I would also remind the minister that declarations of war have gone out of fashion. What I am trying to emphasize is the extreme urgency of adequate protection on the sea, which is lacking at the present time.
We should also have, in my opinion, submarines in order that the focal waters around Saint John, Halifax, Vancouver and Victoria may be protected. Before I leave the eastern ports I should like to touch on their tremendous importance in any scheme of empire defence. Military experts agree that within the United Kingdom at the present time there is enough food to last approximately six weeks and no more. In the event of a war which included the United Kingdom there are two possibilities: The United States might participate in the early stages of the war, and the United States might not. In this house in our deliberations we should prepare for either eventuality.
Let us take the second one, a war in which the United States takes no part. The situation then would be that the United States, by their neutrality legislation, would be prohibited from shipping anything to the belligerents. No food, no munitions, no nickel, no copper could leave the United States for the British Isles if the United States were not involved in the war. That would place a tremendous burden on the ports of Saint John and Halifax. It would make those ports of primary importance in any scheme of imperial defence, and as they are now protected, my submission is that these ports would be put out of action within the first week of the war. They are absolutely vulnerable to attack by the cruiser-raider type of vessel. Furthermore, there is an entire lack, so far as I know, and so far as these estimates or the minister's statements have revealed, of any adequate, modern antiaircraft equipment. The ports are at the mercy of attacks not only from the sea but from such planes as would inevitably slip through any North sea blockade that might be established, some carried by aircraft carriers and some in the holds of merchantmen, which would establish themselves somewhere within 250 miles of Saint John and Halifax, up north, Labrador way, where it would be practically impossible to locate them until great damage had been done. Using their ships as their base, they would run a shuttle bombing service which in a very short time would put the ports of Saint John and Halifax entirely out of action. The result of that would be that not only food, for which Great Britain would be looking to this country, but the all important supplies of nickel, copper

and other sinews of war, which would have to come from the North American continent, would be entirely lacking.
The minister in his statement said that the use of modern aircraft had turned the probability of attacks from the air into a possibility.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The very opposite-the possibility into a probability.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I stand corrected-yes.	I
would go one step further, and say that it has become an absolute certainty in the event of war. I point out another probability, if not a certainty, namely, that cities such as Quebec -certainly-and	Montreal-possibly-would
be subject to bombing attacks by dirigibles which would come in by way of Labrador, which would be seen by nobody except a few Indians, and which would be in a position to unload, without any warning whatever, two tons of explosives on the city of Quebec.
The same possibility, probability, or certainty exists in so far as the cities of Vancouver and Victoria are concerned. It is true that at the present time we have the British navy; we have had it for years, and we rely with a sense of security upon what that navy can do for us. But the fact of the matter is that if a war of world dimensions broke out-and personally I fail to see how any modern war can be other than one of world dimensions-the British navy would have all it could possibly do to protect the focal waters around the British Isles. There would be no possibility of the navy sending detachments to protect this part of the empire. Furthermore, we have no right to expect that that would be done, because, as imperial conference after imperial conference has affirmed, as the Prime Minister himself stated in his speech of February a year ago, and as the minister reiterated to-night, the primary responsibility of each portion of the empire is for its own local defence.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I protest against the entire lack of adequate provision in these estimates for the protection of those very parts of the country which the Prime Minister over a year ago referred to as vulnerable points, points which must be protected. I quote further from the remarks of the Prime Minister. At page 1041 of Hansard he said:
With warfare what it is likely to be in the future, with possible air and submarine raids and all else that is to be feared, the protection of our great municipalities against the dropping of bombs or the sowing of mines which might disrupt the whole life of a municipality, becomes one of the most serious obligations under the heading of present day defence.

Supply-National Defence
I ask the minister, and I hope he will tell us later on in his remarks, how many planes we have in this country capable of developing a speed of 250 miles per hour-


Mr. BENNETT:: Or any speed.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: tional safeguard in any great emergency, to suggest that we should depend upon it entirely and do absolutely nothing for ourselves is simply to be lacking in self-respect as a nation; it is simply sponging.
We have been sitting in this chamber now for two months, and have devoted much time to the discussion of all sorts of resolutions, many of them of very little moment. We have talked at endless length about the advisability of designing and adopting a new Canadian flag which will signify our status as an "equality partner in the empire." But my submission is that far from doing anything to carry our load, far from pulling our weight in the imperial boat, we are doing absolutely nothing. I submit that the present defence estimates, coupled with the statement of the minister, show an entire lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves, and so far as anything we are doing to maintain our own local defences is concerned, we are still sponging.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 25, 1938