[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 23, to incorporate Executor Trust Company-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 24, respecting a certain patent of George Yates-Mr. Casgrain.
Bill No. 25, respecting The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company and to subdivide the unissued capital stock-Mr. Geary.


Right. Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to
lay on the table the report of the Canadian delegates to the tenth assembly of the League of Nations.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	What were the amounts refunded by way of 99 per cent of duty paid on imported coal used by iron and/or steel producers in each of the provinces of Canada during the calendar year 1929?
2.	What was the country of origin of the coal on which duty was refunded as above, and v. ha! was the tonnage from each, subdivided as to rail or water importation?
3.	What amounts were paid in each province of Canada by way of subsidy to coke oven operators on coal coked by them during the calendar year 1929?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	$640,689.15. Records of drawback not kept by provinces.
2.	No statistical information available.
3.	Nil.


RURAL MAIL DELIVERY, CARP, ONT.
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	How many tenders were received for the contract for rural mail delivery R.R. No. 2, Carp. Ontario?
2.	What are the names of those who submitted tenders and the respective amounts of the tenders ?
3.	Who was the successful tenderer and what are the names of his bondsmen?
Mr. VENIOT
1.	4.
2.	William F. Farley	 $ 794
Benson Craig	 799
Ephraim Scharf	 895
James McKenny	 1,070
3.	William F. Farley.
Sureties: W. H. Falls and George Dolan.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Mr. BERTRAND:: 1.	What sums of money have been paid by the federal government as pensions to the aged in Canada during the year 1929?
2.	What amount has been paid by each province in this respect during the same year?


Mr. HEENAN:: 1.
(a)	Subventions to provinces...! 1,878,944 43
(b)	Northwest Territories.. ..	251 64
Total	$ 1,879,196 07
2. Alberta	$	125,110 31British Columbia	930,976	34Manitoba	
1,094,229	74Ontario	
711,657	94Saskatchewan	
895,914	54Total	$ 3,757,888 87*
Federal government's subventions to provinces is fifty per cent of the total of $3,757,888.87, or the amount of $1,878,944.43 shown under 1 (a).


KINDERSLEY, SASK., POST OFFICE
Mr. CARMICHAEL:: 1.	What is the total business done in the post office at Kindersley, Saskatchewan, in each of the past three years for which returns are available?
2.	What is the yearly remuneration paid to the postmaster at Kindersley, Saskatchewan?
3.	What yearly rental allowance is paid for the Kindersley, Saskatchewan, office?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.1926-27	$	7,530	961927-28	8,090	121928-29	9,116	742.1927-28	$	3,258	901928-29	3,208	401929-30	3,582	003.1927-28	531	001928-29	563	001929-30	625	00
Export Act*-Mr. Bennett


PICTOU-CHARLOTTETOWN STEAMBOAT SERVICE
Mr. MANION:: 1.	To whom was the contract let for a steamboat service between Pictou, Nova Scotia, and Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island?
2.	What was the amount of the contract?
3.	What was the length of time of the contract?
4.	What is the name of the boat which is used by the contractor?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.	The Hochelaga Shipping and Towing Company, Ltd., of Halifax, N.S.
2.	$40,000 per annum.
3.	From May 1 to November 30 in each of the years 1930-1934, both included.
4.	Hochelaga.


MR. ANTONIN-MAXIMILIEN GALIPEAULT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day are called, as the rumour of the appointment of Mr. Antonin-Maximilien Gali-peault, Minister of Public Works of Quebec, has appeared in the press, is it the intention of the government-before seriously considering such appointment-carefully to scrutinize the political record of that "Boss Tweed," or, to put it mildly, of that buccaneer?
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BLACK (YUKON)

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Pensions (Mr. King, Kootenay), has called my attention to the fact that in speaking on March 4 in relation to the resolution preceding his bill for allowances to war veterans, I may have done an injustice to the soldiers' adviser for Vancouver, in crediting to him two protests in relation to the manner in which a certain case was being dealt with by the Board of Pension Commissioners. The first protest was not by the soldiers' adviser from Vancouver but by the soldiers' adviser from Victoria. The second protest was from the soldiers' adviser at Vancouver. So there were two instead of one. It was not confined to the soldiers' adviser at Vancouver.
CANADIANS EMPLOYED IN DETROIT On the orders of the day:


Mr. S. C. ROBINSON (West Essex):: Before the orders of the day are called, I desire CMr. Veniot.l
to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware of certain actions taken in Detroit which vitally affect the livelihood of a large number of Canadian citizens. I call his attention to a despatch in the Border Cities Star of February 26:
Between 100 and 150 residents of the border cities, hitherto employed by the city of Detroit, will lose their jobs immediately, as the result of a resolution adopted Tuesday night by the Detroit common council. Most of these are said to hold mechanical jobs in the various city departments.
The attack on the non-American -workers was originated several weeks ago, when the council ordered all departmental heads to report the number of aliens employed in their respective departments. Reports received from four of these departments, public works, parks and boulevards, lighting commission and fire department, showed a total of 748 such employees on the payroll.
Was not this or a similar question taken up by Mr. Massey with the Washington government, and some agreement arrived at? Will the Prime Minister examine into the facts referred to in this despatch and take such steps as are in his power to protect Canadian interests?


Hewitt Bostock: That is a question which the hon. gentleman should place on the notice paper.



EXPORT ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the
right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the absence of the hon. the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), lor certain information that a number of my hon. friends think very essential, in order that there may bo a reasonable understanding of order No. 21, for the second reading of a bill to amend the Export Act. If the bill is to be properly debated in the house, we should have the information. I learned that the Minister of National Revenue was in the hospital. I have a number of inquiries for information, and I thought I would mention the matter to the Prime Minister himself to see what would be the best method to resort to in order that the information will be available to the house as a whole when the matter is under discussion.
I might mention, by illustration, the question of the number of distillery and brewery licences that have been issued since 1922, the quantity of spirits in bond a few years ago and the quantity now in bond. Those are mat-

Privilege-Mr. Church
ters that the members of the house should have before them when we come to discuss the measure.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I think it
will be possible to supply readily any information my hon. friend desires. If he will give me a statement of the information he wishes to have, I will endeavour to have it obtained for him from the department. I am sure the minister would wish it to be given to the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hesitated to ask any
official of the department, owing to the absence of the minister, and I had intended to speak to the Prime Minister personally, but perhaps this is the proper procedure. Might it not be better for me to prepare a typewritten list of questions and put it on the order paper, with an understanding that they will be answered before we proceed with the debate?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that
would be preferable.



IMPORTATION OF EGGS FROM UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: I understand the attention, of the government has been called by several bodies throughout the country to a very startling increase in the importation of eggs from the United States. In January, 1929, the imports amounted to 3,626 dozen, while in January of 1930 the imports were 529,048 dozen. I should like to ask the government whether any action is contemplated following receipt of the protest of the Canadian poultry pool, who have assured the government that they are capable of meeting the demands of the Canadian market.


Hewitt Bostock: That will serve as a
notice.


John Arthur Clark: It is a very urgent matter.



SOLDIER SETTLERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the acting Minister of Immigration (Mr. Stewart) or to the Prime Minister. I should like to know whether matters affecting soldiers who are operating under the soldier settlement board may be brought before the committee which has been appointed to deal with soldier pensions. If so, I should like to suggest to the minister that the actions of the board in dispossessing many of these settlers
be delayed until the committee has had an opportunity to receive a deputation in regard to this matter.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Acting Minister of Immigration):: Would my hon. friend designate the localities in which delay is requested?


Harry James Barber: The particular place to
which I refer is the Fraser valley. I have received a telegram stating that two settlers in that district were dispossessed of their stock and equipment yesterday, and their places have been advertised for sale on March 17.


Charles A. Stewart: The committee on pensions and soldier problems is the committee to which all information with respect to the soldier settlement board will be taken.


Harry James Barber: Will these proceedings be
held up in the meantime?



PRIVILEGE-MR. CHURCH RULES AND PROCEDURE RELATING TO QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister took exception to some four or five questions which I placed on the order paper, and I submit that his objections were entirely out of order.


Hewitt Bostock: The ruling has been made and is not debatable. It can be appealed from, but the time has passed for that.


Thomas Langton Church: I would refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne at page 342.


Hewitt Bostock: That is coming exactly to the point I mentioned yesterday. I did pot base my ruling on the commentaries of Beauchesne ; I based it on standing order 44, which clearly .states that no question involving an argument can be placed on the order paper. Perhaps my hon. friend would discuss this matter with me privately; this is hardly the time for it.


Thomas Langton Church: On a question of privilege and point of order, I assert the right of a private member to ask questions of the ministry. Standing order No. 1, as found in Beauchesne is as follows:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this house.
I submit that it is the duty of the ministry to answer these questions as far as may be
Privilege-Mr. Church

possible. In Great Britain there is a standing older which provides that questions which may not appear on the order paper but which are of an urgent character or which refer to matters of public importance or to the conduct of public business may be asked. Acting upon this rule, the members practically crossexamine the ministry.
In a new book on parliamentary procedure published last summer by G. F. H. Campion, Second Clerk Assistant of the British House of Commons, I read the following:
Not later than three o'clock the question hour begins. This is a more important item of business than any yet described. It is expected to provide lively moments and seems to be of unfailing interest to members and the public. It is modern and affords a useful method of supervising the administration of the government. Its effectiveness is generally recognized. Questions "turn a searchlight upon every corner of the public service" (Lowell, 1. 332). Their chief object is "the explanation to the public of the meaning of political events," and "they are often arranged by the government itself so as to give them an opportunity of making announcements in a somewhat informal way" (Redlich, ii, 241 and 242). They are "serviceable as obviating the necessity in many instances of more extended debate and of motions for papers" (Todd, 1882. ii. 85). And finally "Questions afford to the private member under modern conditions almost his only opportunity" (Marriott, i, 571).
I would refer again to the fact that under standing order 1, in all cases not provided for in our rules the usages and customs of the British house as in force at the time will be followed. I do not see why I should be ruled out of order. I might point out that there are three very convenient ways of answering questions:	The first is "no information"; the
second is, "wait and see," the words of Mr. Asquith; the third is "announcement will be made in due course". One question with regard to unemployment, which was ruled out of order was answered in almost exactly the same terms in twTo previous sessions, and the answer was that it was a matter for the provinces and municipalities. I desire to assert my right to ask these questions under these rules and usages both of this house and the British House of Commons.
They are not. the set answers which the opposition should expect under the rules of this honourable house. "No information" is the reply given as to those soldiers of the great war appointed to the Senate and the high court bench of thp provinces; although information is in the parliamentary guide and the answ'er should have been "none". In the British House of Commons when Mr. Winston Churchill was not satisfied with such a reply as that made by Mr. Snowden regarding cer-

tain matters which had been raised in the house, he was sustained in his objection, and the information was forced from the chancellor. Under the rule supplementary questions can be asked all over the British chamber. Standing order No. 1 of this house is that the rules of the British House of Commons shall be applied as far as aipplicable to this house. I would ask Mr. Speaker to study these authorities, perhaps later on, because this is a very important matter, and give a decision. The authorities cited from Todd's twelfth edition, set out in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, paragraphs 342 and 349, page 113, have been modified, by the new series of rules on questions adopted by the British House of Commons, which, under our standing order No. 1, are binding on this honourable house.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member need not hand up the volume because I read it during the recess, having received it direct from England. I may say to the hon. member that he was right in rising at this time. I gather that he had no intention of appealing from the ruling given yesterday, as he rose on a question of privilege, and he was right in doing that.
I would remind the hon. gentleman that I know of the existence of standing order No. 1, which reads:
In all cases not provided for hereinafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this house.
I would draw attention to the two riders, "not provided for" and "so far as they may be applicable to this house." We have standing order 44. which I read to the house when these questions were put, and it states in part: -but in putting any such question or in reply-' ing to the same no argument or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as may be necessary to explain the same.
The matter would be different if the government were refusing to answer a clear cut question, but when the question is argumentative, surely I am bound by our standing order.


Thomas Langton Church: Will Your Honour allow me to reply, as I do not think you quite got my point?


Hewitt Bostock: I got the. hon. gentleman's point.


Thomas Langton Church: The rules which you read from the text book have been repealed in the British house.

Privilege-Mr. Church


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before the orders
of the day are proceeded with, a question touching upon the privileges of parliament is now under discussion. I conceive it to be in accordance with British and Canadian practice for a private member to place upon the order paper questions touching upon the conduct of public affairs. The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Church) has directed attention to the observations in that regard of Campion, who refers to the works of Lowell and Redlich as to the right, not only of private members and of the opposition, but of the government itself to present facts to the house through the medium of questions. As to the form in which these questions are to be asked, it seems to me that there is no doubt at all that the rules cover that point, and that the questions must be capable of being directly answered. The government is not bound in any sense to anticipate its policy in answering a question. I think that is clear, but there are other questions, questions which are asked orally before the orders of the day are proceeded with. Such questions usually refer to matters of urgent public concern, and it has been the custom usually, if the matter is of great importance, for the member asking the question to submit a copy of it either to the Prime Minister or the responsible head of the department which might be affected by the question. During the last few days questions have been asked which, it seems to me were susceptible of a very simple answer, and rather than it being said that they were improperly asked, the government might very well say, "We will take the matter under consideration."
I submit that the privileges of parliament are such that any member has a right to direct attention to a matter of public concern before the orders of the day are proceeded with. The subject matter of the question may be of such a character that the government may not care to discuss it, and might reply, " This matter will receive our consideration and attention," or, " our purpose will be made known as the session proceeds," or as the case may be. I would draw attention to the clear distinction between the right of a member to ask a question and the right of the government to dispose of it in any way it sees fit. The government's answer may be of such a character as to afford no information, depending upon the importance of the question, the character of the results which follow from the answer which may ge biven, and other factors to which I will not refer at this time.
I venture to take up this matter at this time as being one which touches upon the great privileges of parliament as they affect matters of public interest. If I may give an illustration without transgressing the rules: The question asked by the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson) touched upon a matter of very grave international importance. It seems to me that the question itself was in order but that the Prime Minister might very properly, and I think perhaps that others in his place would have said, " This is a matter of serious moment and in due course we will endeavour to give you an answer." I give that illustration to accentuate what I conceive to be the clear distinction between the right to ask a question, as a matter of it being in order, and the right of the government to decline to give a specific answer because of the lack of opportunity to consider implications which might arise from the answer, and the interests which might be involved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, as far as the government is concerned we are not only willing but most anxious to answer any questions which may be asked for the purpose of obtaining information. I think more latitude has been allowed with respect to questions which have been asked lately on the orders of the day than has been the customary practice in this parliament. There are certain rules which it is to the advantage of the house as a whole to have observed. If, when the orders of the day are called, members are to be permitted to read extracts from newspapers and consume the time of the house by so doing, it will simply mean the delay of orders upon the paper, which should be dealt with promptly in the regular way. The leader of the opposition has given as an example the question just put by the hon. member for West Essex. The hon. member read a long extract from a newspaper and I confess, although I was able to follow the first part of it, that before he got to the end I had not the remotest idea to what part of the newspaper item he was going to refer. I do not think the reading of the article was the correct procedure, but if it was a very urgent matter the hon. member might have done as his leader has suggested, and come to me, or sent a note to my secretary before the house met, saying that he intended to ask a question. Had that been done, I would have endeavoured to be in a position to reply, but the very fact that the question was, as my hon. friend has suggested, one involving international conditions, will, I am
Privilege-Mr. Church

sure, cause my hon. friend himself to appreciate why the answer to the question should not have been given offhand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: From listening to the press quotation, it would appear that it refers to something which had been done by a municipality in another country. If I had answered offhand, I would have said, "It seems to me that what municipalities in other countries do or do not do is their business and not ours," but I would not have liked to have made that reply offhand. I am quite prepared to deal in a fair way with any question on the order paper, but I think the government must ask you, Mr. Speaker, to assist the house in observing its own rules with respect to the form in which questions are put and the amount of latitude to be allowed in asking general questions; in other words, in seeking by asking a question to give information to the house rather than to obtain information from the minister.


Hewitt Bostock: In reference to the Canadian practice, Bourinot at page 354, speaking on calling of orders, says:
It is a practice, sanctioned by usage but not by any ipositive rule, for members in both houses of the Canadian parliament to make personal explanations or ask questions of the government when the orders of the day are called. They make them in reference to an inaccurate report of their speeches in the official record, or in the newspapers; or in denial of certain charges made against them in the public prints; or in reference to certain remarks which had been misunderstood on a previous occasion, and which they had not before had an opportunity of explaining; or in respect to delay in obtaining returns or to the incompleteness or inaccuracy of certain returns brought down under the order of the house. But these remarks are not allowable on the ground of privilege, unless the conduct of a member as such is attacked, and in that case a motion should be formally proposed.
Therefore, the Canadian practice is well laid down in Bourinot, but as a matter of courtesy I allow membei's to put brief and concrete questions to the government, and generally the government answers them. As a matter of practice, however, no involved questions should be put before the orders of the day are called, such questions must be preceded by ftotice, on the order paper, otherwise much valuable time would be lost before the sitting really began.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I wish to assure the
Prime Minister there was no discourtesy intended on my part in not sending him a copy of the question.
I Mr. Mackenzie King.]



WAR PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Peter McGibbon (Muskoka-Ontario):
That, in the opinion of this house, any exsoldier who has served in any theatre of war, who applies for a pension or an increase of pension and submits evidence or an opinion from any reputable physician or surgeon in Canada, stating that his disability is directly or indirectly attributable to war services, the onus of disproof shall be upon the Board of Pension Commissioners and that unless the same be disproved a pension shall be granted to the said applicant in accordance with the schedule at present in force under the regulations of the Board of Pension Commissioners.
Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, in continuing the debate, I hope I shall not be long. Since last we discussed this motion and the amendment to it, some water-I wish it had been more-has passed under I he bridge. We have the War Veterans Allowances Act. So far as that act confers benefits upon returned soldiers in response from us to the obligation incurred by us, it has my whole-hearted support; I commend it and I believe the people of the country commend it. But the point is that first things should be dealt with first. When the soldiers left our shores they left under a bargain. It was a bargain where the proponent, the country, acted voluntarily and it was cheerfully agreed to by the people. A response has to be made to our duty in relation to that contract, for such it is, and the question of the Pension Act and its administration should be first dealt with. Why? I try to put myself into the position of the soldier. I have gone under the conditions that the soldiers of Canada have gone under. I have come back. I have earned a pension. I say that that pension is the w'hite flower and decoration of patriotic service. It is valuable; it is a grant that comes from His Majesty and to which I am entitled. I wear it proudly and it is of value because it sustains me. That is not the principle of the War Veterans Allowances Act. If the result of this measure is going to be-and I emphasize the word "if"- that soldiers who are entitled to pension are to be asked to take a veteran's allowance without the pension, I object.
I said on the former occasion that I was in favour of the principle of the motion and of the amendment. I am still, and frankly I do not know how the house and the country are going to move away from the principle of the amendment. Not to take up time, let me ask: What is that principle? Shortly

War Pensions-Mr. Ryckman
stated, it is this that if a veteran makes out
a prima facie case that he should have a pension, then the onus is on the crown or the pension board or its officers to establish that that veteran is not entitled to a pension. It often happens in a court of justice that a prima facie case has been made out and the jury give their verdict on it. Sometimes objection is taken that there is not sufficient evidence to support the verdict and sometimes that succeeds, because there is not. But when there is enough evidence given by a veteran to support his claim, if it were being tried oy a jury, then I say that the onus should be shifted and should be lifted from the shoulders of the soldier. That is a principle all through our jurisprudence, and as I tried to point out when I spoke last, it has occurred in eases where the liberty of the subject is at stake. No one has objected to it.
I heard one hon. gentleman, speaking on the other side, say he did not just know, but he had an open mind and he could be converted. I believe that is the. effect of what he said. I have some friends on the other side of the house, and I have others who, I think, would like to oblige me. We have debated this matter for four days. Now will they summarize it and tell us what is wrong with this suggestion? Supposing the question comes to me: Why do you insist upon that principle? Why do you object to the matter going to the committee? I do not object to this going to the committee, but what I want is to have a mandate go to the committee sajdng that the house, which is greater than the committee, for the whole is greater than any part, having considered this matter for four days has come to the conclusion that the principle as to shifting the onus should be passed on to the committee as fixed and that the committee should govern itself accordingly. If there is some valid objection, I should like to hear it. I shall be glad to say that I am wrong if there is some countervailing reason against this principle being followed.
Again, why do I want this? Two years ago a committee was appointed at the beginning of the session.. It dealt earnestly and profitably with the question, but it reported in the last hours of the session. My hon. leader proposed an amendment, and across the floor of this house he said to the Minister of Pensions: Let us have this and we will be satisfied. The minister replied; No, we have made good progress on this bill, and that is all we can do now.


Mr. THORSON:: What amendment was
that?
Mr. RYCIvMAN:	The amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition two years ago.
Mr, THORSON: Was not the amendment of the leader of the opposition moved three years ago?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: War Pensions-Mr. Ryckman
question up with politics. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that in seeking the welfare of the soldier there can be no objection to playing politics if the soldiers' welfare can be gained in no other way. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the interests of the soldier can be secured in no other way than by playing politics, I want to be charged with playing politics, and I want to be charged with being in the front line, because so far as I am concerned this has no relation to my constituency whatever. My constituents, by whose grace I am here for this session, know exactly where I stand. I have nothing to gain with them in regard to this matter, but I feel, and they feel, that the failure to meet our obligations with respect to the soldiers has been due to the government that has been in power for the last decade. That condition should be corrected; I want to see it corrected, and if I can do anything to bring about that correction. I am only too anxious to do it. There can be no criticism of one who, knowing the ills which the soldiers are suffering, rises and says in any fair way: I want the soldier to receive what he is entitled to, and what he has been entitled to receive for a decade at the hands of this government.
It has been stated that we on this side of the house are anxious to open the treasury and allow all sorts of inroads upon it. We on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, have a keen appreciation of the responsibility of the government, of the resources of Canada, of what expenditures should be set up and how they should be met. I know that to many things which the government has proposed I have been opposed. I think the government in some respects has been spendthrift, but in matters such as this I would spend money to keep faith and implement our 'pledges. Some may hold the view tha-t this proposal should be examined into with a view to ascertaining its cost, and not with regard to the obligation which should be carried out.
I say: Obligation first, and expense afterwards.
I think probably I might even be generous in a matter of this kind where others by reason of the view they hold would be more niggardly. But it has been admitted on both sides on this house that the government are responsible in dollars and cents for discharging the obligation which all admit was undertaken on behalf of the country.
Let me make this criticism. It has been stated by the hon. Minister of Pensions, and by the right hon. the Prime Minister, I think, that we are constantly building up this act, making it better and better. I admit that it is better to-day than it was ten years ago when the government came into power, but [Mi. Ryckman.]
it seems almost too obvious for me to point out what has happened while this act is being built up, as the minister states, and while the essentia! thing has not yet been done. For whom are you building up the act? You may have a magnificent edifice built for a tenant who will never occupy it, because many of them have already passed on and will never have the opportunity of availing themselves of-I will not say the bounty-[DOT] but of what the government was in duty bound to pay them. The time has gone; they have passed on, many of them, and if we are to go on from year to year building up this act, the time will come when this government by failure to take prompt and thorough action will have deprived itself of the opportunity to keep its contract with the men who have "gone west."
I was particularly shocked-it is not too strong a word under the circumstances-by the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark). Will hon. gentlemen lisfeu to this? Here is a case of a woman who was entitled to a pension when she was fifty-seven years of age because she had lost the support of her son. She gets her pension when? At sixty-nine years of age
twelve years later! That was possible under the law which has been kept on the statute books by this government, and the government is responsible therefor. The other case referred to by the hon. member for l'ukon (Mr. Black) was equally shocking. In some respects it was little short of a joke. Think of it, twenty-one doctors gave testimony on the man's disability, yet the pension board disallowed his application for pension. Why, Mr. Speaker, the situation is ridiculous. While I am here on my feet I do not know when I may get a telephone call in the case of a Mrs. Carswell, who has just been able to come out of hospital. She happens to be a resident of Toronto. Her husband died through war service. I do not think there is any doubt about it. But suppose there is a doubt, you can resolve it any way you like. That woman's case has been taken from the pension board to the federal appeal board, from the federal appeal board back to the pension board, and again from the pension board to the federal appeal board. As a member of this house I say that if this parliament keeps upon the statute books any law whereby such strange happenings can take place, then we are all to blame, because we ought to sit down and reason together and evolve something that will be honest and practicable and workable.
But you ask, does it matter? I should like to make it the first business of this house to

War Pensions-Mr. Mackenzie King
remedy this condition of affairs. Why? Well, we have been told in this debate that thousands of our returned men pass away every year, and they die with the knowledge that they entered into a bargain with their country -a bargain which we admit-but that they did not get the benefit of that bargain to which they were entitled at the hands of their country. They were entitled to the reward of meritorious service. I tell this house that Rome is burning and we are fiddling over this thing. When will the committee get to work? Will it be, as on the last occasion, waiting until the dying hours of the session before it gets down to work? It may be that in the dying hours of the session, as some suggest-I know nothing of what may happen -we shall have an election thrust upon us and parliament will be dissolved. Suppose these matters are not cared for before that time, there will be another year's delay. Mr. Speaker, I protest.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend from East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) had made the other evening the speech which he has made this afternoon. I think his conscience would not have pricked him as it did with respect to my rebuke for having sought to make party political capital out of what he was saying.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I did not know that your rebuke was addressed to me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend took it very much to heart because he has said over and over again that his was the only speech to which I made reference, and that I thought there was in it a good deal that was of a partisan character. My hon. friend this afternoon tells us that he is prepared to play party politics under certain circumstances, but I am glad to see that in his speech this afternoon he very considerably modified his attitude from that taken previously.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I did not intend to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I had reference to in saying that my hon. friend was seeking to make political capital out of this question was his remarks as they will be found in Hansard on page 148:
And yet the government allows those on its side to get up and say that this would shake the basic principles of law and evidence. How ridiculous!
That is, the government allows those on its side to get, up and oppose a certain point of view taken on the other side. Surely. Mr. Speaker, that was an effort to link up the government with whatever might be said by any individual member on this side. I think it was very distinctly understood in the course of the discussion that each member who addressed the house was expressing his own views, that in no way was he seeking to represent either the official attitude of the opposition or the official attitude of the government; he was giving to the committee the benefit of his own judgment with respect to the motion which was before the house. But my hon. friend was not satisfied with seeking to have it appear that any words at all critical of the motion had been spoken at the instance of the government, in permitting its followers to do certain things, if not actually urging them to do so. He went a step further and said:
The next thing that was attempted was to find some fault with the resolution as it stood at first. It was not drawn by a lawyer, we are told, and there was nothing wrong with it; it was right in every particular. Then someone objected-I think it was the Sollicitor General (Mr. Cannon)

to the word "disproof", which is the proper word to use in the circumstances.
There again was an effort to link the government, through one of its members, with a certain phrase that might be bandied about as representing an attitude of this side not wholly friendly to what the mover of the resolution may have had in mind. W hen the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) drew his attention to the fact that he had not used this word, the member for East Toronto said:
Well, I accept the hon. gentleman's statement, but someone over there very near to the Solicitor General was very much exercised over this word "disproof."
In other words, attempting to convey the implication that in some way the government was seeking to oppose a point of view which had been put forward by hon. gentlemen opposite. Then a little later my hon. friend said:
And yet so jealous are hon. gentlemen opposite to preserve the basic principles of law and evidence that they say it would be a shaking of the conscience if in respect to a soldier who had gone abroad, had served and suffered, had returned and was afflicted, it should then be the duty of the country who took him to prove that his ills were not caused by his service.
That is how my hon. friend ended his remarks. "So jealous are hon. gentlemen opposite to preserve the basic principles of law and evidence" that they are prepared to take an attitude towards the men who went overseas which is not considerate of the services which they have rendered to the country. When an hon. member refers to "gentlemen
330	COMMONS
T1 ar Pensions-Mr. Mackenzie King
opposite" he refers to an entire party, and I say my hon. friend the other evening was seeking to place members on this side of the house, as a party, in opposition to a motion which had been made by a private member on the other side, and which was being discussed, so far as hon. members on this side were concerned, each from his own point of view with reference to the merits of the same.
Now, in regard to what my hon. friend has said this afternoon, there are some points on which I find myself in complete agreement with him. When he speaks of possible amendments of the Pension Act, I say I think there are amendments which might be made to advantage, but I believe those amendments can be much better made after a committee of the house has heard from the returned men .themselves-who are the ones primarily concerned in the administration of the act- wherein the weakness of the administration consists. Any hon. member could bring before the house individual cases, very distressing cases, but I contend the house is not the body to judge from individual cases as to what may or may not be the best regulations by which the pension board itself should be governed.


John Arthur Clark: May I ask the Prime Minister a question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: Does he not think the minister who has had charge of the Pension Act, and must have heard the complaints from one end of the country to the other of its operation, is the best man at least to offer leadership to this house and to the committee as to the amendments which might be desirable for the consideration of this committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: This motion is not
debatable. It is a motion to commit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But is it in order?


Hewitt Bostock: I think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a motion to commit-yes.


Hewitt Bostock: Yes, but it is one of those subsidiary motions that can be made, according to standing order 50, and it is made sometimes after a second reading of a bill, when the house wishes to refer it to a special committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That may be so, Mr. Speaker, but I submit it is competent for the house to debate this motion to commit. It is a resolution, not a bill that is under consideration, and there is an amendment. As I read the rules, a vote can be taken on the amendment. It would be competent for any ,hon. member to move another amendment, or to move an amendment to the amendment. But this is neither.
M-r. SPEAKER: Standing order No. 50 reads:
A motion to refer a bill, resolution or any question to the committee of the whole or any standing or special committee shall preclude all amendment of the main question.
Then under the same standing order you read 427:
This motion is not debatable under standing order 38 unless it be an order of the day-
Standing order 38 enumerates:
(1) The following motions are debatable:- Every motion
(a)	standing on the order of proceedings for
the day, (exeeipt government notices of motion for the house to go into committee at a later date),	.
(b)	for the concurrence in a report of a standing or special committee,
(c)	for the previous question,
(d)	for the second reading of a bill,
(e)	for the third reading of a bill,
(f)	for the consideration of Senate amendments to House of Commons bills.
(g)	for a conference with the Senate,
(h)	for the adjournment of the house when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance,

War Pensions-Speaker's Ruling
(i)	for the adoption in committee of the whole, or of supply, or of ways and means of the resolution, clause, section, preamble or title under consideration,
fj) for the appointment of a committee,
(k)	for reference to a committee of a report or any return laid on the table of the house,
(l)	for the suspension of any rule of the house,
(m)	and such other motions as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the house, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangements of its proceedings, the correctness if its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
(2) All other, motions, including adjournment motions-
Mark this
-.shall be decided without debate or amendment.


Mr. STEVENS:: May I call Your Honour's attention-


Hewitt Bostock: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow me to complete my statement. I must say, however, that in my judgment this procedure smacks of the closure rule. There is no doubt about that, but we have closure as an institution; it is part of the standing orders, and this motion not being amendable or debatable falls under this rule. The motion for adjournment itself is a form of closure; it cannot be debated or amended. Now, I find in Cushing:
One of the proceedings, made use of for the purpose, or in the course, of au orderly and * appropriate disposition of a motion, was stated to be a commitment, or, in other words, a reference of the subject to a committee. The nature and functions as well as the different kinds, of committees, and the manner in which they are appointed, will be treated of hereafter. In this place, it is sufficient to observe, that besides certain topics, which are rquired by standing rules or the established course of proceeding to be first considered by a committee, and which, therefore, when brought before the house by way of motion, must regularly be referred to a committee; and, besides the commitment, which takes place as one stage of the proceedings in the passing of bills;-
Now comes the important point
it sometimes becomes necessary to refer a proposition to a committee, either for the purpose of further inquiry with regard to the subject-matter of it, or of some collateral subject, or for the purpose of putting the proposition into a more satisfactory form, or for the purpose of amendment in some particular, which cannot conveniently be effected by an amendment proposed and made in the house. If the subject has already been once in the hands of a committee, a subsequent reference of it, either to the same or a different committee, is denominated a recommitment.
These are called subsidiary or ancillary motions. I know as a matter of fact that in my experience such motions have been [Mr. Speaker.!
made in the house with regard to bills, and here it is stated that they are made with regard to propositions or amendments which bring a new matter before the house which is so involved that it has to be threshed out by a committee. I am not inventing the procedure; it exists and has existed from time immemorial.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, might I draw your attention to explanatory rule 427 to standing order 50, at page 133 of Beauchesne. I am not seeking to dispute the ruling, but I should like Your Honour to consider this point:
This motion is not debatable under standing order 38 unless it be an order of the day-
I submit to Your Honour that the motion under discussion is an order of the day. On page 6 of the order paper it appears as order No. 1, under the "orders of the day," and the amendment of the right hon. Prime Minister becomes a part of that motion and is also on the orders of the day because it does not appear anywhere else, and therefore this rule does not apply.


Hewitt Bostock: The present motion is not on the orders of the day; it is on a motion made by the hon. member for Muskoka, which is on tihe orders of the day, and the amendment thereto, but the present motion is not on the orders of the day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is not, but must not notice of it be given?


Hewitt Bostock: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How could it get on the order paper unless notice be given?


Hewitt Bostock: A motion to commit does not require that notice be given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, did you observe the terms of the motion? It is not an amendment either to the original motion or to the amendment and therefore, being a substantive motion, notice must be given, and the rule that mentions "unless it be upon the order paper" implies that it should be on the order paper by notice being given.
If it were an amendment one could understand, but it is not according to the rules.


Hewitt Bostock: This is in the nature of a motion for reading the orders of the day, or a motion to adjourn, which can be made in the course of a debate. I am quite sure it has come to my attention in other cases.

War Pensions-Speakers Ruling


Mr. LADNER:: If the present motion of the Prime Minister is not on the orders of the day but is a substantive motion, may I inquire -why it is not possible to discuss the original motion? Where is the rule which prohibits the discussion from proceeding along the lines of .the original motion? This as not an amendment on the orders of the day.


Hewitt Bostock: It is a motion to commit, just as motions are made for the reading of the orders of the day or to adjourn, which motions are not debatable. The motions which are debatable are enumerated clearly in standing order 38, but a motion to commit is not included in that list. I said a moment ago that this motion was of the nature of a subsidiary motion. I refer to Campion at page 146:
These may be divided into three classes:-
(1)	Ancillary motions are motions (made most frequently in connection with an order of the day), which are recognized by the practice of the house as the regular way of proceeding with the various kinds of business-as, for instance, the various stages of bills.
(2)	superseding motions are motions which, though independent in form, are moved in the course of debate on another question and seek to supersede that question.
Examples of ancillary motions are: Upon a bill, "that the bill be now read a second time"; on consideration of Lords' amendments, "That this house doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment," upon consideration in the house of a resolution of a committee of the whole house. "That this house doth agree with the committee in the said resolution". These motions are so intimately connected with the procedure on bills and money that they are best left to be dealt with in the chapters on those subjects. They differ from substantive motions in not requiring notice or seconder.
That is the latest authority. It has been my experience gained in the old parliament that such motions are not amendable or debatable. That is why I say they are of such a nature as to smack of closure, but they can be made according to our procedure and as I stated Campion declares no notice is required.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, before you decide this question, let us understand the effect of the ruling as intimated by Your Honour. As Your Honour has suggested, it would be in effect a practical closure, and if it can be applied in respect of this question, all the notices of motion on page 10 of the order paper would be subject to closure in a like manner. It would be within the power of this government, having a majority in this house, to cut off discussion upon any motion which might be moved by a private member, simply by someone on the government side moving to commit. I am
inclined to think, Mr. Speaker, that the rule has no such intended operation. We have rules which provide for closure and which can be applied at the proper time, and I would hesitate to allow a ruling of this kind to go into operation without understanding fully what it might mean in the future. It may be that this rule has lain dormant so long that we have failed to recognize the full extent of its application, but I for one cannot conceive that it be in the power of the government, upon its mere whim, to shut off discussion of a private member's motion simply by a motion to commit, and I cannot agree to that proposal. If it is our desire to adopt closure upon any question, our rules make provision for that procedure. I am in no sense an opponent of closure, but I am an opponent of the shutting off of discussion upon a private member's motion, as is proposed by Your Honour's ruling in this instance.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with your
ruling that this motion is not debatable, but, with great deference, I dissent from some of the grounds expressed by Your Honour. Your Honour stated that the amendment smacks of closure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not an amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: If it were an amendment we could discuss it.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The purpose of the amendment-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not an amendment; if it were we could discuss it; it is a substantive motion.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The purpose of the motion is to refer the matter to the special committee which has been appointed, not in order that there should be a cessation of discussion on the important questions involved, but that there should be the fullest discussion to be carried on in the very best forum that has been devised. I would also refer Your Honour to the motion unanimously passed on March 3rd. that ali matters connected with pensions and returned soldiers' problems be referred to a special committee consisting of certain hon. members of this house therein named. I suggest that this is certainly a matter which affects pensions and returned soldiers, and under the terms of that motion must be referred to the special committee. There is no suggestion of closure or the stifling of discussion in the motion which has now been made.


Hewitt Bostock: If I rise again, it is because I believe the hon. gentleman has not

War Pensions-Speaker's Ruling
properly understood the remark which I made. I said that a motion to commit not being amendable and debatable smacks of closure, and it does, but it is in our usages and practice as covered by standing orders 38, 48 and 50.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: It is from that very remark that I dissent.


Hewitt Bostock: But the hon. gentleman must know that closure exists under our rules.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And it is quite an honourable procedure.


Hewitt Bostock: Standing order 48 reads:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day;
If the orders of the day are read, it closes the debate.
for proceeding to another order;
That is a motion of closure.
to adjourn the debate;
That is also closure.
or for the adjournment of the house.
That is closure. It is not in my power to apply closure, but there it is in the standing orders as adopted in 1913. A motion to commit can be made at any stage of the bill, after the second reading or even upon the first reading. Standing order 50 states that it is not amendable, and standing order 38 does not enumerate a motion to commit among the debatable motions. It is an ancillary motion and no notice is required for such motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, a motion to commit certainly is something less than this; this is a motion to commit and instructions. The hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Thorson) has referred to it as an amendment, but I desire again to point out to Your Honour that the motion is a substantive motion, "that the original motion and the amendment be referred to the committee appointed to deal with all matters connected with pensions and returned soldier problems." That is the motion to commit, and then follow instructions that the committee be instructed to do whatever they see fit or consider advisable, and so on. In other words, the motion to commit is one thing and the instructions given is another. Instructions which may be given by the house may be coupled under certain circumstances with a motion to commit. This is not an amendment to a substantive motion because the effect is to prevent at least two hon. gentle-
men, whom I know as being desirous of speaking, of having an opportunity to deal with the soldier pension problem. It is closure pure and simple and designed for the purpose of preventing further discussion upon this motion. I submit that coupling instructions with the motion to commit is not in accordance with the general rule unless the house is discussing a bill and refers it to the committee for the purpose of consideration and the adding of new sections, and matters of that kind.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is too eminent a parliamentarian not to know that a motion to commit must contain instructions to the committee, otherwise it is a blank motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But this contains intruc-tions regarding pensions.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Surely we are not in order any more.


Hewitt Bostock: I can assure the house that I have no desire that the debate should be closed without discussion, but I am basing my judgment upon the well known standing orders of the house and the authorities dealing with this matter.
Motion (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to on division.



INTERNATIONAL PEACE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, March 5, consideration of the motion of Miss Agnes Macphail (Southeast Grey):
That, in the opinion of this house, for every one hundred dollars spent for war one dollar should be spent to promote peace by setting u,p a chair of international relationships and by instituting international scholarships in each Canadian university.
Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: When six o'clock came last night I
had almost finished what I wanted to say on the presentation of the resolution asking for the setting up of professorships and scholarships on international affairs in loading universities in Canada. I had just been saying we would all agree that the Rhodes scholarships had done very much to weld the empire into one unit, and I believe that international scholarships, if carried out in many countries, could do much the same for international relations. Undoubtedly if we had students from abroad studying in Canada, and Canadian students studying abroad, they would all under-

International Peace-Miss Macphail
stand international affairs much better than before they had gone out of their own country. This would have a tendency to humanize international relations by an increase of mutual knowledge and appreciation.
A committee or a commission could look after the giving of the scholarships, as was the case with the Rhodes scholarships. The selection of the students and the choosing of the professors would undoubtedly rest with the board of governors of the universities. There is a precedent for giving scholarships to students in other parts of the world. The French government offers each year scholarships in this country and I know of students who went to study in France, and who did so because of the generosity of the French government. They undoubtedly came back to Canada with a much greater knowledge of France and possibly a much wider knowledge of world affairs than they had before they left our shores.
The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) is known not only in oui own country, but also abroad, as a scholar, a man who has held learning high, and I think nothing could be more fitting than that it should be known that the government which he leads relies on education as a means of attaining security. Organizations like the League of Nations and declarations like the Kellogg pact and, indeed, treaties of peace and arbitration generally, need not be expected to be really effective unless they are backed by popular opinion; and if popular opinion is to be steady and sane and sound, it must be educated.
I want again in closing to say that I do not wish to press for the exact wording of the resolution where it says "in each Canadian university". It is simply the general idea that we should have the study of international relationships in leading universities that I am interested in. I wrote to many professors and heard from a good many. One of them outlined the universities that he thought might well be given chairs, and the number was twelve. That would be one for Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, one in New Brunswick, three in Quebec, three in Ontario, and one each in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. To do that would not be very expensive and I appeal to the members of the house to remember that if we are going to have peace, we must prepare for it. I feel that this would be a step in that direction. I feel, too, that matters pertaining to peace and war came under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and I can see no real argument against my proposal. I want the house to prepare itself for this argument, that
the Dominion government cannot interfere with the provinces. Apart from that there does not seem to me to be any argument against the motion. I believe it is a step in the right direction and I ask all the members of the house to support it.


Ernest Lapointe: With the principle underlying the
resolution, which principle, of course, is the promotion of peace, I am indeed highly in accord. The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) is a noble advocate of peace, and I congratulate her. There has been a change in the world during the last few years and it is no longer the part of a dreamer or a sign of inferiority to talk peace. Indeed, the dominating question in the world to-day is international peace. The last war worked so many injuries and caused so much damage that all men, however biased they may be, however rooted in the traditions of the past, are not prepared to begin all over again. War has shown conclusively that it does not pay anybody any longer. If those who are vanquished are crushed and ruined, the position of the winners is not very much better. Why, then, should we rebuild if everything is going to be destroyed again? Why devote energies to creating productive arts, works and functions if there are still threats of war pending that may pull that all down?
The old system has failed, as my hon. friend has said, and a new structure is being built, I hope on a basis of justice and solidarity. That is why new institutions have been created and are now doing splendid work. The League of Nations is no longer an idea; it has become a reality and its strength is continuously increasing. In that League of Nations, not only are all the peoples of the world, except a few, meeting on a footing of equality, but men see to-day that those beyond the boundaries of their country are not merely possible enemies, but human beings with whom they can deal and transact business. The activities of the league manifest themselves in all spheres-in legal and constitutional questions, arbitrations, reduction of armaments, financial, industrial and economic problems in their international aspects, agriculture, shipping, transportation, health, social problems, and the protection of minorities. I think it would be interesting to some Canadians to know the measures which the league is taking for the protection of minorities. If we must promote peace abroad, it is a good thing to promote it at home too.
Apart from the assembly of the league itself, there is the council which deals with

International Peace-Mr. Lapointe
the larger problems. There, again, our country is playing an important part. We have our representatives on the council of the League of Nations, and certainly they have done credit to Canada. We have also the international labour bureau, which has done very effective work for the promotion of industrial peace, and industrial peace is certainly important for the maintenance of political and international peace. There, again, our country is playing an important part, being represented on the board of management by reason of the fact that we are one of the eight largest industrial countries of the world. Labour is also represented on that bureau, where Mr. Tom Moore is certainly considered as one of the most able and efficient representatives of labour in the world. There have been many arbitration treaties as between countries. I might mention particularly the pan-American treaty which was signed a couple of years ago. We have also had the Kellogg pact outlawing war. There, again, we were represented and our country has been a party to that pact. There is sitting in London at the present time a conference on naval disarmament, which we hope will reach a successful conclusion notwithstanding all the obstacles in the way. At that conference Canada is also represented.
During the course of last year Canada, in common with the other nations of the British Commonwealth, signed the optional clause of the statute of the international court of justice. That was a very important step, and may I add, with a certain amount of pride, that Canada assumed a position of leadership in the British Commonwealth so far as the signing of the optional clause is concerned, because before the other nations of the commonwealth, including the mother country, were prepared to sign that clause, Canada was prepared, and made that known to the rest of the empire.
We have, therefore, so far as the promotion of peace in the world is concerned, an international machinery in which Canada is interested and is playing an important part, machinery which is an obstacle to possible wars, and which is destined to settle disputes between nations. That machinery is not only the assembly and the council of the League of Nations, but also the international court of justice. In the second place, there is now manifesting itself in the world a new spirit, a new international conscience to which all nations of the world, even the most powerful, must have regard.
I have stated all this to indicate that so far as the promoting of peace is concerned, 
I am in full accord with the aims of my hon. friend from Southeast Grey, and I would do all in my power to help spread the doctrine of peace. As my hon. friend said yesterday, there must be a technique of peace as there is a technique of war. In the same way that there is an organization for war, it is a good thing that there should be an organization for peace. Having said that, I am afraid that I shall have to differ to some extent from nay hon. fniend. Being very shrewd, she foresaw that yesterday when she said she was expecting that somebody on the government side would talk about provincial rights in connection with this matter that that was their stock-in-trade argument, which she heard even in her sleep. I am not sure that this is altogether fair on the part of my hon. friend. I cannot help thinking that it must emanate from a remnant of that former state of mind prior to her submitting herself to the medical intervention of which she spoke to us last week, and which has had the effect of improving an already very agreeable temper; but surely she will grant me some measure of sincerity, as I am pleased to grant her the full measure of that virtue. She is in favour of international trust and good will. I hope that she will give me and the government at least a little of that trust and good wil.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I do you.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you; I am almost tempted to conclude my remarks right there.
For sixty years we have been building an organized state in order that we may live in Canada happily in prosperity and in peace. We have been building that state upon fundamental principles which cannot and should not lightly be interfered with. The sovereignty of the Canadian people operates in various fields of activity. It operates through the federal government in the matters which have been entrusted to the federal government by the constitution; it operates through the provincial governments in the matters which have been entrusted to the management and administration of those governments; it operates even through the municipal authorities in certain matters which have been given to their care and management. They are the same Canadian people, but it has -been considered better that this sovereignty should be exercised in those various fields.
Now, some are impatient on account of that situation, but Canada has been developing with that political condition, and the development is proceeding along pretty successfu

International Peace-Mr. Lapointe
and progressive lines. There are certain matters which, even if we would like to deal with them, should be dealt with by the provinces; other matters come under the jurisdiction and control of this parliament; and in the area which has been excluded from our federal activities no majority, however powerful it may be, has the right to go beyond that area. It would be the violation of an agreement, anid however desirable the purpose may be, if to succeed in that purpose you have to break agreements, I do not think it is a purpose which ought to be achieved. May I quote the words of Lord Stowell, which I think are applicable in this connection. He said:
To press forward to a great principle by breaking through every other principle that stands in the way of its establishment, is as little consonant to private morality as to public justice.
I Tepeat, certain 'boundaries have been established as to the respective jurisdictions and work of the federal parliament and the provinces, and if we trespass on the field which properly belongs to the other controlling governments we can only have chaos and disorder. So I do not think that talking of respecting the constitution should be considered a stigma of inferiority. Our country is built on federalism. In some respects it hampers certain developments. For instance, our friends of the labour unions, and the labour men in particular, are complaining that the conventions of the international labour bureau are not all ratified by Canada and should have been ratified by now. But the treaty itself creating the international labour bureau and conference provides that in federal states the duty of the central government is merely to transmit to the various states or provincial governments the conventions for their ratification. We cannot act in many other respects because of this federal system. We are not the only country in the world in this situation. Australia, a sister Dominion, is in exactly the same position, and the United States, Switzerland and many other countries are similarly situated.
I am not one of those who believe everything the fathers of confederation have done is perfect and should not be changed. I am not rooted to the past in any way, and I may assure mv hon. friend that when I am considering the solution of any problem I am not thinking either with the brains of my grandfather or with the brains of the grandfathers of anybody else. The problems of this century must certainly be looked at and solved in the light of the conditions which exist in the twentieth century. There are certain 2419-22
matters, I am free to admit, that perhaps the fathers of confederation would have settled otherwise than they did if they were living to-day. But may I say to my hon. friend and to those who are rather impatient and inclined to think as she does, that to come to the situation where it will be possible to effect those changes it is better to respect the agreements. The changes must be made by respecting the rights and the views of the other parties that may be concerned in the making of the changes, and to preach that we should not be trammelled or prevented from doing something which under the constitution we should not do, I am afraid gives arguments to those who are opposed to all changes, and I am not one of them. I submit-and I am Sony that I have perhaps dwelt too long on this aspect of the question-I submit that we must remain within our own sphere.


Mr. IRVINE:: May I ask the hon. minister a question before he leaves that point? In the event of the government regarding the purpose of the resolution as advisable and one that they are willing to undertake, does he think there would be no possible way of getting over the constitutional difficulty, which we all admit and to which he has just referred; would there be no way of leaving it optional or asking the provincial governments to provide part of the money and so forth?


Ernest Lapointe: By a request from the provinces or by negotiations of some kind a way might be found to effect the purpose of the resolution. But I would direct attention to another difficulty. May I say with regard to the resolution itself, my hon. friend proposes that we should devote to the purpose which she indicates one dollar of every one hundred spent for war preparations. In the session of 1928 she had a resolution on the order paper that the time had come for the establishment of a government department for the promotion of peace, and in the debate on that resolution she said she would be satisfied for the time being if one hundredth part of the amount which was expended for military preparations every year were expended in promoting international peace and good will. Well, as my hon. friend said yesterday, a dollar for every one hundred dollars provided for military preparations would form an amount of approximately $200,000. I must call the attention of the house to the fact that out of this amount of $20,000,000 in the estimates of the Department of National Defence there is an item of over $4,000,000 which is not really for military purposes. It is for civil air operations-flying operations

338	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Lapointe
for civil government departments in connection with aerial photographic surveys, forestry patrols, forestry and grain pests, transportation, and so forth. That would make it about $16,000,000. I have indicated many fields of activities of Canada in the promoting of peace, such as the League of Nations, the International Labour Conference, the disarmament conference, and activities of that kind. The amount expended by Canada during the fiscal year 1928-29 in connection with those various activities was $199,926.76, or, in round figures, $200,000. I do not remember what the total amount of our contribution was to the League of Nations and the international bureau, merely for the organization of those two agencies, but it is certainly over $150,000 a year. So that the goal of $1 per $100 is really already reached.
With regard to the concrete proposal for establishing chairs of international relationships and international scholarships, this would involve an intervention in the field of education by the Dominion government.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: In the case of the grants to the provinces in aid of technical education, was not a way found there by which the constitution w'as overcome?


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will read what I said when the measure for grants to highways was before parliament he will see that I then made the very same objection that I make to-day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is "a vicious principle."


Ernest Lapointe: And I state again that it is not according to the principles of the constitution. And I repeat what I said the other day, that it is dangerous for the provinces to accept grants from the federal government for the promotion of works which are exclusively their own under the British North America Act, because whether they desire it or not they will be subject to some control: it is impossible to escape the control of those who supply the money.


Mr. GARDINER:: Would you apply that to cadet training?


Ernest Lapointe: I would rather wait until the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) is here to give the answer to my hon. friend. Let me say, however, that when the Minister of National Defence defended that before the house he convinced me, at all events, that it was not at all an interference in the field of education that it was merely encouraging physical culture and manly exercise.

But this cannot be said of the creation of chairs in universities. Would it be welcome? My hon. friend says at least one professor told her that the universities would welcome it. I am not so sure that it would be welcome in the different provinces or universities, on account of the danger that underlies it. Some of those universities are privately endowed; some are denominational, and some are provincial institutions; each is jealous of its freedom and independence, and each would certainly resent any attempt at control by the Dominion government over their curriculum, or in the matter of appointments. And surely if the Dominion government were to create chairs in universities there would be a presumption at least that they would have something to say in the appointments to those chairs.
There are twenty odd universities in Canada
I think my hon. friend said seventeen, but my figure would be twenty. What place in the curriculum of the universities would a course in international relationships occupy? In most of the universities that I know of, there are chairs for the teaching of history, political economy, and political science, all of which relate as much to peace as a chair of international relations; and some of the universities have a chair of international law. The lessons of peace are being brought into all those universities by the different professors, on subjects which certainly bear upon international relations. 1 do not think there is a body of men or women in Canada who are more zealous for peace, and for the teaching of peace, than the university and college professors. They are doing this work at the present time, and I am not sure that this responsibility is not better discharged by all of them as it is being discharged to-day than by having one man or woman to do it in a chair of international relationships.
The same thing applies to scholarships, and it is not the first time that our constitutional position has had something to do with the decision we have to reach in a matter of this kind. Only a few years ago a splendid institution was created in Paris for Canadian students. I have visited it myself two or three times. La Maison des Etudiants in Paris is one of the finest institutions of its kind. It is situated in the district where other nations also have their special home for students, and at the time it was created those who were the organizers of that splendid movement asked the Dominion of Canada to create scholarships there in the same way as my hon. friend suggests. The question was then debated

International Peace-Mr. Church
and fully considered. Nothing would have pleased us more at that time than to grant the request that was then made, because, if peace is achieved by people of one country meeting people of another, there is no better opportunity for doing so than in Paris, where students and young professional men and women from all countries of the world gather for periods of two or three years. We could not do it, however much we should have liked to do so, and we directed them to the various provinces. I am pleased to say that most of the provinces, if not all, have created scholarships there. I know Quebec and Ontario sent students to Paris by virtue of these scholarships, but this has been done by the provinces because we thought we could not do it.
I heartily endorse the statement that the schools, colleges and universities are splendid places in which to carry on the work of peace; there is no place where peace should be preached and advocated more than in the schools. Perhaps I might say that those who are responsible for that work in Canada might copy what is being done in certain European countries, where a propaganda is being conducted to have the school books changed in certain respects in order to eliminate everything leading to hatred and distrust as between nations, and where an effort has been carried on to direct the admiration of the young generation to the heroes of peace in as large a measure as their admiration always has been compelled for the heroes of war. There again, however, it is a provincial matter.
I am sure my hon. friend knows that I am very sincere in my desire to promote peace, and I really believe that a difference of opinion on certain details should not be taken as a means of dividing those who are really working for peace, as we are.


Thomas Langton Church: This is not a new subject, Mr. Speaker; we had the same resolution last year. Every year, as soon as parliament closes, this annual pilgrimage or pleasure trip to the League of Nations commences. We have just concluded about twelve years of peace, peace agreements, peace pacts and pacifist speeches in this chamber, and throughout the world, and the result is the utter failure of what Woodrow Wilson spoke of as open diplomacy.
The hon. member for Southeast Grey referred to the fact that $20,000,000 was spent in our military estimates. That is not the case; the militia estimates for the last fiscal year amounted to just over $11,000,000, so there is a difference of a mere trifle of $9,000,000. The hon. member suggests that the 2419-224
amount which would be realized under this resolution which she estimates at $200,000 should be used to establish some peace chairs in Canadian universities, or some more fads in Canadian universities. Dear knows there are enough fads and frills in Toronto university to-day. In the Canadian universities they have no time to trifle with peace pacts, peace chairs and so on. We have too many faddists in the University of Toronto to-day, too many people shouting peace from the house tops when there is no permanent peace. Of the $11,000,000 voted last year nearly $5,000,000 was devoted to the permanent force. The permanent force of this country is very largely a police force, an auxiliary and aid in maintaining law and order from Vancouver to Halifax. The expenditure for cadet services amounted to $500,000, and I may tell my hon. friend that in the province of Ontario the cadet services will be continued whether she likes it or not. I understand that she belongs to the Progressive party and to the United Farmers of Ontario. These two parties were wiped off the map in the last election, like the Patrons of Industry, and to-day they have neither a tombstone nor an epitaph to indicate the remains of their former glory.
We have just heard a speech by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who quite often follows his colleague the government leader of the Senate, who always shows up at the opening of this assembly in Geneva. That is nothing but a public joy ride, as it has been termed in the British House of Commons. Mr. George Bernard Shaw has written an article in which he refers to the large amount of money spent in what the leader of the opposition in England calls a joy ride, although I suppose "pleasure ride" is probably the better English term for it. The Minister of Justice has now joined the pacifists; I think he is running the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) a very close race for the honour of 'being chief pacifist of the Dominion. Last year he brought back in his brief case from this league, a new magna charta which was to be brought before the house and placed on the statute books of the country. However, when the press pointed out that it would interfere with the rights of the minorities and with the municipalities, it was strongly opposed and nothing more was heard of this magnificent bill.
W'e should not talk about peace chairs in universities when the students of our colleges have enough to do to look for jobs during the Christmas and midsummer vacations. With all this nonsense about peace we are further away from it than we were before the great war. Even the name of Cecil Rhodes has
340	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Church
been brought into this discussion. Rhodes was a strong imperialist who 'believed in preparedness. If there was one man who believed Lord Roberts was right, it was Cecil Rhodes. I believe the people of this country are becoming sick and tired of the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars on the League of Nations. To-day Canada has the lowest expenditure on militia of almost any country in the world and the highest expenditure for the League of Nations, or, as I called it last year, the league of humbug and hypocrisy. The United States, who started this league, will not even join it. That country' trotted out the Kellogg note, but at the present disarmament conference that note has not been even mentioned. The Monroe doctrine is just a scrap of paper, as is the Kellogg note; it means nothing and nothing will come out of it.
The mover of the resolution says that the provinces should have something to say about this matter. They will because Canada is not going to be talked1 out of the British Empire; Canada will have to be fought out of that empire.
The resolution asks that one dollar be spent on peace for every one hundred dollars spent on war purposes. Not one dollar is spent by this country for war, and not one dollar has been spent for that purpose during any fiscal year since I have been a member of
the house. Money spent for cadet training is not spent for war, it is spent for athletics and the physical development of youth, and the athletic directors of the country heartily support this cadet movement which teaches respect for authority.
The report last year for the department gives the following figures:
	Cadet Corps	Strength
Alberta 	. . 44	5,962British Columbia.	. . 36	6.431Manitoba. . . .	. . 39	3,400New Brunswick. .	. . 60	2,754Nova Scotia. . .	. . 43	2.927Ontario	. . 298	37,328Prince Edward Island. 8	660Quebec	. . 319	66,070Saskatchewan. . .	4,226Total	
926	129,758
The strength of the unit is arrived at by taking the number of cadets actually present on parade at the annual inspection held during the months of May and June, and adding the number of cadets enrolled in units organized since the reopening of schools in September. Canada has the lowest per capita expenditure for war purposes of any country in the world.
In proof of this I submit the following statement showing the military expenditure of the world:
Military Expenditures 1927-28
		Total		Per		
	expenditure			cent		
on	Per	of	national	capita	total	Country	Population	defence	expenditure	budget	Increase	Decrease000's	000's	000's	000'somitted	omitted	omitted	omittedAlbania	364	Poland	4.00	31	Turkey	30	Japan	59750	233700	3.91	284	147000	Switzerland	4000	16600	4.15	26	1800	Italy	40550	247837	6.11	24	3837	France	39870	303000	7 60	20	50000	Sweden	6100	37200	6 09	19	644	U.S.A	120000	609909	5.07	174	17909	Finland	3500	15025	4.29	161	150	Great Britain and N.	Ireland	45100	587784	13.02	15	8.216Russia	147000	407000	3.00	14	61000	Denmark	3450	10854	3.14	HI	1781Germany	63320	165000	2.60	114	5000	Norway	2800	11331	4.00	11.0	506	Belgium	7800	29000	3.70	74	2000	Canada	9750	16668	1.70	41	3368 includes	civil	aviation	vote	Australia	5878	25000	4.15	900New Zealand	1415	4665	3.07	4	205South Africa	1543	5478	3.55	4	117

International Peace-Mr. Church
Expenditures for militia never have been considered as being a war measure. That is where the pacificists make a mistake; they believe that disarmament will lead to peace whereas it leads to war. The history of the world dating back forty years prior to the great war in 1914 will bear out that statement. The following appears in the English Review for January, 1930:
The theory that armaments lead to war is not new; it was commonly used, in a slightly different form, by the opponents of compulsory training, who said that we were trying to instil "militarist" ideas into the youth of the nation. But is it easily disproved. In 1806 Prussia, which had universal service, easily defeated Austria, which had not. Austria, which up till then had had a great military reputation, was not too proud to learn from her enemy, and also introduced universal service; and about forty years later, on a vacancy occurring in the post which would normally carry with it the command in chief of the Austrian army in war, was forced to appoint an officer who had seen no active service at all. At that time the only Austrian officers who had ever been under fire were a few, quite juuior in rank, who had been in China at the time of the Boxer rising. "Militarism" in Austria meant unbroken peace from 1866 to 1914. But in 1870 France, which in the previous few years had rejected with derision the suggestion that she too should adopt the Prussian system, in turn found herself in opposition to Prussia; and the Paris mob shouted "A Berlin" with the enthusiam of irresponsible ignorance. After the disastrous war which followed, France also adopted universal service in an even more uncompromising fashion than either Prussia or Austria; and also remained at peace, except for some unimportant colonial campaigns, until 1914. From the material side of "armaments" as distinct from training, one is met by the rather serious difficulty of determining exactly what the word means. The League of Nations lately found itself in urgent need of a definition, for the purpose of dealing with the kindred questions which it calls the "traffic in arms" and the "private manufacture of arms." After long consideration it decided that a satisfactory definition was impossible, but that its purpose might be served by an enumeration of specific articles which any such definition would have bad to cover. The resulting list was long, and as nearly exhaustive as its compilers could make it; and it ended with swords, lances and bayonets.
We have a delegate at this peace conference in London, the Minister of National Defence, and he is not here to back up this resolution. I understand he has got sick and tired of things over there, and when he gets home he will probably decide that something will have to be done for this little fleet of ours. This fleet which hugs the shore and is afraid to go out to sea-'too proud to fight. If Colonel Ralston agrees to naval reduction and comes home to find the fleet he will have a hard time to find it.
He may find it down in the garage at Halifax. I am afraid somebody will steal it while the minister is over in London. If he does not. hurry home the hon. member for Southeast Grey will have our army abolished and only the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides left.
In his opening remarks, instead of saying that we were united as an empire with New Zealand and Australia, Colonel Ralston spoke of nothing but status. It woidd have been far better had the delegates stayed at home. I see the minister's picture in monthly magazines over the statement that he is the glass of fashion. I have seen .the pictures of the minister inspecting different troops and one can see that he is really that, and perhaps he will bring back some new ideas along that line. But that is where his usefulness will end.
The Minister of Justice carries on the ory "down with war." The fact (that we have peace to-day is due to the efforts of the Canadian expeditionary forces, it is due to that great man Nelson who saved our empire in days gone by. All this talk about status does not mean a thing. A few years ago a Canadian missionary and his wife and son were carried off by Chinese brigands. The Canadian government were helpless in this matter, they had no power to act. What about this Geneva humbug, all this talk about status as a separate nation? All Ottawa could do was to turn to the British government and after firm representations were made by that government the prisoners were released and the delinquents punished. Germany wanted to belong to the League of Nations. Mussolini of Italy calls it a lot of horseplay, and one result of the peace parley over in England is that it has got France and Italy, two former fast allies, quarrelling over the parity of naval armament. If we could get ten years of silence from these pacifists, there would be some chance of having some peace, but we shall not as long as we have these peace pacts, agreements, excursions and pleasure trips going on at the expense of the people of Canada. The Canadian share of the expenses of the league is a large amount per capita. I believe more could be accomplished by Canada joining the national hockey league or the United States baseball league than the League of Nations. It is just a game of hide-and-go-seek, a nice easy trip across the sea for some of our worn-out politicians.
What did the former prime minister of South Africa, the present leader of the opposition, General Smuts, have to say about the peace parley? He emphasized in his speeches throughout Canada that we should
342	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Church
hear no more about equality of status, and that the time had arrived to seek to give some kind of substance and meaning to the unity of 'the empire and to help solve concrete empire problems such as trade, migration or defence.
Canada was represented over in England at the last anniversary of the battle of Trafalgar, and I notice the Morning Post had a leading editorial in that connection. Referring specially to Canada, that great newspaper says:
The anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar yesterday serves as the peg on which the Morning Post to-day hangs its leading editorial on "Naval Necessities." Referring especially to Canada, the newspaper said: "Canada owes both her existence and her liberties in the first place to the Royal Navy, and then to that balance of power which maintains the British Empire in the new world as in the old. Let that balance be destroyed and how long, despite all pacts and treaties, would any part of that Empire rest secure?
"Canada is growing mightily, not only in industry and agriculture, but in commerce. Her ships are even now bringing to her people the fruits, sugar and other tropical commodities of the West Indies. For the protection of that traffic her naval provision of two destroyers is almost ludicrously inadequate. Her vast grain trade, her sea carriage east, west and south- these owe their security to the existence of the Royal Navy under whose benignant shade Canada has grown and prospered.
"These things are taken so much as a matter of course as to be ignored in the outlook of most of the Dominions. Yet it remains true that the trade of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have no other security than the fleet which they seldom see, but of which the very existence is a perpetual restraint to any potential enemy. The ideal of peace in an unarmed world is not served by ignoring the truth."
Last year when this resolution was before the house, I was quoting from English Review, that great imperialistic magazine, published in London, England, which is at last bringing England around to her senses regarding the danger that confronts the empire in this peace parley. France has practically retired from the parley. Italy, according to her prime minister, is going to expand or explode. There is going to be no parity between Italy and France. The whole trouble between Italy and France is that those fast allies, who did so much to win the war, have been placed in a position of fighting each other more or less in the press and outside the press, and dear knows what is going on behind closed doors. Bernard Shaw has described the scene in the League of Nations as "where they fight like blazes", something like what happened in the cabinet here a few years ago. In the English Review there is an article called War and the 
Man in the Street, and it refers to the situation prior to the war as follows:
The years 1909 to 1914 were full of political excitement; including the "militant" women's suffrage movement, a number of strikes in vital industries, the long Home Rule struggle, the death of King Edward, the passing of the Parliament Act, 1911. the Curragh incident, and the formation of the Ulster volunteers, for the purpose of forcible resistance to any project of putting Ulster under the control of Southern Ireland. Germany was, not unnaturally, deceived into thinking that this country, apart from its military weakness, would be debarred by its domestic troubles from taking any part in a continental war; and although the German fleet was by no means ready to tackle the British fleet unless it could effect a surprise, the German government made the Serajevo murders, in June 1914, the excuse for a war on which they had definitely decided at least three months before.
If the British fleet had not been mobilized and ready for action in August, 1914, dear knows what would have happened to the empire. The territorial army was also broken up. The English Review summarizes what took place, and then continues:
It can hardly be asserted, in face of the well-known facts here summarized, that we were prepared for war in 1914; but the fact that the war came has been freely U6ed as an argument to prove that the old maxim "si vis pacem para bellum" is a fallacy. It has become a political commonplace that armaments lead to war, whereas for over forty years the main factor which kept the Great Powers at peace was the size of their armies and the fear of the effect of the untried inventions with which they were equipped. The disarmament fallacy is even embodied in Art. 8 of the Covenant of the League of Nations; and for nine years the league has been vainly trying to find some means by which disarmament can be brought about. The Central Powers were theoretically disarmed by the peace treaties; we, whose military unpreparedness was, if not the actual cause of the late war, at any rate the principal cause of its long duration, have not only reduced our army to a lower figure than in 1914, but have taken the first step towards making a^ present of our vital naval supremacy to the United States. France is accused of "militarism" because she will not reduce her army below a size adequate to protect her against the enemy who has ravaged her territory twice within living memory. And in the same sacred cause of "disarmament and peace", we are being asked to agree to an arrangement under which the United States shall increase her navy until it is equal on paper to our own.
I think the country has had pretty nearly enough of these quack remedies for the elimination of war and for disarmament. It is further taken up in Geneva, where the parrot cry is invented: "Arbitration, security, disarmament." These high-sounding words are used. The English Review goes on:
His elected representatives have this year agreed to the compulsory arbitration of a lim-

International Peace-Mr. Church
ited class of international disputes by a court which has no power to enforce its judgments; before that he had been made responsible for securing the peace of western Europe by an undertaking to make war on an "agrcssor" state; and he is in process of being deprived of that naval superiority which alone could enable him to discharge that responsibility, except by the kind permission of the United States, which has undertaken no corresponding obligation. Added to this he is being told that it took more real courage to be a conscientious objector than to fight, and at the same time being deliberately dieted on books and plays which do not merely go to the opposite extreme from pre-war literature in emphasizing the horrors of war, but actually seem to deny its redeeming qualities of heroism and sacrifice.
The position in which the world finds itself to-day after the great war of 1914-18 is similar to what happened after the Napoleonic war of 1814-15. George Canning, as foreign secretary from 1823 to 1827, under the passive premiership of Lord Liverpool, was responsible for the foreign policy of his country in circumstances resembling with extraordinary exactness those of this decade. To Canning, as to his successor to-day, fell the task of liquidating the continental commitments which were inherited from a great European war, and of defining England's relations with the United States. Substituting France for Germany, the settlement of 1815 found Europe ranged against the defeated power under the banner of the Holy Alliance, consisting of Russia, Austria and Prussia, whose sovereigns pledged themselves, in a manner strangely similar to the allied powers who dominated the first council of the League of Nations, to regulate their foreign policy by the precepts of Christianity and to maintain peace. England, under Castlereagh's guidance, maintained with the Holy Alliance a friendly if informal association, much as Sir Austen Chamberlain was used to do in regard to our late allies of the war of 1914-18.
George Canning was faced with the same conferences. For ten years there was nothing but conferences that shouted for peace. The same men in every state who had brought about the European war had caused the peace parley too. I quote again from the Review:
No single formula can solve the problems of all nations which have their roots in wide differences of character, history and tradition. In politics the realist who can be right always must always defeat the idealist, who is bound to be wrong half the time, yet runs the risk, in his endeavour to meet all the circumstances of every case, of never being right. Further, Canning realized that, for a government with a real will of its own, participation in international congresses is a hollow sham, while a government without a real will must inevitably play second fiddle. England in 1825 could not afford to play second fiddle in the bankrupt orchestra of Europe. It was in these circumstances that Canning cut adrift from the Holy Alliance, and championed South American independence against the technical assertion of Spanish sovereignty and the practical challenge of the ambitions of the United States.
To-day we are faced with a situation more perilous than that which faced Canning. The hand of the doctrinaire is heavy over Europe. Africa and Asia have caught the infection, and the United States of America, to-day, as in 1825, friendly and pacific in her ultimate intentions, is dismayed at the European chaos and is seeking by every diplomatic means to restrict European influence outside Europe and to gather to herself the fruits of our pedantic follies. What are we doing? Instead of governing ourselves we are indulging, like the Holy Alliance, in an orgy of irresolute interference with other people's affairs. "Too quick for thought, for action too refined," we seek in the new sport of "finding a formula" a cure for ills threatening not merely a change in the relative power of different European nations, but a catastrophic decline in the power of each and all.
I am opposed to this resolution. There is no reason why this house, in view of what is happening to-day, should adopt this resolution; it would make the country appear ridiculous. Navies are still needed' in the world. Lord Lloyd, recently high commissioner in Egypt, who was the principal speaker at the navy league's Trafalgar day dinner in London on October 21 last, declared that he would settle the disarmament question by saying to the United States: "You build what you will, and let us build what we will." He added that the only peace of any use was the peace coming through security. He continued:
"We need to be careful amid press captions and the blare of Atlantic loudspeakers and keep our head," he continued, adding that the mere reduction of navies bore no relation to peace.
Referring to the crowds seen gathered about the Nelson Monument in Trafalgar Square today Admiral Sir Sidney Fremantle said he wondered whether the nation realized the great danger to itself "of stereotyping its naval policy to conform to the will of another country."
The gathering enthusiastically applauded bis assertion that "if the United States vTants a great navy, that is her affair, not ours. The strength of the British Navy is an affair of the British Empire and the British Empire alone. In the final analysis, freedom of action should be reserved for ourselves as our needs differ materially from those of every other nation."
The British Empire, Mr. Speaker, cannot exist without the sea and sea power. When we debated this resolution last year I quoted from the English Review, of November, 1928, as follows:
The voice of the peaeemonger resounds today over continents, to a never-ceasing accompaniment of treaties and undertakings, but we are drifting toward war. How easy it would be if we could simply scrap our armaments, sign a few more pacts, and preserve that peace which is the only serious political interest of all decent and Christian men. Instead, we mu6t
344	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Church
do our duty, and face naked facts. We are approaching the tenth anniversary of the armistice, and of a genuine and lasting peace there are no signs. The practice of open diplomacy and the august patronage bestowed on international intercourse by the league of Nations and Mr. Kellogg have created an atmosphere of open and public suspicion more alarming even than in the years immediately preceding 1914. Apostles of the new methods can ingeminate peace as much as they like, but they cannot shirk their terrible responsibility before the bar of history for the disastrous practical consequences of their ten years' experiment.
The resolution of the hon. member is not correct even as to its facts. It says that Canada is spending money for war, when we are not spending anything, because we have practically no army, and no navy. We are sponging all the time on the mother country to keep our trade routes open, and, in time of war, to protect our shores. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of our first lord of the admiralty, who is at the disarmament conference, and in the absence of our commander in chief of the army, which my hon. friend from Southeast Grey wants to be demobilized1, and which I claim is demobilized already, except for boy scouts and girl guides, I think that this resolution might very well stand until our first lord returns and we find out what he is doing. It is all very well to have your picture taken and be seen in the fashion parade. I looked in the Bystander and the Sphere recently and Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like our delegate at the peace conference. If the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) wants to do something, let him bring Mr. Hoover and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald together to devise some way of disarming Chicago. It would be best to start off with something easy.
Russia, the black sheep of the allies, is mobilizing to-day. She is going to destroy Christianity, and we are the only nation that has not. sent a single note of protest to Soviet Russia against her persecution. Russia is mobilizing hundreds of thousands of men, marching towards China in battle array, with airplanes, tanks and every kind of modern military equipment. The Balkans to-day do not belong to the League of Nations. The two countries who suffered most in the war were France and England. I warn hon. gentlemen that any pacifist measures will have to be paid for a little later on, just like you paid up in 1914. Germany to-day is one of the most prosperous countries in the world.
I quote from the English Review of January, 1930:

At the peace conference France, as the greatest sufferer by the war, sought to disarm her old enemy Germany. Conscious of her fiasco in 1808, when her attempts to disarm Prussia led directly to the creation of the German army as it was in 1870 and 1914, she secured a paper limitation of the German army to 100,000 men, voluntarily recruited for long service; hoping thereby to prevent the building u.p of a trained reserve of the whole German nation. But the actual result is that Germany now has a highly trained nucleus of potential officers and N.C.O's, which could be expanded into a national army in a few months at the outside.
Germany, following her accustomed methods, is now working for a limitation of the French army which would leave her relatively as strong as, or stronger than, in 1914. If she gains her point, she will be in a better strategic position than ever; should she attack France again, she will be free of the Franeo-Russian alliance; and we, having handed over the command of the sea to America, shall be unable to prevent American supplies reaching Germany. Our expeditionary force has been cut down to the vanishing point, and the territorial army, though better in many respects than in 1914, is numerically weaker, and less than ever fitted to undertake the quick expansion which would be called for on mobilization. Helpless alike on land and at sea, we shall be compelled to \vait (incidentally disregarding our Locarno obligations) until Germany (and possibly Austria) has overcome France (and possibly Italy), and is prepared to do with us what she vainly hoped to do in 1914.
I am quoting from an article entitled War and the Man in the Street, written by one of the greatest military experts in the world, W. G. Carlton Hall. It appears in the January number of the English Review. To-day nobody in Germany is out of work, and the German government could in two or three months mobilize an army of millions right on the French border. The peace pact has succeeded, aided by the American delegates, in placing France and Italy, the loyal allies of the mother country in the late war, against each other. That is one of the tragedies of this peace parley.
The people of Ontario are contributing towards the cadet movement. They are taxed for cadet uniforms, and they are prepared to continue that help and to make larger votes every year. The cadet movement is not a military movement. Only half a million dollars was spent by the parliament of Canada last year, very largely for training camps to give the boys a holiday. Many of these boys are undernourished, and the training camps take them off the city streets, where their lives are imperilled by the hit and run motorists, and give them a holiday under the best possible conditions. For these and other reasons I hope the resolution will not pass.
march 6,1930	345
International Peace-Mr. Woodsworth
As I say, if we could have five or ten years of silence from the pacifists there would be some hope of perpetual peace. But so long as we are going to have peace conferences, peace pacts, and peace agreements, we are just as near to war as we were in, 1914.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, there is very little that need be added to what has been so well said by the member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail), but I desire to associate myself with the motion which she has brought forward, particularly because of what underlies the motion, namely, the necessity in some way of definitely preparing for peace. I suppose we will all admit that the causes of modern wars are chiefly economic. So long as we have economic rivalry between groups and nations and empires, we shall have war. That is why some of us would like to see a change in the entire economic system. We cannot see how, short of that, we are going to have permanent peace; as long as there is the present struggle for markets one nation is bound to come into conflict with another. But I would not sa3r that this is the only cause. We have armaments themselves, and, as was so well said by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) last year, as long as men have guns and ships nations will fight, and it seems to me to be highly desirable that we should do all in our power to lessen armaments in order that there shall be less provocation on the part of nation? to engage in war. And, as far as some of us are concerned, we think that Canada stands in a very good position indeed to take the lead along this line.
We have heard armaments advocated on the floor of this house as an insurance against war. I do not think, however, that in the past armaments have proved to be an insurance against war. Some of us, on the other hand, would advocate expenditures of the character proposed by the member for Southeast Grey, on the ground that they may very well be a real insurance against war. Undoubtedly, when war is imminent, the nations exploit to the limit the prejudices of their peoples. As long as peoples are ignorant of one another, as long as peoples are prejudiced against one another, we need to have a considerable measure of education. If the attitude of the member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) who preceded me, is at all common in the city of Toronto, it is very clearly an indication that some education along peace lines is necessary in that city. I am not quite sure that the proposed amount of S200,000 would be sufficient to accomplish the task, but I would say that we all to a greater dr less extent inherit these national prejudices, and it is difficult to overcome them.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, we should recognize that, since we are commited to the principles of peace, we have to prepare the people for an understanding of what peace involves. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was very happy in the earlier part of his speech; I do not think he was quite so happy, however, when he came to the middle of it and endeavoured to defend the British North America Act and its application in this regard. It seemed to me that that defence was a very laboured one indeed. He suggested that if the Dominion government should create a fund available for the establishment of professorships. or scholarships, in universities, in some way or another the Dominion government would be infringing on the rights of the provinces. As a matter of fact, the French government has established scholarships for young Canadians which will enable them to spend a period of study in Paris. I do not think anyone would say that the French government is infringing on the sovereignty of Canada by offering scholarships to young Canadians.


Mr. BOURASSA:: What about the Rhodes scholarships?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, the Rhodes
scholarships, if you like, as suggested by my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). Mr. Cecil Rhodes, a great imperialist, has through his scholarship for years, infringed, if you like, upon our sovereignty, and upon that of the United States, and yet large numbers of our universities have been very glad to avail themselves of the possibility of sending young students abroad. I think that the argument of the Minister of Justice was very far-fetched indeed. If the provinces objected to having any chair endowed in their universities surely that argument does not apply in the case of offering scholarships to some of our students to go abroad. Undoubtedly a fund could be provided under an independent commission by which young men or young women who are anxious to qualify for foreign service in the days to come could avail themselves of the opportunities to travel abroad and of coming into contact with other people.
As soon as we come to certain particular questions there are some in this house who
International Peace-Mr. COMMONS
Woodsworth
are very solicitous lest the British North America Act be infringed upon. For example, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when in British Columbia last year was asked by a deputation there whether he would be willing to have the Kellogg pact framed and put in the schools of the Dominion, or in the schools of that province. The Prime Minister, perhaps quite properly, said, yes, he would be delighted to have the Kellogg pact framed and put on the school walls, but it had to be with the consent of the schools. He was very careful in that. But I ask you, what is done in the case of the cadet services? We are spending half a million dollars in cadet services, and officers, paid by this government, are urging those cadet services very often upon an unwilling public. Again and again I have protested on this floor against the cadet services being promoted in such a fashion. We have tried to cut down the expenditure upon cadet services. We have had the assurance from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) that his officers would not be allowed to take the initiative in permitting this kind of thing in our public schools; yet they are continuing to do so. I read, for example, a letter that came only the other day to the Winnipeg public school board:
Winnipeg, Man., February 5, 1930.
Mr. F. A. All den,
Secretary, School Board,
Winnipeg.
Dear Sir:
May permission be granted for a deputation of citizens to wait upon the school board on Thursday evening, February 6, when the management committee of that organization will be in session?
The delegation will deal with the introduction of cadet training in the schools and there will be at least five who wish to address the board on this important matter.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) Geo. H. Gillespie, Lt. Col.
Here you have a lieutenant colonel who, if I understand aright, is in the employ of a department of this government, pressing cadet services upon the schools of my own city, which has not had cadet sendees, which hitherto has refused to have them and which I think, will continue so to refuse. Yet we are so very solicitous if it is proposed to establish in our provinces scholarships which would allow someone thus to have his own educational opportunities enlarged. I believe the Minister of Justice-and I wish he were here-has too much good clear French logic in his make-up to delude himself in regard to matters of that kind. I should expect the Minister of Justice to rise in his seat and protest against the way

in which the cadet services are being forced upon the provinces.
The Minister of Justice seemed to imply that by taking action along this line we would be breaking an agreement. I believe that is altogether too far-fetched. It seems to me to be more in keeping with the former part of his speech, if he, as one who undoubtedly has done a great deal for the promotion of peace, would undertake to map out some kind of program for the promotion of peaceful sentiments in this country, just as we hope other people will promote peaceful sentiments in their countries. Thus he would be doing a very good work indeed. The minister had to admit that, after all, Canada was spending only about $200,000 on the League of Nations and all the services connected therewith, and he seemed to think it was a matter for congratulation that already we had attained the objective set by the hon. member for Southeast Grey. I do not believe that is her objective. Even though $200,000 has been spent by this great Dominion of Canada in that fashion, practically $20,000,000 is being spent in connection with our defence department. No; the minister was on sounder ground when he spoke about the development of international machinery and of an international conscience.
The point is that this internationalism does not develop altogether by itself. If we want to accomplish anything we organize in order to do so; we set up certain types of machinery; we try to encourage certain ways of thinking, and I do not think we are doing our full duty in this country if we simply send certain delegates to the League of Nations once a year, who may come back and make a few speeches afterwards, while we leave the great part of our population without any adequate knowledge of international affairs or of the new world that is so rapidly developing round about us, and which is bound to bring us in touch with events of the utmost importance.


Mr. KAISER:: May I ask a question? What universities in other countries have a chair of international relationships to teach peace?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I made no such statement.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I am asking, as a matter of information, whether there are any universities in other parts of the world in which such chairs have been established.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As far as my memory serves me, I am inclined to think I saw an item in one of the papers stating that Germany had established a chair or chairs for the

International Peace-Mr. Bird
promotion of peace. I may say also that there are university chairs in Great Britain which are very largely devoted to the study of international relationships.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice in replying to the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mae-phail) said that the underlying principle of the resolution was the promotion of peace. I think he might have gone a little further; as I interpret it the underlying motive of the resolution is the promotion of peace by education. I think that addition is very significant, because there is no effective promotion of peace except by education.
I think it a tragic aspect of our peace efforts that we try almost every other expedient but this. I will mention one or two of the methods which are being employed, not to disparage them at all, because we welcome every effort to establish peace, but in order to show that there are certain methods which are limited by their inherent character. Let us take, for instance, tihe establishment of arbitration and judicial procedure. That is good, and we commend the government for having signed the optional clause on behalf of Canada. That is all to the good, but I think we should note the limitations of this kind of effort on behalf of peace. The machinery of law, no matter how new or how bright and shining, will not operate unless it is backed up by an enlightened public opinion. In the country to our south we note that the eighteenth amendment, which is a law in the constitution of one of the greatest commonwealths in the world, has behind it one of the most elaborate and efficient pieces of judicial machinery of which we can conceive, but we know that that machinery has been largely inoperative because public opinion has not been educated up to the point of supporting it through thick and thin. I am not going to argue the merits of the eighteenth amendment; I am giving it just as an analogy.
Then I think I could come nearer home. I could refer to some laws which have been passed in our provinces and which have had beihind them the very efficient system of law which we are proud to think we possess in Canada, yet these laws and prohibitions have been absolutely ineffective simply because public opinion has not been enlightened to the proper point. So arbitration, and the settlement of difficulties by judicial procedure, although they mark a big advance, will prove -I hope I shall not be thought to be posing as a prophet when I say this-to be tragically inadequate, if in tihe participating countries there is not an enlightened public opinion to
uphold the judges who sit upon that august body. This winter I heard the present chief justice of the Limited States explain the machinery of the international court. The one thing which interested me was the very excellent expedient for getting a sound judgment upon all questions which came before the court, and that was that each judge had to sit up at night and write out his own judgment before he collaborated with his brother judges in the final decision. That would be a splendid thing for all judicial bodies, and it might be a good thing for committees of parliament. This is a splendid machine; it is modern; it is up to date; it is calculated to give a sound judgment, but if enlightened public opinion is not fully behind it, that splendid machinery will not operate in the manner intended.
There is another expedient, that of disarmament. I need only mention this to prove that the weakness of our efforts for peace lie in the absence of a strong, enlightened public opinion. Why are all our disarmament conferences fiascos, why is it that the meetings of our wisest counsellors are of no avail? It is because they are not sure of the public opinion which lies behind them in their respective countries. They are paralyzed in their peace efforts by fear, by psychological conditions at home, and fear is the twin sister of ignorance. We could save time and expense, and we would be wise to do it, by refusing to enter into these conferences until the psychological conditions of the various countries had so improved that there would be a practical basis upon which the counsellors of the world could get together. A man does not require to be very wise to lay his finger upon the cause of the failure of our disarmament conferences. It is quite easy for Canada to say that France is not sincere, that Italy is not sincere, but are we sincere?
We talk lightly about cadet training, but I remember reading in the proceedings of the sixth preparatory disarmament conference of an objection made by the representative from Poland. The matter under discussion concerned the reduction of European reserves and Poland objected to any reduction until countries such as Canada, the United States and England considered a reduction in the number of their cadets. This objection puts cadet training upon a different plane of argument, and so long as we in Canada foster this insidious form of militarism we retard international understanding.
There is another matter in which I think we ought to prove our sincerity, and that is in regard to our air service. If we were sincere we would divorce our air service from our
348	. COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Bird
military department. Someone says that it has been done, and if so I think it is more than a matter of commendable domestic policy; it is a matter of international wisdom.
As the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) suggested this afternoon, we should undertake a campaign of debunking history as it is taught to the rising generation in Canada. We should enter the moving picture theatre and do some expurgating there. The other night I visited a theatre where an American film was being shown, and as far as I could see, the only motive of the picture was to make prohibition unpopular and militarism popular. Not only should we expurgate our moving picture shows, but there are other shows which should be treated in the same manner. I attended at the bar of the Senate when this parliament was opened, and there saw the representative of the crown surrounded by a tremendous military show. I have asked this question of myself over and over again, why should a country like Canada, with pacific intentions and a peaceful disposition, permit this annual function to be disfigured by the protrusion of militarism? If we are sincere and want to make the mental environment of our children such as will develop a pacific attitude in life, let us see to it that as far as we are able they are saved from this militaristic show which is a relic of pre-war days.
Although we may change our mental environment, there remains an attitude of mind which, unfortunately, we are all bom with, not because we are imbued with any militaristic ideas but because we are born human. I agree with Professor William James, the great psychologist, when he says that pacificists make a crucial mistake in their opposition to militarism when they overlook the natural combative instincts of men. That inr stinct cannot be overlooked. You may do away with cadets, you may expurgate our histories from all allusion to war, you may transform our environment entirely, but you cannot eradicate the impulses which have come down to us from time immemorial and which rest securely in the breasts of the mildest of men. These impulses must be taken into consideration because every now and again humanity will break out in a form of madness. After all, it is not the military leaders, it is not the misguided politicians who make war, it is the surging mania of the people themselves. How can we deal with these impulses which now and again run riot and deluge the world in blood? Only by education, only by taking the rising generation as early as you can and directing those impulses into constructive instead of destructive channels.

The hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) has laid her finger on the whole secret, but the proper place to start is with the schools, the teachers, not the universities. That is where I differ from my hon. friend. I think she is not catching the rising generation soon enough. When persons get into a university, they are hopeless so far as change of ideas is concerned. You can inculcate new ideas only in the early years of life. I pity any young man or woman who enters a university with militaristic ideas, because there is in a university nothing that is calculated ever to modify such ideas. It is on the earlier years of life that you must depend for moulding the mind of the young Canadian in a pacific direction.
I do not think it is worth while anyway thinking about the universities. This has led the hon. member for Southeast Grey into difficulties with the hon. Minister of Justice in regard to provincial rights. I do not think it is worth while raising that question because I believe the government can reach the mind of young Canada without interfering with the universities. Even if the government was in control of the universities, I would not think it worth while tampering with them for the cause of peace, or, indeed, for any cause. But I think the government can find ways and means to reach the young mind of Canada with enlightened ideas as to our duty towards mankind.
It is not only international relationships that need enlightenment; it is our ideas of human nature in general. I can remember the time when I thought very differently of a German from what my boy does to-day. Nothing could be more diametrically opposed than my idea in my youth of a German to that which my son has in his youth. Neither is true; neither is just. When France was the enemy of England generations ago, an Englishman's idea of a Frenchman was a travesty and yet this very night we hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) eulogizing the clarity and precision of the French mind. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had been born two generations earlier, he would not have looked upon the Frenchman in that light at all; he would have said that the Frenchman is the most frivolous animal on earth.
I have heard that our universities to-day teach that European humanity is divided into Nordics and Mediterraneans. If a university professor teaches that Europe is divided into a superior and an inferior race in each of which temperaments are fundamentally different, what is the use of the hon. member for Southeast Grey trying to enlist the help of the

International Peace-Mr. Irvine
universities? Our universities themselves are tinged with racial prejudice. They hold ideas of humanity that are not worthy even of a high school intelligence. So let us forget the universities. Let the present government, and every government for that matter, try to instil into the mind of the rising generation just ideas, true ideas, about other nations.
What about international relationships? If there had been some means of enlightening the people of the world on international relationships prior to 1914, there would have been no war. I will go further and say that if the foreign offices of the governments of Europe had been enlightened on foreign affairs, there would have been no war. You cannot conceive of an ignorance deeper than that which infested the mind of Lord Grey prior to 1914. Here was a minister of foreign affairs in the British government who did not know the history of his own department, who for years had acquiesced in a secret understanding with France and who, at the outbreak of war, did not know the details of its history. Surely we want some agency set up, whereby not only common men and women but foreign secretaries and even prime ministers and cabinets may be enlightened. There never before was any political ignorance so great in its dimensions, so tragic in its potentialities, as that which reigned supreme in the minds of politicians in Europe in 1914.
So the hon. member for Southeast Grey should not have to plead with the house to establish ways and means whereby we can penetrate this great darkness which is the breeding place of hatreds, which is full of possibilities that we hardly dare think about. The hon. member for Southeast Grey has been like a voice crying in the wilderness for a year or two on this proposition, and I was somewhat sorry to hear the reply of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) although it is not difficult to recognize that the minister has his bright spots, his idealisms. I do not think he ever speaks on a question of this kind that he does not disarm one's come-back by revealing his comprehension and sympathy. But I want to ask him: How are we going to make this principle operative unless we somehow or another deal broadly with this matter of provincial rights? I admit we are a confederation and that provincial rights are sacred. Because they are sacred, do not put them in the way of progress. The fact that they are sacred is a reason not to put them there. When the Chinese saw the first locomotive coming along, they put their sacred dishes on the track. It was because they were sacred that they should not have put them there. So our provincial rights which
are sacred and without which there could not be Canada, must be safeguarded by keeping them out of the way of progress that must not be delayed. Parliament has the supreme duty of proving to the world that Canada has, not a number of little souls, but one big soul, this unitary thing which is not a matter of materials but which is a spirit, a soul. When the Minister of Justice or anyone else goes to the League of Nations, he must 'be backed up, not by a collection of little, uncertain, opposed souls, but by one big, agreed, enlightened and convinced soul, and only in that way can Canada take her place in the councils of the world.


William Irvine: In some respects the motion before the house is highly commendable. It at least presupposes the possibility of peace. It suggests, and in itself assists, the development by peaceful methods of a will favourable to peace. It indicates the value of education to the future peace of mankind. It specifically asks that we begin an educational program for peace. In all these respects the resolution might well be welcomed by this house, and I am sure that the people of Canada generally will feel very grateful to the lady member of the house for having brought this matter to the attention of parliament, and for having devoted so much of her time and energy to a study of this question and to the promotion of her ideals of peace.
If this resolution comes to a vote, I shall vote for it more perhaps because of its implications than for its specific recommendations. I had a good deal of sympathy with the attitude of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) this afternoon. I admit that this talk of provincial rights about which we hear so much does get a little tiresome at times, and very often we could wish that it was out of the way. Nevertheless the address of the Minister of Justice this afternoon was a delight to me at least, and I was particularly pleased with its spirit and, as a previous speaker, (Mr. Bird) has mentioned, with the sympathy which he manifested in regard to the main idea of the resolution. He summarized admirably some of the agencies for peace with which Canada is associated. First of all he drew our attention to the fact of which I presume we are all aware, that the influences of the last war are still working towards peace, in that the suffering and destruction and futility of it has left its mark upon the imagination of the people. That is true. Of course, we are also aware of the fact that these influences pass away with the generations, and therefore we cannot rely upon them-I am not suggesting that the min-

International Peace-Mr. Irvine
ister implied that we could-as a lasting influence. He also mentioned the League of Nations and the efforts that are being put forward by labour nationally and internationally; the signing of the Kellogg pact; the disarmament conference in Great Britain at which we are represented; and our signing of the optional clause. Then he made reference to what is perhaps of even greater significance, and that is the development of what he called an international conscience. All these agencies, and numerous others, both of an economic and commercial significance, to which the minister did not refer, are all working, I believe, towards peace. The time will come when it will be clear that the world is in fact an economic unit, and what is more important, that the world is a human unit, and as these ideas bear in upon the imagination of the world they will help forward the cause of peace in every department of human affairs.
The Minister of Justice found that it would not perhaps be wise for this government and parliament to appear to be interfering with an educational question since jurisdiction in education is left to the provinces. That consideration has to be met. I agree with the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that we have got around that difficulty in respect to such matters as cadet training and other subjects, and it may be possible for us to get around that difficulty here. As the minister has such a splendid conception of what is happening in the world to-day in regard to peace, and as he is so manifestly sympathetic to the idea, I hope that he will not allow the splendid sentiments which he has expressed to go to seed without yielding some results. If he finds that any part of the constitution stands in the way, let him alter it or find some way to get around it, and I can assure him that he will have a great deal of support in his efforts in that regard.
Let me turn now more particularly to the resolution. I think I may consider myself free to speak critically of what it asks for, inasmuch as the hon. mover herself has indicated that she is not quite satisfied with its terminology The resolution asks, in the first place, that at least one dollar be expended for peace for eveiy one hundred dollars that is expended in preparation for war. As far as I am concerned, that is not enough. She might very properly reply: that is better than nothing. I agree, but the point I want to make without further argument is that I do not think our peace efforts should be conditioned upon or limited in any way by the extent to which we engage in war preparations. I think that

should be a thing entirely by itself. Of course, the logic of the resolution is unanswerable. The lady member may very well argue that if we are, as we declare, a peace-loving people, it is not too much to ask that we spend one dollar for peace for every hundred that we spend in preparing for war.
My next objection to the resolution is that a nation educated not to fight will still fight as readily as a nation which is educated to fight, if and when the conditions of war obtain. I know that my hon. friend who has just spoken (Mr. Bird) will not agree with me there. I can imagine, however, an educated man, as highly educated a man as my hon. friend from Nelson, being quite willing to put up a real fight under certain circumstanoes. He might know that it was quite foolish to fight, that it would not help him at all even if he won, but still I believe he would say that there are times and conditions when he would rather stand up and be defeated than allow himself to be trampled on by anybody.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. member had better not get any false ideas about me.


William Irvine: I knew that he was the very type of Englishman who would take that fighting attitude. Education in the academic sense in which education cannot stop war is used in this resolution-if you mean education in its broadest sense, the use of every avenue that leads to the mind, and sometimes perhaps to the stomach, of mankind, I might alter my opinion-I can imagine that some of the most highly educated professors would probably be the leaders in our militaristic strategy.
I have another slight objection to the specific demands of the resolution, and that is that a thorough understanding of international affairs would probably make a militarist out of our peace student. If he were really in touch with all the practical international questions of Europe-we need not confine ourselves to Europe, but say international affairs generally-he would have to deal with such practical questions as the present political unrest in India; he would have to deal with the . practical questions which are agitating the governments of Italy and France; he would have to deal with a thousand practical questions that neither you nor I have ever heard of, and I am just afraid he might come away with the idea that we had better be prepared for war as quickly as possible. I am afraid of professors of that type. I well remember a professor who spoke very highly of a certain financial reform, who declared in private to small groups of people his aversion to the monopoly of banks and all that sort of thing.

International Peace-Mr. Spencer
But when that professor was called to give evidence before our committee on banking all those opinions vanished, and he then became the champion of high finance. Strange thing! I would be afraid of an educated professor doing something like that.
Let me say next that so far as I am concerned the universities would be the last place in which to expect the beginning of so desirable a human achievement as peace. I know of no instance in world history-there may be one-when any great human movement took its rise in the universities. I think it is more probable that the universities would oppose it. I have more faith in public schools than in universities, and I have more faith in the ordinary groups of people who meet together and face their own problems than I have in the universities. I think that the organizations of the people of Canada that we are witnessing about us to-day, the labour organizations and the farmer organizations meeting in countless little groups all over the western provinces and in large rooms in our cities,- the usual meeting places of our labour people

these are the places where education of this sort will be disseminated. I have faith in that kind of education.
But my last point is this: who is going to prepare the course of peace study for the students in the universities? I have heard the hon. member for Southeast Grey criticize our public school text books, and I think rightly so. We ought to have some control over those text books, and yet we find that they are not what we want. We w'ould have much less control over a course of peace study in our universities. Who will select the professors, for instance, and who will direct them? Let us take as an example McGill university. The president is one of our most distinguished military leaders. Now, would he select the peace professor, and would he draft the course of study to be followed? I speak with all respect of that most distinguished military leader, and I am prepared to give to him all the honour that Canadians extend to him; but in connection with our discussion it is a fact that the president of McGill university is one of our outstanding generals. That is only one case; there may be many others. I do not think that the actual recommendations of the resolution will be the best way to carry out the idea which no doubt the hon. member for Southeast Grey had in mind. However, let me appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and indeed to the front bench in all its power and-
Mr. STF.WART (Leeds): Glory.


William Irvine: I was going to say, wisdom. Let me appeal to them to allow this resolution to go to the committee on industrial and international relations. It may not amount to anything. After it has been considered there the committee may find that there is no way in which the government can spend money for the promotion of peace. But if they should decide that certain things could be undertaken, something along the lines suggested by the resolution or something even better than that, surely it would be a creditable and desirable thing to proceed accordingly. Therefore I am going to move, seconded by Mr. Spencer:
That the motion he amended by adding the following words:-"and that this motion be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations for consideration and to report to the house."


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The question is on the amendment.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, the subject under consideration is a very important one indeed, and our thanks are due to the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) for again bringing it before us. Of course there are many views in regard to this question, but in the main there are two schools of thought; on the one hand, those who believe that the best way to prepare for peace is to be ready for war; and on the other hand, those who think that by cutting down armaments we can preserve peace. Personally I do not think either school is right. If I had to choose between them I would prefer to accept the opinion of those who believe in disarmament because less harm would be done at the outbreak of war; and in my opinion war is inevitable while present economic world conditions continue.
What are the causes of war? In times gone by we had religious wars; I think those are a thing of the past. We have had territorial wars; I think they also are of the past. We have had wars brought about by national animosity; surely with our peace conferences and the various arbitration and peace treaties of the last two or three years we have got beyond that stage. Then why is it that everybody thinks that war is inevitable? It is because people realize that most wars originate in economic rivalry. And when we have found what is wrong in the economic sense, and taken the proper corrective measures, we shall have made war impossible by removing the cause. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have not given sufficient study to the result of the mechanization of industry. To-day through that great revolution in industry, through the aid of science and invention, there

International Peace-Mr. Spencer
is no difficulty at all in producing greater and greater quantities of goods with less and less man power. In other words, we are rapidly transferring the load from the shoulders of mer, to machines. In doing this we are of course throwing more and more men out of employment. Even in Canada to-day we are up against a big problem of unemployment. This problem confronts the United States and Great Britain and most other countries of the world to a still greater extent. We have to recognize the fact that the payroll is the purchasing power of the people, and if you cut down the payroll of the people you simply increase the quantity of the goods on the shelves that cannot be sold. The problem of production has been solved; we now have before us the problem of consumption. What is the usual suggestion as a means of getting out of this dilemma? The most orthodox suggestion is to produce more, to consume less, and to export the surplus. To my mind that suggestion is absolutely absurd. According to my knowledge of economics, with all the money paid out in the cost of production it is impossible to buy back the goods in the figure of price. At least some economists go so far as to say that we do not spend more than sixty cents of the producer's dollar. If we have not the money to buy back the surplus goods we export, how are we to have the money to buy the goods that are imported in exchange for the goods sent out of the country? The biggest struggle in the world to-day is the effort made by all countries to find markets outside their own borders. In peace we have economic war; on the other hand it might well be said that " war is economic peace," because in peace times, with a curtailment of credit, you have not sufficient purchasing power to buy back the goods that are made. Credit is put in operation to produce more goods, but not to purchase goods, and therefore we are continually producing more and more goods for an already glutted market. It is this struggle of one country competing against another for similar markets that is creating the economic warfare. When war breaks out, as it unfortunately does now and again, we have economic peace, because then there is no such thing as a consumer's problem. War is the greatest consumer of goods in a given time, and so we find that in wartime everyone is pretty well off, everyone has money. Poverty is at its lowest ebb. If we do not have war, we have the accumulation of goods and increased unemployment. In the last hundred years we have advanced tremendously in the matter of industry; we 
have revolutionized the production of goods, but during that last hundred years we have carried on with an old credit system that was all right in the old days but which does not fit our conditions of to-day. As long as we stay with this policy of exchange that is out of date, then just so long shall we have before us the very serious problem of getting rid of the goods that are produced. Various suggestions have been made for the solving of this problem. Some suggest the elimination of armaments. That certainly would help to the extent that if war did break out fewer people would be killed in a given time; but if you take the people away from the making of goods, in the way of armaments, you increase more and more the number of unemployed. Another way to solve the problem is to get rid of people. Great Britain is doing her level best to migrate her people. The United States is doing her very best to keep people from coming into her country. The matter of birth control has also been suggested, and yet none of these seem to me to be a solution of the problem.
In supporting the amendment to the resolution placed before the house by the hon. member for Southeast Grey, I do so because I think we might, in that committee, secure certain information that would be useful to the house. But I agree with the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), that even if we do set up international scholarships, if the scholars are taught not along the lines of the newer economics but simply in accordance with the present methods of teaching- which, by the way, have brought us to this checkmate-then I say we would not be gaining our end. If we can ensure the teaching to the students of the newer economics, and if these students, with their ability, can go out into the world and preach those newer economics, they will be doing something to solve those questions which relate to the purchasing power of the people. The resolution is an excellent one and should be passed by the house.
In summing up, Mr. Speaker, I would say that peace is largely a matter of consumption. When we have solved the problem of consumption, made it possible for the people of the world to enjoy the goods of the world-which they are doing to-day only to a very small extent-we will get rid of the miseries of war and poverty and crime, and all those things that are detrimental to any nation, even to our own.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I would not

International Peace-Mr. Mackenzie King
like the motion of my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) to be allowed to pass or to be dropped without saying a word on it, because I find myself in entire agreement with her as to the several proposals suggested in her motion considered individually, though forced to disagree with her when asked to assent to them in combination. The motion breaking it into parts, reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, for every one hundred dollars spent for war one dollar should be spent to promote peace-
Taken by itself I imagine that the only fault to be found with this proposition would be the one mentioned by the last speaker, namely that the amount is anything but comparable to what it should be. However, my hon. friend's motion relates not simply to the amount to be paid for the promotion of peace, but to promotion of peace in a particular way. The motion goes on to suggest:
-by setting up a chair of international relationships and by instituting international scholarships in each Canadian university.
Here again, as I have said, I find myself in wholehearted accord with the object of the resolution in its separate propositions, considered separately. I think it would be an excellent thing to have a chair of international relationships-I will not say in every university but certainly in some of our universities -and, similarly, I feel that international scholarships in each Canadian university, or at least in some Canadian universities would have much to commend them. But I would want to be quite sure as to just what my hon. friend means by international scholarships. Perhaps I might say a word first of all in regard to international scholarships.
In a great many countries most of the universities have what are known as travelling scholarships or fellowships. I cannot conceive of any more useful form of benefaction than the founding of scholarships or the endowment of universities with chairs on different subjects, but from the resolution I really do not know whether what my hon. friend has in mind is a scholarship to be given to Canadians to study at foreign universities or a scholarship to be given to foreigners to study in Canadian universities.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Both.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, if that
is the case I rather sympathize with both, but I do feel that scholarships, seeing that they have to do with educational institutions, should be founded by individuals or societies or by provincial governments rather than by the federal government. Similarly with regard 2419-23
to a chair of international relations; I think before asking any government to vote public money for the purpose we would have to define rather carefully what is to be included in the work of instruction on international relations. International relations is a very large subject. It embraces many matters, some of them differing widely in character from others. May I suggest just one topic which I think would appropriately and necessarily come within the scope of instruction of a chair of international relations, that is, the subject of the tariff. The tariff has a very important bearing on many matters not far removed from questions of peace and war. I would want to know whether the chair of international relations to be established by this government would include instruction on the tariff, and if it would I should like to be pretty sure as to the particular government which would control the money for the purpose. Let us assume for a moment that a chair of international relations was to be established at the University of Toronto. That university is a provincial institution. I assume that the moment we agreed to appropriate a sum of money for the purpose we would be told by Mr. Ferguson of Toronto that he would very gladly accept the money we wished to hand him from the public treasury, but that he would claim the right to appoint the professor. Personally I would not care to have a son of mine trained on the subject of international relations by a professor who might be appointed by Mr. Ferguson for the purpose, and I am inclined to think my hon, friend might feel the same about any daughter of hers.
I mention these facts simply because, after all, they do illustrate some of the considerations which a ministry has to take into account in voting public money for educational purposes. I do not think it can be denied that the professorships and scholarships in universities are concerned primarily with matters of education; the words of themselves are sufficient to indicate that. I must say that I cannot see wherein we would be improving either international relations or internal relations, as far as our own country is concerned, if, as a federal government, we began to take up matters of education which up to the present time have been dealt with exclusively or have been largely dealt with, by the different provinces.
Now, as to spending public money for the purpose of promoting peace, I remember that when last year my hon. friend introduced a motion in somewhat similar terms I pointed out that practically all the expenditure of government is for the purposes of peace. I

354	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Mackenzie King
do not think it can be said that even the expenditures of the Department of National Defence are for the purposes of war. They are essentially expenditures for the purposes of preserving peace. However, allow that to pass and consider other branches of government. Surely everything that has to do with the Department of Justice relates to peace; peace is founded upon justice. Take next the Department of External Affairs; I think that department might very well foe termed the department of international relations, or the department of international conciliation, one might almost say, because I am quite certain the matters that are dealt with there are all dealt with in a manner which it is hoped will promote peace and good will among the different nations in their relations with this Dominion. As a matter of fact the whole work of that department, is an effort to deal with all international relations on a basis of reason rather than of force, and as I see it that is the distinction between peaceful and warlike methods. War relies upon force for achieving its ends, while the Department of External Affairs concerned with maintaining and promoting peace relies in international relations upon the appeal to reason. All the money that is being expended on the work of the Department of External Affairs does, I think, fall entirely within the category my hon. friend has in mind when she asks this parliament to vote money for the promotion of peace.
I am going to ask my hon. friend to allow me to suggest a form of educational work which very well might be advanced by the Department of External Affairs. It is educational in character but comes I think, within the scope of that department of the federal government rather than within the scope of the provincial Department of Education. The cooperation of both governments would be required to render it effective.	I refer
to the right kind of publicity to be given the Briand-Kellogg pact. Last fall when I was in western Canada I had the privilege of addressing an armistice day gathering at Ocean Falls, a small industrial community on the Pacific coast. It was one of the most impressive gatherings I have ever attended. A feature of the occasion was the unveiling of the Briand-Kellogg pact for the renunciation of war on the wall of the little church in which this meeting took place. This document had been suitably engrossed and framed and was hanging there, and the unveiling was the central feature of the Armistice day service. At that gathering I was reminded of a request which had come to the government asking that copies of this pact 
should be put in all the schools and churches of the dominion. I was so impressed by what I saw that day that I did not hesitate to say that I was quite sure a proposal of the kind would meet with the general approval of the members of this house, and that I intended when parliament met to ask for an appropriation for the distribution of the Briand-Kellogg pact in a form which would enable it to be hung in schools and churches, wherever they might wish to have it.
That, of course, would require the cooperation of educational authorities. I am happy to inform my hon. friends that since that statement was made I have received from the heads of the educational departments or the premiers of several of the provinces requests for copies of the pact for that very purpose. They have intimated that if the Department of External Affairs will supply them with these copies in a suitable form for hanging they will see that they are distributed and given a place in the schools of the province. That will cost a little money; even the printing, framing and distributing of these pacts will involve the expenditure of a considerable sum. As I see it, it is our duty rather than that of the provinces to ask for that expenditure; the publicity given an instrument of peace such as the Briand-Kellogg pact falls properly and appropriately within the work of the Department of External Affairs. I doubt very much if we could expect the educational authorities of the provinces to give us any money for the purpose of having the pact printed and distributed, but we are happy to be assured of their cooperation in giving it a place in the schools, where I think, its being publicly exhibited, will render a great service. That would be carrying out what I think is the fundamental idea of the motion of my hon. friend, namely, that something of an educational character should be carried on in connection with the work of the Department of External Affairs upon the all-important matter of the promotion of peace. If her resolution were to read, "that in the opinion of the house for every one hundred dollars spent for war one dollar should be spent to promote peace by distributing the Briand-Kellogg pact to be hung in the schools and churches of our country," and so forth, I could vote for that resolution without any question because I could feel that I was confining myself to an obligation which properly belonged to the federal government While I think the idea of establishing chairs of international relations and the granting of international scholarships is excellent, I differ

International Peace-Mr. Mackenzie King
from my bon. friend in believing that we should use our money for that purpose rather than for the purpose I have just described.
We need money more urgently for such work as is being carried on by the Department of External Affairs than the country needs at this particular time scholarships or chairs on international relations. The hon. member has said, and I think very wisely, that many of our young men should be trained to a certain extent in diplomacy, that they should have the opportunity of spending some time in the legations and some time in the Department of External Affairs. She mentioned that we have two legations, and I tried to have her say three, which I think she will admit is the correct number. We have legations in France, the United States and in Japan. We have an office at Geneva where Canada is represented by an advisory officer, and, in addition, we have the high commissioner's office in Great Britain which has to some extent to do with international affairs. AH these establishments are under the direction of the Department of External Affairs.
Experience has shown that there is a very close relationship between the universities and this department of government. The Department of External Affairs has to look to the universities for trained men to carry on its work, men who have obtained a high position in history, international law, political economy or political science in its different branches. The universities will in time be the better off by the addition to their staffs, particularly in the departments of history, international law, political science and government, of men who have had practical experience in our Department of External Affairs and in the legations. I believe that the object the hon. member has in view would be best obtained, and probably in time will be obtained in considerable measure by the return to the universities later on of some of those men who have left the universities, come for a time into the Department of External Affairs, who have become associated with one or more of the legations and gained in that way a practical knowledge of the working of government in international relations. Such men would return to the university faculties, either to the chairs of history, international law or political science in any of its branches, and would there undertake to lecture in a practical way on international relations. There have been many examples of outstanding men such as President Taft, the late President Wilson and others who after an association with government have returned to universities to deliver courses of 2419-23i
lectures on government, with a service infinitely more valuable to the student because they were able to speak as being of those who spoke with authority, having themselves gone through the mill and knowing from first hand experience what they were talking about.
If the motion of the hon. member were carried and we had to look around to-morrow for the professors to appoint, where would we get them? There is no school to-day which specifically trains men to fill chairs of inter-nationl relations, but there are men in our service who have been professors in universities, wiho have left those universities to enter the public service and who have thus rendered a great service to the country, who could return to-morrow to any university fully equipped to fill positions such as my hon. friend has mentioned. I do not know where else their equals could be found.
I believe this whole question would be made much clearer than I am able to make it if the suggestions made by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) were carried out and the amendment adopted and the resolution thereby permitted to go to the committee on international relations. I can see no possible harm, and I think a great deal of good might come through having this particular resolution referred to that committee. The committee could call before it a desired representative of universities and those members of the Department of External Affairs who have come from our universities and who have first hand knowledge of these matters. It will be found that there are in the department those who are possessed of a very intimate knowledge of what would be expected of a chair of international relations. The members of the committee could also ascertain for themselves whether or not the carrying out of what my hon. friend has in mind along the line I have suggested this evening might not prove to be more in accord with what she herself hopes to accomplish, than the resolution as at present worded.
I shall be very happy to vote for the amendment in order to allow the resolution to go to the committee for that purpose.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) on her return to the house, to the benefit of all? I agree largely with everything she has said, and especially with the first sentence of her remarks of yesterday, that her motion perhaps might have been worded otherwise. On a previous occasion the hon. member referred to the improvement in her temper due to the re-
356	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Bourassa
moval of her tonsils; might I suggest that perhaps the motion was written before the operation, and the speech made after?
The motion is rather involved and, as the Prime Minister has suggested, it opens the door to divergent views. 1 am not accustomed to walking a.t once right and left, therefore I do not feel quite comfortable in accepting the motion as it is. I am in agreement with the Prime Minister as to the acceptance of the amendment of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), because it will help in clearing up these little difficulties. This resolution would be put in the hands of the committee, and that committee could call some of the members of the Department of External Affairs and other people who might throw some light upon the question.
It seems to me that we should never connect too intimately the very broad question of the development of our international relationship, and the education of our people in that direction, with the question of peace or war. I entirely sympathize with the endeavours of most of my progressive friends, on the other side of the house, to reduce the war expenditure, and I am willing to help in every movement which would make for peace in Canada and for peace between Canada and foreign countries. But international relations are an entirely different matter. As a matter of fact, international relations have produced war much more often than peace. Why? For the reason that has been pointed out by the hon. member for Southeast Grey herself, the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), namely, that public opinion in each country was directed in such a way that the men at the head of government, responsible for international affairs, either were enabled to launch their country into war if they were warmongers, or unable to prevent war if they wanted peace.
The hon. member for Nelson has alluded to that late eminent Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, then Sir Edward Grey. There is nothing more poignant than the impression one derives from reading the memoirs of Lord Grey of Falloden. One who reads that book with a disinterested mind, with a critical mind, in the right sense of the word "critical," will arrive at this conclusion: here was one man, thoroughly honest in his purpose, with a noble heart, inclined to peace by temperament, who became, under the circumstances which preceded that nefarious war, largely responsible for it. That was made quite clear in a blunt but loyal and frank manner by Lord Loreburn in his short book where, tearing down the veil

of hypocrisy,-this has no reference to Lord Grey- and all the clouds that had surrounded the conduct of foreign affairs in England in the nine years previous to the war, he summed up the whole matter in this way: Had Sir Edward Grey enlightened his own colleagues as to what he was doing, perhaps war might have been avoided. Even at the last moment, had Sir Edward Grey had the courage or the decision of mind to make it clear to Germany that England would be on the side of France or Russia, whatever the cause of war was to be, or to make it clear to France and Russia that England would remain neutral, whatever the decisions taken in Paris and St. Petersburg, war would most likely have been avoided. That is an opinion. I do not accept it altogether, although I am inclined to do so. What I want to come at is this: had public opinion in England been enlightened, things might have been different,-and may I interject here that there is no country on earth where public opinion, when properly enlightened, is so honest and! thorough as it is in England; but it must be enlightened and educated. Direction must be given to the public mind in England, France, Canada or elsewhere, so that when a grave decision has to be taken, the men responsible for the decisions of peace and war know that they can count upon an enlightened conscience; that the decision of the country, of the government and of parliament will not be stifled or precipitated by the voice of blind, ignorant, uninformed passion, as was the case in the few weeks which immediately preceded the war.
I have stated frequently and I repeat: if a plebiscite could have been taken in every country in Europe three or four weeks before war was launched, the vast majority of all the peoples, Germans as well as French, English as well as Russians, would have voted against the war. As Lloyd George has very properly said, governments tumbled into war one after another, much against their will; and perhaps not before fifty years, perhaps never, will it be possible for the historian to establish the real responsibility and say: this country or that country, this government or that government, was responsible for the war.
The hon. member for Nelson has said his mind is changed radically with regard to one of the nations in the war, the nation which the whole population of this country was taught for ten years to consider as a nation of barbarians, a nation with which it was solemnly promised we would never have anything to do by way of international trade, or otherwise, but a nation with which French, English, Italians and Americans were rushing to conclude new international contracts and to trade, six

International Peace-Mr. Bourassa
months after the war and about three months after Mr. Lloyd George had pledged hi3 honour as the leader of the British people that the kaiser would be hanged and that the pockets of the Germans would be emptied. In that respect the hon. members who have supported this resolution are absolutely right. Call in all the congresses you want; print all the peace pacts you desire; post them up on the walls of all the churches and schools; plaster all the walls of this parliament with them; erase those horrible war pictures with which you have desecrated the other chamber; cover the walls of all the big institutions with emblems of peace and love-if you do not inform the people of the preparatory causes of war, which generally grow two, three, four, five or ten years in advance, when the next fire is set, the same flame of craziness will pass over the world, and your people will force you into war in spite of all your small or big pictures.
The Briand-Kellogg pact is undoubtedly a fine declaration of goodwill. I take it for granted-it is always better to do so, either politically or charitably-that it was conceived in good faith and signed by people who wished to abide by it. But I am more sure of something else, and that is, that if those men who prepared that treaty, those men who signed it, do not take now every possible means to prepare a public opinion that will abide by that pact, when the next cause of war arises, their little bit of paper will be another "scrap of paper".
A friend of mine, an old French diplomat, once a loyal servant of the French republic, fortunately for his conscience withdrawn from the service before the war, but impelled by his conscience to utter a word of truth in the midst of lies which covered the world for ten years, began to feel his nerves grating at the constant mention of Bethmann-Hollweg's "scrap of paper". Poor Bethmann-Hollweg, one of the most honest men who ever lived in Europe and, as is admitted now by everybody who knows, perhaps the man in Europe who ran more risks and did more work to prevent war than anybody else! He wrote a book, just to tell of the scraps of paper that were torn up during the century preceding the war by those very nations, the avengers of the right and honour of the world, by France, his own country, by England, by Italy and the United States. It is a big book comprising about five hundred pages, with not a sentence of rhetoric in it, but replete with quotations and instances, all authenticated by public and official documents. It shows that every time this or that solemn covenant was
broken by the government that had signed it, every time war arose out of that lack of good faith, public opinion, uninformed, ignorant, uneducated, supported its government in the breach of faith and in the shedding of blood that followed it.
Of course, practically everybody knows today the distant causes that brought about the war between France and Pnissia in 1870 or, if you like, the wtar between Prussia and Austria in 1866. But who knew then? We are beginning to have a vague notion of the preliminary causes of the late war. In the midst of the late war I ventured the opinion that after the clouds of battle would have been dissipated, when -common sense would again come into its own, this war would likely be called the war for the partition of Turkey. It looked ridiculous at the time; but open the books that have been published in the last four or five years by the best informed and the most impartial minds of England, France, Italy, or, if you like, of Germany herself, and you will see that through all the intricacies of diplomacy, always you come -back to the rivalry of Russia and France and England at one time, and at another of Russia and Germany and Austria. Why? To divide between themselves the spoils of the "unspeakable Turk".
In 1854 such a noble man as John Bright went down to defeat -rather than betray the true interests of the British nation; but he was vindicated twenty years later by the resurrected conscience of the British people, because during those twenty years they had become informed to the point that Lord Salisbury was capable of saying in public on one occasion that in 1854, Britain had taken the wrong course, had bet on the wrong horse. His predecessor, Lord Beaconsfield did not say so. Whether he thought so in his tomb after Salisbury confessed the truth, I do not know. But I know this, that England was engaged in the war because the British people were not informed of the real causes of the war, because the history of the east was not taught in the schools of England, because the changes in the political atmosphere were not known to the people of England.
One h-on. gentleman on the other side spoke of the uselessness of confining this work of education to the universities. Others spoke of the uselessness of school education in this matter altogether, and said that we ought to put the question on its economic basis. There is something true in all those views, but they do not evince the whole truth. What is true is that if we really want peace, if we really want to sow the seeds of an enduring pacific
358	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Bourassa
sentiment in this country we must make use of every agency. You think of trade? Well, I will try to show you that war is not good for trade. You are an idealist? You dream of universal peace? Well, I will try to show you that if you want to get universal peace, you must begin and work for peace at home. You think oif international goodwill? Well, if you want to impress the minds of the youth of this country with the sentiment of international good will, you must not divide the world into criminals and saints, the saints being our allies for the time being and the criminals being our enemies.
The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) referred to the time when France and not Germany was our enemy. That reminded me of the famous saying of Lord Nelson when he summed up in three short sentences his instructions to the youth of England, educating them in what he believed to be the true duty of an English sailor. "First, obey orders unquestionably. Second, revere the king. Third, hate every Frenchman like the devil."
During the late war, I had occasion, to come here and peruse some of the despatches exchanged between the government of old Canada and the British government during the Crimean war-addresses of congratulation to the queen, the sending of subscriptions for the wounded at the siege of Sebastopol, etc. It was very touching; but the most curious thing was that the very sentiments used when we were fighting Germany, from 1914 to 1918, were used in the Crimean war when we were crushing down those Russian "barbarians," those "monsters" with whom we later allied ourselves to crush down one of the most highly civilized nations of the earth. Not a nation without criminals, not a nation without faults-and here I am touching upon the point which I think is lacking in our reading of history, and that is as to the direction of public sentiment given by our press, even by our best inspired magazines and reviews, in time of war. Why not endeavour to point all the time to this basic fact, that, after all, to whatever country or race they belong, men are human beings, with faults and with good qualities? that nations have their days of greatness and their days of folly, that all peoples have had their turn, and alternately committed horrible crimes and rendered their share of service to humanity? If war is forced upon us, why not at least endeavour to come back to what was the standard of war in those so-called barbarous days of the tenth or twelfth centuries, when knights gave each other knocks on the head, but did not maintain a press 
pestering the minds of humanity and creating prejudices that would survive for generation after generation?
During four years of the war I was threatened by the censor. I was accused by the paid agents of one government or another government of being in the pay of the kaiser. Why? Because having learned from illustrious French and English authors, ten years previous to the war, that the Germans were a great people, that they had accomplished much for the benefit of humanity, I refused just because we were at war with Germany to believe that of a sudden, on the 3rd of August, 1914, the whole of these seventy millions of people had been turned into so many devils, to use the word of Lord Nelson. That some of the men at the head of the German government might have been criminals, and certainly were mistaken, I did believe, and still believe. But I thought we had some of those men at the head of our own government, that there were some in England, some in France, some in Russia, some in Austria. Because, for the first time in our history, Canada was asked to go and help in settling the affairs of Europe instead of looking after her own duties on the soil of America, I did not think I was called upon to espouse all the blind passions of the hour, and I suffered thereby for several years. It is not agreeable for a man who will have nothing else to leave to his children but the hope of an untarnished memory, to be branded all over the land as being in the pay of a foreign government; it is not exactly agreeable to be looked upon as a traitor, as one untrue to his country, simply because he thinks he can be true to his country and not become a hater of those countries with which some of the other countries in Europe are at war.
But to come back to the subject matter of the motion: public education of that nature cannot be given by the universities, but it may be given in part by them; it cannot be given entirely in public elementary schools, but it may be given by them in part. We would accomplish something for peace if we started to teach history with some tincture of Christian feeling-something that we have ceased to do for many years, not only as between [DOT]Canada and the rest of the world, not only as between England and her enemies, but as between the various elements who compose the Canadian nation-if we began teaching history in Ontario or in Quebec in such a manner that the Ontario boys and girls or the Quebec boys and girls would not grow up with the idea that the Ottawa river is such a deep abyss that there cannot be one Canadian nation composed of various elements, various creeds,

International Pence-Mr. Bourassa
various languages, respecting each other, but all agreeing to contribute of their best in common, in order to make that Canadian nation one proud of its origins, and at the same time respectful of the prejudices, if you like-I would rather say of the rights and the dignity-of other nations, even should those nations be at war with us or should we be at war with them. In other words, cannot we come back to this, Mr. Speaker? Some of us are growing old, some of us are seeing not far ahead the day when they will have to render an account for all the good and all the evil they have done in this world. I should like, when that moment comes, to think that I have done something to moderate the base passions of the people with whom I am associated and to soften my own base passions-for I have in me the roots of them as everyone of us has-I should like to give to myself and to receive from my own fellow citizens the testimony, that although I may at times have hurt the feelings of those around me, I have done it in order to elevate somewhat their minds, to bring them to think better of one another and better of other people too.
That education can and must be given by all. It cannot be confined to one group of educators or the other, it cannot be confided to one set of teachers or another. It must be the cooperative work of all the men and women who can use their influence and exercise it upon those who surround them. That does not mean that you should give your preference to Germany, or France, as against England, or that I should not have more love for the country of my ancestors than for a country which was foreign to them. No. Racial sympathies and preferences are legitimate, and prejudices unavoidable. But, I repeat, those preferences, those racial sympathies, those prejudices, must be governed and subdued by two predominant factors:	one, the law of
charity which-if we are still the Christian nation that we boast-should prevail in this country as elsewhere; and the other, that if you want to make a united people, you must stop making some of them believe that England is their motherland, and others that France is the land they should love above all. No, whether for sentimental or for practical purposes, you cannot make of this one united country, you cannot of these various elements make one united nation, one in heart, one in mind, one in purpose, unless you concentrate the thoughts and love of all upon the one land which is our country-Canada.
For that country we must be prepared to make more sacrifices than for England or France; for that country we must be prepared to conserve the lives of our people, to
preserve our civilization, instead of inducing our young boys to go and shed their blood to settle the quarrels of European nations, or to settle the affairs of Asiatic empires. This is not our duty, this is not our business. Therefore it is not only peace that must be promoted in international relations, but it is also the proper kind of patriotism that must be preached. Not that narrow patriotism which is still the curse of most European nations, but a true patriotism, a patriotism governed by the law of Christianity: love thyself first, and love thy neighbour as thyself. That is the only way by which you can satisfy the instinctive desire of a well-born people to be proud of itself, but at the same time not to have contempt or hatred for other people.
I agree to a certain extent with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that we should not interfere with education as given in concrete form in this or that set of schools. I am not going to discuss that question now, because it bears too many aspects; but I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the member for Southeast Grey, that, if this gov. ernment spends money and interferes with provincial autonomy in matters of education by seducing the heads of educational institutions in order to turn the youth of this country into would-be soldiers, it is just as legitimate to vote money to help some of the universities and colleges to educate the youth of this country in a spirit of peace and goodwill towards other peoples. One is as legitimate as the other, or one is as condemnable as the other, from the purely constitutional point of view.
But this is not the main point I want to make. Generally, I do not like very much the interference of governments, federal or provincial, in matters of education. But what this government could do would be to encourage private or collective enterprises, such for example as the Americans have done in encouraging the establishment of the PanAmerican League. There are all sorts of means by which it would be possible to encourage and foster the foundation of associations, of groups of men, who would publish reviews, who would receive documents from the various countries-a very costly enterprise which cannot be- left altogether to private efforts. This government could encourage that kind of thing. It could encourage the foundation here in Ottawa of a peace institution, of an institution making for the development of peaceful instincts, for the better knowledge of international affairs.
360	COMMONS
International Peace-Miss Macvhail
The Prime Minister has said with a good deal of reason that one cannot have a perfect knowledge of international relations unless one is familiar with the working of international affairs. Likewise, you cannot have proper diplomats, you cannot have proper officials in a foreign department, unless they have had the chance, before they get into the saddle of office, of studying history, of studying the various conditions, religious, economic, educational, under which the old nations of the world lived and still live. It is a double action, a reflex action on the part of the government and on the part of educational institutions. On this I agree with the Prime Minister: we should not narrow down' the idea of education to schools, whether they be primary schools or universities.
Without entering into details I wish to terminate my remarks by offering this thought, for their reflection, to all members of the house: let the government, let parliament, let the provincial authorities unite their efforts, or, if you prefer, direct their efforts through different channels but all with the one aim of creating one national soul, inspired, first, by love of country, and second, by love of other countries.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I was glad to hear the
Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) speak so happily. In places I thought his speech was highly imaginative, but at least he was in a very happy mood, and I was glad to hear him say that he agreed to refer the resolution, as amended by the member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) to the committee on industrial and international relations. I notice, however, that when the government desires to put the British North America Act in the way of its advance it is always able to do so, and when it wants to put it out of the way it is also happily able to do so.
It was pointed out by others-but I want to repeat-that the grants given to the provinces for cadet training and for technical education got round the difficulty of the British North America Act, and that could be done again. If the Prime Minister and his government want to do it I know that ways can be found. It may be that the request should come from the province or from the university, but that the British North America Act is an insurmountable 'barrier I cannot agree. The Prime Minister says we do not ask much; that is true. We do not expect very much from the government, and we are not asking for more than we think we would receive. One dollar for one hundred dollars-well, we thought that was better than nothing. The

Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) pointed out this afternoon that the government is already spending well over $199,000 for peace -practically the $200,000 which I mentioned in my resolution yesterday-but all the things that he mentioned were to promote peace outside Canada, that is, Canada's relations with the rest of the world in regard to peace, which is very excellent, and in approving this I am very happy to say I agree with him. I am speaking, however, of promoting peace within Canada, that we may have a united public opinion following what Canada is doing outside. I think we have done exceedingly little to keep public opinion in Canada well informed on what even we have done abroad, and a little later in the session I may have an opportunity to go into it more fully.
May I say again, Mr. Speaker, that we do need in the Department of External Affairs a section or a part of that department set aside exclusively for the work of the League of Nations; there we could have two or three people whose time would be given over exclusively to the affairs of the league and to giving to the Canadian people the information that they from time to time desire regarding the work of the league. We have not done very much of that sort of thing.
I am not again going into the details of the resolution. I am very glad that it is to be referred to a committee, and there the details can be gone into. But I do not take very seriously the statement made by the Prime Minister that all the departments of government are working for peace. That, I suppose, could, in the same sense, be said before 1914, in this country and every other country in the world, and yet it did not prevent the world bringing upon itself the terrific calamity that has come to be called the great war. What is everybody's business is nobody's business; when you have all departments looking after peace it is quite likely you do not get it looked after at all, and the same is true with regard to the remark of the Prime Minister that all university professors are trying to bring about peace. Doubtless they are but none specifically. I believe that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are interested in world peace. I believe both of them are sincere advocates of peace, within certain limits. I think they would like to go outside those limits, if they felt they could do it safely. But I am afraid that is not enough. It will never be easy to begin to build up a technique of peace. It is never easy to do new things, and I notice that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice each year have a good deal to say as to what is wrong with what I propose

International Peace-Mr. Bennett
about building up a technique of peace. I am therefore going to invite those two learned and eminent gentlemen to propose ways themselves for working out a technique of peace that will develop a peaceful sentiment throughout Canada. The Prime Minister has proposed one, the framing of the Briand-Kellogg pact and putting it in every school and church. Really, Mr. Speaker, that is not a profound thought. I am sure there are many things better than I propose; I only want someone else to propose them, and I shall be very glad to give them my support. When I proposed a department of peace the Prime Minister could not say that that interfered with the British North America Act, but he said that all ministers are working for peace and that we do not need another department. We could not have that. And now when I propose professorships and scholarships it is going to interfere with the provinces the Prime Minister says; and if we get it Ferguson is going to appoint a man to teach us high protection-at least that is what I judge he meant. To be putting obstacles in the path continually is not very laudable conduct for those two ministers that I have already named, and I do think it is quite time that the government of Canada proposed something definite that will bring about the education of the Canadian people along the lines of peace.
I do not desire to take up any more time, Mr. Speaker, except to end with a very brief quotation from Emerson. He said:
It is really a thought that built this portentous war establishment, and a thought shall melt it away.
And that, I think, is true. I hope that the house will approve of having the resolution sent to the committee, and there we may at least wrestle with it for a time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I desire to participate in this debate, because I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) at least for her sincerity of purpose, and for her consistency in advocating anything that may advance the cause of peace. Nineteen centuries have passed since the Carpenter of Galilee said, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God," and nineteen centuries have passed with human nature not having greatly changed. WTe live in an age of actualities, and in this age of actualities we find conditions imposed upon us which necessitate action being taken perhaps somewhat at variance with our own hopes. For instance, the Prime. Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred to hanging in schools and churches
the Briand-Kellogg pact. The truth is that within the last few weeks the chairman of the foreign relations committee of the United States senate has made a speech that is as wholly at variance with that pact as can possibly be imagined. He said that while the pact was being signed armaments were being increased, and that vast sums were being expended for that purpose while the ink was drying on the signature to the pact. That illustrates better than anything I can possibly suggest that human nature has not materially changed in the course of nineteen centuries. Change does not necessarily mean progress, but there has been much progress toward a better understanding and appreciation of the rights of others when we are dealing with our own. However, the essential thing to remember is that all progress in the end must arise through the supremacy of the rule and reign of law; that in the end the passions of people can be restrained only as a result of the reign of law; that in the end, however much we may pass resolutions and sign pacts, it must be the supremacy of law which determines the peace of nations and of peoples. For that reason the suggestions which have been made by the hon. member who moved this resolution become important. The reign of law can be established only if you have a strong, enlightened and informed public opinion directing the agencies of legislatures and of nations. That public opinion can be secured only by education, and the means of education by which it is obtained are so numerous that it would be impossible to name them.
I hardly think it will advance the cause of peace to say that for every one hundred dollars spent for our little police force w_e are going to take one dollar and designate it as money to be used in a particular way. We must use our public money in accordance with the laws of this country as they now stand, and primary education now rests with the provinces rather than with the Dominion. The rule of law involves that until it has been changed by competent authority, we ourselves must realize and recognize the constitutional limitations imposed upon us in that regard. This parliament is not charged with the duty of elementary education. This parliament has the right to appropriate a portion of our revenues for any purpose we think desirable, but we cannot undertake to make discriminatory grants nor can we say that the money shall be used in particular ways in universities or institutions of learning which are not under our control, for they may not be willing that the money should be so used at all, and they are the governors rather
362	COMMONS
International Peace-Mr. Bennett
than ourselves. Our gifts might or might not be accepted, and the conditions we might impose may not be acceptable to .those in charge of the institutions. You will find some institutions throughout the world which have refused the benefits of the Carnegie, the Rockefeller and other foundations which have been established by the citizens of our neighbouring republic and other countries of the world.
Education is the basis of progress towards peace, and without education there can be no lasting peace. Education, however, is not the education of a few people but the education of all the people of the state, and every step taken in that direction is a step towards enlightened public opinion, and to that extent is educational in its force and effect. Anything, whatever it may be, however trifling and small it may seem, that gives a wider knowledge and a broader outlook on the part of the people of this and other countries as to just what is meant when we are discussing international relations means progress towards education and knowledge.
I cannot agree with what has been said by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), that British statesmen are always wrong and someone else is always right. It seems to me this is neither the time nor the place to discuss the shortcomings of other statesmen than our own. It does not seem to me that it is our business to make unfair criticism and the very spirit of charity on which the hon. gentleman appealed is not that type of charity which attacks men who are not here to answer with respect to their doings at critical moments in the history of the world. I say that with all sincerity; this is not a time to exalt by specious argument the greatness of statesmen of other countries and endeavour to minimise and decry those of our own country. In 1914 they had problems of which we know nothing and they dealt with them as patriots. I may not know what human nature is, but in every man and woman worthy of the name of citizen there is something which we cannot describe by name which is responsive to the claims of their country, whatever it may be. Hence it was a very great thinker in a great country once remarked that he was for his country; right or wrong, his country'.
Let us take two or three illustrations in history, one early and the others more modern. Let us go back to the days when Rome made war upon Carthage; there was a very great Roman senator who closed every speech with the words, "Delenda est Carthago," or in other words, "Carthage must be destroyed". He so aroused the passions of 
the people of Rome that in the end Carthage was nothing more than a wilderness, a pile of dust on the shores of Africa. Then let us come to more modern times, when Russia and Turkey were engaged in a war to which Great Britaiin became a party. "We have the ships, we have the men, we have the money too" was the jingo song of the music halls of the time, appealing to the passions of the people. Then consider the days of the great crisis in the United States of America in connection with the sinking of the Maine in the harbour of Havana, which we now know was not the work of the Spaniards. Then we had the cry "Remember the Maine" and it appealed to the passions of the people so that the president had to yield reluctantly to the demand for war.
These are illustrations, one far back in the history of the world, one of later days and one of comparatively modern times, in which the inflamed passions of men were appealed to successfully by what you might call mass psychology and that mass (psychology is not materially changed to-day from what it was fifteen hundred years ago. We know that is so, and all we can hope to do is not to change human nature but to see that human nature has a wider vision, a larger knowledge and a Sweater understanding of what is meant by the implications of the acts in which they engage. We must learn that a simple act sometimes carries in its train results which cannot be foreseen by the ordinary man. Who would have foreseen that when the relative of an Austrian emperor was shot down a world war would result? I am sure the average man did not foresee that, although many of the statesmen of Europe did so.
If we have a properly educated and informed public opinion it may be possible so to restrain the passions of mankind that sober reason will prevail as against the prejudices that are aroused at moments such as those to which I have referred, and it is to accomplish that end, I take it, that the motion of the hon. member is made, rather than for the purpose of definitely indicating the methods by which that may be done. After all, we must remember that we in this parliament are under this constitution and are bound to observe its workings as part of the laws of this country, and I deprecate the talk which deals with the wisdom of our grandfathers as something to be treated lightly and reviled. It is not their learning or their wisdom we are discussing; we have to deal with the terms of a statute, the constitution which imposes certain limitations of the jurisdiction of a legislature on the one hand and of a parliament on the other. These are defined; if we see fit

International Peace-Mr. Bennett
to change them we may do so, and the method by which W'e may do so is also defined. However, until such changes have been made let us remember that while we may make appropriations of money, which must originate from the government for any purpose we may think desirable, I cannot see that the cause of peace would be in any other way so well advanced as by the methods which we are now pursuing in our own humble way. After all, we are but 10,000,000 people among 1,600,000,000. We are inhabiting half a continent; our own safety is comparatively secure, perhaps by reason of our geographical position, and I think to this extent I would agree with the hon. member for Labelle in that we should not endeavour to be, shall I say, the instructors of the universe. We have enough to think about in the maintenance of our own relations with other communities, and the best effort we could make in our universities we are now making in the schools of international law. The great universities of the world have chairs of international law, and international relations are based upon the rule and the reign of law. In the great world court we are endeavouring to formulate rules for the government of nations similar to the rules of law which prevail in respect to the rights, claims, immunities and privileges of individuals. When two citizens litigate, their rights are determined by principles of law and of jurisprudence, and we are endeavouring by every means within our power, as is the empire of which we are a part, so to advance through this international court the interests of world peace that nations, which are aggregations of individuals, will resort to the international court of justice for the solution of their difficulties and differences rather than have recourse to war; so that the use of the big stick, the stone, the axe or the gun which was resorted to in the early history of the world to settle differences between individuals shall not prevail with respect to nations but that they shall settle their difficulties as do individuals. The best means of bringing about the application of the principles of international jurisprudence is through this international court of justice where rules can be formulated and take definite shape, which will govern the rights of nation and nation just as we now have rules which govern and determine the rights of one individual to another.
If we pass resolutions not to engage in war, valuable as they are, they will never accomplish, as I have so often said any purpose so long as we continue to fabricate the means by which war is made possible. When we can arouse a public opinion that will insist
on the submission of the differences of nations to an arbitrament of judges trained in international problems, then I hope that armaments will disappear, but anyone who has read the history of the last two years, since the signature by the nations of the world of the Briand-Kellogg pact, will realize how difficult it is to induce nations to cease the constructing of armaments. Unless we can accomplish something similar to what is now being attempted at London, and the success of which I fancy three-quarters of the world is praying for, resolutions are without avail and there can be no real peace until public opinion is educated. There can be no educated public opinion so long as the machinery of parliaments is utilized for the purpose of providing armaments with which man may go to war.
Those who make but a casual study of international problems, as I do to some extent, may become bewildered. But thejy must realize that in moments of stress and strain, when that feeling which cannot be defined but which is in the heart and breast of every man finds expression in what is called patriotism, the love of one's country, that is not the time when reason prevails-it is the moment when blasts of passion manifest themselves. When I heard an hon. gentleman refer to the men who left this country for the purpose of fighting in the theatres of war in Europe as men who interfered with great wars in other countries, I felt that is vras not quite in keeping with the history of that movement in this country. The men went voluntarily, they were not sent;, they went because there flamed up in them that burst of love of country and its institutions and love of our empire. That is the reason they offered their lives, I for one am not prepared to say that our country should endeavour to deprive people of that spirit which has found manifestation for nineteen centuries and which I believe will manifest itself for centuries yet to come. But that feeling can be directed along the right channels by means of education, such as we are now doing through the League of Nations and with the interest we take in international affairs. We cannot do it by divesting ourselves of all responsibility to maintain a police force. The world must be policed. Who, for instance, will say that with all the civilization we have there is no necessity for policemen and courts in the cities of the world? Or who, for instance, will say that the necessity for the maintenance of a police force will have disappeared as long as this world lasts? As long as there are ships to carry cargoes of rich freight, as long as there are men actuated by sordid motives,
St. Lawrence Waterway

as there ever will be, until the millennium comes, the necessity for a police force will exist.
While the motion of the hon. member for Southeast Grey commends itself to the judgment of everyone as indicating a desire for peace and the creation of those means by which it may be perpetuated, we must realize that the methods to be pursued are methods which are limited in their operation and scope, limited because of the institutions of this country which should not be lightly overlooked.
As I said before, I did not intend to make any observations regarding the motion before the house, but in view of what has been said I would like to associate myself with the desire expressed by the mover and others for the creation of public opinion that will prevent the repetition of what has happened in former days. With the passing of years human nature may be disciplined and controlled by education as to the necessity for the establishment of the reign of law, which I believe to be the world's greatest assurance for the maintenance of the rights and liberties of nations and individuals.
Amendment (Mr. Irvine) agreed to.
Motion (Miss Macphail) as amended agreed to.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY DEVELOPMENT OP 'WATER POWER. AND IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Church:
That, in the opinion of this house, immediate action should be taken, without further unnecessary delays, to enter into a treaty with the government of the United States for the immediate development and generation of waterpower on the St. Lawrence river and its deepening and development in the interests of navigation, and that a great St. Lawrence waterway is an immediate and economic necessity tor the welfare and best interests of. Canada.
And that this house is further of the opinion that the government should undertake the construction and operation of this canal as a public undertaking itself and the powers incident herein should be developed and generated at cost by the government for the people under public ownership and not alienated to private interests for gain or exported for use outside Canada.
Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Church. If no hon.
member wishes to speak on this motion, the moticn will be dropped.

M [DOT]. GARLAND (Bow River): Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask you for a ruling on this matter. Order No. 6 reads:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Church. . . .
Do I understand that is dropped?


Hewitt Bostock: Dropped.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I
ask this question? After a motion has been properly moved and seconded in the house and some debate has taken place, can that motion, which is in the possession of the house, be dropped without a vote being taken?


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


Edward Joseph Garland: Only by
unanimous consent? Do I understand unanimous consent has been granted?


Hewitt Bostock: I first directed the attention of the mover of the resolution to the order and he said "dropped." I looked around and I said "dropped," as I gathered that that was the unanimous consent of the house. The hon. gentleman is right: an hon. member may not drop a motion unless he gets unanimous consent, because when a motion is moved it is in the possession of the house; later if the mover wishes to drop the motion I have to ask the house if leave be given the mover to do so.
Motion withdrawn.



TARIFF ON MOTOR TRUCKS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 3, consideration of the motion of Mr. Coote:
Whereas motor trucks are now largely used in place of wagons for hauling grain and other produce to primary markets, therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this house, the customs tariff on motor trucks should be reduced to a level corresponding to that charged on other agricultural machinery.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I moved the adjournment of this debate hoping that I would be given further information on this matter, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) expressed the view that that information might be forthcoming. I fancy he did not believe that this matter would be reached to-night. I am not at this time in possession of any further information, nor am I in position to say anything more until I have obtained that information.

Penitentiary Act-Mr. Lapointe


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was the
information desired by my hon. friend?


Richard Bedford Bennett: With regard to exports
and imports.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent,
I understand, this motion will stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is perfectly agreeable so far as this side of the house is concerned.
Motion stands.
COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 16, to amend and make operative certain provisions of the Copyright Act.-Mr. Ladner.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was an arrangement with the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) that this would stand.
Motion stands.



PENITENTIARY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Church for the second reading of Bill No. 8, to amend the Penitentiary Act.
Ernest Lapointe: When the house adjourned the
other night I was offering a few observations on this bill, and I had concluded my remarks on the first clause, which proposes the inspection of penitentiaries by a grand jury. I do not wish to repeat what I then said, except to summarize.
Parliament in the exercise of its powers has established a system of inspection of penitentiaries which is to be found in the sections of the Penitentiary Act that I mentioned the other night. Some if not all the provinces m the exercise of their powers have authorized grand jurors to inspect provincial prisons. Parliament has done what it considered wise in its field, and the provinces have similarly provided a system which they consider advisable in their own field. It would be just as illogical for a province to pass a bill authorizing inspection of provincial institutions by inspectors of penitentiaries as for parliament to adopt this bill. If parliament is of opinion that the present system of inspection which it has authorized is not sufficient or should be improved, its duty is to amend its existing provisions so as to provide a better system of inspection under its own direction and control, but from a constitutional point of view it would be a very bad precedent if parliament
were to surrender its control of the inspection of these federal institutions and to entrust that control to a body of men appointed by the provinces for provincial purposes. That is with regard to clause 1 of this bill.
Clause 2 is intended, as is stated in the explanatory note-
To meet the cases which occasionally arise of urgent requests of relations of prisoners for permission to visit dying parents or dependents.
My hon. friend adds:
A recent case evoked wide sympathy.
The officers of the Penitentiary branch, men who have the experience, who have been in control of penitentiaries for many years, are strongly opposed to any such provision. They submit that it would be a very dangerous procedure to adopt, and one that would undoubtedly be abused if introduced. Exaggerated claims as to the degree of illness of relatives or other near dependents would continually be made and would be used as a means of securing the inmate's return for some other cause. Illness of fake relatives or fake near dependents would be a common occurrence if such a bill should become law. Many foreigners, particularly orientals, I am informed, incarcerated in Canadian penitentiaries, claim so many parents, wives, children or other near dependents that should the bill become operative it would call for a considerable expenditure of money and keep the guards busy delivering them to the homes of parents, wives, children or other near dependents. In one case alone within the past year nine orientals presented themselves at a Canadian penitentiary, all claiming to be close relatives of the one incarcerated.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are all cousins.


Ernest Lapointe: Probably. The necessity for strict enforcement of the law in all its aspects in connection with the criminal is more apparent to-day than at any previous time in the history of Canada, because there is an unprecedented increase in the number of convictions for serious crimes and consequently a tremendous increase in prison population. I admit there are some cases which may evoke sympathy, but this provision would lead to such dangers and serious abuses that I do not think it would be desirable to bring about the change suggested. There was a case -and probably it is the one my hon. friend mentioned in his explanatory note-that came to my attention some time ago. The man made and pressed an application for permission of this kind which I could not grant, but what I did was to refer the matter to the Solicitor

Penitentiary Act-Mr. Lapointe
General (Mr. Cannon) who is in charge of the administration of the Ticket of Leave Act in order to see whether that convict could not be released under ticket of leave if circumstances would permit his release so that he might visit his parent who was sick. But unfortunately that was a bad case, one in which it was impossible to grant a release. That man had a very bad criminal record and could not be released under the circumstances and under the practice as it exists. This clause also, I submit, should not be adopted by parliament and the law relating to incarceration should remain as it is.
Clause 3 provides:
No person under nineteen years of age on his or her last birthday shall be admitted to or be confined in any penitentiary or other penal institution under the control or administration of the parliament of Canada, notwithstanding any law, usage or custom to the contrary.
My hon. friend said the other day that he is pleased that we are going to have preferred institutions for young convicts. As a matter of fact, this is now being worked out. The properties have been secured and the building will be erected during the course of the next fiscal year, and when that is done all the young convicts will be segregated and will have no contact with the old, hardened criminals. While this is being worked out, I do not think that this bill should be passed. My hon. friend does not indicate where these young offenders should be placed. If he suggests that they should be sent to the provincial jails, I do not think that there is anything to commend that course. As a matter of fact, evidence has been taken quite recently by the big brother and child welfare representatives as to conditions in the various jails, and it would appear from their report .that 'they certainly would not support such a change. There is not the close supervision in the provincial institutions that exists in the penitentiaries, and there are in the provincial jails old, hardened criminals who have spent their life in jail and who are associating with the juvenile offenders with a good deal less supervision than in the penitentiaries to prevent them from placing their imprint upon all those with whom they come in contact. These old criminals have more opportunities in the jails than they have in the penitentiaries to exert an evil influence on the young delinquents. This change, therefore, would certainly not be desirable while the new system of preferred institutions is being erected.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Speaker.
I do not see my hon. friend from Toronto 
Northwest (Mr. Church) in his seat, but he sent me a note that he would not like this debate to be concluded to-night as he wished to see me about the bill, and accordingly, if I may do so, I would move the adjournment of the debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just one point. Does the minister think that the question of investigation by grand juries would in itself cause difficulties? I have followed the minister's argument with care, but inasmuch as these are federal institutions there is no-shall I say?-outside check on their administration. Perhaps the minister will recall the difficulties that we had some years ago in connection with one of the penal institutions of .the country. At that time the thought occurred to me-I have not been at all certain about it-whether an investigation by a grand jury might not perhaps serve a useful purpose in connection with some of these institutions. Does the minister think the reasons against it are conclusive?


Ernest Lapointe: I wonder if my hon.
friend was here the other evening-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just part of the time.


Ernest Lapointe: I pointed out then that
the grand juries, while composed of very worthy people, are not usually men who have had either experience in the handling of criminals or training in criminology, and that the sort of inspection which is suggested by the bill-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Already takes place?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, and could not really be entrusted to grand juries because it would take too long; they could not devote the necessary time to an inspection of the kind suggested that would be of any value whatever.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They do it in England.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am told they do.


Ernest Lapointe: It may be so, but they have not the federal system in England.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Ernest Lapointe: Then also the grand
juries are county representatives, and I do not see how the grand jury of the county of Frontenac, for instance, would have any more jurisdiction over the penitentiary at Kingston than any other grand jury of any other county

Exj>ort Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
in Canada. As I said the other day, to make the sort of inspection suggested in this bill would take, not only days, but months.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: In regard to clause 3, until this new building is erected to take care of the juvenile delinquents, would the minister consider segregating these young offenders from the older criminals in the penitentiary? For years we have been reading of the great danger to the juvenile delinquent of association with the old inmates of the penitentiaries, and yet when the young delinquent comes into the penitentiary he is immediately placed alongside an old hardened criminal at the work bench. Could not the superintendent devise some means by which, until this new building is erected, juveniles when admitted to the penitentiary would be placed in a separate ward from the older inmates? 1 believe that could be done. I know that our penitentiaries are crowded, but I believe that these juvenile delinquents should be separated from the old criminals. I know of a young fellow' who was sent to the penitentiary for three years, but who after a few weeks was paroled for certain reasons in regard to his health, and during the time he was in the penitentiary he was working on the same bench with a lifer. Would the minister consider whether these young offenders cannot be segregated in the meantime? I believe that the jail is as bad as, if not worse than, the penitentiary, and I am beginning to lose faith in these reformatories As the minister says, the penitentiary does exercise a certain control w'hile the juveniles are there.
On motion of Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, before formally moving the adjournment of the house, might I say with regard to to-morrow's business that last week my hon. friends opposite were kind enough to oblige the government by allowing us to proceed with supply, notwithstanding that without consent the rules would have rendered it impossible to do so. I gather from my conversation with the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) that to-morrow it would be his wish and that of those who are about him that we should continue the debate on the amendment on going into supply, moved by the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). To do so would require the unanimous consent of the house. I have spoken to my hon. friend (Mr. Gardiner)
the leader of the group yonder, and I gather that he feels as we on this side do, that as
long as it is understood there will be no formal division to-morrow it would be quite in order to proceed with the debate. In that event I would move:
That standing order 28 be suspended on Friday, March 7th, and that a motion be then made that the Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, March 7, 1930