RAINY LAKE WATER LEVELS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 72, to carry into effect the provisions of the convention of 15th September, 1938, providing for emergency regulation of the level of Rainy lake and of the level of other boundary waters in the Rainy lake watershed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, some little time ago the International Joint Commission recommended that an agreement should be entered into between Canada and the United States to regulate the water levels in the Rainy lake area in cases of emergency. The agreement was reached in September of last year. The bill is designed to give effect to the convention then signed. The convention itself is printed as an appendix to the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Jean Winifred Hunter Urquhart.-Mr. Walsh.
Bill No. 69, for the relief of Sarah Theresa Norman.-Mr. Ahearn.
Bill No. 70, for the relief of Helen Kathleen Yuill,-Mr. Hyndman.
Bill No. 71, for the relief of Zdenka Pauline Ottilie Josefine von Ehrenfeld-Pop Drummond, otherwise known as Yvonne Drummond.-Mr. Hill.

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

Questions

Mr. HARRIS:: How many building trade mechanics left Canada for the British Isles during the years 1936, 1937, and 1938?


Mr. CRERAR:: No information. Emigration statistics are not kept.
"prince" boats


Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	Have any of the "Prince" boats been sold?
2.	If so, what are their names?
3.	When were they sold?
4.	What price was received for each vessel?
5.	What terms were granted to the purchaser in each case?
6.	For what service are those remaining employed ?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Prince William; (b) Prince Henry ("North Star").
3.	(a) Prince William sold September 15th, 1937; (b) Prince Henry ("North Star") sold December 23, 1938.
4.	(a) Prince William-$3,500; (b) Prince Henry ("North Star")-$500,000.
5.	(a) Prince William terms-cash, railway to assume cost of drydocking; (b) Prince Henry ("North Star")-
The purchase price to be paid $150,000 on delivery of the ship, $50,000 on August 15,
1939,	and $25,000 on August 15th and December 31st in each year beginning with the year
1940,	the last instalment to be paid not later than December 31, 1945. The purchaser to have the right to pay up the full amount of $500,000 in larger instalments at any time. Any balance remaining unpaid from time to time is to bear interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum from date of the delivery of the ship; such interest to be payable on December 31st in each year beginning with the year 1940 but all interest to be paid up not later than December 31, 1945.
Consumable stores on board to be taken over by the purchaser at current market prices at Halifax.
The ship is to be transferred to the purchaser free from all encumbrances and on the delivery of the bill of sale to the purchaser, the purchaser is to give security to the vendor in the form of a mortgage in appropriate terms which will include the unconditional guarantee of the Clarke Steamship Company. On payment of the amount of $500,000 and interest, if any, in accordance with the above, or earlier, at the purchaser's option, the mortgage is to be discharged.
The purchaser to carry insurance on the ship payable to the vendor as its interests may appear.
Delivery to be made as soon as drydocking is completed.
The vendor to assume and be responsible for and to indemnify the purchaser against all claims for damages or compensation in connection with the operation and control of such ship, its crew and cargo, arising out of anything which may have occurred prior to the deliver}'- of such ship to the purchaser.
It is understood that the purchaser will operate such ship or cause same to be operated for approximately two months in each year, for the period of the next five years, in cruises a substantial part of which will include calls at Canadian ports and cruises in the river St. Lawrence, gulf of St. Lawrence and waters adjacent thereto; and that such operation of such cruises in each year during said period will not be discontinued without the consent of the vendor, which consent shall not be withheld if it is shown that such cruises are unprofitable.
6.	Prince Robert now being conditioned for trip to San Francisco and return, after which it will go into the Alaska service for the summer.
Prince George now operating on the northern run between Vancouver and Stewart.
Prince Rupert now undergoing annual overhaul, after which will operate on the northern route Vancouver to Stewart.
Prince John assigned to Queen Charlotte islands service operating Vancouver, via Queen Charlotte islands to Prince Rupert and return.
Prince Charles stand-by boat used in summer for excursion business on the Queen Charlotte islands route.
Prince David tied up.
aeroplane manufacturing plant


Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Did the government, during the year 1938, consider entering into an agreement with certain private parties for the establishment of a plant to manufacture aeroplanes, said plant to be located in or in the vicinity of Arnprior, Ontario ?
2.	If so, was this plan abandoned, and why?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.

Questions


BREN MACHINE GUN CONTRACT-COST OF INQUIRY
Mr. HOMUTH:: 1.	What was the total cost of the royal commission on the Bren machine gun contract?
2.	Who were the government counsel?
3.	What was the total amount of fees and expenses paid to each?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	$20,292,29

to March 29,	1939, from
National Defence appropriation.
2.	The Honourable J. L. Ralston, K.C. Mr. L. A. Forsyth, K.C. Mr. Jacques Dumoulin, K.C.
3.	The Hon. J. L. Ralston: Fees, nil. Expenses, $2,756.93; Mr. L. A. Forsyth, nil; Mr. Jacques Dumoulin: Fees, including living expenses, $5,625. Travelling expenses, $90.10. Total $5,715.10.


GRAIN EXPORTS THROUGH PACIFIC PORTS
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What quantities of grain were exported from the port of Vancouver, British Columbia, during each crop year from 1923-24 to 1937-38, inclusive?
2.	What were the expenditures of the board of grain commissioners for providing that service during each of the above crop years?
3.	What were the amounts of revenue that the board of grain commissioners received for rendering these services during the said crop years?
4.	What quantities of grain were exported from Pacific ports during crop year 1937-38?
5.	What was the expenditure of the board of grain commissioners for providing service at Pacific ports during the above crop year?
6.	What was the amount of revenue received by the board for services performed at these ports during the said crop year?


Mr. EULER:: Crop years	
ending	
July 31	Bushels
1923-24		. .. 55,047205
1924-25		. .. 25,099,841
1925-26		. .. 53,404,388
1926-27		. .. 34,415,653
1927-28		. .. 79,714,512
1928-29		. .. 96,138218
1929-30		. .. 49,009,202
1930-31		. .. 73,603,612
1931-32		. .. 83,060,195
1932-33		. .. 98,569,218
1933-34		. .. 49,428,867
1934-35		. .. 51,609288
1935-36		. .. 56,685,047
1936-37		. .. 33,595,472
1937-38		. .. 12,927,108
	
2 and 3.
Year	Expenditure	Revenue1923- 24	
S 48,141 56	$153,613 011924-	25	
64,713	26	73,914	471925-	26	
92.003	64	150.496	571926-	27	
97.879	45	103,777	851927-	28	
109,250	61	237,146	481928-	29	
150.877	11	271,302	071929-	30	
148.236	47	152,922	771930-	31	
182,928	01	221,456	361931-	32	
170,749	43	243,653	731932-	33	
169,229	92	269,484	451933-	34	
159,886	08	152,271	641934-	35	
165.645	06	151,006	901935-	36	
182,455	43	175.379	711936-	37	
178,956	77	96,782	771937-	38	
143.575	50	42,730	404.	BushelsVancouver	
12,927,108Prince Rupert	
910,939New Westminster	
730,837Total	
14,568,884 -5.	$145,486.96.6.	$44,554.80.


WHEAT STORAGE CHARGES IN LINE ELEVATORS AND PRIVATE TERMINALS
Mr. FLEMING:: How much did the government of Canada pay in storage charges to the line elevator companies and private terminals for storing wheat in the crop years that the wheat board has operated as the sole buying agency?


William Daum Euler: The Canadian wheat board did not operate as the sole buying agency until the crop year 1938-39. It is not considered in the public interest to disclose figures for the current crop year until marketing is completed.


MOBILIZATION OF WEALTH AND MAN-POWER- RESOLUTION OF ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has a petition or other communication been received by the government from the Legislative Assembly of Ontario asking conscription or mobilization of wealth and manpower in case of an emergency or war?
2.	If so, will a copy of such petition or communication be tabled, together with all correspondence in relation thereto?
3.	What action has been taken by the government with regard to the said petition?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Tabled herewith.
3.	Answered by No. 2.

Questions
Clerk's Office Legislative Assembly
Toronto, March 25, 1939. The Right Honourable William Lyon
Mackenzie King, P.C., L.L.B.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Sir:
I have the honour to transmit herewith for your consideration, a copy of a resolution of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which was passed by the unanimous vote of the house on Thursday the twenty-third instant.
I have the honour to be Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) Alex. C. Lewis, Clerk,
Legislative Assembly.
Legislative Assembly of Ontario
On a motion by Mr. Hunter, seconded by Mr. Strachan-
"Resolved: That in the opinion of this house the government of Ontario should take cognizance of the fact that the present international crisis in Europe calls for immediate action on the part of the component parts of the British empire in support of any action which it may be necessary for the imperial government to take.
"And that this legislative assembly of Ontario hereby petitions the federal parliament of Canada now in session to immediately pass legislation providing that in the event of a war emergency the wealth and man power of Canada shall be mobilized by proclamation of the governor in council, for the duration of the war, in defence of our free institutions.
"And that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the government of Canada." Legislative Chamber,
Toronto, March 23, 1939.
Certified that the above is a true copy of a resolution passed by unanimous vote of the house at the sitting of the legislative assembly of Ontario held on Thursday, March 23, 1939 (Sgd.) Alex. C. Lewis,
Clerk,
Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
Ottawa, 29th March, 1939. Major Alex. C. Lewis,
Clerk, Legislative Assembly,
Toronto, Ontario.
Sir,
I have the honour, by direction of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister, to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th instant, transmitting a copy of a Resolution of the legislative assembly of Ontario, which was passed by the unanimous vote of the house on Thursday the twenty-third instant, asking the federal parliament of Canada to pass legislation to mobilize the wealth and man power of Canada in the event of war, and to inform you that the resolution in question will immediately be brought to the attention of council.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS .- MONTREAL TERMINAL EXCAVATION CONTRACTS
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	How many different contracts have been allotted for the excavation of rock, soil or other material from the site of the proposed Canadian National Railways terminal at Montreal ?
2.	To whom, for what quantities, and at what prices was each of the said contracts allotted?
3.	By whom, for what quantities, and at what prices -were other tenders for such excavation work received and subsequently rejected?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	One.
2.	Duranceau & Duranceau. It is not the policy of the management to disclose quantities and prices contained in current contracts.
3.	Other tenders received for excavation work from: Jas. Bertrand; Frascarelli Construction Company; A. C. White Landscape Co. Ltd.; H. J. O'Connell Limited; Angus Robertson Limited; D. Verochio Limited; Frank Lapan Limited; Chas. V. Billie; Marien-Wilson Limited; Rene Lefleur; A. F. Byers Co. Ltd.; G. Archambault Limitee; Kennedy Construction Co. Ltd.; Northern Construction Co. Ltd. & J. W. Stewart Ltd.; Atlas Construction Co. Ltd.; L. A. Ott & Company, Ltd.; Gentile & Fortin.
It is not the policy of the management to disclose quantities and prices of bids contained in tenders.


GOVAN, SASK., MAIL CONTRACTS
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Were tenders called during December, 1938, for carrying the mail on rural routes 1, 2 and 4, Govan, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received, and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	How many of those who tendered were returned soldiers ?
4.	At what price were the respective contracts awarded, and to whom?
5.	Are the successful tenderers returned soldiers?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Tenders due February 3, 1939.
2.	Govan No. 1 Rural Route: Wm. D. Bridges, Govan, S300; Walter Calder, Govan, $300; John H. Kohne, Govan, $300; Benjamin Kelln, Govan, $325; Francis P. Harrison, Govan, S335; Gordon B. McGeough, Govan, $335, (conditional upon his being awarded all three contracts); David W. Bennett, Govan, $338; Osborne Fansher, Govan, $338; Geo. W. Mollison, Govan, $349.44; Andrew Methven, Govan, $350; David M. Lamb, Govan, $375; H. V. Maber, Govan, $380; H. Brewer, Govan, $400.
Questions

Combined Services Nos. 1, 2 and 4: Peter Edwards, Govan, $900; Jas. Henry Clark, Govan, $960.
2.	Govan No. 2 Rural Route: Gordon B. McGeough, Govan, $335; (conditional upon his being awarded all three contracts); Walter Calder, Goven, $350; Wm. D. Bridges, Govan, $380; John H. Kohne, Govan, $380; H. Brewer, Govan, $400; Benjamin Kelln, Govan, $400; David W. Bennett, Govan, S416; H. V. Maber, Govan, $420; John F. Bennett, Govan, $425; David M. Lamb, Govan, $425; Osborne Fansher, Govan, $433; Francis P. Harrison, Govan, $435; Geo. W. Mollison, Govan, $456.62.
Combined Services, Nos. 1, 2 and 4: Peter Edwards. Govan, S900; Jas. Henry Clark, Govan, S960.
Govan No. 4 Rural Route: Geo. W. Mollison, Govan, $295.20; Walter Calder, Govan, $300; John H. Kohne, Govan, $300; Gordon B. McGeough, Govan, $335, (Conditional upon his being awarded all three contracts); Wm. D. Bridges, Govan, $340; David M. Lamb, Govan, $350; Benjamin Kelln, Govan, $350; David W. Bennett, Govan, $364; Osborne Fansher, Govan, $379; Francis P. Harrison, Govan, $380; John F. Bennett, Govan, $400; H. Brewer, Govan, $400; H. V. Maber, Govan, $400.
2.	Combined Services, Nos. 1, 2 and 4: Peter Edwards, Govan, $900; Jas. Henry Clark, Govan, $960.
3.	No information.
4.	The tender of Peter Edwards for three routes at $900 per annum being lowest offer received, the three contracts were awarded to him.
5.	No information.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
Canada's defence forces
['Thank you, Mr. Pouliot.\nItem stands.\nProgress reported.']
Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: 

Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: For a return showing-
1.	The total income tax, individual and corporate, collected in each year since the imposition of the tax;
2.	The number of taxpayers in each bracket of taxable income for each of the last ten years;
3.	The total amount collected from each group of such taxpayers for each of the last ten years;
4.	The percentage of total taxpayers and of total tax paid by taxpayers in each bracket for each of the last ten years.


PENSION ACT, 1919-DETAILS OF PAYMENTS
Mr. BLACKMORE:: For a return showing the names, periods of service in the great war, and present residential addresses of all persons, male and female, receiving pensions under the provisions of the Pension Act, 1919.


Mr. POWER:: Mr. Speaker, I think I
shall have to ask my hon. friend to allow this motion to stand and, perhaps, to draft it in another way. If we included at this time everyone who received pensions under the Pension Act we should take in some
253,000	people, and the mere enumeration of their names would fill a big book. If one takes only those who directly receive pensions there would be some 98,000.


Mr. STEVENS:: Was not a blue book
published with regard to that?


Charles Gavan Power: In 1933 or 1934 there was
not a blue book, but a return was brought down and laid on the table of the house. My information is that nobody has ever looked at it, but it took two years to prepare. In any case, I suggest, one portion at least of this question should be dropped. My hon. friend wants to know the names and periods of service in the great war of all those who are in receipt of pensions. I would draw his attention to the fact that the period of service has nothing whatever to do with the award of pension. A man who served half an hour in the front line trenches and received a serious wound might possibly obtain a one hundred per cent disability pension, and a man who served three years and received no wound at all would not get a pension. Therefore the information asked for by my hon. friend would not in any case be relevant, and would entail the scrutiny of at least 98.000 files. I will endeavour to see whether it is possible to bring up to date the return which was laid on the table of the house some years ago, and will inform my hon. friend as soon as I have obtained that information-if that is satisfactory to him.
Motion stands.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Thorson


RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) moved:: That standing order 63 of the House of Commons, relating to the appointment of standing committees of the house, be amended by adding to the standing committees of the house for the present session a standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, to which will be referred accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines for the present session, for consideration and report to the house; provided however that nothing in the resolution shall be construed to curtail in any way the full right of discussion in committee of supply; and that the said committee consist of Messrs. Barber, Bothwell, Deachman, Elliott (Kinders-ley), Emmerson, Ferland, Fiset (Sir Eugene), Fraser, Hanson, Heaps, Howard, Howden, Howe, Kinley, Lockhart, McKinnon (Kenora-Rainy River). Maybank, Parent (Quebec West and South), Ross (Middlesex East), Stewart, Vien, Walsh, Young.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask a question of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers), basing it on a telegram just received from Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, as follows:
At a citizens' meeting at Reserve Mines I was instructed to send the following telegram:
"Miners of Reserve Mines in immediate need of more relief. Two hundred fifty dollars not enough to relieve the distress of the miners and their families. The people's properties are taxed to capacity. Miners feel that federal and provincial government should bear the burden of direct relief. Warden McKinnon says municipality not in a financial position to increase the relief grant. Many children undernourished and illclad; assistance needed as soon as possible."
Signed on behalf of the citizens of Reserve.
James Marsh,
Secretary Social Service Council.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): A telegram in similar terms to the one read by my hon. friend was received on Saturday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and transmitted to me for attention.
As the house is aware, the dominion government does not make direct grants to the
municipalities for relief purposes. We do, however, make grants to provincial governments, and they determine the manner in which those grants shall be expended. In the present instance the situation has been brought to the attention of the proper provincial authority.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FOREIGN POLICY-STATEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER ON MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, March 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply.
Mr.J.T.THORSON (Selkirk): Mr.Speaker, the central theme of this debate on foreign policy has been the relationship that should exist between Canada and Great Britain in time of war. This question is of supreme importance to the Canadian people; there can be no issue of as great importance to them as that of peace or war.
Last Friday I moved the second reading of the bill which stands in my name on the order paper. The principle of that bill is that Great Britain cannot automatically commit Canada to war, that Canada can be committed to war only by a declaration of war made by his majesty with specific reference to Canada and only upon the advice of his majesty's government in Canada. This is the first time that this issue has been placed in a concrete form before the Canadian parliament. It has never yet been squarely faced by the Canadian people.
I made it perfectly clear that I was not advocating a policy of neutrality under all circumstances. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) very clearly pointed out in the magnificent address which he made on Friday:
There is all the difference in the world between the right to neutrality and the exercise of that right-between the right to neutrality and a policy of neutrality.
While I am not advocating a policy of neutrality, I do very strongly assert, in the name of the Canadian people, Canada's right to neutrality. How Canada will exercise that right once it has been acquired is a question for Canada to decide under the circumstances of each case. In my opinion Canadians must face the reality that they must decide the issue of peace or war themselves and not leave that decision to be made for them by another country. It is not enough that we should merely decide the extent of our participation in war. That does not give us the freedom of choice which belongs to us as a matter of
Foreign Policy-Mr. Thorson
[Stage Direction]
right. The decision of this issue is a matter of national responsibility that we as a Canadian nation must eventually face.
The Prime Minister indicated very clearly that he understood the reasons behind the proposal which has been made, when he said, as reported on page 2425 of Hansard:
I recognize that those who are advocating and supporting the proposal to which I have referred regard it as a logical consequence, a necessary implication, of our long evolution toward self-government. It registers the conclusion that it would not be consistent with the present relationship of the members of the commonwealth to hold that the king would act for Canada as regards war and peace on the advice of any other one of his governments, but not on the advice of his government in Canada itself. It is put forward as a recognition of the necessity of the people, the parliament, the government of this country accepting adult responsibility for a course that so vitally affects them, rather than throwing that responsibility on other members of the commonwealth or their governments.
The Prime Minister gave strong support to the fundamental purpose of the bill when he made it clear that Canada could not accept a policy of automatic commitment to war or automatic participation in war regardless of the issues involved, and I am quite certain that Canadians throughout Canada will welcome that statement. They will also welcome the statement made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) -that Canada must not adopt a position of inferiority or be used as a pawn on the international chessboard. On behalf of thousands of Canadians who think as I do in these matters, I gratefully acknowledge these statements of principle and thank both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition for them. I should like also to thank the Minister of Justice for the statement he made on Friday as reported on page 2467 of Hansard. He said:
I have sympathy, I must admit, with the bill of my good friend the lion, member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) that if Canada takes part in a war the government of Canada should itself declare accordingly. Anyway, it will be for parliament to decide what part Canada should have in the war.
Then the Minister of Justice went on to say:
The present situation, I confess, is perhaps not satisfactory. It is one of the problems that remain to be solved and it will be solved as all the other problems of the commonwealth have been solved.
With that statement I entirely agree. I agree that the present situation is not satisfactory, but I also believe with him that this question will be solved as we have solved so many other questions affecting our national status.

The Prime Minister said that he did not himself think that at the present time it was either necessary or desirable to seek enactment of this legislation, and he gave a number of reasons for this opinion. Naturally I have the highest regard for this expression of view. Indeed, there are differences of opinion as to the necessity for any such legislation. There is a large body of constitutional opinion in this country which thinks that no legislation is necessary. Personally I share this point of view. I have stated it on a number of occasions. Indeed, I think I am the first person in this House of Commons to have declared that Canada is not automatically at war when Great Britain is at war. In my opinion, since the Balfour declaration of 1926, his majesty can act for Canada in the matter of a declaration of war only upon the advice of his majesty's ministers in Canada. This right is inherent in the concept of the British commonwealth of nations. If the British nations are autonomous nations, if they are all equal in status to one another, and are in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their affairs, it must follow that no British nation can commit another British nation automatically to war. This state of affairs may create anomalies. It may seem to be a peculiar relationship. But the relationship that exists between the British nations in that entity known as the British commonwealth of nations is a peculiar one. There is no term known to the law that adequately and properly describes that relationship. I think it can be said that while we owe allegiance to one king and that the person of the king is indivisible, the crown is divisible; for his majesty wears his crown in several rights. He is king of Canada as well as king of Great Britain, and in matters affecting Canada he acts upon the advice of his Canadian ministers. That is consistent with the general British constitutional position that when his majesty performs an executive act of government he performs that executive act only upon the advice of his responsible ministers; in his capacity as king of Canada he cannot make a declaration that affects Canada except upon the advice of his Canadian ministers. This, in my opinion, is sound constitutional doctrine. It is inherent in our status as a self-governing nation; it is inherent in our status as a member of the British commonwealth of nations. I agree that there are differences of opinion in this regard; but in the view that I have just expressed I am supported by a well-known authority on constitutional law.

Foreign Policy

Mr. Thorson
Doctor Ollivier, law clerk of the House of Commons, in his book Canada a Sovereign Country, says:
The question has often been asked: "When England is at war, is Canada at war?" We have no hesitation in giving a negative answer. In writing about treaties we have demonstrated that Canada is bound only by those it has signed; we have shown also that the king's advisers in the United Kingdom cannot give him advice respecting dominion affairs; consequently the king can declare war in the name of Canada only if our Canadian ministers so advise him.	*
It may be that when I express this constitutional opinion the majority opinion is not the same as mine.
An hon. MEMBER:: We hope not.


Mr. THORSON:: But I cannot see how it would be possible to express a different constitutional opinion that would be consistent with our relationship to one another in the British commonwealth of nations.
There are in Canada a number of constitutional lawyers who express a different opinion; in their view Canada has the capacity to acquire the right of neutrality; but they say that since Canada has not yet exercised her powers in that respect and taken the necessary steps to acquire the right of neutrality, Canada does not yet-possess that right. In their view Canada does not possess the right until she acquires it by asserting it by legislative action, defining the manner in which action shall or shall not foe taken in the name of Canada. It is their view that prior to the new status acquired by Canada a declaration of war made by his majesty upon the advice of his ministers at Westminster would be automatic and would bind all the dominions. This was the view in 1914 when a declaration of war made by Great Britain automatically bound the dominions. These authorities contend that as a matter of law this legal situation remains unchanged until legal steps are taken by Canada to change it. They take the view that under the statute of Westminster Canada has the power to declare that the old legal status no longer exists, if Canada wishes to exercise the right which she has under that statute. Their view is that the statute of Westminster gives power to Canada only in respect of action that this parliament might take in the future. According to them, it does not repeal any existing laws affecting Canada; these laws remain as they were until Canada, in the exercise of the new powers given to her by the statute of Westminster, makes the necessary changes. It is therefore the view of these authorities that as a matter of law, under the powers of the statute of Westminster, Canada can make the declaration that is contained 71492-159
in the bill which I have proposed. They take the view that a declaration of war made by his majesty on the advice of his ministers at Westminster binds all the dominions except those which have asserted that they have the right to decide the manner in which a declaration of war shall be binding upon them. This bill was, therefore, introduced to make it perfectly plain and clear that as far as Canada is concerned Great Britain no longer has the power to commit Canada automatically to war.


Mr. CAHAN:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not wish to stop the discussion, but it must be obvious to the hon. gentleman that he is now discussing another bill, which has already been discussed by him, and that, if objection is raised, no'other member of the house may now reply to him.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) is well taken.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Then I shall confine myself to the [principle involved and not make reference specifically to the bill.
It is I think highly desirable that if there are any doubts as to the right of Canada to assert her right to neutrality, these doubts should be removed by legislative action by this parliament. It is desirable that the right to neutrality should be declared and placed beyond dispute. If those of us who believe that we already have the right are correct in our assumption, then legislation of this sort would merely be a statutory declaration of an existing constitutional fact. If on the other hand those who take the contrary view are correct, then we are, indeed in an anomalous position. If they are right, I submit that as a matter of national safety parliament should declare, not that Canada should be neutral, but that Canada has the right to be neutral if Canada wishes to be so. Why should Canada be automatically thrown into a state of war by a government that is not her own? Why should we continue to delegate this supreme power over the lives of our Canadian people to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, no matter how we may admire him, no matter how great a person he may be? Yet that is what we are doing, if those who hold this view are right in their assumption.
In my opinion this is an issue that the Canadian people must face. We have not yet faced the problem squarely, but we must do so if we are to discharge our duty as members of the Canadian nation. I am convinced that this decision will have to be made as an inevitable step in our march towards

Foreign Policy-Mr. Thorson
full realization of our status and our responsibility as a self-governing nation. How can we as a Canadian nation insist upon full autonomy in all matters that affect us internally and refuse responsibility for the decision of the issue of peace or war, the greatest responsibility that we can owe to our people?
The assertion of the right to neutrality is in accord with the spirit of the British constitution; it is the right of all peoples who live under it to determine in every respect the policies that they will follow. It is also the duty of people who live under the British constitution to exercise their rights. There is no one in this house who more ardently admires the British constitution than I do. It is the greatest instrument of self-government that the world has ever known. It breathes liberty, but it is based upon responsibility. In all things the people themselves, through their elected representatives, decide on policy. It would be more consistent with the spirit of the British constitution to accept the proposal that has been advanced than to reject it.
Nor do I agree that the adoption of such a proposal would weaken our relationship with Great Britain. If we came into action side by side with Great Britain it would be as a result of free choice made by the people of Canada. It should not be otherwise. We are freely associated with the other British nations in that entity known as the British commonwealth of nations; all our actions in that association should be the result of free choice upon our part-and not otherwise.
Nor do I agree that it would be playing into the hands of the dictators, or weakening the position of Great Britain, to adopt this proposal. No one in this house has greater respect for Great Britain and what she stands for than I have. If Great Britain's existence were involved, Canada would not hesitate to come to her assistance. May I say I have not contented myself with giving lip service to the British constitution or to Great Britain; I served three years in the forces. For eighteen months of that period I served with the British forces in France, seconded to the British army from the Canadian army. It was stated the other day by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) that before my people came to Canada this country had been settled by British born people. May I tell the hon. member for Broadview that men of my racial origin in Canada enlisted in the Canadian forces to a greater extent in proportion to their numbers than did the native born people of Canada as a whole. They
I Mr. Thorson.]
have played their part in demanding the rights and liberties of this nation, but they have also been prepared to do their duty in defence of such rights. Let no man in this house challenge my right to speak as a Canadian, with the voice of Canada.
I do not for one moment fear the consequences of acquiring for Canada the right of neutrality. Whether Canada will exercise that right or not will depend upon the issues involved. I am not afraid of the course that Canada will follow. I am content that this issue be left to Canada; it belongs to' Canada. We must face the consequences of whatever decision we make. The right of decision in the matter of neutrality belongs to Canada, and the duty of exercising that right must remain with Canada.
This debate has served a most useful purpose; for it'will focus attention on the importance of our foreign policy to the life and welfare of the Canadian people. We in this house are the representatives of the Canadian people, and we are responsible to them for the decisions we make. In such issues as those of peace or war there are no differences between the Canadian people, no differences of language, creed or racial origin. They are all Canadians, and we are charged with the duty and responsibility of safeguarding their interests and their welfare.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, with a question: How can we discharge our supreme responsibility to our people, that of keeping them out of war, as long as we leave the decision of that great issue in the hands of a government that is not our own?


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that when I resume my place I may leave this debate on the same high plane as that on which I find it. I hope hon. members will not consider as pedantic any statements I may make in connection with this important question. I wish also to say at the outset that no one in this house is more desirous than I am of maintaining peace, not only in Canada but throughout the world; and probably I should be the last man in this house to cast a vote to commit this country to war if it were at all possible to maintain our self-respect and stay out of war. I do not say that entirely because of my tendencies toward peace. During my lifetime I have been guided by the principle of never asking anyone else to do a job that I could not or would not do myself. Unfortunately, as hon. members of this house know, it would be impossible for me to discharge active obligations if war should be declared, and

Foreign Policy-Mr. Walsh
for that reason I should be averse to asking others to do what I feel and know I could not do myself.
I was very glad to read the remarks made in this house last Friday by the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). As I read his words I wished that the same sentiments had been always expressed by the right hon. gentleman, his colleagues and others associated with him from the province of Quebec.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I wish
my hon. friend would quote anything I ever said in my own province that was different from what I said on Friday.


William Allen Walsh: I am afraid that during the heated election campaigns of 1917, 1921, 1925 and 1926, many things were said that would have been better left unsaid; in which event the province of Quebec would be in a very much happier position than that in which it is to-day-


Ernest Lapointe: Again I ask my hon. friend to quote anything I ever said that would justify his remarks.


William Allen Walsh: As I was proceeding to suggest, it is a very much misunderstood position so far as my province is concerned.


Ernest Lapointe: Evil minds usually make mistakes in interpretation.


William Allen Walsh: I am not suggesting that the right hon. Minister of Justice said anything untoward, considering the heat of the campaigns during which his remarks were made; nevertheless the impression has been gained throughout Canada that for a number of years the province of Quebec was very much wrought up over the question of conscription, and that we have a feeling in that province to-day-


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely.


William Allen Walsh: -in regard to this question that does not exist in other parts of the country. I do not want that sentence to be misunderstood. I know the prevailing sentiment in Canada is absolutely and utterly opposed to conscription, and I do not think there is a member of this house who would even suggest the possibility of conscription if war should come. We are all opposed to it; we have made our position abundantly clear, and that was the one thing that made me happy in reading the remarks of the right hon. Minister of Justice. I felt that once and for all that unfortunate question had been wiped off the slate, so that in future we could conduct elections in Quebec without reference to 71492-159i
what took place in the past and what unfortunately might be anticipated for the future.


Ernest Lapointe: It is my hon. friend who comes to my point of view; it is not I who go to his.


William Allen Walsh: I refrain from answering mj1 right hon. friend directly, because I know it would only invite a debate on the conscription issue, which all hon. members of this house desire to eliminate and if possible forget.
I was going to make a suggestion in connection with the province of Quebec. The attitude of that province is very much misunderstood throughout Canada, and that attitude, as I was suggesting, has been somewhat influenced by political demagogues. The province of Quebec has not that narrowminded attitude which is so frequently pictured elsewhere. In looking back over the political history of my province I remember an incident which occurred during a provincial election. At the time the city of Three Rivers was composed almost entirely of French Canadians. It had one Jewish family and one English speaking family. The representative elected to the legislature of that province was the single Jewish member of the community, a man by the name of Hart. I merely quote that instance to show that the province of Quebec is generous in its treatment of minorities in regard to political considerations.
I also want to make the suggestion that the people of Quebec are exceptionally attached to the monarchical form of government. They are particularly attached to the British crown, probably more so than any other section of this dominion. I think very few members of this house realize that the people living in the province of Quebec have known no other form of government than a constitutional monarchy during their whole history. They have never lived under any other form of government, and I know they would be the last people in Canada who would desire to depart from that form of government; therefore their attachment to British institutions and to the British crown.
It is not my intention to follow the remarks of the last speaker (Mr. Thorson). I quite disagree with his suggestions and his conclusions. I am surprised that a person who owes so much to a scholarship fund established by one of the greatest of our empire builders, Cecil Rhodes, should exemplify in the house a spirit that is not the spirit of the person who founded that fund.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ernest Lapointe: That is another small argument.
Foreign Policy-Mr. Walsh


William Allen Walsh: His constitutional arguments leave me entirely unmoved, and I do not see that they will have any effect upon citizens of Canada who may read them, as to whether or not we should be in a position to declare our neutrality.
During the course of my remarks I hope to be able to show that we are a part of, and desire to remain a part of, the British commonwealth of nations. I recognize the fact that our imperial relationships are undergoing very important changes. We are living in a world of change, and our attitude must change from day to day.
I had intended to make reference to the observations of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe). In fact I had intended to suggest, in his own language, words to this effect:
(Translation): It is with deep regret that I read the remarks of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe). I had hoped that all hon. members, particularly those from my province, would have approved the statement of the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and recognized the need of full agreement on a subject of this nature. I cannot share the opinions enunciated by my hon. friend from Laval-Two Mountains and I do not think that they represent the point of view of the province of Quebec.
(Text) I say this in all sincerity. I do not think the remarks of the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains represent the genuine feeling of his people during the crises through which we have passed, and the one through which we are now passing. I suggest that in Canada we should strive to put our own house in order. We have many vital problems to be discussed and to be settled, and so far as possible we should endeavour to settle them, and along permanent lines. I could set forth many of them, but time will not permit. We desire the unity of the British commonwealth of nations. We feel that that unity is a vital factor in the shaping of world destinies. So also is unity within our own borders essential to the effective development not only of our own nation but also of the British commonwealth of nations. I hope the problems we have with us to-day will soon disappear, that in Canada we shall be able to present a united front as Canadians, and thus be a larger contributing force towards the solution of the problems of the commonwealth to which we belong.
It was my intention to delve back into history, and to trace our steps in nationhood to the point we have now reached. It was my intention to show how after 1870 British

foreign policy had been influenced to some extent by imperialism, and how that influence had continued almost down to the early years of the present century. An outstanding example of that imperialistic tendency is exemplified in the war in South Africa. If gold and diamonds had not been found within the reaches of South Africa, there would have been no South African war. The imperial tendency towards expansion into countries where trade would be profitable and beneficial caused England to reach out into many parts of the world where otherwise she would not have reached, if in those parts trade had not been to her benefit. That was the imperialistic tendency of the age, and we in Canada played our part in its development. We took our part in the fighting of the South African war, and indeed that was one of the first periods in our history when we made a direct contribution towards the battles of what was then the British empire.
After that the imperial attitude changed somewhat, and looking back on history we find growing up certain relationships between Canada and the mother country, relationships brought about to a great extent through imperial, or as they were first called, colonial conferences, the first of which took place in 1887, and the second-I had not known this fact until I made a study of the matter- in 1894 in the city of Ottawa. The holding of the conference here showed a growth in the minds of the British people and in the minds of peoples throughout the empire, as it was then known, of a realization of the importance of this dominion.
Later we notice that colonial conferences gave way to imperial conferences, and then imperial conferences gave way to something larger and more representative of the feeling of our commonwealth of nations. In 1917 there was a growth and development which, probably unnoticed at that time, but to-day has a considerable degree of significance. I refer to the imperial war cabinet, created in 1917, when all parts of the empire were represented in London for the purpose of more effectively carrying on and bringing to a conclusion the great war then in progress. On that occasion the British Prime Minister sat at the head of the table, not as one over and above those assembled, but as one whose presence was described by the Latin expression primus inter pares, first among equals, which shows the position which Canada occupied at that time.
Then there was the further development after the war when, in the signing of the treaty of Versailles, Canada was definitely placed in the category of an independent

Foreign Policy-Mr. Walsh
nation capable of making a separate contribution on her own behalf so far as the signing of treaties with other nations is concerned. I believe it was during the discussion of the treaty of Versailles that Sir Robert Borden, the then Prime Minister of Canada, was first to use the expression " imperial commonwealth." And now we have this great empire recognized as the commonwealth of British nations. It will be noticed from all I have said that the actual settlement of the question as to the body responsible for foreign affairs and foreign policy of the empire or the commonwealth has not as yet been settled. It is something which must ibe settled. It is the lack of settlement in that regard which is causing some concern, and which gives rise to a debate of the kind in which we are at present engaged.
In 1931, when the statute of Westminster was signed, we reached the pinnacle towards which we were climbing, that of almost complete nationhood. We claimed new rights as we advanced step by step to nationhood. I ask hon. members this question: Did not those new rights carry with them new obligations and new responsibilities? With the enactment of the statute of Westminster in 1931, Canada was recognized as having attained the full status of nationhood, as being a nation within a nation.
As I have said, those new rights and privileges carried with them new obligations. Canada's attitude towards other nations, in fact her new attitude towards most questions, both internal and external, had to be defined or redefined. To discuss these questions we must of necessity contemplate questions of armament, defence at home, defence abroad, defence on land and sea, our political position in the British commonwealth, our geographical position, our internal economy. Within recent months there has been a noticeable activity in the Department of National Defence-I make no reference here, of course, to the Bren gun or any episode of that nature. Not only will this involve expense, but it will raise again the issue of our national unity. The question that might then be discussed is this: Are we a nation? Are we accepted by other countries as a nation? Or do we still fall short of the complete definition of that term? I think the answer at the present time is that we are not a nation in the usual acceptance of the term; and that, I think, is the general opinion which has been expressed so far during the course of this debate.
I had intended to take up the question of foreign policy with particular reference to the resignation of Anthony Eden, an event which
involved Canada as much as it did any other part of the commonwealth. He resigned; a new foreign office minister was appointed, and no doubt Canada was not consulted. This event reflected a change not only in the cabinet in England but also in the attitude as to Great Britain's foreign policy; and, if we are to accept the principles laid down by most speakers in this debate, with which I find myself in agreement, Canada was somewhat involved in that change of attitude.
So far as a foreign policy for Canada is concerned, there are three possible alternatives. One is that of isolation. I recall that in the speech from the throne in January, 1937, the government put these words into the mouth of his excellency:
The international situation continues to give much ground for anxiety.
I think the Prime Minister will agree with me that those words are just as true to-day as when they were uttered in January, 1937. The present government recognizes the situation; we in this parliament recognize it, and we discuss what our reaction will be in certain eventualities. The first alternative of isolation I think I can immediately dismiss. I do not think any member of this house, indeed anyone in Canada, would suggest that isolation was a safe and sound policy to pursue or even to contemplate at the present time. Canada is not in a position to isolate herself from the rest of the world or from the British commonwealth of nations. Canada must, in her own interests, maintain her position within the commonwealth. Therefore I dismiss the suggestion of isolation.
I come next to the position that we might take shelter under the Monroe doctrine. The Monroe doctrine is a much misunderstood document. It was merely a statement made to congress away back in 1823 by the then president, James Monroe. It read, in part'
[DOT]-that the American continents are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.
And further:
With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered nor shall not interfere.
That was the policy declared by the then president of the United States. It is a policy which has been reiterated by almost every president of the United States since, and I have no doubt it is the policy on which they propose to act even to-day. But it is merely a statement of policy, and it is unilateral, not a multilateral policy in any sense of the term. We therefore should not seek too much refuge under what is generally termed the Monroe doctrine.
Foreign Policy-Mr. Walsh

The President of the United States, speaking in Canada in the latter part of last summer, made certain statements respecting Canada. He said:
The Dominion of Canada is part of the sisterhood of the British empire. X give to you assurance that the people of the United States will not stand idly by if domination of Canadian soil is threatened by any other empire.
I want hon. members to notice, first, that the United States, our closest and best neighbour, readily acknowledges Canada, not as a nation, but as part of the sisterhood of the British empire'. In the second place I want to make this suggestion, that President Roosevelt's words on that occasion cannot be construed as guaranteeing full and absolute support to Canada if Canada should be found at war. United States support is to be given to Canada, only if Canada is invaded by some foreign power, and their intervention then we recognize would be just as much in their own interests as in ours. The United States could not afford to have three thousand miles of frontier controlled or possessed by any other nation than Canada herself, in conformity with her present position of a member state of the British commonwealth of nations.


Mr. KINLEY:: Did the president say
"threatened" or "invaded"?


William Allen Walsh: "If domination of Canadian soil is threatened by any other empire." "Threatened" presumably meant threatened by invasion. We all understand the meaning of the word "threatened." If Canada were threatened, the United States would feel it her duty to protect her own frontiers by not allowing any other empire to establish itself north of the present boundary between Canada and the United States.
I would go further and suggest that we have no guarantees under the Monroe doctrine. Naturally we feel a certain confidence in having such a good neighbour to the south of us, and naturally we have a certain confidence in the statements that have been made from time to time by the President of the United States. But I do not feel that Canada as a whole desires to take refuge under the protection of the Monroe doctrine. In the first place it is not as absolutely safe as we would desire it; and then it might lead to repercussions which no red-blooded Canadian would like to contemplate.
The third alternative is to retain our place within the British commonwealth of nations. This seems to be Canada's real place-her culture, her trade, and a common policy of

promoting peace and security for a troubled world. Providing a separate defence for Canada is in my estimation beside the question. We cannot do that. But we can provide a defence for Canada in conformity with the defence of the empire or the commonwealth as a whole.
We often hear whispers, Mr. Speaker, that the British nation is in a decadent state, that this great commonwealth is about to collapse and fall to pieces. With these statements I am in utter disagreement. History has shown that similar statements were made many years ago; yet the British empire is still a great and potent force throughout the world. I took a clipping from one of the English papers a week or two ago containing statements made in those earlier days which would almost lead to the belief that the collapse of the then empire was imminent. William Pitt in his day said:
There is scarcely anything around us but ruin and despair.
Wilberforce, in the early 1800's, said:
I dare not marry, the future is so dark and unsettled.
Lord Grey in 1819 said he "believed everything was tending to a convulsion;" and the Duke of Wellington on his deathbed "thanked God he would be spared from seeing the consummation of ruin that is gathering around." Disraeli, that great figure of the mid-nineteenth century, said on one occasion:
In industry, commerce and agriculture there is no hope.
Lord Shaftesbury capped the climax by saying, in 1848:
Nothing can save the British empire from shipwreck.
Yet here we are to-day, enjoying apparently a healthy prosperity in a new age as a commonwealth of nations, the successor to the British empire; and I feel that those who at this time cry despair have little confidence in themselves and less confidence in those who are to succeed them. Listening some time ago in the city of Toronto to an address, I heard quoted two lines of which I am reminded every time I hear the national anthem, and on occasions when despair is evident in the faces and the sentiments of certain of our fellow citizens:
Breed ye the sons your fathers bred And God will save the king.
I would go further, and say that He will save not only the king but Canada and the commonwealth to which we belong.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
It was the Prime Minister, if I remember correctly, who on May 24 last year, at page 3182 of Hansard, made a statement in the house as follows:
No course of action adopted by the United Kingdom in foreign affairs can fail to have repercussions, great or small, upon Canada and the other members of the commonwealth of nations. The problem of adjustment this fact presents is one of the most difficult and complicated that faces Canada and the other parts of the commonwealth as well.
The statement, which I consider accurate, is one which sends out somewhat of a challenge. I am still firmly convinced that the hope of Canada is within this commonwealth of nations. There we can get that peace and security which we crave for our country and which we desire for our children and those who are to follow them. I believe that the greatest and most potent force in the world for peace to-day is a strengthened and revitalized British commonwealth of nations, of which Canada should be an important if not a dominant factor.
During the course of this debate many statements have been made setting forth Canada's peculiar position. It has made me happy to observe the optimism which prevails and the manner in which this question has been presented to the country. I feel sure that as a result of this debate the people will have more confidence both in their leaders in this house and in the future of our nation. What has been said by way of defining Canada's position will not make war more imminent; if anything it will have a retarding effect as far as war is concerned. It will show to the world what Canada conceives her position to be; it will show to the world that she intends to remain an important factor in the commonwealth of British nations. The rest of the world will know that Britain, standing for peace, is probably in a position to assure it.
I place before you these three possibilities. As regards the first two, we are not in possession of all the facts which have been communicated to our government; therefore some of my remarks may be a little beside the point. Our conjectures may cause us to lean to the third alternative which I am presenting, even if we cannot arrive at a definite conclusion. We can and must strive for peace. With the British empire and the United States coming more closely together and speaking with an almost common voice in relation to foreign affairs, (there is good hope for peace within the English speaking world, and possibly
in the world at large. In this effort Canada has a definite part to play, because of her geographical position north of the United States of America and midway between Europe and Asia. We can reaffirm our support of the League of Nations, effectively strengthened and prepared to secure peace through conciliatory and not coercive methods. We can reassert our belief in the supremacy of the Canadian parliament to decide, in its own way and in the light of the facts available at the time, to what extent Canada shall be involved in another war. These can be guiding principles in the realm of foreign policy.
Canada is still a British country, a member state of the British commonwealth of nations. Canada intends to remain in the empire and will not endeavour to escape its responsibilities as a British nation. Of course there are differences of opinion as to the scope of our responsibilities, but none as to their character. Therefore I have had occasion to hope, as I have listened to this debate, that little or no differences of opinion exist as to our responsibility or our immediate course. There may be some difference of opinion as to the character of our responsibilities, but this is a question which will be settled, when the time comes, by the parliament of Canada.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: The present debate has revealed a remarkable unanimity in all parts of the house on certain broad principles of foreign policy. There are many things about which we disagree, but I am sure that the similarity of opinion on some of the fundamental issues has been a revelation to most of us.
May I enumerate three points of view which seem to have met with general acceptance by all groups in this house.
First, Canadians should have the right to decide the part that Canada will take in the event of Great Britain becoming involved in a war. There have been some differences of opinion, of course, as to whether we have the right to remain neutral, and as to whether we can remain neutral without seceding from the British commonwealth of nations, but the general principle that the Canadian people- and they alone-should determine the part they will play in any war in which Great Britain becomes involved seems to have met with general agreement.
Second, it seems to be the consensus that Canada's main contribution in the event of war will be economic, and that her military contribution will at best be relatively small.
2518	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
Third, opposition to conscription has been expressed by the leaders of all the groups in this house, it being pointed out that conscription was of little or no value during the last war and it aroused antagonism and friction out of all proportion to any value that it might have had.
Since there seems to be general agreement on the three points upon which I have briefly touched, I shall take them for granted and proceed to develop the line of reasoning pursued by my deskmate. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) pointed out that collective security had failed, largely due to the fact that the vested interests in the great powers fear people's political movements much more than they fear fascism. He pointed out that some nations which were now most afraid of Hitler had helped to build him up to his present strength in the hope that he would be a bulwark against radical tendencies in Europe. Now, like Frankenstein, these same powers find themselves in danger of being destroyed by the very monster which they created. My colleague concluded by making a plea for a return to collective security as the only hope of establishing world peace and world order. It seems to me that a return to collective peace action-not collective war action-will involve the acceptance of two major principles. The first is that nations desirous of peace shall express their willingness to rectify the mistakes of the treaty of Versailles and shall immediately take cognizance of those economic causes which have driven certain nations of Europe to resort to dictatorships. In my opinion, it is no accident that the "have-not" nations, Italy, Germany and Japan, are also the fascist nations. A former German Chancellor, Doctor Stresemann, said of his country, "Germany must expand or explode." It was failure to make it possible that such expansion should go on peaceably and legitimately that brought about the recent acts of aggression and lawlessness. It is not enough to say, "Stop Hitler!" We must be prepared to deal with the causes that have produced Hitler.
The second principle in collective peace action is the willingness of the nations who desire peace to act collectively, not to maintain the status quo but to act collectively to make any resort to force an unprofitable venture. It will be argued that such collective action will involve sacrifices. I admit that, but I do submit that the sacrifices will be infinite-

simal compared to the sacrifices that would follow from another world war. Collective peace action may mean the making of economic concessions and colonial adjustments. It may mean our participation in economic sanctions against an aggressor nation. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group have never objected to this country being asked to make sacrifices of that kind. On February 19, 1937, speaking in the House of Commons against increased defence estimates I said:
I object to increased armaments. If they *were a contribution to some collective security system it would be an entirely different matter. What this house is being asked to do is to pay for the weak and vacillating attitude that has been taken by the government in connection with international affairs. I, for one, will never give either my voice or my vote to send young men out to lay down their lives because of the incompetency and, in many cases, the stupidity of those who have directed the foreign policy of this country.
It is because we have been convinced that the sacrifices the Canadian people have been called upon to make have been directed, not towards peace but towards war that we have consistently opposed them in this house.
Canada, in view of her vast economic resources, can play a decisive role in any collective peace action which the nations of the world are prepared to take. It was recognized as far back as 1920 that Canada's main contribution to collective security was her strategic economic position. It will be remembered that Canada made a reservation of article 16 of the covenant of the League of Nations, which expressly stated that, in the event of military measures being brought against an aggressor, the council of the league should take account of the geographical situation of each state. Canada has never been seriously thought of as a military power who might wield a great influence in European affairs, but we are a great source of those raw materials necessary for the waging of war, and as such, we can play an important role in world affairs. It was because of our failure to signify our willingness to play such a role in 1935 that we contributed to the conquest of Ethiopia and the ultimate destruction of the League of Nations. The present government must accept some responsibility for the fact that oil sanctions, the only effective sanctions that might have been applied, were not put into effect against Italy. During the past four years, despite all our protestations of peace, this country has continued to be a

Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
source of supply for the aggressor nations who are rearming with a view to challenging the league and of all that the league has stood for.
Let us examine Canada's exports of raw materials. First of all we will take nickel, of which Canada controls ninety per cent of the world's supply. Beginning with	the year
1932, in round figures, our total exports of nickel have been:
1932		$	7,000,000
1933		 22,000,000
1934		 28,000,000
1935		 36,000,000
1936		 44,000,000
1937		 58,000,000
1938		 52,000,000
Let us take our exports to some countries. We will take the United Kingdom:
1932		$	1,272,000
1933		 6,648,000
1934		 10,087,000
1935		 12,572,000
1936		 14,115,000
1937		 24,585,000
1938		 27,530,000
Next, to Germany:
1932		$
1933		
1934		
1935		
1936		
1937		
1938		
Italy:	
1932		
1933		
1934		
1935		
1936		
1937		
1938		
Japan:	
1932		
1933		
1934		
1935		
1936		
1937		
1938		
The point I wish to make from these figures	
is that our exports of nickel, which is the basic commodity in the manufacture of war
material, have increased since 1932 between 700 and 800 per cent. Our exports to Germany in that period have increased 1,000 per cent, or tenfold, and there are indirect exports to Germany through Norway and the Netherlands, increasing the exports by a larger percentage. The exports to Japan, carrying on as she has been in the last few years a campaign of piracy in China, have increased
5,000	per cent or fifty-fold. Little wonder that the firm that controls the production of nickel in this country, the International Nickel Company, could declare in 1936 a dividend of $26,000,000, in 1937, $50,000,000, and in 1938, in excess of $58,000,000.
I turn to another commodity which we have been exporting for war purposes-copper. Our total exports of copper have been:
1935		129,000,000
1936		 36.000,000
1937		 56.000,000
1938		 53,000,000
The thing to be noticed here is an increase in total exports to Germany of about 400 per cent; in indirect imports to Germany of about 300 per cent, and in exports of copper to Japan of about 1,000 per cent.
Then take scrap iron exported:
1935		$1,024,681
1936		 2,289,814
1937		 1,954.698
1938		 1,008.992
The interesting thing about our exports of scrap iron is that last year, out of $1,800,000 worth that we exported, $519,080 or over fifty-one per cent went to Japan. A few days ago I placed a question on the order paper as to Canadian National Railways freight cars being broken up and sent as scrap iron to Japan. The answer from the Minister of Transport was that cars were being wrecked but the government had no knowledge of what was being done with the material. I have here letters and newspaper clippings from British Columbia in which it is stated that this metal is being sold to the highest bidder and being shipped out regularly from New Westminster to help to build the great military machine in Japan.
Most interesting has been Canada's development in the munitions business. Canadians have been accustomed to think of Canada not as a manufacturer of munitions, but only as a source of raw material. During the last few years, however, we have become a producer of implements of war. From the Department of National Revenue I have the monthly statement respecting permits issued for exportation of "arms, ammunition and implements or munitions of war under the provisions of section 290 of the Customs Act and the regulations established thereunder." This amendment to the Customs Act was passed in 1937, and has been in operation now some nineteen months. I have taken the lists as they have been issued each month, and I wish to put them on Hansard, in order that there may be no misunderstanding about it. The figures are as follows:
76.000
242.000
257.000
16.000
436.000
916.000
702.000

2520	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas (Weyburn)
Month 1937-	Total number 	
8	Permits granted British Empire Foreign 8 	Total value $ 13,979
19	9	10	83,742
23	7	16	80,459
29	14	15	46,567
18	7	11	82,4201938- January	
February	
20 	
35 	
54	11 8 11	9 27 43	94,192 444,046 1,104,374April	
38 	
32	9 13	29 19	179,160 833,221
43	16	27	285,922T uly 	13	16	183,145
21	12	9	92,473September	
.. .. October	
November	
December	
34 	
32 	
20 	
17	25 18 11 6	9 14 9 11	223,388 165,675 101,993 126,1981939- J anuary	
February	
19 	
19	10 7	9 12	131,689 71,17819 months	215	295	$4,343,830
I put these on record so that they can be checked with the monthly statements issued by the department.
Of this export by far the largest part was military aeroplanes and parts. According to the bureau of statistics our export of military
aeroplanes was as follows:
1936		
1937		
1938


[Stage Direction]
Of the total of 1938 exports, seventy per cent was for aeroplanes which were sold by manufacturers in this country to the Turkish government. As it later developed, these aeroplanes did not really reach Turkey but instead landed in Spain.
Close perusal of these statistics will I think bring forth three questions. One is, why are we sending implements of war to countries outside the British commonwealth of nations? Is it that we have more than enough in Canada? Is it that they do not need them in Great Britain? A recent editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press made the statement-I cannot vouch for its authenticity-that last fall there were in Canada only six Hawker Hurricane bombing planes, and since then one has been destroyed on the Pacific, so that there are now only five. If this be true, how could we afford to send thirty-four military aeroplanes last year to the Turkish government? In my opinion no manufacturer of implements of war should be allowed to sell or export these instruments of death to any foreign power until the Canadian government and the British government are perfectly satisfied that their own needs and requirements have been supplied, and that the recipients of these munitions are friendly powers. In

this matter of exports of implements of war, the time has come when the Canadian government ought to take a very firm stand.
The second question arising out of these facts is that these exports of war material challenge the sincerity of the present government in asking for repeated increases in votes for national defence. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation each year have asked why the increased expenditure for national defence, and in reply we have had horrible pictures painted of bombing planes destroying Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Either we are afraid of certain aggressive nations or we are not. If we are not afraid of them, then all talk of the need for increased defence expenditures is nonsense. If we are afraid of them, by what logic do we continue to supply those same nations with the materials with which they might destroy our cities and citizens?
A third question arising from a study of these figures is that some day-heaven grant it may never come-we may be asking Canadian citizens to engage in a war in which their bodies will be lacerated and torn by the very material which is now being sent out of Canada in order to increase the dividends of certain Canadian concerns and swell the profits of United States investors. Will it be a great source of comfort to certain Canadian boys to know that the bullet which maimed them for life was made from Canadian nickel sold by the International Nickel Company? To citizens of Vancouver it may be a source of patriotic pride to know that one of the Japanese bombing machines which bombed that city was manufactured by the Canadian

Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
Car and Foundry Company and exported from this country on the 11th of February, 1938. If the Canadian people ever come to realize that concerns in this country, such as International Nickel and certain aircraft manufacturers, are making millions of dollars out of war material which may very shortly be used to destroy Canadian citizens and Canadian property, I believe they will rise up in righteous indignation and demand that the government take some action in this regard.
I ask the government, therefore, to give serious consideration to an economic embargo on all war materials as the major contribution Canada can make towards collective peace. I think we will all agree with the statement made to congress last fall by the President of the United States, who said:
There are ways, apart from war, which democratic nations can take to restrain an aggressor.
I suggest that this is one of the ways this country can take to restrain international aggressors, and I believe it is our solemn duty to take that step. May I quote another statement from the North American continent. In Hansard for April 1, 1935, I find these words:
I think this country ought to declare that any nation which could be shown to have threatened the peace of the world by violating a pact of collective security should be denied any assistance in the shape of men or munitions, should be denied any assistance in the nature of food, should be denied any assistance through credit. Our country, small as it is, might well lay down a definite policy in that regard as expressing Canada's attitude toward any country which upon the facts being disclosed was found to be guilty of attempting to destroy wrhat otherwise might be collective security. If that example were followed by other parts of the British Empire, as I believe it would be, it would soon be followed by other parts of the world.
That statement was made in this house by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I concur in every word he uttered, and now, almost to a day four years after he made the statement, I am asking him to practice in office what he preached in opposition. Even though the statement was made on April 1st I cannot believe that he was April-fooling. I think he meant it; and although the difficulties are numerous, I am sure the chances would be well worth taking. I believe the difficulties could be surmounted, and the contribution to peace would be perhaps greater than could be achieved by the people of Canada in any other single way.
May I remind the house that New Zealand, a much smaller dominion lying in an exposed position in the Pacific has shown its strict adherence to the cause of peace by imposing
an embargo as a protest against Japan's invasion of central China. The United States, which is not a member of the League of Nations, aroused by the recent acts of aggression on the part of Herr Hitler, has imposed a twenty-five per cent supertax on German exports to the United States. I would further remind the house that in 1937 this parliament stopped all shipments of war materials to Spain. If an embargo on shipments to Spain, a nation that was a friendly power and did not commit any acts of aggression, was justifiable, how much more justifiable ought an embargo to be against nations that have embarked upon a course of international piracy?
I direct the attention of the house to the recent plea by the London Financial News for a ban by the democratic countries on war materials to Germany. I quote from a Canadian Press dispatch dated London, March 29:
Marshalling of the peace-minded nations of the world into an economic bloc against the exportation to aggressor nations of raw materials essentia] for arms expansion was advocated editorially Tuesday by the Financial Neics.
Urging Great Britain to take the lead in effecting the embargo, the paper declared, with the cooperation of the United States and some smaller countries, a high percentage of most vital commodities could be withheld from powers threatening the world's peace.
"Surely it should be possible (quite apart from the question of political alliance) for the pacific nations to ensure it is not from their resources that these commodities-the raw materials of aggression-are drawn," the Financial Fetes said.
The paper cited Canada's position with regard to nickel exports.
As producer of 90 per cent of the world's nickel, it pointed out Canada last year supplied three-quarters of Germany's requirements. Con-' siderable inconvenience, the paper said, would be caused Germany by cutting off these supplies. but it was equally obvious a mere embargo of Canadian exports would prove futile.
The editorial proceeded that "to make the scheme reasonably effective it would be necessary in some cases to secure the cooperation of smaller countries, notably Holland and Belgium. This in turn would raise problems of compensation and perhaps involve political guarantees.
"It is clear that the difficulties are great and at this stage the more simple method might well be to cut off Germany's purchases at the source-by boycotting German exports and so reducing her foreign exchange.
"No doubt strong action will be opposed in official circles on the ground that it might provoke further aggression. This not only ignores the fact that as yet Germany has shown no need for provocation. It begs the fundamental issue at stake: can we muster courage, intelligence and the will to stop aggression?"
Where does Canada stand in relation to such a plea? Will the Prime Minister signify to the world that Canada is willing to make
2522	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Douglas (Weybum)
that contribution which she is best able to make, namely an economic contribution? Will he tell the world that Canada is prepared to see that, so far as we are able, not one ton of war materials will go from Canada into the hands of unscrupulous warmongers for the making of implements of death? I know that as a small nation, located on the north American continent, we are not a mighty factor in European affairs. There are times when our moral indignation wells up within us, when we think of the two million casualties that have taken place in China in the past year and a half. We have no power to stop the Japanese from killing the Chinese, but I do say, sir, that we have the power, so far as lies within us, to see that the Japanese do not get Canadian nickel and Canadian war materials with which to carry on their bloody and barbarous business. We have no power to stop Hitler's steam roller from rolling over Europe, crushing the small democracies that are in its way, but we have the power to see that, so far as within us lies, we prevent our potential sources of raw material from being used to build a mighty war machine.
The other day, when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) was speaking, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) asked, "What are you going to do when there is a mad dog in Europe?" I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, that there is a mad dog in Europe, but I submit for the consideration of this house that we gave that mad dog teeth. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) said Hitler was a madman. Again I agree, but a madman is only dangerous when he has arms, and in our small way we have helped to see that he has arms. I rather blushed last winter when on Sunday evenings over the radio I heard prominent Canadians, good Christian people who were well inten-tioned, making an appeal for the Chinese Red Cross. It was a worthy cause, but I could not help realizing that at the same time that we were asking for funds to bind up China's wounds we were shipping aluminum, nickel, copper and scrap iron at the rate of a million dollars' worth a month out of Canada for Japan. That, to me, comes very close to hypocrisy.
I ask the government this question: What does it propose to do about the matter? Here is something we can do. Here is something that is not academic. Here is something that is not in the realm of speculation. Here is something that the Canadian people can do, and something to which the Prime Minister himself in 1935 gave his blessing. What do we propose to do about it? Is it possible that

we are not doing anything about it, because we are afraid we will interfere with the profits of those who benefit by this business? If that be true, then indeed this is a black day in Canada's history.
At this season of the year we draw close to Good Friday. All the eyes of the world will turn back to "a green hill far away, without a city wall," where the founder of Christianity was crucified by those forces of selfishness, greed, and lust for gain that are still at work in the world. It seems to me that unless we do something in Canada about the question of the export of war materials there will be another crucifixion-the crucifixion of a generation of young men, crucified upon a cross of nickel.
Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the speeches in this debate. Naturally in a time of world unrest, and especially a time such as that through which the world is now passing, an expression of opinion from parliamentarians who are interested is called for. Such expressions of opinion may set forth a wide and broad field of generalities. I listened with much interest to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as he laid the foundation upon which he could express the foreign policy of his government. I should like to make a few observations with regard to that speech.
Perhaps what I have to say might best be said under three distinct headings: first, the right of parliament to decide such important issues as might involve the nation in armed conflict; second, the government's foreign policy with respect to trade agreements as a means of solving world problems and promoting better understanding to bring about international peace; and, third, if time permits, the pronouncement of the Prime Minister to the effect that in the event of war an armed force would be raised by volunteers and not by conscription.
With respect to the first point, namely that parliament must decide on these great issues, may I point out that a little while ago on this question the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) delivered a scholarly and well defined speech. As he was speaking, however, I did think there was some confusion in his use of the expressions "Canada and the Canadian people must decide", "parliament must decide", "the ministers of the crown must decide" and like terms. We need a definite understanding of what is meant by the assertion that parliament itself must decide, and I doubt whether to-day we have that understanding.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Hansell
The Prime Minister has made several pronouncements along that line which I shall take the liberty of reading. On March 20 of this year, in the course of a statement respecting the European crises, the Prime Minister said this, as reported at page 2043 of Hansard:
Canada at all times has been prepared to consult, as occasion might arise, with other freedom loving countries as to the most effective means of cooperation against aggression. The form of such cooperation and the contingency in which it may arise, are questions which this government will examine, in consultation with other governments. It will report its findings and any proposals that may result to this parliament, which has the sole and responsible authority to speak for Canada in such grave issues. I still believe in parliament as the most important of our national institutions; and in the supremacy otf parliament, especially where the issue is one of peace or war.
So far so good. On March 30 the Prime Minister was referring to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's stand in relation to England and Canada being at war, and he said this, as reported at page 2423 of Hansard:
My immediate purpose in quoting the statement,-
Of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.

as will be apparent from the context, was to emphasize the continuity of Liberal policy as regards parliamentary control, the view which was held then and which we as a government hold to-day, that in the great as in the small issues of a nation's policy, the policy of selfgovernment which we have followed for a century makes it essential that parliament and no other body should decide.
From the same speech I quote the following, as reported at page 2418 of Hansard'.
If Canada is faced by the necessity of making a decision on the most serious and momentous issue that can face a nation, whether or not to take part in war, the principle of responsible government which has been our guide and our goal for a century past, demands that that decision be made by the parliament of Canada. Equally, the system of government we have inherited from Britain, of the close and essential relations between the legislature and the executive, makes it the duty of the government to propose to parliament the course which in regard to particular issues it considers should be adopted, and to stand or fall by the decision.
That is all very well and good. But the Prime Minister went on to speak concerning his pronouncement made at Geneva some little while ago. I quote from page 2418 of Hansard'.
Speaking as the Prime Minister of Canada, I wish to say that I am not prepared any more than is the Prime Minister of Great Britain to engage this country by new and unspecified commitments operating under conditions which cannot now be foreseen.
Panada's attitude as to automatic commitments involving possible or actual participation in war has been asserted time and again
both in this parliament and at Geneva. Whether it has been in reference to the application of sanctions under Article 16 of the covenant of the league or to participation in wars apart altogether from the league, Canada's position has been the same, namely, that in either case the approval of parliament will be required.
I should like to call the attention of hon. members to that little phrase which to my mind is very significant-"Canada's position has been the same, namely, that in either case the approval of parliament will be required." My contention is that there is a tremendous difference between parliament's deciding these momentous issues and parliament's simply approving of decisions which have already been made by the ministers of the crown or the governor in council. In support of this contention I should like to review briefly what took place immediately prior to the last war. I have here the official record as published in the volumes entitled Official History of the Canadian Forces in the Great War, 1914-1919 issued by authority of the Minister of National Defence. On page 7 of the first volume we read of what took place almost on the eve of the last war, and I want to show that parliament in the special war session-I think the newspapers called it that-was not called to meet until the 18th of August. Yet on the fourth of August, and previous to that, Canada had already taken steps to take part in any possible emergency that might arise. On the first of August the governor general of that day sent this message to the Secretary of State for the Colonies:
Urgent. My government desire me to send you the following:	"My advisers while expressing their most earnest hope that peaceful solution of existing international difficulties may be achieved and their strong desire to cooperate in every possible way for that purpose, wish me to convey to his majesty's government the firm assurance that if unhappily war should ensue the Canadian people will be united in a common resolve to put forth every effort to make every sacrifice necessary to ensure the integrity and maintain the honour of our empire."
Arthur.
That was on the first of August. The next day another cablegram was sent by the governor general, and signed Arthur, from which to save time I quote only this sentence:
They are confident that a considerable force would be available for service abroad.
That cablegram was sent on the second of August, two days before war was actually declared. Further, on the eve of war, His Majesty King George V sent a cablegram expressing his appreciation of the dominion's offer of cooperation at that particular time.
Foreign Policy-Mr. Hansell

On the fourth of August, when hope could no longer be entertained in London that war might be averted, the Secretary of State cabled that:
Though there seemed to be no immediate necessity for an expeditionary force from Canada, he thought it would be wise to take steps by which such a force could be provided in case it should be required later.
I believe that is a repetition of the actual words of the cablegram that was sent.
Acceptance of the offer of a Canadian military force was received in a cablegram dated August 6, from Harcourt, the Secretary of State for the Colonies:
His majesty's government gratefully accept your offer to send expeditionary force to this country, and would be glad if it could be despatched as soon as possible.
What I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that all these things were being done, even to the extent of committing Canada to raise an army for service overseas, before war was declared, and before parliament could possibly have been summoned. Parliament did not meet until August 18, 1914.
I am very glad that the Prime Minister has made a pronouncement along this line. But what happened in 1914 was this. When parliament met, commitments had already been made and parliament was expected simply to approve and ratify or disapprove the decisions that had already been made. I think the Prime Minister should point out very clearly just what is the position at the present time. Will parliament be called to ratify decisions already made, or will parliament be called to decide what shall be done? Of course conditions to-day are a little different from what they were in 1914. Parliament could not meet so quickly in 1914 as it could to-day, because our present air transportation facilities would permit of parliament meeting within twenty-four hours of being summoned. I trust the Prime Minister will make some further statement along this line.
The second observation I desire to make has to do with the government's foreign policy and with trade agreements as a means of contributing towards world peace. Speaking on the Canada-United States trade agreement some time ago, the Prime Minister said, as reported at pages 910 and 911 of Hansard:
The making of these agreements, especially when the world situation is so precarious as it unfortunately is, is an achievement of superlative importance, which will have its repercussions throughout the world in the next generation. In the present, each of us sleeps
[Mr. Hansell.)
more safely in his bed because of the rapprochement between the world's two greatest democracies, a rapprochement that could not have been effected without the assent and the cooperation of Canada.
Speaking on March 30 of the foreign policies of the government, the Prime Minister said, as reported on page 2419 of Hansard:
We have been considering at length this session, as we did at the first session of the present parliament, one of the most notable and practical evidences of that new understanding, the new trade agreement with the United States. I shall not do more than refer to- that achievement as one of the main objectives of our foreign policy, a definite contribution to stability and goodwill.
That is fine, but let me point out that this particular agreement is one with a peaceful and friendly nation. I have no quarrel with the contention that a better understanding can be brought about through proper reciprocal agreements between nations, but I believe the government owes it to parliament to say just what the government has done about negotiating trade agreements with these potential enemies whose voices shake the world. We know very little about that. A few years ago a grave situation arose through Mussolini's campaign of aggression in Ethiopia. Most of us would have liked to know more about the underlying situation. I think we should be told whether friendly negotiations looking to an increase in trade were carried on at that time.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: Or subsequently.


Ernest George Hansell: Then there is the Spanish situation, where the developments were somewhat similar if not exactly parallel. Or consider the case of Germany. I discovered that in 1937 Germany had a favourable balance of trade of about 443,000,000 marks, whereas the next year her adverse balance amounted to
432,000,000 marks. We should be told what the government has done about establishing friendly trade relations with Germany. In saying that, I am not presenting a case for Germany; I think the fuehrer of Germany is well able to present his own. But I think we should know whether the government has done anything calculated to help towards lessening international friction by bringing about a little better understanding. Unquestionably the reason for the aggression of these dictator-ridden nations is economic. Italy, for instance, had to have certain raw materials, and the attitude of the people of that country seemed to be, "If the nations of the world will not give them to us we will take them." Last September, while the world was going through a serious crisis, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) was called home

Foreign Policy-Mr. Hansell
from Germany. We have not heard as to what negotiations he was able to carry on there. I think we should know. A few weeks ago the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Johnston) asked a question of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley). It had been reported that Germany was willing to barter some of her machinery for Canadian wheat. The Minister of National Revenue replied that such an offer had been made. We have not heard anything about it since, and we should know what is being done. There is so much that we do not know.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest George Hansell: Hon. members say " Hear, hear."


John Horne Blackmore: That has two edges.


Ernest George Hansell: There is so much that even parliamentarians do not know about international relations in times of crises, and we cannot find out.


John Charles Landeryou: We are not told by those in authority.


Ernest George Hansell: We are not told by those in authority.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Charlie McCarthy!


John Horne Blackmore: Good team work!


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Landeryou) and I are used to arguing at home. We happen to live together in Ottawa. That is the reason for the little exchange. There are so many things covered up that probably nine out of ten members of parliament do not know what these underlying and fundamental influences are.
The Prime Minister stated that the government is opposed to conscripting any army to send to foreign shores. I agree with that point of view. I would make this observation, that should war break out and should the British isles be in danger of attack-as suggested last night on the air by a certain gentleman from Edmonton, clack-clacking away over a local station about this and that, depicting the possibility, for instance, of London being attacked by bombers-Canada would have no difficulty in raising a volunteer force. But should Great Britain be drawn into some international conflict involving military operations on the boundaries of southeastern Europe, the raising of a volunteer force in Canada might present some difficulties; in such an event we should ask, what are we fighting for?
There are some things which the British people hold very dear. We cherish our liberties. We like to think that ours is a
nation with liberties to protect. But the raising of armies to protect British financial interests in some other part of the world is a different matter. We are entitled to know the circumstances, and sometimes it is hard to discover them. I am certain that international complications arise because of financial interests being in conflict with one another in various parts of the world.
I am now going to digress for a little while to another subject. In this and in previous debates there has been a good deal of talk about the government making some particular pronouncement during the crisis last September. I am in hearty sympathy with the government for refraining to make a particular pronouncement at that particular time. Subsequent events have proved, I believe, that it was the wise thing for the Prime Minister not to make a special declaration then. Perhaps, however, we are in danger of pronouncements being made from other sources, unauthoritative sources, pronouncements not with regard to Canada's position but with regard to what should or should not be done. During the crisis just a couple of weeks ago, on a Saturday afternoon it was rumoured round the halls of this building that parliament might be called on the Sunday. As it happened, I had to go away on Sunday morning. In the station I bought a Toronto newspaper. Unfortunately. I did not take notice, when I cut out the article in which I was particularly interested, what newspaper it was. At any rate I read in that clipping an account of a meeting that was held by the Galt Women's Conservative Association "last night"-this is dated March 18. The article is headed:
Avoid shame of September Canada urged.
The sub-title reads:
Captain Rawson calls on King and Manion to pledge full support of dominion to Britain.
That is not so bad, but this is what I really take exception to. I have a strong feeling for the Prime Minister and others who are in authority in these matters. I recognize the extreme difficulty of their situation when they are called upon to make decisions, to know just what to do in such crises, because unquestionably such decisions call for the very best wisdom. At that time I read the following in this article:
Galt, March 18-"Last September Canadians hung their heads in shame through the shameful silence which resounded with a dull thud throughout the chancelleries of Europe"-
That is quite a statement.
-Captain Norman Rawson of Hamilton told the Galt Women's Conservative Association last night.
Foreign Policy-Mr. Hansell


Joseph Enoil Michaud: That explains it.


Ernest George Hansell: The report continues:
"We do not want a repetition of this. What we want is a spontaneous unsolicited declaration of support for Great Britain in her time of need," he declared.
These statements are in quotation marks, and I fancy they are authoritative. I am going to suggest that such statements made, not in days, but in moments of international crises are absolutely uncalled for on the part of men who hold responsible positions in this country. This gentleman is a clergyman and perhaps he should be a little more wise. Towards the end of the article he says:
"Tell Mr. King and Dr. Manion to let the motherland know that our blood does not run cold or slow during this danger hour," he urged.
That part may be all right, but the next paragraph reads:	.
He branded as "criminal" any attempt to make a political football out of the question of empire loyalty, and declared that if either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition were refraining from taking a stand because of political expediency, neither was worthy to lead a political party in the dominion.
This same gentleman stood for the leadership of a political party in this province.


Mr. HEAPS:: He is leading something else now.


Ernest George Hansell: The other day we read that he was on the platform at the big public McCullagh demonstration in Toronto, giving a speech there. I am going to suggest that this very gentleman is doing the thing which he labels as criminal; he is making a political football out of the situation. People should be careful what they say at these times. I do not know that I have a tremendous amount of confidence in any government to decide the right policy, but there is one thing I do stand for and it is this. The government when trying to do their best in time of international crises should have the common sympathy of men in responsible positions.
I trust that in the course of this debate we shall hear these questions answered: First, do we understand that parliament is to be called, in case of necessity, to decide the great issue, or is it going to be called to approve a decision that has already been made? Second, what has this government done to negotiate a proper understanding and trade agreements wdth potential enemies?
I submit that these two questions call for an answer at this time.


Mr. WILFRID LACROIX (Quebec-Montmorency) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, on January 17, 1916, Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated:
There must be no conscription.
On the same date, January 17, 1916, Sir Robert Borden stated:
I made it clear to the Canadian people that we did not propose any conscription. I repeat that announcement to-day with emphasis.
A few months later, that is on May 18 of the same year,-which shows how quickly things change when a country is at war and has decided to take part, if only by the despatch of volunteers-I quote Mr. Henri Bourassa:
In his speech of May 18th Sir Robert Borden gave no serious justification for his change of front. He spoke with apparently sincere emotion of the losses suffered by the Canadian army; he said that unless we send reinforcements the number of Canadian soldiers in the trenches will diminish. That is obvious. The longer the war, the greater the losses; and if casualties are not replaced, the army will certainly diminish. But the Prime Minister knew that on January 17th, 1916, when he repeated with emphasis the announcement that there would be no conscription.
He added that voluntary enlistment was no longer giving tangible results. That also, everybody knew. It had long been demonstrated when, in Dorchester, Messrs. Sevigny and Blondiu swore to high heaven that conscription would never be voted. Voluntary enlistment had dried up when L'Evenement asserted, on behalf of the ministers and under their inspiration, that with the Conservative government there would never be conscription.
Sir Robert Borden was then appealing to Sir Wilfrid Laurier to join him in the government. Sir Wilfrid refused and most of his English Liberal friends from the other provinces separated from him in order to enter the Union government. A few of them, however, remained faithful to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and among these few was a man whose great name will live in history- the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, to-day leader of the government.
The war ended. Sir Wilfrid Laurier died and at the great convention organized to choose his successor, and at which I was a delegate, Mr. Fielding, whose name was proposed, was put aside because he had abandoned Laurier on the question of conscription, and the man who to-day leads the government was chosen. I can truthfully say that subsequent developments justified the attitude of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and of Mr. King, since at the election of December, 1921, the Liberal party, under the direction of the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King, came back to power.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Lacroix
The other day, I listened attentively to the following statement which the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made with regard to conscription:
So long as the Liberal government headed by Mackenzie King enjoys the confidence of parliament, young Canadians shall not be conscripted for overseas service.
I have every confidence in my leader, King, but I am convinced that should parliament decide to participate and start to dispatch volunteer forces to Europe, in the event of war lasting for any considerable time, there would be a repetition of what Sir Robert Borden said on the 18th May, 1916:
The longer war lasts, and the heavier the losses are without the casualties being made good, then it is clear that the army is dwindling.
I am convinced that England will tell us the very things that Sir Robert Borden conveyed to the Canadian people on the 18th May, 1916. As happened to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King will then cease to lead the government, a union cabinet will be formed, conscription will be enforced with the consent of parliament, and notwithstanding our regret at the departure of Mackenzie King, the trick will have 'been turned by the Imperialists of this country. This will come as a consequence of parliament deciding through a new so-called "union" government, to raise, at the expense of the Canadian government, a volunteer expeditionary force.
Let me frankly say that, in view of the stand previously taken and the statements already made by the Right Hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), and considering his influence in the government, I am confident that no volunteer expeditionary force paid for and equipped by the Canadian government will ever leave our shores, so long as the King-Lapointe government is in power.
As a matter of fact, at a meeting held in Saint-Flavien, Lotbiniere county, on Sunday the 19th December, 1937, the right hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) spoke the following words about armaments as reported by Le Soleil on the 20th December of the same year:
We do not advocate sending any one to war. Let me repeat here this afternoon what I said from the floor of the Canadian parliament: each and every one of these expenses is made solely and exclusively for the defence of Canada.
I am convinced that if we were to assert definitely our right to neutrality, as it was irrefutably set forth by that prominent liberal, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson), who is a professor in the Manitoba Law
School, we would never have conscription in this country, unless we were attacked. And why should we not have the right to assert that principle and to wait at least until we know what action the United States would take? Is not Canada a part of America? The United States did not sign the last pact whereby England and France undertook to defend Poland. Are we going to fight for Danzig, which belonged to Germany before the great war?
The United States who entered the last war only a few months before its end and were thus spared the enormous expenditures which resulted from our automatic participation at the very beginning thereof, profited by a tremendous trade expansion during that whole period whereas we, with our small population, lost 60,000 men at the front and are still burdened, as the result of this automatic participation, with a debt of about 4 billion dollars. Why not reserve judgment and strongly assert that we too are entitled to determine the moment of our participation, which should not antedate that chosen by the United States.
During the last war, the United States remained neutral for quite a number of years, yet thousands upon thousands of Americans enlisted abroad. The British and French governments paid their travelling expenses and this enlistment was effected in France and in England, but not on American soil. I have no objection to any such enlistment in the next war, provided it is done under the same conditions.
In order to express the true feelings of all French-Canadians in this regard, I would like to read to you an excerpt from an article which was published in the Quebec Liberal Party's organ, Le Soleil, on Friday, March 31, 1939, under the title:	"No conscription,
but . .
Should England some day be in need of assistance, we shall undoubtedly see large numbers of young Canadians hasten to the aid of their mother country. Their example will even be followed by a lesser number of Canadians of French or foreign origin whose British feelings will be all the stronger that Great Britain will respect their country's right to self-determination. It would be the part of wisdom to leave such volunteers to be absorbed by the imperial army. Otherwise, should the national government organize Canadian contingents at its own expense, it would assume three serious responsibilities: firstly, that of taking a step likely to draw violent reprisals against Canada; secondly, that of engaging the credit of the nation in a ruinous undertaking; thirdly, that of accepting the logical or sentimental consequences of participation in a foreign war.
In 1914, it will be recalled, Sir Robert Borden's Tory government stated that voluntary enlistments would suffice to levy and maintain

Foreign Policy-Mr. Lacroix
the expeditionary force promised to England. In reply to direct questions, Sir Robert stated that he did not believe his government would ever have to resort to conscription. He repeated this indefinite statement on the morrow of the United States' entry in the European furnace in 1917. A few months later, however, he imposed compulsory military service on the youth of Canada, under the pretext that honour demanded that our volunteers be supported by all the human and material resources of the nation. The consequences of an ambiguous phrase came near disrupting Canadian unity for ever and causing civil war. A repetition of that mistake and deception must be avoided at all costs.
The United States, who remained neutral for several years during the great war, sold their goods to France, England and Russia, and enjoyed unparalleled prosperity while keeping at the same time out of debt. It would be useless to deny that English, French and American ships continuously carried armaments, munitions, and food to war-torn Europe, for several years, and that but for the Lusitania incident, the United States would probably never have entered the conflict.
In spite of their neutrality, the United States never prevented a foreign ship, even though she might be the Empress of Britain from loading cargoes in their sea ports during the time they were neutral. Their participation coming only towards the end of the war, their people were spared all the hardships Canada experienced during the great war. Why could not our country do the same thing, seeing that it is an American country and that the Statute of Westminster has given us our complete independence, whatever may be said to the contrary?
I would have voted without protesting, indeed with enthusiasm, all the millions that would have been asked, had I been given a legal guarantee that those millions would not have been used in order to send an expeditionary force overseas.
Ever since the military votes have been gradually increased each year, I have protested against such increases, because we had no guarantee such as I have mentioned, that is to say an assurance that the increased votes would not be used for external war, and today, if I may judge by the discussions in this chamber, it seems to be agreed that, in case of war, it would be difficult to avoid sending on the battlefields more expeditionary forces, equipped and armed at the expense of the Canadian government.
Well, sir, I desire to say without hesitation, as I have said every year since I have been a member of this house, that I will vote, when the house is asked to express its opinion, against any participation in foreign wars, knowing very well that, once we have decided to send

to Europe battalions of volunteers equipped at the expense of the Canadian government, history will necessarily repeat itself, as can be seen by the attitude of the Union government headed by Sir Robert Borden.
The same thing will occur again, I say, and, under colour of reinforcing the battalions of volunteers already in the line of action, it will be decided to impose conscription in this country.
I represent a constituency where I was elected, at the last general election, because I expressed myself as being opposed to any participation in foreign wars. I was an officer of the Quebec Anticonscription League which fought against conscription in 1916-17; I even travelled throughout the province of Quebec denouncing conscription; I always have advocated that policy and to-day I want to state it categorically in this chamber. I respect the opinion of my fellow members, but I could not do better than to repeat the following words of the former member for Labelle, Mr. Henri Bourassa, on the attitude of the French Canadians during the Great War:
But so long as the enlistment of soldiers remained nominally voluntary, they kept quiet. I believe it was a mistake. Once they thought the line had been overstepped and that the future of the country was endangered, they ought to have multiplied their public protests. They find their excuse in their extraordinary respect for the liberty of others. And they have so often been told not to speak aloud, nor to be the first to speak! They have been told so many times that conscription would never be voted nor even proposed!
When the statement of the Prime Minister dispelled every delusion and broke the promises of all representatives of the province of Quebec in the cabinet-even those of Sir Robert Borden himself,-the first reaction -was one of amazement; the second feeling was anger; the third was the unflinching determination to oppose such a tyrannical measure by every means of legitimate resistance.
It is useless to disguise the truth: there are two million French-Canadians who are flatly opposed to conscription. The few exceptions that may be found do not change the opinion of the majority; the half-hearted declarations which may be extorted, here and there, on the loyalist feelings of right-minded French-Canadians will only stiffen and exasperate this mass opposition.
And I may add, after quoting these words of Mr. Henri Bourassa, that to-day there are almost three million French-Canadians opposed to the sending abroad of an expeditionary force armed and equipped Iby the Canadian government, because they have learned the lesson of history.
Some of our people volunteered for service in the great war in the belief that this was a war to end war, they left of their own free

Foreign Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
will, guided by an ideal which I respect, and I would like to salute " en passant " Mr. Speaker, the unpublicized heroism of those who fell at Yimy and Courcelette. They have undoubtedly written one of the greatest chapters of our history and I do not desire, for any reason, to belittle the magnificence of their gesture, but subsequent British governments who never understood the value of their sacrifice, resumed their balance of power policy in Europe by granting to Germany the concessions which enabled her to grow strong again; they are the true culprits whose political motto has always been: divide to govern.
And now, they would like to see our people return to European battlefields every twenty-five years, there to sacrifice our political future, since it must not be forgotten that the next war will foe longer than the last. We are afforded an example of this in Spain, a relatively small country, where the civil war lasted for more than three years. Shall we stand by and allow our country's future to be sacrificed once again and in a much more definite manner, without any advantages to be gained thereby?
Let us cease thinking as they do in London with regard to international relations and shift around a bit more to the point of view adopted in Washington.
I am certainly opposed to annexation of this country by the United States, but I would like to warn London that if they wish Canada to remain one of the brightest jewels of the British crown, they must cease requesting that we sacrifice on their behalf the very life blood of the nation in adventures which do not concern us; otherwise we are heading fatally towards independence. It is vital that the whole Canadian nation adopt the attitude held by the people of Quebec who are, notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, among the truest Canadians to foe found in the country.
Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we shall be fatally drawn into all the conflicts which London is apt to encounter in all parts of the world, and I maintain that in order to be sure of the opinion of the Canadian people in the matter, it will be necessary to hold a referendum to the people on the subject of our participation in any foreign war, during the next general election or even before then, if possible.
A plebiscite is much more in keeping with the true principle of social order than electoral and parliamentary rule.
The former member for Labelle in the House of Commons, Mr. Henri Bourassa, had himself stated the necessity of a referendum on the subject, and this is what he said at the time:
At a general election, public opinion cannot express itself on a single issue; it is divided between the numerous problems which have been discussed in parliament or in public for many years; it has to give a decision on the varied problems which the next parliament will have to solve; and it is pulled on all sides by party ties, by personal sympathies for a leader or a candidate, by a thousand matters of local interest.
Each day brings us nearer to the possibility of participation in a war. We still have ample time to consult the public and I feel assured that the Canadian people would share our views on the subject.
Before closing my remarks, I want to challenge the statements of the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh). He dared to state that Canada is not a nation, and he went on to say that the speech delivered in this chamber, last Friday, by the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe), did not represent the sentiment of the province of Quebec. Let not the hon. member deceive himself. The expression of the sentiment of his province will come very soon to awaken him from his colonial and imperialistic lethargy. The awakening will be the more unexpected and the more sudden for the hon. member that his sleep of colonialism will have been the sweeter.


Mr. C. E. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, this discussion seems to be concerned largely with what position Canada will take in case of war. I believe this is one of the most important questions which confront us at this time. I have read with a great deal of care the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), but I must confess that as yet I have not been able to ascertain exactly what position we shall take in case war breaks out. It seems queer that we should permit any other country, no matter what country it may be, to commit us to war without Canada having some say in the matter. I have in my hand a copy of the Edmonton Journal of September 27, containing the text of a speech by Mr. Chamberlain, in which I find the following:
"If I were convinced that any nation had made up its mind to dominate the world by force I should not hesitate to resist it," the Prime Minister declared in a broadcast from 10 Downing street.
I notice that the emphasis is laid on the words "if I were convinced." I do not take issue with that statement, but from that phrase it seems to me that the issue depends upon one individual. It may be truly said that he represents the British government, but what right has the British government, through Mr. Chamberlain, to enter upon a war in
2530	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
which we might take part, while we have no say about the matter? In the same speech Mr. Chamberlain said:
"I find Herr Hitler's attitude unreasonable in his final demands," he continued. "But I shall not give up my hope for a peaceful solution." He declared: "We cannot undertake to involve the whole of the British empire in war however much we may sympathize with a small nation-if we have to fight it must be on larger issues than that."
When we look at this carefully, we find that he says, "We cannot undertake to involve the whole of the British empire in war." I believe it would seem to anyone reading or listening to that statement that the whole issue depended upon his decision, and that no matter how his decision might go, the whole of the British empire would be involved. That is a unique position for any individual to be in, and surely Canada should have an opportunity of deciding whether or not she would partake in any foreign war.
It has been said in the house that Canada will decide. It has been said, and I believe by the Prime Minister, that the legal position was not definitely known, that it was not clearly defined. That being the case, I would say that Mr. Chamberlain was quite correct in what he said, and that he could involve the whole of the British empire.
The Prime Minister quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier's words as follows, at page 2423 of Hansard of this year:
If England is at war we are at war and liable to attack. I do not say that we shall always be attacked, neither do I say that we would take part in all the wars of England. That is a matter that must be guided by circumstances, upon which the Canadian parliament will have to pronounce and will have to decide in its own best judgment.
I am not exactly clear as to the meaning of those observations, especially when I compare them with those of the Prime Minister to the effect that Canada's attitude is subject to approval by parliament. When I think back to the time of the abdication of King Edward VIII, I remember distinctly the decision was made before parliament was called to give its approval. In view of that fact it would seem to me the Prime Minister's statement that Canada's attitude is subject to approval by parliament would mean that the government could commit the country, and then would call parliament to decide. We know enough about politics, from our short experience in the house, to know that parliament would decide in favour of the government's action, especially at a time when the government had the majority enjoyed by the present one. Otherwise they would lose their

jobs, or political pressure could be brought to bear upon them to have them agree with government policy.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: We would all lose our jobs-the whole parliament.


Charles Edward Johnston: That is a point I should like to have cleared in my mind. Would parliament be called before commitments were made, or in the event of a crisis arising would the government say that Canada is going to take part in a war, and have the stage all set before it called parliament to make a decision? I am not making these observations in any spirit of criticism of the Prime Minister, but I should like to have settled in my own mind the question whether parliament would be called before commitments were made, or whether it would not be called until after they had been made.
Probably a plebiscite would be more suitable in the event of a crisis.


An hon. MEMBER:: How long would that
take?


Charles Edward Johnston: With our present methods of news distribution I should think one or two weeks would be sufficient. Certainly it would not take longer than that. A crisis would not come on us so suddenly that we would not have two weeks to spare.
I am in accord with the statement made not long ago, I believe by the Prime Minister, that before Canada can remain neutral it must have a proper defence force. I have said on other occasions that our defences should be adequate, and I am still of that opinion. I do not believe we should sit back and await the protection of the United States. If we are to decide whether or not we shall take part in a war, then we should be in a position to participate to the best advantage in a war. Certainly we cannot do that if we have only a few of those little pop-guns on the Pacific coast. We should have a proper defence force and defence policy.
But, somebody says, " That will cost money." Well, suppose it does cost money; when people's lives are at stake, money should not be considered seriously. And, speaking of money, if there is anything I deplore it is profiteering in war materials. The Prime Minister aptly referred to blood-money. Referring to profits on war supplies the Prime Minister is reported at page 2426 of Hansard as follows:
One political fact is equally clear: In a war to save the liberty of others, and thus our own, we should not sacrifice our own liberty or our own unity.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
With that I am fully in accord.
Planning and coordination would be essential, but the necessary coordination could be made, and if this government were in power-
And I would draw the attention of the house to the fact that it is in power with one of the greatest majorities it ever had, or ever will have.
-it would be made, without sacrificing those vital ends and conditions of our existence.
And this is the part with which I am particularly concerned:
Profits could and would be rigidly controlled

With the emphasis on " could and would."
-and profiteering suppressed. But men's lives and men's wills cannot be put on the same basis as goods and profits.
It would seem from some of the facts which have been disclosed in connection with the Bren gun contract, and some information revealed in regard to other contracts, where there was a five per cent limit on profits, that there is room for some consideration of this question. I 'believe some people in Canada are under the impression that from now on only five per cent profits will be made. Yet we have learned in the house that this provision applies to only a very small proportion of the contracts. On the others extremely large profits will be made.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, just before six o'clock I had referred to a passage from the Prime Minister's speech in which he said that " profits could and would be rigidly controlled, and profiteering suppressed." That was when war broke out. But it was most clear, I said, that profiteering was going on at the present time. One would infer that the Prime Minister himself was well aware of that fact when he stressed that, should war break out, profits could and would be rigidly controlled. But instead of waiting until these huge profits, or blood-money as the Prime Minister so aptly described them, have been accumulated, it seems to me that now is the proper time to curtail them; and that should not be an impossibility because, to use the Prime Minister's own words again, these profits could and would be controlled. It is no use trying to camouflage the thing and passing out propaganda that we are now, through the creation of the defence purchasing board, controlling profits in the manufacture of munitions. By that legislation we have said
that profits shall foe limited to five per cent, *but anyone who knows anything about it knows that the five per cent limitation applies to only a small proportion of the contracts to foe let. Also, there are other ways in which profits can be made. I have a clipping here from the Calgary Albertan of November 17, 1938, describing certain conditions which I was very much surprised to think could possibly exist. It says:
There is nothing spectacular in our commonplace British souls and whenever we try to stage-manage anything it is sure to come a cropper. You recall the dream of the Munich telegram which arrived at the conclusion of the Chamberlain speech following Godesberg which was ending in gloom and dismay. The Prime Minister took the telegram handed so dramatically from Halifax at the very right moment, read the message, "I have been invited by Herr Hitler to meet him in Munich." It needs only a sentimental Beverly Baxter to describe the sequel, the emotion, the applause, the turmoil, the "good old Nevilles," the tears that were shed by bucketfuls by strong men and such like.
What will you say to me or do to me if I tell you that it was all stage-managed and that the telegram had been received hours before and Chamberlain and quite a number of others knew of it?
"Critic," one of the editors of the New Statesman writes, "The Munich meeting was announced on the Italian radio Wednesday morning: I know a city man who received information in the morning from the private secretary of one of the members of the French cabinet that there would be no war and that he could make pots of money if he went ahead before Chamberlain's speech: the same information came over the 'phone in the morning from a big bank in Switzerland: and a good many people knew-I do not mean guessed-while Mr. Chamberlain was speaking that the speech was to end in peace and not war."
Another bit of drama gone to the scrap-heap. It pains me to say anything approving of the Hitlerites, but Goebbels could have managed it better than that.
If such conditions as those are to exist, it is beyond all reason. I do not say that is what actually took place, but I do say that under our present method of producing war supplies it might easily happen right here in Canada. We know beyond a doubt that during the last war there were many millionaires made here in Canada and they never became millionaires by going overseas and fighting for SI .10 a day. The Prime Minister says that when war breaks out, profits can and will be controlled. Why is it not done now? That is a question all Canadians are asking, and rightly so. Why should men be asked to go overseas and fight for SI.10 a day when others are permitted to make huge profits out of the manufacture of munitions? It is no good passing the thing off and saying: We will do it when war breaks out. Then it will be too late, for the profits will have been
2532	COMMONS
Foreign Policy-Mr. Johnston (Bow River)
accumulated. Then we shall be waving the flag of patriotism and urging the ordinary man to go and fight for his country for $1.10 a day. Is it any wonder that a man came into my office the other day and said, when I asked him if he would fight in another war, "What for? I have no country to fight for. Canada does not even give me a job so that I can feed my wife and family." But we will wave the flag of patriotism in front of him to get him to fight for $1.10 a day, while large profits are being made by others from munitions. I say now is the time to control the profits. We should not wait until war breaks out and then have the Prime Minister say: "Profits will be controlled."


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My hon. friend is drawing an entirely erroneous inference from those words. The fact that reference is made to a period of war does not mean that the same rule will not apply at all times. It certainly will, but the particular context from which the hon. member quoted a sentence relates to a war period. Because it relates to a war period it does not follow that a different course would be followed in a time of peace. Such certainly was never intended.


Charles Edward Johnston: Such control was not exercised in the last war, and the evidence is most conspicuous by its absence that control of profits is being exercised now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not
true. My hon. friend has before him now a bill expressly framed for the purpose of curtailing profits and preventing profiteering in the manufacture of munitions. So how can he say that there is no such endeavour being made at the present time?


Charles Edward Johnston: There is
a bill limiting profits to five per cent, but that limitation applies only to a very special kind of contract. If that legislation were broadened to cover the whole field of munitions production, I would say the Prime Minister was to be commended. He would certainly have my support if he made the declaration to-day that no profits over five per cent would be allowed in any shape or form of munitions contract, and I think this house would be one hundred per cent behind him. Why wait until it is too late?
I have received a number of letters and resolutions not only from my own constituency but from all over the country, asking for an embargo on the export of war materials, and may I say that I am in hearty accord with that course. I cannot for the life of me understand why last year-I have not checked up on it this year-the dominion

government issued something like 196 permits for the export of manufactured war materials. We send them not only to China but even to Japan, a country which we probably may be fighting some day. We send them to Germany and to the United States. Surely the United States does not need them. No, they are shipped in a roundabout way to different warring nations. I think it is only a fair and reasonable request, Mr. Speaker, that the government should place an embargo on manufactured war materials including the exportation of copper, nickel and other metals which go into their manufacture. Why, we are even exporting scrapiron right now, which without any trouble can be put into munitions to blow us all to pieces. And we call that sound financing of war!
I said before the house rose at six o'clock that we should have a proper defence for this country, and I am quite convinced of that. We should have an adequate defence. But the question of financing the manufacture of armaments must be settled soon. I cannot see how this nation can go on continually destroying the substance of our country and ever expect to get out of the dilemma in which we find ourselves. Great Britain has already announced that her taxes will be increased to provide for her armament program. Her armaments estimates have doubled and trebled, and now they are talking in billions for armaments. Here in Canada last year our defence estimates amounted to $35,000,000, and this year it is $65,000,000, or just about double.
It was aptly said the other evening by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) that if war broke out, new methods would be found overnight for financing the war. Apparently we can find money for that purpose, if for nothing else. Where is this mad race going to lead us? Continually we borrow money, increase the national debt and increase taxes. Surely there must be some conclusion to this, some end reached, unless we are to accept the attitude expressed the other day by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) when he said in effect, "Why worry about the national debt; coming generations will find some method of solving that trouble and we need not bother about it. Maybe that is the proper method; maybe it is the sound and logical course, when we are sitting pasv sively on the brink of war. But to my mind this whole business testifies to the bankruptcy of modern politics. Politics must be changed; if we are to get an}rwhere in building up the defence of Canada a new system must be found. I venture to say that if the

Foreign Policy-Mr. MacNeil
onus were put upon the Bank of Canada to finance this defence program without increasing either taxation or the national debt they would do it, because I believe we in Canada have sufficient brains-if we have not, God help us-to find some new method whereby this financing can be done.
It is a foregone conclusion that we shall be asked-indeed, we are being asked-to finance the whole program on borrowed money. We are going to increase the national debt by leaps and bounds. We are going to heap more taxes upon the people, -which means necessarily a lower standard of living, resulting in increased unemployment and intensified dissatisfaction, all of which will by no means tend to that national unity of which we hear so much. Surely if there ever were a time when unity was needed, it is now. If, as has been so often declared in this chamber, the present is a national emergency, why not face the facts as they are? Why not order the Bank of Canada to do something about the matter, and then let the Prime Minister put into effect his promise, made in 1935, that he was going to issue currency and credit in terms of public need. Surely the defence of our country, when the very lives of our citizens depend upon it, is a national emergency, and if ever there were a time when it was needful to have money issued in terms of public need, and not borrowed, now is the time; we should not wait to do it until we get into a war. On the old system of "sound" finance we could not finance another war if we tried to, we would be bankrupt in no time. As the Minister of Finance said, other means would have to be found overnight.
Let us look at the situation in some other countries. Whether we like it or not, we should fairly and squarely ask ourselves; How did Germany manage to get into the position she now holds? After 1918 she was the most downtrodden nation in existence. To-day she ranks among the greatest powers in the world. Did she accomplish all this by "sound" finance? I hardly think so. No nation would give her credit, no nation would even trade with her. She was forced to operate on a new system, and she did it most effectively, so much so that we in Canada and people in other countries are wondering how it came about. If we have not now the intelligence to stop and consider how Germany was able to achieve her present position, then there must be something wrong with us mentally because before long we shall have to look these facts in the face. How did Italy conquer Ethiopia? Was it done on "sound" finance? I think not. These are considerations which are facing us
directly; here are problems which, sooner or later, we must settle.
We possess in this country all the things we require for a proper, adequate and efficient defence. Canada is considered to be one of the richest countries in the world in respect of natural resources, including materials which can be converted into weapons of war. There is no question that we have an unlimited supply of labour. There are thousands of unemployed walking the streets; ninety-nine per cent of them are only too eager to get employment; they would take a job at a moment's notice if they were given sufficient wages to keep their families. Thus we have material and labour in abundance. Surely we have the brains to bring them together; the only thing lacking seems to be money, which is just a means to an end, yet we are forever increasing the burdens on the people because we have not sufficient intelligence to sit down together and solve that one problem of money. When that is solved, the other difficulties will rectify themselves. We could build a wonderful defence system in this country. If we have arrived at a position where it is necessary for us to arm-and that seems to be the opinion of some-we cannot be hampered by those who sit in control of money; we must set aside their opposition and see to it that every possible means is used, and we can build in this country a defence second to none without increasing the taxes or adding to the burdens of our people. Until such time as that is done-and the present time is, I think, most opportune-we shall never have a really united Canada.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: In opening this debate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred to the desirability of maintaining unity in Canada, and also referred to the circumstances under which the Canadian people were being made aware of world trends and the effect of world trends on the security of Canada. The tragic feature of the situation, in view of the stimulus which has been given to public thinking in this regard, is that all efforts to determine and give expression to public opinion are in vain; for Canada has not yet claimed the right to determine its own foreign policy. I consider that we are now without a clear-cut foreign policy very largely because we have not asserted our legal right, guaranteed to us in 1926, by which we might determine on our own behalf our own external relations.
Our constitutional difficulties were ably explained this afternoon and on a previous occasion by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson). I desire to congratulate him

Foreign Policy-Mr. MacNeil
warmly upon the contribution he has made to this debate. Whether hon. members agree with him or not, they must admit that he has brought our thinking into focus on this vital subject; and when I heard him this afternoon advance his views against the criticism that his point of view was merely academic and also might be construed as anti-British in character, I thought of the remarks of Professor Corbett, who takes a similar point of view, and to whom reference has already been made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). Professor Corbett, in a recent broadcast and in an attempt to define his approach to this subject, said;
All that I plead is that we shall not accept our ideas on these vital matters in ready-made, inherited patterns. I am no rebel; for if I assert the democratic right of sober, frank statement, I am content also to abide by that other rule of democracy which requires obedience to the majority when once it has declared itself. When I say this, I speak not as one who has only contemplated from an armchair the lengths to which such obedience may lead one. I speak as one who knows from intimate personal experience the ultimate requirements of citizenship.
Evidently Professor Corbett spoke as an ex-service man, as did the hon. member for Selkirk this afternoon. I am in accord with the principle of self-determination in these matters as enunciated by the hon. member for Selkirk, largely because it is democratic and is a sane and logical development of constitutional processes as they have evolved since the great war. Our status of nationhood is in very large measure on account of the fact that Canada participated in the great war.
I have another reason for supporting the principles advanced by the hon. member for Selkirk, and I find these also expressed in clear and lucid language by Professor Corbett in the same broadcast, in which he said:
As I see things, there has not since 1931 been any intelligent direction to British foreign policy. It is a series of haphazard expedients. That is why I no longer care to see this country involved willy-nilly in the devious course which Downing street pursues. ... It may be that the United Kingdom will never be involved in a war in which this country might not join with a whole heart and a clear conscience. But to my mind it is no longer right to take that for granted. The consequences-of Britain's present course are too hopelessly unpredictable.
Nor is it enough that, as everyone knows, we already have the right on paper to abstain from active participation. Passive belligerency is still a state of war and exposes us to all the measures of war taken by Britain's enemy. Freedom to be neutral in the full technical sense is what we need. Only so, when crisis comes, can we really decide for ourselves how far we shall allow ourselves to be involved.
Having that freedom we should be in a position really to influence the course of British action.

Such a position is entirely in accord with democratic principles. Much of the loyalty or patriotism I hear expressed is Simon-pure colonialism that belongs to a bygone era. We have acquired a certain status of nationhood and we should assert our legal rights with respect to that status. It is impossible for us to attempt to encourage democracy in one compartment of our national life and stifle it in another, and I consider it the very essence of democracy that we should assert our rights in this regard.
Some reference has been made to knight-errantry abroad in the name of democracy. I suggest that, if we are required to consider the possibilities of armed conflict abroad in the name of democracy, we should take special care that our democracy at home is not destroyed in the process. It is not compatible with my conception of democracy that we should sign a blank cheque for Downing street and later fill in the blank with Canadian lives. But at the moment I do not intend to follow the arguments of the hon. member for Selkirk, but will suggest other practical steps that should be taken at this time with regard to Canadian control over acts of participation in external war.
If, as the Prime Minister suggests, we should not regard war as inevitable but at the same time should prepare to defend ourselves against invasion, it is quite as logical that we should scrutinize with greater care than ever before the articles of war for Canada, the legal mechanism by which Canada may be involved in war. I might suggest a number of practical steps that may be taken at this time without jeopardizing in any way commonwealth relations or without offering any crumb of comfort to potential enemies.
I suggest that steps should be taken now to ensure that we have definite parliamentary control over the armed forces of the dominion, and that we should ensure by statute prior parliamentary sanction for any act of participation in external war or any commitment in regard thereto. I also suggest that by enactment we should restrict the power now vested in the governor general to impose compulsory military service on the male inhabitants of Canada and place authority for general compulsory mobilization solely with parliament. I think it would be well to examine the existing legislation constituting the articles of war for Canada. This legislation is found in the Militia Act of Canada, the Naval Service Act, and curiously enough, in the Army Act of Great Britain as well; for it is specified in the Militia Act of Canada that the Army Act of Great Britain shall have

Foreign Policy-Mr. MacNeil
the same force and effect in Canada as if it had been enacted by the parliament of Canada for the government of the militia.
The first point to which I wish to direct the attention of the house is that the command of the armed forces of this dominion is vested in the governor general. It is, of course, in accordance with the terms of the British North America Act that the command in chief of the armed forces should be vested in his majesty, but the Militia Act goes beyond that. It declares that the exercise of that authority shall be by his majesty or by the governor general as his representative. In the old act which existed prior to 1904 the word " personal " was used. It is noteworthy that the term governor general is used in this particular section, whereas in many other sections of the act the term " governor general in council " is used with regard to the exercise of such authority. It is also important to note that the preceding section relates to the Interpretation Act. It declares that the Interpretation Act shall apply to all regulations, orders and articles of engagement lawfully made under the Militia Act; and in the Interpretation Act a clear distinction is made between the governor general acting as the personal representative of his majesty and the governor general acting on the advice of his majesty's ministers in the dominion.
When this act was under discussion in 1904, parliament made very clear its intention with regard to the interpretation of this section. On that occasion parliament rejected an amendment which proposed that the prerogatives of the crown should be exercised only upon advice of his majesty's ministers in the dominion. At page 6403 of Hansard of July 11, 1904, Mr. Bourassa moved the following amendment, that the act should be amended to read:
The command in chief of the militia is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the king and shall be exercised and administered by the governor general in council.
That amendment was rejected by parliament at that time, leaving no doubt as to the intention that the prerogatives of the crown in this respect might be exercised by the governor general in person. Mr. Bourassa at that time said that the issue was whether parliament should declare that the control of the militia was vested in the governor general personally or in the Canadian government. He pointed out the danger that these words might be interpreted for purposes other than those for which they were intended, and he definitely referred to an interpretation of the law repeated in the presence of Lord Minto when acting as governor general of Canada four years previously, when it was declared in the 71492-160
presence of his excellency that he might on his own authority take personal command of the armed forces of the dominion. The late Sir Robert Borden in his memoirs refers to a definite conflict between himself and His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught on that issue. At that time his royal highness, acting as governor general, said his authority involved something more than merely nominal command of the armed forces of Canada.
The wording of the statute assumes importance when it is noted that the governor general and not the governor in council is given power to impose compulsory military service, and the Army Act of the United Kingdom is made applicable to the forces of the dominion.
This was brought out more clearly during the great war. I quote from the official war history in reference to the status of the Canadian expeditionary force. It says:
That the Canadian expeditionary force was offered by Canada, and raised by the governor general by order of his majesty the king, had been plain enough since August, 1914; not until September, 1916, was the status understood to be that of Canadian volunteer militia on active service, employed in defending their country abroad. Every member of the force had been previously enrolled in a unit of the militia, a term defined ever since 1904 in the Militia Act as embracing all the military forces of Canada. Each was separately attested in the Canadian expeditionary force, and was equipped and paid by the Canadian government in fulfilment of the implication of the simple two-party agreement then made between each man and King George V.
Clearly the terms of enlistment were a direct contract between each member of the Canadian expeditionary force and his majesty. That should be cleared up. I see no reason why, in view of the present constitutional status of Canada, we should not have in this important statute, which assumes increasing importance as the international tension increases, a clear cut declaration of the rights of the government of Canada with respect to control of the armed forces of the dominion. There should be no ambiguity on this point.
Moreover we should examine the Militia Act in the light of present-day events. The Militia Act to-day clearly states that all the male inhabitants of Canada between the ages of eighteen and sixty are liable to military service, unless exempt or disqualified by law.
Provided that the governor general-
And here it says the governor general, not the governor in council.
-may require all the male inhabitants of Canada capable of bearing arms, to serve in the case of a lev6e en masse.
For this purpose the act now declares that all the male inhabitants of Canada shall be


[Stage Direction]
Foreign Policy-Mr. MacNeil
divided into four classes: first, single men between eighteen and thirty and widowers without children; second, those between thirty and forty-five being single or widowers without children, and so on. And it says that the said classes shall be called upon to serve in the order specified.
The act goes on to say that the active militia shall consist of corps raised by voluntary enlistment and corps raised by ballot. Provision is made that the governor in council may determine the necessary military establishment for Canada, and if that establishment cannot be brought up to strength by voluntary enlistment the governor in council has power to draft men by ballot. For that purpose the country is divided into military districts, and the district officer commanding may be authorized to take such steps as are necessary to draft men into the service. Full power to enact the required regulations in this respect is vested in the governor in council. A curious feature is that there is an obsolete provision in this statute, whereby a man may secure exemption from military service if he provides a satisfactory substitute. As the Army Act of Great Britain applies as though enacted by the parliament of Canada, it was contended during 1917 by eminent members of the legal profession that a man might purchase release from service upon payment of ten pounds sterling. The Army Act was referred to in the regulations only recently promulgated under the authority of order in council P.C. 2974, dated November 29, 1938, in respect of those regulations applying to the Canadian force for the enforcement of discipline. So it follows, I think, that the incorporation of the Army Act of Great Britain in the Militia Act of Canada confers power upon the military authorities to court-martial and shoot a man for desertion or cowardice or evasion of military duty. We know that under the Army Act Canadians were executed during the great war.
The sections relating to compulsory military service originated in the Militia Act, 1868, as introduced by Sir George Cartier. It was stated then that all the male inhabitants of Canada constituted the militia. That principle was modified to some extent in 1904 when it said that all the male inhabitants of Canada were liable to military service. This point was raised by Sir Robert Borden in 1917. Parliament in 1868 rejected an amendment proposing that the forces of the dominion should be recruited by voluntary enlistment. At that time the feature of compulsory military sendee on the French pattern was incorporated in the Canadian law and

has remained the law of the land to this day. This principle was referred to by Sir Robert Borden on the first reading of the Military Service Act in 1917. On that occasion he attempted to refute the charge that he had broken any promise previously made to the Canadian people that he would not impose compulsory military service in Canada. He also attempted to refute the charge that he was introducing the Military Service Act of 1917 at the dictation of the British government. -He referred to the principles incorporated in the act dating back to 1868, and the fact that on division parliament then rejected the amendment proposing voluntary enlistment in 1868, and he said this, which I think it is important to place on record at this time:
It must be apparent, therefore, that the whole question of compulsory service was taken into consideration by the founders of confederation in almost the first session of this parliament, and that then it was decided, once for all, that for the defence of this country, and whether within or out of Canada, the people of this country should be subject to compulsory military service. And this has remained the law of the country from the day it was enacted in 1868 and it is the law of the land to-day.
And he says further:
Now let us look for a moment at the provisions of the Militia Act, which was passed in its present form in 1904, and which is now known as chapter 41 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906.
And he quotes sections 10 and 69, to which I have referred, section 69 reading:
69. The governor in council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency.
Sir Robert Borden then said:
Hon. members will observe that there is a slight difference in the provisions of section 69 from the corresponding section of the act of 1868, that is, section 61. There was some debate in 1904 upon that change, and to this I will come a little later. Meantime I desire to point out that this enactment is based upon the principle, which is as old as the principle of self-government, that while the state owes to its citizens certain duties, the citizens also owes corresponding duties to the state. To the citizen the state assures protection and security of his person and property, the enforcement of law and orderly government. To the state each citizen owes a duty of service, and the highest duty of all is the obligation to assist in defending the rights, the institutions and the liberties of his country. I desire to express my profound conviction that there never has been, and there never will be, an occasion when that duty could be more manifest, more urgent, and more imperative than at the present time.

Foreign Policy-Mr. MacNeil
And he says:
It may be asked: Why is this law necessary if such provision already exists in the Militia Act?
He is referring to .the Military Service Act, 1917.
The answer is very simple. We have sent 326,000 men overseas in the Canadian expeditionary force besides those who have gone to serve in the allied armies. The Militia Act provides that the selection shall be by ballot and in no other way. The government is convinced that such a method of selection would be unwise and even disastrous, under present conditions and having regard to the number of men required. We propose not to change or enlarge the compulsory principle, but merely to provide that selection shall not be made by ballot, that is, by blind chance. We are convinced that the selection should be based upon an intelligent consideration of the country's needs and conditions.
On March 30, at page 2426 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
The present government believes that conscription of men for overseas service would not be a necessary or an effective step. Let me say that so long as this government may be in power, no such measure will be enacted.
I suggest that if the Prime Minister means what he says with regard to conscription or compulsory military service in Canada, he should during the present session of parliament take steps to amend the Militia Act and the Naval Service Act, and should introduce an Army Act for Canada in the right of the dominion that will make it clear that parliament has definite control over military service and acts of participation in external wars. The question to some extent relates to that introduced by the hon. member for Selkirk.
I should like to make one further point. There can be no doubt, I think, about the interpretation of the existing provisions of the Militia Act. That interpretation was made clear by the parliament of Canada in the preamble to the Military Service Act of 1917, which reads:
Whereas by section ten of the Militia Act, chapter forty-one of the revised statutes of Canada, 1906, it is enacted as follows:
"All the male inhabitants of Canada, of the age of eighteen years and upwards, and under sixty, not exempt or disqualified by law, and being British subjects, shall be liable to service in the militia:	Provided that the governor
general may require all the male inhabitants of Canada, capable of bearing arms, to serve in the case of a levee en masse;"
And whereas by section sixty-nine of the said act it is further enacted as follows:-
"The governor in council may place the militia, or any part thereof, on active service anywhere in Canada, and also beyond Canada, for the defence thereof, at any time when it appears advisable so to do by reason of emergency:"
And whereas by the said act it is further enacted that, if at any time enough men do not volunteer to complete the quota required, the men so liable to serve shall be drafted by ballot;
And whereas to maintain and support the Canadian expenditionary force now engaged in active service overseas for the defence and security of Canada, the preservation of the empire and of human liberty, it is necessary to provide reinforcements for such expeditionary force;
And whereas enough men do not volunteer to provide such reinforcements;
And whereas by reason of the large number of men who have already left agricultural and industrial pursuits in Canada to join such expeditionary force as volunteers . . .
Then it goes on to give further reasons for the enactment of the Military Service Act. We were informed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that this act lapsed at the conclusion of the great war; but the Militia Act of Canada is still in force, and if a war broke out to-morrow I' see no escape from this interpretation which has been placed upon that act by the parliament of Canada. Furthermore, the Naval Service Act now in force provides that the governor in council may place the naval services of Canada at the disposal of his majesty for general service with the royal navy. That also confers power upon the executive to engage or participate in acts of external warfare without reference to parliament.
It may seem that I am drawing the longbow in this matter, but I should like to take a few minutes to give the time-table of events that occurred in August, 1914, by which Canada was, under the legislation to which I have just referred, committed, without reference to parliament, on every essential point to participation in external war. On July 30 a special meeting of the militia council considered tentative preparations for a first contingent of 25,000 men overseas. On July 31 all military districts were warned to make plans for an overseas contingent. On August 1-and remember, war was declared on August 4, while parliament did not meet until August 18-the British government was assured that in the event of war Canada would make every sacrifice for the empire, and H.M.C.S. Rainbow was made available for the protection of trade routes. On August 2 a proposal was made to the British government to render aid in the event of war by sending Canadian units overseas. On the same day the Rainbow received orders from the admiralty to proceed south and guard the trade routes. On August 4 the governor general proclaimed that Canada was in a state of war. On the same date an order in council was passed under the authority of the Naval Service Act
Foreign Policy-Mr. MacNeil
[Stage Direction]
of Canada placing the naval services of this country on active service and at the disposal of his majesty for service with the royal navy. On August 5 the Canadian militia, by order in council, were required to complete training under section 52 of the Militia Act. On the same date the Canadian government cabled the British government asking for an imperial order bringing Canadian volunteers under sections 175 and 176 of the Army Act, as provided in the Militia Act. On the same date the Rainbow received further orders, to which I shall refer later.
Then, on August 6, the British government cabled its acceptance of the offer of an expeditionary force and urged that it be dispatched as soon as possible. On the same date an order in council was passed authorizing the raising and equipping of militia units composed of officers and men willing to volunteer for service overseas under the British crown. On August 7 the British government cabled that one division would be a suitable composition for the expeditionary force. On August 9 a cable was received in Canada by the governor general, indicating that His Majesty the King had ordered "that the troops offered by Canada shall be raised by your royal highness for service as expeditionary force." On August 10 an order in council authorized the composition of an overseas expeditionary force. On August 11 the adjutant general instructed all officers commanding that volunteers for the overseas contingent must be enlisted immediately in the Canadian militia, enlistment in the contingent to be carried out at Valcartier. On August 15 the Minister of Militia speaking in Montreal said, "Canada is sending twenty thousand men to the front." Finally, on August 18 parliament met and in a few days passed the War Measures Act giving blanket ratification to all these steps already taken by the executive committing Canada to external war.
James Shaver Woodsworth: "Parliament will
decide."


Charles Grant MacNeil: Parliament had no alternative but to accept as irrevocable the steps already taken by the executive.
Perhaps I may now take a few minutes to tell the story of the Rainbow, which had been stationed at Esquimalt. It had been practically out of commission; I think it had put to sea once, in March, 1913. On August 1 the Rainbow received orders to prepare to put to sea to guard the trade routes north of the equator. It was rumored that the Leipzig and the Niimberg were preparing to raid shipping in the Pacific. The commander of the Rainbow-and I think this is important- when he received these orders on the second

or third of August, said that he considered it his duty to remain in the vicinity of the strait of Juan de Fuca in order to protect Canadian shipping, and that if he steamed in a southerly direction the Canadian ports of Victoria and Vancouver and Canadian shipping in those ports would be without defence. However, his recommendation was not approved and he was ordered to proceed to sea. At that time the Rainbow was without its full complement of officers and ratings. Even with the contingent that was rushed to the Pacific coast from the Niobe, out of an authorized complement of 273 they could muster only 121, of whom forty-four were without previous naval experience. The maximum speed of the Rainbow was sixteen knots; she was without the essential high-explosive ammunition and was proceeding to Vancouver to take on that ammunition when she received this message:
Received from admiralty. Begins. Niimberg and Leipzig reported August 4th off Magdalena bay steering north. Ends. Do your utmost to protect Algerine and Shearwater steering north from San Diego. Remember Nelson and the British navy. All Canada is watching.
Her course was then changed accordingly.
I salute the courage of the officers and men of the Rainbow, who by obedience to that order were sent to what seemed almost certain death. As I have said, the Rainbow had a maximum cruising speed of sixteen knots but could make only fourteen or fifteen knots- on account of leaking steam-joints. She was without high-explosive ammunition and without a full complement of men. Nevertheless, they proceeded to Seattle, where some difficulty was encountered in connection with coaling, and later went down the coast to San Francisco, searching for the Leipzig and the Niimberg. The Leipzig was a light modern cruiser with a maximum speed of twenty-three knots, and with guns which far outranged the Rainbow. The Rainbow missed the Leipzig by three hours in a fog-bank off the coast of San Francisco. That was a courageous act on the part of the men who manned the Rainbow, but little can be said in defence of those who issued the order with its jingoistic flourish: "Remember Nelson and the British navy.-All Canada is watching." That is another blunder in line with those committed by the general staff, with regard to which Sir Robert Borden, as has been revealed in his memoirs, found cause to protest in most vigorous language to the imperial war council. It was a stupid and melodramatic gesture which could easily have ended in disaster. The Rainbow, as I say, missed the Leipzig by only three hours off the coast of San Francisco. It returned to Vancouver, and after it

Foreign Policy-Mr. MacNeil
obtained high-explosive ammunition, for which no fuses were available, it was immediately ordered to put to sea again and engage the Leipzig, and guard trade routes off the coast of San Francisco.
I bring this to the attention of the house because it illustrates three points. The first is that by that order Canada was committed, without the consent of parliament, to an act of participation in external warfare. Of that there can be no doubt. The command to the Rainbow to put to sea to engage the Leipzig and the Niimberg was a belligerent act without any sanction having been given by parliament. It was an order carried out as issued from the admiralty.
The second point is that by reason of the fact that instructions were received under the provisions of the Naval Service Act of Canada, Canadian defence interests were neglected in order to protect two small British sloops which had been dispatched to the Pacific coast to guard seal fisheries.
The third point is that this stupid action illustrates the hopeless muddle in which we again may be placed if we do not clearly place under Canadian command our Canadian armed forces.
This is what actually happened under legislation which is now in force. I submit the unwillingness of the government to amend this legislation in a manner which will make it consonant with our present constitutional status indicates a readiness again to use that legislation if we face a war emergency. I direct the attention of the house to the fact that military writers close to the Department of National Defence have written articles frequently in the last year advocating compulsory military service, and pointing to the fact that in the existing provisions of the Militia Act and Naval Service Act there is ample power to impose military service on all male inhabitants of Canada.
It is said that parliament will decide. I think we should attempt to visualize what may happen. The Minister of Justice the other day went to some pains to explain the difficulties which lie in the way of any attempt to secure the right to neutrality. He did not describe to us what might actually occur if to-morrow Great Britain were involved in war. This has been described clearly in a pamphlet recently issued by a representative and nonpartisan committee. The pamphlet is entitled Canadian Unity in War and Peace. In part it states:
In practice, so long as the present doubt remains, the policy of "parliament will decide" would work out as follows. Let us assume that Great Britain declares war or that war
is declared upon her. For convenience let us call the enemy country State X. Certain consequences at once follow. Canada might immediately be considered the legal enemy of State X on the basis that Canada is at war when Britain is at war. If this did happen, all Canadian trade with State X might, therefore, be stopped, and Canadian or enemy ships clearing for its ports might be refused permission to leave Canadian harbours. "Trading with the enemy" is a crime under Canadian law. All contracts between Canadian corporations and nationals of State X might therefore be automatically dissolved. All this might occur in the interval between Great Britain's entry into the war and the assembling of the Canadian parliament.
In addition, on this view. State X immediately acquires certain legal rights against Canada. Canadian nationals in State X are liable to internment, Canadian property to confiscation, and Canadian ships to seizure. Such events would predetermine the decision of the Canadian parliament by confronting its members with numerous acts of war.
Now let us assume that the Canadian Prime Minister summons the Canadian parliament. This will probably take two weeks. Meanwhile the war progresses and British forces engage in battles on sea and in the air. The press might, on the supposition of automatic involvement, treat Canada as being at war. Canada would be flooded with war propaganda. Extensive preparatory measures would have to be taken by the Canadian Department of National Defence. Canada would be on a war footing and numerous acts of war involving Canadians would almost certainly have occurred before the M.P's reached Ottawa.
Then parliament opens. (The Canadian government may, of course, have announced at the outbreak of war that it intends to take an active part in hostilities, but if it does then it has gone back on the policy of leaving the decision to parliament.) The Prime Minister must then state a policy. If he intends to say, "Gentlemen. I recommend that we declare our neutrality at once," he will be too late. He will find himself entangled by the acts of war and the effects of propaganda. His policy is, therefore, likely to be predetermined for him. and be in effect an acceptance that Canada is at war and a recommendation for assistance to Great Britain. No one believes that he could maintain a position of passive belligerency.
Thus the policy of "parliament will decide" can only mean leaving parliament to decide the amount of the initial grant of money and men for a war already in its third week, not leaving parliament to decide whether or not Canada should enter the war.
And, I would add, by references to the existing Canadian legislation, the governor in council would undoubtedly declare a state of emergency. They would undoubtedly call out the active militia of Canada, and certainly would exercise their power to place Canada in a proper state of defence. But they would also have power, and would probably be under pressure to exercise it, to place the naval and air services in Canada at the disposal of his majesty for service abroad. They would probably be under pressure, and would have auth-
Foreign Policy-Mr. MacNeil

ority to place the militia of Canada available for service abroad-that is, without Canada- for the defence thereof.
They would use exactly the same arguments used by Sir Robert Borden in 1917, when he said, " Clearly a state of emergency exists, and clearly our front line is in France and Belgium." To-day it may be said that if we are thrown into a war, because of British commitments with regard to the Polish frontier, we are in a state of emergency, and that therefore our frontier is coincident with the Polish frontier. That authority exists in these statutes. Furthermore, the power is vested in the governor general to impose compulsory military service on Canada.
I strongly urge, as I did before, that without delay we remove all ambiguity on this vital question, and that action be taken by the government to overhaul and revise these various acts which constitute the articles of war for Canada. .
In conclusion, I would quote the last paragraph of the document to which I referred a moment ago, which was issued by a representative and official committee. I find occasion to agree with the principle expressed therein.
Canadian control over Canadian war policy would merely complete a century of gradual development of democratic control over all aspects of Canada's domestic and foreign affairs. To assert this final democratic right is a natural conclusion to her development into a sovereign nation, linked by feelings of sentiment and a common crown to other British peoples.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would the hon. member tell us the names of the members of that committee?


Charles Grant MacNeil: It is a large and representative group of business men, professional men and clergymen. The list contains fifty or sixty names of people from various points in Canada.


Mr. A. G. McAVITY (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, forty-two years ago, speaking at an imperial conference in London, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
England has proved at all times that she can fight her owm battles, but if the day v'ere ever to come when England was in danger, let the bugle sound, let the fires be lit on the hills, and in all parts of the colonies, though we might not he able to do much, whatever we can do shall be done by the colonies to help her.
England did call in 1901, and Canada sent 8,400 men to South Africa. In that number were included the immortal Strathcona Horse, with men and horses, who proved their ability on the field of battle. She sent batteries which were also efficient, and soldiers who were particularly well adapted to that kind
lMr. MacNeil.]
of fighting. But not much in volume of supplies was furnished. But Canada was then in her infancy.
England called again in 1914, and when the bugles sounded and the fires were lit on the hills, forth from her hills and forests, from forge and pit and factory, Canada's man power flocked to the colours-628,000 strong they marched, resourceful, brave, intrepid. They arrived as "bally colonials." They emerged pals and comrades with their English cousins at the peace conference. Canada thus became a nation before that status was confirmed in 1931 at Westminster. Her sons who served in the great war won that honour for her on the field of battle.
Canada's ability to supply not only food, clothing and equipment, but also munitions to the value of over one billion dollars in the great war was a big surprise to England. To-day no one knows Canada's capacity in this regard. It is not a war secret; we just do not know ourselves. If England in her congested areas should suffer from air raiders it is quite likely that Canada alone might supply all her air requirements. In this respect England is fortunate because she has Canada and Australia both embarked already on a great aeroplane construction program, making a type of heavy bombing machine which could be flown across the ocean, if necessary, if the transportation lines were crowded or impaired.
In 1940, co-protectors of liberty for the democracies of north America, surely it is our duty to defend Canada's coast-lines without aid from John Bull or Uncle Sam. If Canada has reached the age of consent-and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson) says she has-then she must without a chaperone in this twentieth century rely on her own resources to take the glorious place in history for which we believe she is destined. If we remain true to the blood of our forefathers, French and English, Scotch and Irish, we shall not stand idly by while the United States arms for defence.
As the fourth largest exporting nation and the sixth largest producer in the world, it is within our power to make Canada's comparatively short coast-lines as safe from attack as the rest of America. That is clearly our prime duty. Beyond that, we have vast resources for which there should be a plan of mobilization. So long as we have any unemployed, volunteers might be assisted, perhaps urged, but never coerced, to join the empire forces for service abroad if needed.
There must foe no conscription of men, and there can be no conscription of industry. No army squad under the best sergeant-major,

Foreign Policy-Mr. McAvity
directed by supermen in brass hats, can tune up the wheels of industry like the men who in peace-time make mass production their specialty. If army officers should try to march in and run any Canadian factory, the owners would probably march out. Look to America for light on this question of the mobilization of civilian resources for war. Louis Johnson, assistant secretary for war for the United States, is planning for war-time mobilization of United States industry, and behind him the best brains in that country are planning mobilization of capital and labour and of all supplies, so that the entire resources of the nation may be lined up if an emergency arises. The democracies to-day should adopt the boy scout motto-" Be prepared." Franklin D. Roosevelt had the United States navy prepared and ready in 1917. I called, shortly after the United States had entered the war, at the ordnance department of the United States navy, and I was told by the admiral in charge of ordnance that there was no rush in that department, no congestion, no confusion. During his period of office as under-secretary of the navy, Franklin D. Roosevelt sent word to the best manufacturers in the United States, and had them come in and prepare contracts which were all complete except for signature, so that the moment war was declared, telegrams confirmed the contracts and everything was ready in the navy ordnance department. But it was not so in the army.
It did not cost much to put that preparedness plan into effect. National defence does cost and is costing all nations an appalling sum to-day. But modern war, if it comes, will need more than can be provided by any department of national defence alone. The whole resources of the nation must be planned and organized. The contest in the final analysis will be between one set of manufacturing resources and another. England is fortunate in having her scattered democracies comparatively safely situated, rich in resources, with Australia and Canada at least having a good supply of skilled workmen available.
I want to quote from the Congressional Digest what Bernard M. Baruch said before the senate committee on military affairs:
We have learned that modern war is not the impact of a few men. The whole nation, with its every resource, must be thrown against the enemy. The welfare of the civilian population must be systematically provided for as well as that of the soldiers. . . .
A modern war effort, with responsibilities and safeguards equally distributed, comprises these three things:
1.	Raising and training the fighting manpower.
2.	Equipment and supplying of the same with fighting materials and with transportation, with payment as you go to the fullest extent possible.
3.	Protection of the civilian population against rising living costs due to inflation by holding down prices for materials and services in connection with number 2.
The raising and training of the fighting man power is clearly a technical question to be left to the technical officers of the army, navy and air force. The equipment and supplying of the same with fighting materials is clearly a civilian affair to be handled by civilians.
As to the third item, the protection of the civilian population against rising living costs, during the last war the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett acted as chairman, without pay, of the national service council, but in New Brunswick Captain L. P. Tilley acted as director for that province at $250 a month. I submit that we need something more substantial if we are faced with another like emergency.
The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) made some observations about profits in the manufacture of munitions. In that connection I should like to quote again from Mr. Baruch. Speaking in 1937-and some progress has been made since that time -Mr. Baruch said:
May I add just one more warning note? A phrase much heard is "take the profit out of war." I, myself, have used that phrase so often that sometimes I think I invented it. Yet one must realize that it expresses an ideal rather than an actual goal. Taxes of all kinds should be increased. Profits should be only what are necessary to get what we need for the army and civilians. Profits can be kept down well below peace-time levels, but they cannot be abolished. Let no one mislead you on that score. To attempt to abolish all profit would mean another attempt to embark upon a sea of economic experiment that has never been successfully navigated. Our whole industrial and economic machine is built and geared to run on profit and reward for personal initiative. There is no proof that it will run on psychology and much that it will not. Certainly, when the enemy is at our gates is not the hour to try to find out.
Certainly when the enemy is at our gates is not the hour to try to find out.
Mention was made of the enormous profits made by manufacturers in the last war. I want to say a word in that regard so far as it concerns the manufacture of shells. Prices were fixed, and they were fixed low. Any manufacturer who took an order for shells ran many risks. There was the risk of not getting machinery, the risk of not getting labour; labour prices rose; everything had to come by express; there was risk in the matter of inspection. If a manufacturer were
Foreign Policy-Mr. McAvity

fortunate in making any profit under these conditions, the Minister of Finance had the war tax to take it away from him. Therefore it was a case of "heads I win, tails you lose." If the manufacturer lost money nobody made it up to him, and if he made any profit it was taxed away from him.
There has been considerable talk both in England and in the United States, and I think the feeling is strong here, that the profits should be reduced to a minimum. The last word I have read on that is from Winston Churchill, who suggests that no one should come out of a war richer than he went in. He said:
This could be achieved by assessing the value of undertakings at the outbreak of war on the basis of the information available to the revenue department and by insisting that nobody should be better off at the end of the war than at the beginning. Hardships would arise in the case of businesses just about to expand but no man would have cause for complaint if he found himself at the end of the war as well off as he was at the beginning.
I want to say a few words about our local situation, at the port of Saint John.
Located on our eastern coast-line, Saint John is vulnerable to attack. Requests were made last week by our worthy mayor, Mr. D. L. MacLaren, and Squadron Leader Wendell W. Rogers for adequate and modern defences. These we hope and believe will be constructed without delay by order of the Minister of National Defence, (Mr. Mackenzie). If Great Britain is at war and Canada is supplying materials for war, who can doubt that enemy raiders will attempt continuously to cut off communication between Canada and the motherland, at the port of Saint John, with its docks, elevators, railway terminals, the bridge across the river, oil tanks, hospitals and general facilities. The Saint John dry dock is one of the largest in the world. I cannot see how the loyalist city of Saint John could ever be neutral if England were at war. Everyone knows how busy both Halifax and Saint John were during the last war. Earlier in the session I drew the attention of this house to the need for adequate storage warehouses, and a concise plan to be worked out in conjunction with the Department of National Defence for war-time use and protection of Atlantic ports. I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) to order that a plan be prepared for both Atlantic ports and direct railroad connection to both ports as an integral and essential part of Canada's scheme for defence. It will not cost much to prepare the plans, and it is easier to make them before an emergency arises.

I have just one last word. A small clipping I took from the New York Times quotes an item by Alexander Hamilton, written one hundred and fifty years ago. It is this:
A cloud has been for some time hanging over the European world. If it should break forth into a storm, who can ensure that in its progress a part of its fury would not be spent upon us?
The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by an adequate power. A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral.


Mr. MAXIM E RAYMOND (Beauharnois-Laprairie) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the problem of our external relations has always been very important, but the events of the last two years and1 of recent days have made it foremost.
Since about two years, rumours of war in Europe have been more or less current. Great Britain, by reason of its economic interests, cannot remain indifferent to developments which endanger her world markets; the possibility of her becoming involved in armed conflict as a result has given rise to the question of Canadian participation in empire wars.
The question is not a new one, but since the Statute of Westminster it has taken a new aspect, and it is important to solve it according to the spirit of this new charter.
It is at present a cause of uneasiness in this country, and if we do not want this uneasiness to continue, with regrettable consequences, it is essential that we should state our position in clear and unmistakable terms.
It is undeniable that the Canadian people are far from being unanimous on the attitude to take in the event of a war involving England. Whence comes the difference of opinion? It must be admitted that too many people do not want to think and act as true Canadians.
Reason, and not sentiment, should dictate the approach to the question, especially in a country peopled by subjects of diverse origins. For my part, it is as a Canadian purely and simply, and in the sole light of Canadian interests, that I intend to discuss it.
What should be our attitude in the event of a foreign war involving England? Our attitude should be dictated by our interest and by our determination to maintain peace at home and peace with other countries. Such is the attitude taken by the Prime Minister in the remarkable speech, stamped with Cana-dianism, which he delivered on the 24th of May last, at a time when the European situation was very tense:
In times of world disturbance, the policies of no two countries can be alike, provided they are rooted in their own interests or the ideals in which their interests are sublimated, and

Foreign Policy-Mr. Raymond
are not merely echoes of the policies of other our position in clear and unmistakeable terms, countries.
This is how the Prime Minister defined our external policy:
Our foreign and external policy is a policy of peace and friendliness, a policy of trying to look after our own interests. ... It is a policy which takes account of . . . our geographical situation, the limited numbers and the racial composition of our people, our stage in economic development, our own internal preoccupations and necessities-in short, a policy based on the Canadian situation.
And further:
We have neither the power nor the will to attack aiiy other land for our own ends. Nor are we inclined to organize or join in crusades in other continents. .	.	. We have neither
the power nor the knowledge to settle the destinies of countries thousands of miles away. We are no more likely of our own motion to intervene in Europe than Sweden or Bulgaria or Switzerland is to intervene in America.
All those who rejoice in the fact that Canada has become a free and sovereign nation and absolute mistress of her own policy, have greeted with satisfaction these clear and unequivocal statements.
According to the Prime Minister, our external policy was on May 24 last a policy of peace and friendliness based on our own interests and admitting of no probability of intervention in Europe. This attitude is in full accordance with the rule followed by all free peoples.
A few months later, on December 12th last, the Prime Minister of England made the following reply in the British House of Commons:
No treaty or agreement with France places us under any specific obligation to grant any military assistance to that country in the event of her being attacked by Italy.
And the following day, at the Foreign Press dinner, he stated in unmistakable terms England's position in regard to France:
Our relations with France go far beyond purely legal obligations; they are based on identity of interests.
It must not be forgotten, indeed, that national interests are often a better guarantee than treaties or ephemeral alliances.
To complete this argument, I shall quote the opinion of a prominent French author, Lucien Romier, who wrote as follows:
The state, in its relations with other states is the very expression of national egoism, and statesmen cannot rid themselves of this egoism without betraying their mandate.
As to the question of participation in an armed conflict involving the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister of Canada said in the same speech of May 24th last:
Parliament will decide upon our course.
And he quoted a previous statement made at Geneva in September 1936:
The Canadian parliament reserves to itself the right to declare, in the light of the circumstances existing at the time, to what extent, if at all, Canada will participate in conflicts in which other members of the commonwealth may be engaged.
And further:
The simple fact of being part of the British Empire does not necessarily involve us in a war in which other parts of the British Empire may be engaged.
There has apparently been a change since then. What has happened? Would it be due to the events of September last, which brought Europe within an ace of war?
However it may be, on January 16th last, the Prime Minister, speaking in the house, resurrected an old formula of colonial times which he adopted as his own:
When England is at war, we are at war and subject to attack.
That, to my mind, is a return to colonial days. What has become of the end so obstinately and successfully pursued since 1921 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) ?
On March 20th, in a carefully prepared statement, the Prime Minister anticipated the decision of Parliament in the event of there being a prospect of an aggressor bombing London from the air. And Friday last the Minister of Justice specified that the decision would be one of intervention.
Such a policy, in my opinion, implies Canada's participation in a European war; it is an invitation to aggression and a menace to national unity.	_
In the face of this situation, I wish to state to the house my views, which are those of the very great majority of the people I represent, as expressed in numerous resolutions. In this connection, I may point out that my constituency of Beauhamois-Laprairie comprises the county of Laprairie, formerly represented by Dominique Monet, who in 1899 opposed the sending of Canadian contingents to South Africa, and later on by Roch Lanctot, who was a strong opponent of military appropriations.
Why should we join in an extra-territorial war involving Great Britain? We have no legal obligation. We are free. The Prime Minister pointed this out on several occasions, notably in a speech which he delivered on July 19th, 1937, on his return from an imperial conference:
The delegates to the conference unanimously agreed on the full liberty of action of each government in the domain of foreign policy, of defence and in other matters. They also laid equal emphasis on the fact that their parliaments remained supreme in those fields.
Foreign Policy-Mr. Raymond

The then Prime Minister of England, Mr. Baldwin, had already recognized that:
The members of the British commonwealth of nations were absolutely free to decide for themselves upon their defence policy. (British House of Commons, February 22, 1937.)
On August 25, 1938, at Toronto, Lord Stanley, then Secretary for Dominion Affairs, stated:
Is Canada at war when Great Britain is at war? Certainly not. Canada makes her own decisions. She is a sovereign nation and decides for herself.
On December 5 last, in the British House of Commons, Mr. Chamberlain admitted that:
Canada has the right to decide for herself whether she should come to ;he assistance of Great Britain in case of attack.
Furthermore, the statute of Westminster gives Canada the right to avoid interfering in a war in which England takes part. We have no obligation-let us act accordingly.
Would we take part in an armed conflict in Europe, in Africa or in Asia, in order to serve our interest or the interest of the British empire?
It is agreed that every country must base and effectively bases its actions on its own interest. Well, I wonder what interest we would have to fight three or four thousand miles away from our frontiers. Surely it would not ibe to defend our territory; it is easier to protect ourselves at home rather than three to four thousand miles from our borders.
Would we go to war in order to satisfy a lust for conquest?
We have no territorial ambition. We have proved it during the war of 1914. We went to that war and came back from it. But that experience has cost us, so far, approximately 5 billions of dollars and it will cost us 160 millions per year for an indefinite period; we have had 60,000 killed, a great number of wounded, etc. Among the victorious countries, only Canada received nothing, while Great Britain, for whose sake we fought, benefited from the victory by an increase of the empire in the form of colonial mandates, the possibility of increasing the international trade which is its very life, and by the destruction of the German fleet.
Would we go to war in order to protect our trade?
First of all, our oceanic trade is done by English or foreign boats which those countries have an interest to protect in order to insure their own food supplies. Moreover, according to an article published by Professor Scott in Foreign Affairs of January, 1939, the cost of a war would far exceed the amount of our exports.
fMr. Raymond.1
Would we go to war in order to save
democracy and ensure peace?
That was the slogan in 1914. What a success it was! We were to save democracy and civilization, and we in reality prepared the advent of dictatorships. We were to ensure universal peace, and never before have rumours of war been more persistent. And such were the achievements of the victors of the great European war to which we participated, because every victorious nation, with the exception of Canada, sought to obtain the greatest benefits from victory. *
Would we go to war in order to protect our territory and our lives?
We are protected by our geographical situation and by our neighbours: the Arctic ocean on the north, the Atlantic on the east, the Pacific on the west and the United States on the south.
We are protected by the statements of the President of the United States who has promised to defend this country against anj external attack.
We are protected by the declaration of Lima on the solidarity of American nations, which entails the defence of the territory of America against any interference from a foreign power.
Finally, we are protected by our friendly relations with all countries.
While on the subject of the Lima Conference, let me express the regret, sir, that Canada was not represented there, especially when our interests were at stake and when a vacant seat is reserved for Canada in the Pan-American Union Hall in Washington.
The prime minister told us that Canada could not be invited as it is not a member of the Pan-American Union. But is not that vacant seat an invitation in itself, or at least the first step in our direction? Canada could or should have taken the second step.
Is it not in the interest of our country, which is an American country, to take part in Pan-American conferences, as it is in the interest of other countries of America?
We take part in European conferences; we are represented at the League of Nations, and all that costs much money. In certain quarters, we are even asked to participate in a European war, under colour of defending peace and democracy, against totalitarian states, or under pretence of defending Canada. But when, on this continent, all American countries gather together in order to seek means of defending democracy and peace against totalitarian states, of defending American territory, Canada, which is an American country, keeps aloof.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Raymond
I seriously wonder if it was for fear of injuring the interests of the British empire? And we have cause to ask ourselves if our foreign policy is not dictated by London; if we really are as free as we are told, free to look after our interests first, or if we are in the tow of England.
As a nation, we have the right to shape our foreign policy which must be based on our needs, independently of the needs of other countries. We must look to our own interests, which lie on the American continent.
Would we go to war in order to play in Europe the part of a policeman, and to bring to reason nations which are infinitely more powerful than we are, and for what purpose, in some cases? When it is remembered that Europe, and ourselves perhaps, were on the verge of war, last September, to prevent a minority of 31 million Sudeten Germans to free themselves from a rule of mean intolerance and almost oppression, according to the expressions used in the report of Lord Runciman, who was especially sent by England in order to investigate and who recognized the justice of their grievances. It was the result of the treaty of Versailles, of which Mr. Chamberlain said, recently:
If, twenty years ago, the frontiers had been
better drawn, there would not have been a Czechoslovakian crisis.
Inasmuch as we have no interest in taking part in such external conflicts, why should we go to war? To defend the interests of others while ruining ourselves? No true Canadian has the right to do such a thing.
Knowing that wars are brought about by conflicting interests, to what dangers of war are we not exposed?
Let us recall some of the events of recent times.
A year ago, the three main dangers of war came from the far east, Spain and central Europe.
What were the causes of discord between the countries involved? They were matters of commercial or economic interests, and questions of prestige.
Let us take the case of Czechoslovakia, which threatened, two or three times, to set are to Europe and even to this country.
What was the situation in that artificial state, created after the war to hem in Germany and to serve the interests of France -a state that nothing could make homogeneous and which was destined to be a permanent cause of trouble?
The Czech government persisted in refusing all concessions to the Sudeten people, a minority of German origin which asked for its share of public offices or in the govem-71492-161$
ment of the country; claims whose justice was recognized by Lord Runciman, the representative of England.
What was the attitude of London in that case, and what was the attitude of Ottawa?
Was it an ideological conflict? Ideological conflicts are a joke, they do not exist.
Was it a political or an economical conflict? After all, we must know what is at stake, what we would be fighting for.
Listen to what Mr. Chamberlain said, on September 27, in a radio broa,dcast:
How horrible, fantastic, incredible, that we should be digging trenches here and fitting gas masks, on account of a conflict in a far-away country, between people, of whom we know nothing.	_
However much one may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful nation, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British empire in a war simply on that account. If we have to fight, it must be on larger issues than that.
The following day, September 28, the eve of the Munich conference, Mr. Chamberlain, speaking in the House of Commons, indicated the alternative courses of action open to him in the deadlock where he found himself.
We could have threatened to go to war with Germany if she attacked Czechoslovakia, he said, but we had no treaty liabilities to Czechoslovakia.
Indeed, this country, he said further, would not have followed us if we had tried to lead it into war to prevent a minority from obtaining autonomy. .
That last sentence indicates what the stakes would have been in such a war.
And Sir John Simon, speaking in the House of Commons on the 19th December last, said:
The Agreement of Munich was transferring to the Reich an area which ought not to have been included in Czechoslovakia. What we did was to correct one of the mistakes of the Peace Treaty.
In truth, what interest had we in that dispute, when the Prime Minister of England himself agreed that it was a matter of participating in a war, waged in a remote country, between people we knew nothing about, in order to prevent a minority from securing its autonomy, and when the chancellor of the exchequer, Sir John Simon, admitted that the transfer of that area to the Reich was merely correcting a mistake of the peace treaty.
However, the cabinet held emergency meetings and the Prime Minister stated that he was prepared to summon parliament, so that effective and concerted action might be taken.
Here is the statement which the Prime Minister gave to the press on the 28th September:	[DOT]
The government is making preparations for any contingency and for the immediate sum-

Foreign Policy-Mr. Raymond,
moning of parliament if the efforts being made to preserve the peace fail. For our country, to keep united is all-important. To this end, in whatever we say or do, we must seek to avoid creating controversies which might seriously impair effective and concerted action when parliament meets.
Let us compare the attitude of M. Spaak, prime minister of Belgium, a truly free country, but quite open to attack in Europe; on the 18th September, he said that:
There was no need to assemble parliament or to make any special declaration, as the government would continue to follow their settled policy of independence.
The Prime Minister often tells us "we have no commitment." Then what is the reason of the present attitude?
We had no commitment to participate in a war for the defence of Czechoslovakia. Canada was not threatened, neither was England, but, nevertheless, because England was contemplating military action the Prime Minister appeared ready to commit Canada to participation in an external war in which we were not concerned.
If, on that occasion, England contemplated military action, it was not because she had a treaty with Czechoslovakia-she had none. It was not because she had a moral cause to defend-such was not the case. It was merely because France was bound by virtue of a treaty with Czechoslovakia to fight in defence of the latter and because England, in order to maintain the European balance, an old policy she has ever pursued on account of her trade interests in all parts of the world, did not want to see France overwhelmed by Germany, whose rearmament she had nevertheless encouraged ever since the treaty of Versailles so that the seesaw game between France and Germany would still continue.
She has always resorted to that seesaw game, as for instance in Palestine between Jews and Arabs, and in India between Hindoos and Moslems. Nowadays, political and economic ambitions outweigh all other ideals.
This explains why England took a different attitude towards nationalist Spain, from the day General Franco took Bilbao and seized iron mines in the vicinity of that city.
Let us not forget that war waged for ideological motives is a hoax of which we are the victims.
Let us consider that during the war between China and Japan, while the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo axis was in process of formation, and Germany was allied to Japan, German officers were training the Chinese to fight the. Japanese and were directing Chinese resistance; Chinese flyers were being instructed by Italian airmen.
IMr. Raymond.]
Let us consider that while Italian and German soldiers were fighting in the ranks of Franco's army in Spain, Germany was shipping supplies to the Reds. She was fighting for Burgos but was supplying materials to Barcelona.
At the time when American ships were being bombed and sunk, the United States was selling petroleum to Japan.
While Mussolini was breaking off negotiations with France, under the pretext that she had become too much sovietized, he had in Moscow an ambassador who was entering into trade agreements with the Soviets.
During the war in Ethiopia, important purchases of coal were made in France for shipment to Eritrea via Djibouti; such purchases were even guaranteed by the French government.
While England was showing uneasiness about the growing power of Germany, she was not neglecting her trade with the latter; only last year, she sold her textiles for a value of thirty million dollars.
As a keen observer has said: "Each one is trying to fool the others. And they would have us fight for Truth."
At the present time, Germany is claiming her former colonies and Italy is demanding certain concessions in Suez, Djibouti and Tunisia. What is involved in such cases? As ever before, it is a matter of conflicting interests.
The British Admiralty Council consider that any important change in the statu quo of the port of Djibouti would be contrary to British interests, particularly as regards the British possessions of Aden.
In the Mediterranean area, it is important that French Tunisia should jointly protect the route to India.
The greater interests of England's empire lie in Asia and in the lines of communication leading thereto. She has to protect them.
Palestine is for England the land and air route to India. It is also a base for the defence of the Suez canal; it is the outlet for the petroleum from Mossul.
On the 6th February last, Mr. Chamberlain stated in the House of Commons that:
any threat to the vital interests of France, from whatever quarter it might come, would entail England's immediate cooperation.
For what purpose would Canada risk being ruined in a war merely to maintain for England and France, now working in cooperation, their colonial empires, which are the two greatest in the world? We have no colonies to give back.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Raymond
After all, if the international situation is tense, Canada is in no way to blame. And why should we be governed by the principle whereby if England is at war Canada is at war?
Canada had absolutely nothing to do with the situation brought about by Mr. Benes, who failed or refused to carry out the pledges given to the minorities of his country. Canada was not, either, a party to the treaty signed by France and Czechoslovakia with the object of guaranteeing the security of the latter.
It was no fault of Canada's if France was confronted with internal difficulties which so weakened her that she had to seek the help of England, for the protection of the French colonial empire.
It was no fault of Canada's if France blundered into creating ill feelings which may endanger European peace.
It was no fault of Canada's if the sympathies of the Popular Front government stirred up the hostility of Franco, of Italy and of Germany; if France stubbornly refused to appoint an ambassador to Rome and a representative to Burgos.
Who was responsible for the formation of the Rome-Berlin axis after the Stresa conference? England, through her insistence upon the imposition of economic sanctions during the Italo-Ethiopian conflict. Italy, who must care for 4 or 5 million workmen although practically deprived of raw materials, who must every day import bread, meat, textiles, partly manufactured goods, coal, and petroleum, whose sources of supply are unstable, was threatened with famine and ruin and therefore compelled to join Germany.-and we are now suffering the consequences thereof.
Is it Canada's fault if Germany has become strong and powerful through violation of every treaty?
Was it not Great Britain who, in order to maintain the traditional balance of power which is at the base of her world supremacy, stood by without protest as Germany rearmed by means of the money which should have been paid to France? (According to a well-informed political writer, Andre Tardieu, Germany is supposed to have paid France only 6 per cent of the amount stipulated in the treaties, and 2 per cent of what the war cost France.) Who permitted the reestablishment of compulsory military service in March, 1935, and the military occupation of the Rhineland district in March, 1936? Who agreed to the Anglo-German Naval Accord in 1935?
For the last twenty years, Great Britain has been the best advocate of German recovery. Why should we be called upon to help pay the cost of these mistakes?
It is no fault of Canada's that England has great investments in Roumanian oil fields and is now contemplating pledging herself to guarantee the latter's safety.
It is no fault of Canada's that England possesses the greatest colonial empire in the world and is forced to maintain a mighty military machine in order to ensure her freedom of communications.
It is no fault of Canada's that France possesses the second greatest colonial empire in the world, which England, because of their identity of interests, has pledged herself to defend against any attack.
It is no fault of Canada's that London and Paris have just guaranteed the independence of Poland,
It is not our fault that England and France possess and have to safeguard immense resources everywhere, and very often next door to ambitious or needy countries.
It is no fault of ours, yet we must not forget to weigh the consequences of our participation in any empire wars in accordance with the statement: "When England is at war, Canada is at war."
This implies that we are tacitly bound to share in the defence of the British colonial empire, of the French colonial empire, of Poland, of Roumania, etc., etc.; that we are continually in danger of being drawn into a conflict which would inevitably spell our downfall.
Everyone is agreed that the next war will produce nothing but ruins and that even for the belligerents who shall achieve military success, the victory will be an empty one.
There appeared in the Ottawa Journal the day after Munich the following statement:
War for Canada, war such as we participated in the last time, would have meant bankruptcy.
Therefore, do I say that Canada must not be involved in a war wherein she is neither attacked nor threatened; we have not the right to sacrifice our entire youth and to court ruin merely to safeguard the economic and commercial advantages or supremacy of any European country, whether French or British.
Another consequence thereof, and not the least disastrous, would be disunion among our people.
It is the bounden duty of those who are charged with high responsibilities to see that such a tragedy is averted.
The advocates of participation and those who oppose it are already forming sides and growing restless.
As a matter of fact, a policy which favours participation in a war which is no direct or immediate concern of ours cannot be looked upon surely as a contribution to national unity,
Foreign Policy-Mr. Raymond

and for my part I could never endorse a policy which would set at odds with one another the various component bodies of the nation.
Canada, a sovereign country, occupies a unique position in America'. We have no possessions elsewhere, no colonies, no protectorates nor mandates; our interests are centered in America. And Canadian unity will never be threatened as long as we restrict ourselves to the safeguarding of those interests, and require the Canadian people to provide foi the defence of their own country, but of no other.
I realize that there are, and quite naturally, strong bonds of sympathy uniting Canadians of English origin to England, and that Canadians of French origin feel the same way towards France, but I also know that there are a great many Canadians whose sympathies are directed elsewhere. And I believe that we, in autonomous Canada, have one great obligation towards one another, which is that of acting in the best interests of the country of our choice.
Let us never forget Lord Tweedsmuir's statement;
The first duty of a Canadian is to Canada.
Let us therefore adopt a policy tending to ensure peace, especially internal peace which is even more vital than the other. The dismemberment of Czechoslovakia should be a salutary lesson in this regard.
Let us not endanger the internal peace of Canada by deciding to participate in any war for the defence of foreign interests.
The Canadians of French origin are Canadians first; they are strongly bound to Canada, their mother country, and their only desire is to strive for her development in harmony and peace, with the protection of two mighty oceans and of the great American nation. They hate war but do not fear it when it is a matter of defending their own soil, as history will bear witness. Let us not force them to defend foreign lands and thereby invite their own ruin.
Wars that are waged to set aright the wrong done to another, often give rise to greater misfortune at home. If 1917 has been forgiven, it has not been forgotten.
We must consider as very good friends the other members of the commonwealth, but friendship should not prevail over selfpreservation. Moreover, what right has one to ask his friend to agree to a sacrifice which is far beyond his means?
Any external policy which would require from the Canadian people more than that which any patriot or any citizen who loves his

country and desires to protect it would be glad to do, would risk shattering for evermore our national unity.
Every Canadian citizen has the military obligation of defending the soil of his motherland, and those of the province of Quebec have never shirked that duty, nor shall they ever do so, but no one is entitled to ask them to go and shed their blood in Europe, or in Africa, or in Asia for the greater glory or power of any other country, even if that country should be England or France.
And if ever a majority of the people of this country should desire to compel an important minority thereof to take up arms in defence of a foreign land, whichever it may be, that would be the end of confederation.
Following the example set by the Premier of France, M. Daladier, who said that Munich had been an act of reason, let us adopt a policy based not on emotions but on reason, and as the right hon. the Minister of Justice stated in a speech he gave in Quebec, last December 12;
Instead of waging war in a foreign land, we shall remain at home and defend Canada whom we love.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of reluctance that I participate in this debate, but it seems to be in order that we should all have something to say about this extremely important matter. In commencing my remarks I wish to make it clear that I believe sincerely in the British empire, the British commonwealth of nations. I believe in its past and its present; I believe that it yet has before it a great and splendid future, not great necessarily in the sense that we shall go forth to conquer but rather that we as a people shall live worthy lives, meriting the respect and honour of the world, so managing ourselves that we can be looked up to and that we ourselves may be happy.
No man at this time is in a position to foresee what will come. We are in perhaps the most uncertain age the world has ever known. We must look forward with great faith, confident, however, that there is before us a great future and that the world does not need to be in a condition in which its peace is endangered and its happiness insecure.
I believe that we as an empire and as a commonwealth, sir, can easily assume the role of leading the world into a better time, not by aggression but by living as a people ought to live. Furthermore I realize vividly that the British governments to-day might be, and probably are, motivated by forces over which the British peoples cannot now exercise

Foreign Policy-Mr. Blackmore
control. These forces govern the instruments of propaganda. These forces are not concerned primarily with the welfare of the British people or of the British commonwealth of nations. I wish furthermore to lay down this principle that our task is, in my opinion, so to manage Canada's policy that we may best be enabled to help save the British peoples, first from external and visible enemies and, second, from perhaps equally dangerous internal and invisible enemies. Further, I Ihink we all implicitly believe in democracy. These four statements having been made, to commence with, if we can all agree upon them we can proceed to examine the possible principles upon which we can govern our behaviour and lay down our foreign policy.
As I see it, there are five main questions which are vividly and perhaps painfully before the people of Canada to-day. They are questions to which everyone wants the answers, if I may judge by what has been said in the debate, and by what I have heard outside. The first question is: Shall Canadians fight? The second is: Can Canada be neutral while Great Britain fights? The third is: Tf Canada fights, where will she fight? The fourth: How shall we prepare to fight; and the fifth: Can we do anything to try to avoid fighting, by such means as removing the causes of war, or organizing a form of collective security?
It is well that before we go farther we lay down the principle that the opinion of the people of Canada changes from week to week, and, in these hectic times, almost from hour to hour. I saw the results of a questionnaire which had been placed before the students of many Canadian universities. The report of the results was designed to show the change which in one year had come over the students in those universities. Whereas a year ago a majority of them were against fighting, to-day the majority were in favour of fighting.
A great change has come over the Canadian people in the present year. Who is to say that an equally great change may not come over our people in the next three months or three weeks? It seems to me that for a government or parliament to say definitely just what it will do in a month from now is certainly a reckless procedure. It seems to me the function of a democratic government is to hold itself free from entanglements so that at all times it can do the thing which the people it governs desire it shall do. My whole attitude towards this question is based on that assumption. The government of a democratic people is placed in office to do what the people desire it to do. It should take such measures as may be
practicable to keep the people informed concerning the truth regarding the drama being enacted before them internationally; then the people themselves must decide.
I have all faith in the people of Canada. Give them the truth, and they will form correct conclusions. During the last few days while we have been having this debate I have been interested to note, while walking along the streets, the conversation of people whom I have passed. One will hear little groups of men discussing the great problems we discuss in the house, and apparently they bring to their discussions just as much keenness, intelligence and ability as we exercise in the house. Public opinion of Canada is being formed from hour to hour. All the people need is the truth to work upon, and they will find what is right and will demand that we do what is right.
Now to come to the five questions respecting which Canadians want answers. First, shall Canada fight? The feeling, as I gather it, is developing rapidly throughout the country that Canada will fight. She will fight for three things, those three things laid down by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Thorson), in his excellent talk. She will fight for civilization; she will fight for liberty, and she will fight for the integrity of Canada's soil. Perhaps there would be other things, but at least at this stage of our thinking I believe those three may be pretty well taken for granted.
Can Canada be neutral? On this question there has been a great deal of learned and able discussion in the house. A number of people feel that legally Canada can remain neutral, and a number of people quite as earnestly urge that she cannot. Perhaps if all the facts were in evidence it would form a delicate question for the decision of the highest court in the land. I fancy, however, that when the time comes, we shall not trouble ourselves very much about legal technicalities. If the people of Canada choose to fight, they will fight. If they choose not to fight, they will not fight. But -we might talk about the matter academically to some extent, in this way: What would be the democratic way of dealing with the question? Led by the excellent speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in the house we have pretty well laid down the principle that we will not stand for conscription in Canada. Why do we say that? Because we say it is the citizen's right to determine what he shall do. No one has the right to say that some other person shall go to offer his life unless that person chooses to do so. That is democracy.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Blackmore
Well, now, would it not be a sound principle to lay down that if iwe allow the individual citizen the right to determine whether or not he shall fight we should certainly allow the individual state to have the equal right to determine whether or not it will fight. If we follow that line of reasoning, then it does look as though we should lay down the principle in Canada, sooner or later, legally- whether up to the present time we have laid it down legally and constitutionally-that this country through its parliament and government must at all times have the complete right to determine whether or not it will fight. I would say that the hon. member for Selkirk was on perfectly safe ground. I rather fancy that before very long we should lay down this principle, that Canada has the right, legal, constitutional and in every other way, to remain neutral in another war if she chooses to do so. Whether or not Canada will exercise that right is another matter entirely. If I can establish for my neighbour's boy that he has the right to stay out of the army if he chooses to do so, I am not deciding that he will stay out of the army; I am merely establishing his right to do so. I think in time we shall all recognize that it is Canada's right to stay out of any war whatsoever. The thing which finally will determine my iboy and my neighbour's boy to join the army will be this, that they will realize that their country's welfare is at stake, and that unless they go and play their part they cannot expect their neighbours to go and play their part, and consequently all will suffer.
The same sort of reasoning should determine Canada, in case she and her neighbour nations are in danger of losing their collective security, that she must com-e in and help. She will realize that she has a responsibility, and she will accept it. She does not need to be bound by any legal or constitutional commitment whatsoever. The people themselves must decide whether they will fight, when they will fight, where they will fight, and to what extent they will fight, both individually and collectively as a nation. I think the Canadian people generally are pretty well agreed on that principle. They do not wish to express it in a loud, aggressive way, so as to make it appear that they are disloyal, but deep down in their hearts they feel it.
Now where shall Canada fight? There exists a great deal of uncertainty and perturbation throughout Canada concerning this question. A good many are afraid that they might be committed to go and fight in Poland, for example; many were afraid they might be called on to go and fight in Czechoslovakia, and they were not quite sure whether they

wanted to fight in Czechoslovakia. There was a question at issue there. Where shall Canada fight? I would hesitate to lay down any principle, for the simple reason that the opinions of the Canadian people will perhaps be different three weeks from now from what they are to-day, but I might raise three or four questions which would guide us all in forming an opinion.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: We might have to fight right here at home.


John Horne Blackmore: Very true. Suppose I am a Canadian who does not want to go overseas and fight in a foreign battle line. Would I be willing to fight in Nova Scotia, to protect Nova Scotia? I think nearly everyone will say, "Yes, of course." Now would I go and fight, in Newfoundland? I think it would be difficult for any Canadian to say that he would not go and defend Newfoundland, right at our gates.
Here is another question. Would I enlist upon a warship and go out into the waters to meet an enemy ship which was coming to attack my country? It would mean I was leaving my native shore of Canada. Would I be an air pilot and go out over the water and fight?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Beyond the three-mile limit?
Mr. BLACKMO*RE:	Yes, beyond the
three-mile limit. I think the answer in nearly every case would be yes. Having once gone as far as that, where are you going to stop? Would you go half way across the Atlantic to meet the foe? All these are questions we have to ask ourselves in order to think realistically on this subject, and I believe the Canadian people	are thinking	their waythrough	in quite	an admirable	manner.	I
believe they will arrive at a conclusion which will enable them to stand behind their government when the time comes, if it comes, although of course we all pray it will not.
The next question is: How shall we prepare to fight? Concerning that there is much heailt-searching by a great many earnest people. Shall we put conscription into force in case we get in grave danger? The first question	we shall	have to ask ourselves	inthinking	our way	through that	problem	is
this: Is conscription democratic? The answer has to be no; it is not democratic; there is no question about that. That fact argues strongly against it. I believe I would be prepared to lay down unalterably and irrevocably the principle that there shall be no conscription whatsoever. The voluntary system has been in use in our empire for generations, and has

Foreign Policy-Mr. Blackmore
not failed us yet. I see no reason for doubting the quality of the youth of this generation any more than we did the youth of past generations. I believe the voluntary system will carry us through every war however great, that we need to be carried through; when the British people have so far decayed that they need conscription to force them into battle, then perhaps the British race will be no longer worthy of being saved and we should be prepared to give up the British flag and all the values we hold so dear.
There are several fundamental reasons why conscription is not sound and why the voluntary system is better. We have developed through the centuries a reputation which was represented in a fine poem that came out of Canada through the last war. The poem closes with the ringing line:
But beware of a peace-loving people
When they sweep from their forests and farms.
When men rise and go to fight of their own accord they are terrible men, and they fight in a way which appals their enemy. I think our men are still of the British breed, still carry British blood in their veins. They are fired with British traditions and, given half a chance, will prove themselves worthy of their fathers, not only in a war which might be immediately confronting us, but in any war, near or remote. So again I would say, let us have no conscription under any circumstances.
There is another reason why conscription is not good. So long as a government knows that it, must depend on the goodwill of the people for voluntary service, that serves as a check upon the government. If war comes and profiteering is permitted like what took place in the last war, and if people are afraid of poverty after the war, there will not be such a rush to volunteer. There are nasty rumours abroad, which I have heard ever since the war, that there was, in a good many instances, mistreatment of men who went overseas. I would say that if that occurred in another war there would be a distinct falling off in enlistment, and there should be strong pressure on the men who were mistreating soldiers and mismanaging the war. That is a something which needs to be taken care of. We need a check on such possible abuses, for men sometimes do forget to be human, even in war, and they also forget to be reasonable.
But people will say, what will you do if you cannot get volunteers? The first thing is to find out why you cannot get volunteers and remove the causes. The same name and the same blood that produced volunteers in the last war should produce volunteers in
the next. If they fail to do so, there is a reason. The result is that a government which knows it is going to be confronted with war should become particularly anxious to see that people can get work, that they are well nourished, that they are given something to cause them to hope. And I may say, with all due respect to the present government, and not wishing to be unkind, that we have not succeeded in producing these conditions in this country. The result is that a good many people who have power are fearful, and with good reason. If they want volunteers to fight their wars let them be warned that they had better produce conditions which bring on volunteers, and not resort to the base and un-British method of conscription.
While I am on this subject, there is another matter to which I shall briefly allude. There is a grave falling off in the birth-rate among all the British peoples. We might be able to go through the next war, but if we continue with the birth-rate we have to-day in comparison with the birth-rates which are becoming common in some of the rival nations, I doubt very much that we shall be able to go successfully through many wars. Something must be done about the matter.
Another consideration is this:	We must
treat our returned men right. I am not going to say anything about this topic. I spoke upon it at some length the other night, with the result that Hansard, at least, knows what I think about our mistreatment of veterans. Certainly we are not treating our returned men as we should, and the reaction upon our youth who see the suffering that has been inflicted upon past heroes is that they are not particularly anxious to be heroes like these veterans. We do a great deal of building up of fine monuments, such as we have in front of this building, but I submit that the finest monument we can raise to the men who fought for their country and passed on is to build up a generation equal to them in strength, prowess, courage, hope and all that goes to make men.
There is another matter which we must look to if we are going to have volunteers. We must take precautions to prevent war profiteering. I wish to commend the government for the actions they have already taken in this regard, but I do not think they have gone nearly far enough. They probably do not, either. There is altogether too much influence of munitions manufacturers in national propaganda. While I am not going to speak to any extent about that, it is not because I am not aware of it. Some pretty nasty rumours have gone round the country during



Foreign Policy-Mr. Blackmore
the last six years. It is not particularly in Canada that I have heard them; nevertheless I imagine that some munition money is being used to influence opinion even in Canada. If we are to create a sound British race, able to meet its foes, we must see to it by every means at our disposal that this sort of thing is eliminated. We must prevent false representations. We must give some sort of guarantee that our people are not going to be utterly crushed by debt. I believe the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) has sufficiently dealt with that point; I shall, therefore, say nothing about it. All these are matters which wise statesmen will be looking to if they are going to depend upon volunteers to fight their wars.
We now come to the fifth question: Can Canada help to remove the causes of war? This is a vital matter. Conceivably we could organize this world in such a way that we could suppress Hitler within three months, simply by removing the causes which have fed his growth. What are those causes? The general causes of war are about five. Men fight for personal ambition, racial ambition, religion, ideologies; but above all they fight for economic necessities; and generally when they fight for any one of the first four causes I have mentioned, the element of economic necessity is not very far distant; it is underneath.
I should like to put on Hansard a few figures to indicate the economic necessity under which Germany and Italy are striving, so that we may realize that, when Hitler tells us he has a case, he may not be telling us what is entirely false. It is so easy, when we become all charged with emotion, as we are- and it is well that we are

to forget to find out the other fellow's point of view. If we are going to remove the curse of war and learn to live at peace in this world, we must find out the other fellow's point of view and adjust ourselves somewhat to it.
Here is a set of figures which I drew from a speech by Mr. F. E. Lathe, of the national research council, Ottawa, delivered on June 27, 1938, before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in the series on Science and Society. These figures indicate the allocation of the world's forest resources:
Per cent of the world's forest area
U.R.S.R	  21-1
British Empire	 21-0
Brazil	 13-4
United States	 9-1
France and dependencies	 3-9
Argentina	 3-5
Japan	 1-2
Germany and Austria		0-5
Italy and Abyssinia	 0-4
[Mr. Blackmore.)
And we wonder why they fight. May I just recall again the figures which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) quoted not long ago, when he said that three nations, Germany, Italy and Japan, with a total population of about 200,000,000, were trying to keep those people within an area a little bit bigger than Ontario, where we are unable to keep 4,000,000. All we need do is to imagine ourselves in Germany and surmise what we would do if we were in Hitler's place.
I turn to another set of figures which are equally revealing, the coal reserves of the world:
Millions of metric tons
United States	 3.838.657
British Empire	 1,729,105
China	 995,587
Germany and Austria	 477,232
U.S.S.R	   173,879
France and dependencies	 37,585
Japan	 7,970
Italy	 243
Contrast Italy's 243,000,000 tons with our
1,729,105,000.000 tons. There are in this world such things as "have-not" nations. Up to the present time we have not discovered a way whereby Italy, for example, can get the benefit of Alberta's coal fields without possessing Alberta. Until we can learn some way by which we can enable Italy to get such advantages, we must expect war, and if we really wish to remove the causes of war we must set to work to find a way of distributing those goods other than through trade. Many think that trade will do it. Let me tell the house, in all humility, that the more men learn, the more they will realize that trade will not any longer distribute adequately.
There is another set of figures which I was going to put on record, but I shall not take the time. This is a moat remarkable set of figures, which I put on Hansard some time ago, dealing with national sufficiency in major minerals. It shows that whereas the British empire is, as a whole, completely self-sufficient in coal, iron, copper, lead, zinc, and nickel, lacking somewhat in tin and petroleum, Japan is lacking in every one of these, Italy in practically all, and Germany in a good many of them.
May I now turn to the next question. What of collective security? There are a good many people who are much influenced by the idea of collective security. I said last year that I was rather in ined to the idea of collective security if I i <uld find out with whom I was to associate, it is easy enough to talk about collective sec city until you get down to brass tacks, but when you begin to look for the group of nations with whom you are to associate to better advantage than you can

Foreign Policy-Mr. Green
with the members of the British empire you will experience some difficulty in finding those nations.
Just to help us to think our way through, let us suppose a few possible combinations. Suppose we had all the north and south American countries and Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Sweden. Most hon. members would rather favour that group as being congenial society with which to associate. Well, let us ask ourselves three or four questions. In the first place, after you had formed the association, who would decide when you were going to fight, where, and to what extent? In that combination who would make the decision? Would you expect to decide it in this parliament? If you did not, where then would your democracy be? Here we are busily engaged throughout the country sedulously asserting that we are not going to let Britain decide when we shall fight. At the same time some would be ready to grant to a board, consisting of representatives of each of strange nations, the right to decide for us a question concerning which we would not trust Britain. That line of reasoning does not appeal to me. There may be considerations that I have overlooked, but it certainly rouses suspicion in my mind.
Now, suppose <we had agreed who was going to decide whether we were going to fight, and when, where and to what extent. That having been settled, let us ask ourselves this question: Would we commit Canada to an expedition to Holland to protect that country in case of attack? If we say no; if we will not go to protect Holland, then how can we expect Holland to come and protect us if we are in trouble? And if Holland will not protect us and we will not protect Holland, what is the virtue of our collective security? It was a series of questions such as these that brought about the break-down of the League of Nations. It is easy for us to rail against the League of Nations and the people who, we fancy, were responsible for the break-down of the league, but I am inclined to think the rock upon which the League of Nations met shipwreck was composed of just such questions as these. Really no one in particular was responsible; I am inclined to that belief. Consequently, I am a little doubtful about collective security. I wish to get as much as I can out of the idea, but before I trust it too far I should like to have a few of these questions answered.
Suppose, instead of that amiable company which I have indicated, we decided to associate with the United States. Again, let us ask ourselves a few questions. Would you go to defend California in the event of that
state being attacked? If you say no, how can you expect the Californians to come over here to protect Nova Scotians in case they were attacked? And if you go to protect the Californians in case of attack there, what is the difference between that and going to France to protect the French or to Belgium to protect the Belgians? In either instance you are going to fight on foreign soil. I really cannot answer these questions to my own satisfaction. I do not wish it to be supposed that I do not value the League of Nations. The League of Nations is another notable possibility from which we might expect to derive some benefit; but there are fundamental principles that have to be laid down, and once laid down they must be adhered to. If we are not prepared to commit ourselves to a policy of hewing to those lines, then we cannot expect the League of Nations to work. Well, there is the question as to who should determine when, where and to what extent Canadians should fight. Would Canada commit herself, under the League of Nations, to fight at any time in any place and to any extent that a League of Nations committee might decide that she should? I do not think Canada would, because the minute she did she would destroy her democratic rights.
We must be free as a Canadian people to decide for ourselves. Our government must hold itself free to do what the Canadian people from week to week want it to do. This world is changing so fast that we simply cannot say to-day what we shall be thinking and what we shall be ready to do a month from now. In a general way we will lay down the rule that the principles of democracy must be maintained, but that at the same time we are resolved to defend civilization, to defend our liberties, to defend our soil. In the effort to defend these we will not submit to conscription but will rather depend upon the voluntary principle which has seen our fathers through their vicissitudes and which, I think, we can depend upon to take us through our vicissitudes and our children through theirs. That is the nearest we can at present come to determining what for Canada is a sound foreign policy.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Thi3 debate has lasted now for three full days, and during the whole of that time the attention of the house has been focused on the European situation. That is only natural, because the tension there has been so much greater during the last few weeks. I would, however, remind hon. members of the inscrip-

Foreign Policy-Mr. Green
tion we see every morning when coming through the main door of the House of Commons:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both east and west.
I stress that word "both"; for, after all, we have great sea lanes coming to and going from both our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. These sea lanes are ocean highways enabling us to carry our great export business overseas. But also they bring us great problems, which force us to adopt far-reaching and farsighted policies. To-night I propose to deal only with the problems which are brought to the Canadian people by the great Pacific ocean.
On that ocean the Canadian people come in contact with many peoples: First of all, our fellow people of British stock, the Australians and New Zealanders, the British in China, Singapore, Borneo, Fiji and a string of British islands which reach up above the equator into the northern hemisphere to Fanning island which is just south of the Hawaiian islands. For these British peoples of the Pacific we have naturally the greatest of friendship, and with them we have an extensive trade. I would refer hon. members to Canada 1989, the handbook published under the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, page 87, where are listed the principal countries to which Canada sells her commodities. We find there that Australia is our third largest customer, and has been for the last three fiscal years down to 1937-38; and that New Zealand in the fiscal year 1937-38 was our sixth largest customer; before that having been in eighth and seventh places respectively.
Also Canada is vitally affected by the defence policies of these other British peoples. For example, we are protected in part by the great British naval base at Singapore. I do not think there is an hon. member here who would contradict that statement. We are also partly protected by the Australian navy, which, incidentally, is far more powerful than our own. And we are vitally interested in the affairs of these other British peoples for another reason. It is only a matter of a few months or possibly a year or two until we shall have an all-British transpacific airway linked up with Trans-Canada Air Lines. I am convinced that planes will leave Vancouver and go by an all-British route right through to Australia, which will bring us that much closer to and give us that much more interest in the affairs of the people of Australia and New Zealand.
A second group of people on the Pacific with whom we come in contact are our

American cousins, our very good neighbours of the United States. We have them in California, Oregon and Washington, three great progressive states; and we have them in the panhandle of Alaska. I wish to stress that to-night, because the panhandle of Alaska lies in front of Canada for several hundred miles. It makes over half of Canada's western boundary, not coastal at ah [DOT] but an inland boundary. Then we have Alaska proper stretching for over one thousand miles to the west of the Yukon, and we have the Aleutian islands stringing out further west and south for hundreds of miles, really forming a northern outpost of the United States of America. Dutch Harbour in those islands is 2.051 miles from San Francisco, almost half way to Japan, Yokohama being only 2,547 miles from Dutch harbour. Incidentally, Dutch harbour is almost on the shortest direct route from San Francisco to Yokohama.
We also have our American cousins in a southern outpost in the Hawaiian islands, a little farther from San Francisco than Dutch Harbour, 2,091 miles out in the Pacific and only 3,394 miles from Yokohama. These two outposts, the Aleutian islands on the north and Hawaii on the south are really the outpost line for the west coast of Canada as well as of the United States.
And then we have the Americans in Panama, 4,000 miles from Vancouver, almost as far as Japan, and the Panama canal. We have an important contact with the United States of America, in the vital importance of that canal to our Pacific trade. Our wheat, lumber, apples, practically all our trade with the United Kingdom, the eastern seaboard of the United States and many other countries goes through that canal.
The third group with whom we come in contact are the Japanese, a proud, aggressive, militaristic, expansionist people, at present waging an undeclared war against the Chinese; found by the League of Nations, with Canada represented at the meeting, an aggressor nation, a member of the Tokyo-Rome-Berlin triangle and allied with the totalitarian nations against the democracies. Yet with that country we also have extensive trade, largely in raw materials. I think in the last fiscal year, 1937-38, Japan was our fourth largest customer. And arising out of our contacts with the Japanese we have a serious immigration, colonization and settlement question on the Pacific coast. Vancouver is 4,260 miles from Japan just about 100 miles less than the distance from Japan to Sydney, Australia.
Those are the three principal groups of peoples with whom Canada is concerned on the Pacific. Of course there are others: the

Foreign Policy-Mr. Green
Chinese; the French and the Dutch in the East Indies; the Russians, and the people of the South American republics. But I refer especially to-night to these three great groups: the British, the Americans and the Japanese.
That being the background, what is the Pacific policy of Canada to-day? Judging from the statements of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the house during this present session, Canada's policy on the Pacific may be summed up in two words: "no commitments." On March 14 of this year on the orders of the day I called to the attention of the Prime Minister a press dispatch which set forth that there was to be a conference on Pacific defence questions held at Wellington. New Zealand, at which there would be representatives from the United Kingdom. Australia and New Zealand; and I asked:
In view of the fact that Canada has serious defence problems on the Pacific ocean, will it be possible for Canadian representatives to be sent to this conference?
The reply of the Prime Minister was to the effect that Canada had not been invited; that presumably Canada was not concerned and that we would be unwise to accept an invitation until we had it; in other words, that Canada was making no commitments.
With regard to the United States the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) on February 2 of this year referred the Prime Minister to a press dispatch containing some suggestion that Canada and the United States were preparing to defend the continent from invasion on a joint cooperative basis, and the hon. member wanted to know whether or not there was anything in that report. The Prime Minister's answer was as follows, found on page 540 of Hansard:
I gather, however, that the purport of the question is this: Are there any commitments on the part of the present government with the government of the United States in respect of the defence of the Pacific coast. If that is the question I answer that there are no commitments that I am aware of, and I think I should be aware of any if there were.
Mr. .Woodsworth: There was the other prior question which 1 asked as to whether it was correct that there is an arrangement to defend this continent from invasion, involving joint cooperative action, or to what extent the statement is correct.
Mr. Mackenzie King: I should think that an arrangement would be in the nature of a commitment and, I repeat, there is no commitment.
I would point out to the Prime Minister that this means great uncertainty, not only for the Australians, the New Zealanders, the British, the Americans and the Japanese, but
also for our own Canadian people, as to where Canada stands on the Pacific. In my opinion this government always entirely overlooks the effect that a firm stand in foreign affairs would have on our friends, our potential enemies and our own people. Such a wishy-washy policy is neither safe nor sane.
I suggest that the time has come for Canada to adopt as a basic Pacific policy full 

and I repeat that word "full"-and open cooperation with the other British peoples living on the shores of that ocean, and with the American people. I suggest that Canada might enter a defensive alliance with these peoples and I stress the word "defensive." I would point out to the house that neither the British nor the Americans will ever be aggressors on the Pacific, and that our aims and interests are the same. Not only should Canada be sitting in at the defence conference in New Zealand; I suggest that Canada also should have tried to get the United States invited to sit in. As a matter of fact, we already have a defensive alliance with the other countries of the empire. I would refer the house to the summary of proceedings of the last imperial conference, held in 1937. At page 15, dealing with defence, we find this:
The conference gave close attention to the subject of defence, and considered ways in which it would be possible for the governments concerned to cooperate in measures for their own security. The occasion was taken for a detailed review of the state of defence in each of the countries represented at the conference and this opportunity was generally welcomed.
Other statements are found at pages 18 and 19 which make it absolutely clear that as far as Australia, New Zealand and Great Britain are concerned, Canada is or should consider herself to be in a defensive alliance with these countries. I suggest that at the present time Canada should confer with these countries on defence plans, just as she did at the imperial conference. Further, we should provide proper subsidies for the construction of new passenger ships which are so badly needed in order to facilitate trade between our Pacific coast and Australia and New Zealand. I believe we could arrange for the purchase of munitions and armaments from Australia, where they are producing in their state plants more munitions than they need, and consequently are in a position to help supply the needs of the other nations of the empire. And we should ask Great Britain's help in order to establish once more at Esquimalt a north Pacific squadron composed of our own ships and whatever additional ships may be required from the British navy.

Foreign Policy-Mr. Green
Then, Mr. Speaker, instead of relying on a somewhat indefinite, somewhat vague Monroe doctrine or on friendly fleets, which were mentioned last year by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) in presenting his estimates and which obviously meant the United States fleet, since there is no British fleet nearer than Singapore, some seven or eight thousand miles away, I suggest that Canada should confer with the United States on defence plans for the Pacific and should negotiate a defensive alliance under which each nation would do its fair share. For example, the United States badly wants a highway to Alaska for military purposes, in order that she' may defend that territory. If the Canadian defence council consider this highway also necessary for the defence of Canada on the Pacific, then let the government deal directly with the government of the United States. The responsibility for negotiating in regard to such a highway lies right here, with this government; yet at the present time the dominion has left all the negotiations to the province of British Columbia, and has stalled the highway by appointing another commission.
My second basic Pacific policy for Canada is to prevent the problem of the Japanese on the Pacific coast from developing into a situation like that of the Sudetens in Czechoslovakia. Oh, the Prime Minister may smile, but ten, fifteen or twenty-five years from now some prime minister may be shedding tears about this very matter at which the right hon. gentleman smiles to-night. In other words, this is a minority problem, and a serious one. I should think both the Canadian and Japanese governments would be anxious to prevent a minority problem from arising in Canada. The difficulty is largely caused by continued immigration. Year after year the people of British Columbia see Japanese settlers coming in. It is true that only a feiw come in each year, but over the course of a feiw years the number runs into thousands. These people are spreading out into new lines of activity all the time. At page 9 of the report of the government's own board of review, dated October 12 last, I find this:
... all the different types of Japanese activity in the province-agriculture, lumbering, fishing, retail trade and personal service.
They go on to list some of them: farming, lumbering, fish saltery, fishing, shipbuilding, railroading, paper making, fish-canning, berrygrowing, whaling, logging, small fruits, retail trade, rooming houses and so on; they are in many branches of the retail trade; we have

Japanese stores scattered all over the city of Vancouver. And the people of British Columbia firmly believe that their living is being taken away from them and their children by these Japanese immigrants, and that perhaps the coast itself will be taken away from their children eventually.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the hon. member tell us how many Japanese came in last year?


Howard Charles Green: I have not figures for 1938-39. The last report of the Department of Mines and Resources gives 139 Japanese immigrants during 1937-38, and there have been three or four thousand of them since 1925. Another factor is that nearly all the Japanese stay on the coast. Over ninety per cent of the Japanese in Canada are in British Columbia, whereas only sixty per cent of the Chinese reside in that province. Year after year practically all these immigrants settle in British Columbia. In the last year for which we have a report, 1937-38, every Japanese immigrant is listed as having settled in our province.
And the people of British Columbia know that our province has a far larger percentage of Japanese settlers than any other western country. I should like to quote some statistics prepared by our own bureau, from the census figures of 1931. In that year British Columbia had a total population of 694,263, with a Chinese population of 27,139 and a Japanese population of 22,205. The state of Washington, our neighbour to the south, with twice our population, had one-twelfth the number of Chinese and three-quarters the number of Japanese. Oregon, still further to the south, with one and a half times our population, had one-thirteenth the number of Chinese and one-quarter the number of Japanese. California, with eight times our population, had one and a half times the number of Chinese and four times the number of Japanese. In other words, in proportion we had twice as many Japanese as the state of California. In Australia, where there was a population of
6.600.000	in 1933, there were about 11,000 Chinese and only 2,241 Japanese, as against 22,205 Japanese in British Columbia. In all these other states and in Australia immigration was stopped years ago. In Canada Chinese immigration was stopped in 1923, but Japanese immigration still goes on. It is estimated by the provincial government that there are now not 22,000 but actually between 25,000 and
30.000	Japanese in our province.
Then, we must remember that more than half the immigrants are women. In the last year, out of 139 immigrants ninety-six were

Foreign Policy-Mr. Green
women and only forty-three men. Practically all the women were of marriageable age. I should like to quote to the house from a brief prepared by the junior board of trade of Vancouver and submitted to the national convention of the junior chamber of commerce of Canada which was held in Montreal last October. This brief shows the births per thousand from the vital statistics of the Vancouver health department and the natural increase per thousand of population:
Births per Natural increase thousand per thousand Per cent	Per cent
General	 11-18
Japanese	 28-8
Chinese	 8-11
20-8
(5-92)decrease
The brief goes on to state:
These are Vancouver figures only. For British Columbia the Japanese natural increase per thousand is twenty-five and for whites it is five. The Japanese birth-rate in British Columbia is forty per 1,000 compared with fifteen for other races.
I would point out that the people of British Columbia will never give in on this question. They grow more determined every year that further immigration must be stopped. Not only would it benefit us, but it would benefit the Japanese already in the province, because every new immigrant makes the position of the Japanese already there just that much more difficult. It means more competition, and far less chance of there being a better feeling between the races.
This matter has been dealt with recently by political parties in Canada. In convention last summer the National Conservative party passed this resolution:
That the Canadian government should take effective measures for the exclusion of orientals from Canada by strict enforcement of the existing statutes and regulations and by taking the necessary steps to secure the rescission of the Lemieux agreement.
Which is the agreement under which the Japanese enter Canada. That resolution was endorsed by the convention of the British Columbia Conservative Association. A similar resolution was adopted by the Liberal Association in British Columbia, and the Liberal government of that province passed this resolution at the session held last fall.
Whereas British Columbia is one of the most important provinces of the Dominion of Canada

I would say the most important.
-and whereas it is necessary for the social and economic welfare of our people that our population sha'l be ethnologieally homogeneous:-	[DOT]
Those are Liberal words-
-therefore be it resolved, that this house goes on record as being opposed to the immigration
of any Japanese or Chinese into the province of British Columbia, and commends the action of the provincial government in making representations to the Ottawa government to this end.
The Liberal government in Ottawa last year refused to adopt a measure to stop further immigration. I think the junior board of trade of Vancouver summed up the situation very well in their brief when they recorded these two lines:
When times are good the Japanese question must not be mentioned because we might lose Japanese trade. When times are bad, well, Japan might attack us.
Those are the excuses put forward by the federal government. I suggest that at this time the Canadian government should ask the Japanese government to agree to stop further immigration. If they cannot do this; if they cannot accomplish the results in that way, then I suggest that the Canadian government should stop it themselves. I suggest further that under section 38 of the Immigration Act they have that power. May I read to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that portion of the section in question which applies:
The governor in council may, by proclamation or order whenever it deems it necessary or expedient. . . .
(c) prohibit or limit in number for a stated period or permanently the landing in Canada, or the landing at any specified port or ports of entry in Canada, of immigrants belonging to any nationality or race or of immigrants of any specified class or occupation, by reason of any economic, industrial or other condition temporarily existing in Canada or because such immigrants are deemed unsuitable having regard to the climatic, industrial, social, educational, labour or other conditions or requirements of Canada or because such immigrants are deemed undesirable owing to their peculiar customs, habits, modes of life and methods of holding property, and because of their probable inability to become readily assimilated-
Which is the difficulty in this case.
-or to assume the duties and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship within a reasonable time after their entry.
Those are the two main policies, which I suggest to the government should be Canada's policies on the Pacific at the present time.
In conclusion I take it from the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that this government's policy of "no commitments" has been thrown overboard-at least so far as European affairs are concerned. I trust it will also go overboard, in so far as affairs on the Pacific are concerned.
For three years we have heard this government prattle about Canada having no commitments. That policy was and is a delusion

Foreign Policy-Mr. Green
and a snare, and I am glad if it is gone. I am glad that Canada, the senior dominion, is no longer hanging back. Now Canadians can once more hold up their heads and look the peoples of other nations in the eye. This new policy is far more nearly in line with the courage, the initiative, and the common sense and friendliness withal of the individual Canadian.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Slf. Departmental administration, $191,475.
Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to ask the leader of the government if he would have any objection to waiting until to-morrow to discuss the item?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: None whatever.


Mr. MANION:: Thank you, Mr. Pouliot.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 4, 1939