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

Mr. DUBOIS:: 1.	Does the maintenance of the wharf at Ste-Angele de Laval, Nicolet county, come within the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport or the Department of Public Works?
2.	Was the city engineer of Three Rivers authorized by one of the departments above mentioned to carry out certain work at the wharf at Ste-Angele on April 28 last?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Maintenance heretofore has been carried on by the Department of Public Works, but

steps are being taken to transfer this wharf completely to the jurisdiction of the national harbours board.
2.	No.


TIMISKAMING, ONT., POST OFFICE
Mr. HEON:: 1.	Has an investigation been requested of the Department of Public Works by the contractors for the post office at Timiskaming?
2.	Has such inquiry been granted?
3.	Have the contractors been indemnified for damages incurred during the course of the work?
4.	Was the department employee who inspected the work bilingual?
5.	Were any changes made in the original specifications?
6.	Who were the contractors?
7.	Has a fiat been requested by the contractors to enable them to sue the Department of Public Works in connection with the enterprise ?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No, because department considers there is no justification for investigation.
3.	No, as department never recognized any claim for damages or responsibility of any kind.
4.	No.
5.	No changes were made in the specifications, but certain additional work was authorized.
6.	Messrs. Daris, Durette & Tremblay.
7.	No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PURCHASE OF TIES
Mr. FRANCCEUR:: 1.	Since 1934, has Mr. David McKechnie Ford, general purchasing agent of the Canadian National Railways, in Montreal, purchased ties from producers or jobbers, in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, what are the full names and residences of these producers or jobbers?
3.	What quantities of ties has he purchased in 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938, from these producers or jobbers?
4.	What prices wrere paid to these persons during the years mentioned?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	See answer to question 1.
3.	See answer to question 1.
4.	See answer to question 1.


QUEBEC AND ONTARIO WHEAT PRODUCTION
Mr. FERLAND:: How many bushels of wheat were produced in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, respectively, in 1937 and 1938?

Royal Visit


Mr. EULER:: Quebec, 1937, 879,000 bushels; 1938, 758,000 bushels. Ontario, 1937, 20,290,000 bushels; 1938, 21,424,000 bushels.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT

Charles-Édouard Ferland: Will the government take the necessary measures to reduce the rates of interest on loans made to the farmers under the provisions of the Canadian Farm Loan Act?


Mr. DUNNING:: This question affects a matter of government policy and should be dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.



BEEF AND CATTLE EXPORTS TO GREAT BRITAIN

Mr. HAYHURST:: 1.	What was the total number of live cattle shipped to Great Britain between January 1, 1938, and January 1, 1939: (a) under one year of age; (b) under two years of age; (c) all others ?
2.	What quantity of beef from Canada was exported to Great Britain from January 1, 1938, to January 1, 1939, and how was such beef classified?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Number
Cattle, for improvement of stock	
Cattle, for dairy purposes, n.o.p., weighing 175 lbs. to 700 lbs	
Cattle, for dairy purposes, n.o.p., weighing over 700 lbs	
Cattle, n.o.p., weighing less than 175 lbs.
Cattle, n.o.p., weighing 175 lbs. to 700
lbs	 [DOT] [DOT] * [DOT]
Cattle, n.o.p., weighing over 700 lbs... 27,307
Total	 27,307
2.	Cwt.
Beef,	fresh, chilled or frozen	 20,479
Beef, pickled, in barrels	
Total	 20,479



ROYAL VISIT


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: 

ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY THE KING ON THE OCCASION OF HIS ARRIVAL IN CANADA

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Throughout the present week his majesty's subjects in all parts of the empire have been following with intense interest and with some moments of anxiety the voyage of their king and queen across the Atlantic from the old world to the new. On Saturday, the sixth instant, the Empress of Australia weighed anchor at Portsmouth and on Tuesday next is expected to drop anchor at Wolfe's cove, Quebec. As the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) pointed out a day or two ago, on the eve of the departure of their majesties from Portsmouth the houses of parliament at Westminster passed resolutions of loyal assurance of the affectionate interest with which both houses would follow their majesties' visit to Canada and to the
Royal Visit

United States. I agree with my hon. friend that it is most appropriate that the houses of parliament at Ottawa should pass similar resolutions to greet their majesties upon their arrival at Quebec, and I have therefore the honour to present the following motion, which will be seconded by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition:
That a humble address be presented to Hia Majesty the King, conveying to his majesty, on the occasion of his arrival in Canada, assurance of the loyal affection of this house and of the eager anticipation with which it looks forward to the presence of His Majesty and of Her Majesty the Queen in this country, and of the deep interest with which its members will follow the visit of their majesties to the several provinces and to the United States.
Hon. members will be quick to recognize that, except for the application of its wording to Canada instead of to the United Kingdom, the resolution follows very much the same language, in fact almost the identical language, of the resolutions which were passed at Westminster. I mention this feature as significant because it serves to illustrate the similarity of our political institutions and also to indicate how completely the crown symbolizes the unity of the great commonwealth of nations which is also referred to as the British empire. It illustrates as well the imporant part which the personality and character of the sovereign plays in coordinating the political relations of all parts of the commonwealth.
I need not say how greatly the people of Canada will rejoice at having the honour of welcoming in person their king and queen upon the soil of Canada itself. We are deeply conscious of how considerate their majesties have been of the wishes of their subjects in Canada in arranging to come to the dominion within two years of their coronation and in making the Dominion of Canada the first of the dominions to be honoured by their presence.
It is deeply gratifying that their majesties tour will embrace all the provinces of Canada. We are grateful that the king and queen have been prepared to assume so many onerous obligations in their desire to see as much as possible of Canada and its people. I have no doubt it will be the wish of all Canadians not only that they themselves should have as large an opportunity as possible of seeing the king and queen and giving expression to their feelings of loyalty and affection, but that their majesties should have some opportunity, in addition to receiving the welcome they will in the towns and cities visited, of seeing something of the natural beauty of our country, its varied scenery, its national parks, its countryside and its peaceful homes.

We of the Commons feel particularly honoured that His Majesty the King, by graciously consenting to give royal assent to certain bills, has afforded to hon. members of both houses the opportunity of meeting with the king in parliament assembled.
It will also be pleasing to the citizens of Canada that the king and queen should have decided while visiting Canada also to pay a visit to our good neighbour to the south. I venture to say there is nothing in the course of their visit across the sea which will appeal more to the king and queen than what they will witness of the exceptionally happy relations which exist between Canada and the United States. The example of international friendship and goodwill which the countries of this continent afford is particularly significant in these days.
Before concluding I should like to express a word of appreciation of the work performed by the interdepartmental committee in making the arrangements for their majesties' visit. As the house is aware, these arrangements have been in the hands of members of the public service in the different departments in Ottawa. They have had the very helpful cooperation of officials in the different provincial capitals, and of many municipalities. On behalf of the government I wish to express our appreciation of these efforts to those who have worked so hard and cooperated so effectively in making the visit of the king and queen to our country the very memorable and historic one which we all know it will be.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have very great pleasure indeed in seconding the motion proposed by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), extending, as it does, a hearty and loyal welcome to their majesties on their first setting foot on the soil of Canada at the city of Quebec.
We Canadians are happy in belonging to the British empire and in possessing at the same time a royal family of whom we may well be proud. When I speak of the empire the word brings to my mind not only the great democracy which we call Britain-not only one-quarter of the surface of the earth and one-quarter of its population, not only that group of autonomous nations equal in status, freely associated by long friendship and ideals-but the fact that we are all united by a common allegiance to the crown; for it is the tie that binds us together.
Our empire has been blessed with many great sovereigns. My own life stretches from the great Victoria to the present ideal king- both of them constitutional monarchs, acting always on the advice of their ministers.

Electoral Matters
Among our greatest sovereigns was the father of the present king, George V, with whom was associated the beloved Queen Mary. George V did much to help foster international understanding, particularly in Tegard to the American republic, whose people learned from him much of British ideals, aims and aspirations. I join with the remark of the Prime Minister in that regard, that the visit of the present king and queen to the United States will continue to build up these fine relations existing to-day between the American republic and the British empire.
The last Christmas message of King George Y, to which we all listened with reverent affection, struck a human note which was , heard around the world; and now his son George VI is following his father's noble example.
King George VI shows the same type of greatness as that possessed by his father-a greatness displayed not in dazzling qualities but by the possession of a well-balanced mind, sound common sense, good judgment, and intense devotion to duty, combined with human understanding, sympathy for the less fortunate and downtrodden, charity for weaknesses in others, and a strong desire for peace and goodwill among the nations of the world. That is a combination of qualities rarely found in any one man.
Finally, King George VI and his gracious consort show us a noble example of home life, of happy domesticity, something for which we may be truly grateful, since the home is the very cornerstone of the nation.
For all these reasons we, the representatives of the people here assembled, whether of English-speaking or French-speaking extraction, join with one voice, one heart and one mind in welcoming His Majesty King George VI and his gracious queen to the shores of Canada. We express at the same time our fervent hope that their visit may be happy and profitable in every way and that they may return to their home in the British Isles confident of the sincere loyalty and deep affection of every true Canadian.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: The social crediters in Alberta, in Canada, and throughout the empire feel warm devotion to the British commonwealth, its unity, its greatness and its mission. For their majesties we entertain sentiments of esteem and love. With all our hearts we welcome them. Long may they happily reign.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: On behalf of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group I wish to associate myself with what has been said by the right hon.
the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), and by the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Blackmore). I need hardly say that we are pleased to support the motion submitted by the Prime Minister.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Whereupon the members of the house rose and sang
God save the King ELECTORAL MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, May 4, the debate on the motion of Mr. Bothwell for concurrence in the third report of the special committee on electoral matters.
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: On Thursday last, in adjourning the debate on the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) for concurrence in the third report of the special committee on electoral matters, I stated to the house that the matter raised by the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan) would be further studied. We have made some further study, and although I am not prepared to say that there will be any amendment made to the report of the committee, I hope to be able to present some suggested amendments to the house when the bill which will follow concurrence in this report is brought down. Should concurrence be given to-day I shall introduce a resolution on Monday so that a bill may be introduced.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. McLarty). I understand that the day of their majesties' arrival in Ottawa is to be a civic holiday. 1 also understand that a ruling has gone out that the postmen must deliver mail on that day. If I may be permitted to make a suggestion, I am informed that at least half- more than half-of the postmen are returned soldiers and are very anxious to take part in the reception. Most of us would be better off anyway without about three-quarters of
Foreign Wheat Purchases

the mail we receive; therefore I suggest that the postmen be given the same holiday as practically everyone else in the city will enjoy. I hope the Postmaster General will give consideration to the matter.
Hon. NORMAN A. McLARTY (Postmaster General); I shall be glad indeed to give consideration to the matter. My understanding was not that of my hon. friend. My information is that at each point, as their majesties arrive, only a mere skeleton staff is kept on in the post offices. I thought it appropriate that on the day of their majesties' arrival no service should be given. This matter is one that was dealt with by the interdepartmental committee. I believe they dealt not only with those employed in the postal service but with other government services as well. However, I shall look into the matter and give my hon. friend further information.


Robert James Manion: One of the postmen stopped me this morning as I came along and told me they were being tied up at work, and I thought it was hardly fair to them.


Mr. McLARTY:: I agree with my hon. friend, and I will give him full information at a later time.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) based on a telegram which I received a short time ago. The telegram reads:
A. J. Brooks, M.P., House of Commons, Ottawa.
Hartland, N.B.,
May 12, 1939.
American potatoes being loaded at St. Leonard, Grand Falls, other points shipped under Maritime Freight Rates Act to Canadian points, otherwise Canadian taxpayer paying railway five cents hundred bonus on American potatoes, which are making loss to our growers of thousands of dollars.
H. H. Hatfield.
I would ask the minister if this matter has been brought to his attention, and if so what action he proposes to take to prevent this abuse of the privilege which belongs solely to our own people. These potatoes, I understand, are coming from Maine. St. Leonard and Grand Falls are just across the border in the province of New Brunswick.
fMr. Manion]


William Daum Euler: The first intimation I had that this was taking place reached me through my hon. friend a very few minutes ago. I have had no opportunity as yet of making any inquiry. I have no reason to doubt that these potatoes may be entering from the United States at points near the Canadian border and are being shipped further west under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I might point out to him that the Maritime Freight Rates Act was enacted at the request of the people of the maritime provinces in order to give them an advantage. If it is being used in this way to effect the importation and sale of foreign goods, that would be unfortunate. Perhaps my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) could say whether the benefits of the act are supposed to be extended to goods of foreign origin; I do not know. All I can say at the moment is that I shall make inquiry regarding the whole matter.



FOREIGN WHEAT PURCHASES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: In view of reported buying and selling of wheat by governments, including a recent sale of over 6i million bushels by Argentina to Spain, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) what steps, if any, were taken by the Canadian wheat board or by the government to secure this business, and what steps the government propose to take in the future to secure similar sales of Canadian products.


William Daum Euler: Did my hon. friend refer to Spain?


Major James William Coldwell: Yes.


William Daum Euler: It is a matter of policy, but I might say that the reason the government have not taken any definite action, although they propose to negotiate, is that the recognition of Spain has not yet been formally concluded.


Major James William Coldwell: I understood that it had.


William Daum Euler: No. The government actually has recognized it, but I believe the formalities have not yet been completed. If they have, it has been only within the last week or so, and I have no knowledge of it.

Supply-National Defence
But for the information of the house and of my hon. friend I would say that the government has in mind the possibility of effecting some sort of arrangement with regard to the sale of wheat to Spain; at least we intend to try.


Mr. COLD WELL:: And to other countries?


William Daum Euler: To every country in the world where there is a prospect of selling wheat.



LONG LAKE WATER DIVERSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I should like to ask the government a question in reference to the approaching diversion of water from Long lake to lake Superior. I have just received a photograph showing a portion of a very large quantity of pulpwood, amounting to approximately 50,000 cords, that is now lying on the ice of Long lake, and my information is that the owners of that wood intend shortly to open the sluice gates in the control dam south of Long lake in order to release the necessary water to take this wood through the canal through the international height of land. This will take a large volume of water, but no matter how large or how small the diversion may be it is a violation of the boundary waters treaty. I would ask the government what they propose to do about it.


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport) :: My information is that there is very serious flooding of the railway tracks in the vicinity of Longlac, where the line has been washed out twice. I presume if the sluice gates are being opened, it is being done to overcome that difficulty. I do not know that increasing the flow of water from that lake into lake Superior would be a violation of the treaty, which has to do with the use made of additional water. I know of nothing in the treaty that would prevent water being put into an international waterway.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I may inform the minister that the flooding has been occasioned by the closing of the dam in the Kenogami river.



SASKATCHEWAN DROUGHT AREA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Newspaper reports and letters from Saskatchewan
intimate that relief in the drought area is being cut twenty per cent, effective May 1.
I was wondering if this was as a result of any reduction in the grants in aid to the province of Saskatchewan by the federal government.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Relief in the drought area is administered by the Department of Agriculture. I have received no information such as that just conveyed to me by my hon. friend, but I shall direct the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to the point raised.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
General.
208. Adjustment of war claims, $60,000.
Mr. J. A. CRETE (St. Maurice-Lafleche) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to add a few observations to those which I offered two years ago and again last year when parliament was called upon to vote millions for so-called national defence. I then objected to any considerable increase in our military appropriations, suspecting that the armaments they were intended for would be used at the first opportunity in an extra-territorial war.
Last year, particularly, I warned the government that so long as the Canadian Militia Act did not specify the boundaries of Canada,
I would be unable to believe that the millions voted for armaments would be used solely for the defence of Canada, but would rather imagine that they were intended for the equipment of an expeditionary force to be used in any war in which England happened to be engaged for the defence of her financial and industrial interests extending to almost the entire world.
With nearly all my colleagues from the province of Quebec and many members from other provinces, I declared myself irrevocably opposed to Canada's participation in external wars.
Statement has followed upon statement, both in the house and outside the house that the millions spent in Canada for armaments would serve only for the defence of Canada and of her citizens. But this year, when the government is asking parliament to vote military appropriations surpassing anything that has been known in our history, statesmen are telling us that Canada is not a sovereign nation, that we cannot remain neutral in a war in which England is involved.
But, Mr. Chairman, if Canada cannot remain neutral in a war in which England is

Supply-National Defence
involved it logically follows that there will be participation. Would this participation take the form of the sending of contingents? Would' these contingents leave Canada in civilian attire and unarmed? It seems to me that Canada is preparing to repeat the adventure of 1914. with the sole difference that this time she will have spent a few hundred millions in advance.
Let us reason out as logically as possible the consequences of this first stage of our participation. Should contingents of volunteers be sent overseas for the defence of England, of her interests, her freedom, and so on, our soldiers, whose bravery is well known, would be targets for the enemy as they were in Flanders in 1915. The means of ^ destruction used in modern warfare will quickly thin out their ranks. Reinforcements will then be required and voluntary enlistment will no longer suffice. And, as the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) so aptly said in this house a few weeks ago, circumstances and events will prove stronger than men's wills. Conscription will inevitably be established, as it was in 1917, to the well known imperialistic cry: "To save the empire we will send our last man, our last dollar, our last railroad track."
Mr. Chairman, I repeat what I said last year: Canada, our only homeland, is not more threatened with occupation by an overseas nation than it was last year or ten or twenty years ago. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) himself stated on April 26th last that there is no need for us to prepare against a major attack or an attempted invasion. Should we go to war, he said in substance, it will be at the side of other powers for the defence of what he called vital and essential principles. It is to be feared that these principles will be vital and essential for the mother country only, and not for Canada.
I am quite sure that, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said in this house, Canada will never participate in an external war unless parliament has so decided and that the present government will never impose conscription of men on the Canadian people. But there is always the possibility, even the probability, of a union government. It is precisely because of this eventuality which brought about our experience of 1917 that I now oppose the establishment of any military organization which might lead Canada first to participation and then to conscription.
"Where is Canada's frontier?" the Montreal Gazette was asking, on April 10 last, in an editorial, of which I will quote the last paragraph :	1
[Mr Crete]
Where is Canada's frontier? Canadian public opinion would have it drawn where Britain's frontier lies. Are Canadian politicians to draw it somewhere else, in some lower and meaner place, with their eyes fixed, not upon the sacred things ot national and international life, but upon a coming general election?
That the sacred interests of Mr. John Bassett's Gazette are not limited by a Canadian frontier, everybody will admit; but it will not be as readily agreed that Canadian public opinion will bow to their dictates and forget, for their sake, those of Canada. A brief survey of the opinion of our students, whether English or French speaking, even of his own subscribers or his fellow citizens of Montreal in every walk of life, would considerably abate Mr. Bassett's boldness. He would also ascertain that politicians who draw Canada's frontier at its geographical borders have more supporters than he is willing to admit, enough, at all events, surely to shatter, when the hour comes, his imperialistic dreams.
True Canadians, who have sense enough to recognize as their sole homeland the country which provides them with means of living, do not, for all that, despise democracy. They do not make light of the sacred things of national and international life. To infer the contrary from the fact that they do not draw their country's frontier thousands of miles from its actual territory, is a purely fantastic interpretation. Those Canadians cannot believe that Canada's geographical limits are too narrow or too mean for them. But they perfectly believe, and are on the verge of sincerely hoping, that men of the calibre of Mr. Bassett will immediately cross those borders, for our Canada, with its immense resources and its democratic system, does not suit them and cannot satisfy them.
For my part, Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation in stating in this chamber that Canada is the only country for the defence of which I will allow my children to give their life.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to discuss some matters of general policy with relation to national defence. Something akin to consternation was experienced when we realized the government proposed almost to double defence expenditure and enter into huge commitments for the future. That consternation has been caused by a realization that Canada requires to pay a still heavier price for what has been described as an attempt to remain at peace in a world at war.

Supply-National Defence
I do not propose to take advantage of this opportunity to indulge in any abuse of the government, or any attempt to make public statements that might be construed as embarrassing to the officers in charge of our defence operations. But I must point out that we are confronted with a defence problem, with plans for warlike measures on the part of a peace loving people, because we live in a world that is now governed by anarchy and balance-of-power politics. I do not propose to reopen the discussion of international affairs or Canada's foreign policy. I am bound however to say at this juncture that our foreign policy should shape our defence policy. There is little in our foreign policy as declared by the government that enables any clear definition of strategical objectives in our defence expenditures.
Reviewing the statements of policy made by the government, and the review made only the other day by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), I think it must be realized that at this time we are displaying a far greater interest in the measures that must be taken after war breaks out than in those steps which might be attempted even in the right of Canada to avoid entanglement in a war. We have made very little effort to establish any moral principle either in our diplomatic or in our trading relationships, and I submit that there is consequently little sense of direction in our defence plans.
Our chief weakness in this respect has been very well described by Professor A. R. M. Lower in a recent article appearing in the current issue of the Canadian Forum. Professor Lower cannot in any sense be described as an opponent of defence measures. In my opinion his contributions to discussions of defence problems in Canada have been most outstanding and realistic. He has this to say by way of preface to his views on Canadian defence:
During the crushing series of defeats that Germany has been administering to France and England, this country literally has had no foreign policy. It has been a waiter upon events. Nothing could be more humiliating to those who have an affection for their native land than the way in which the majority of people wobble about, without will or decision of their own, taking their lead from a distant statesman over whom they have no control, who has no responsibility towards them, whose policy they cannot influence in any particular, for whom, or against whom, they cannot even vote.
And, the writer cannot forbear to add, a statesman with whose policy the majority of English speaking Canadians if they understood it (which of course they do not), would find themselves in sharp disagreement. ... Yet, even now, with all that has happened, of real understanding of our interests, as opposed to sentimental ancestor-worship, there is, except 71492-253
on the part of a small group, little sign. We were and are a nation of "Yes-men," a squad of infantry changing our dire tion in unthinking obedience to the commands of the sergeant-major across the water. And worse still, a sergeant-major who is not even aware that he is ordering us about.
That must not continue to happen. Taking our cue from statesmen of older countries we must decide what Canada's vital national interests are. The decision must be taken neither narrowly or sentimentally.
Professor Lower then goes on to enumerate the things which in his opinion we as Canadians must do to defend ourselves in the new kind of world into which we are entering, a world in which we must depend largely on ourselves, as was pointed out last night by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey).


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: From
what issue was the hon. member reading?


Charles Grant MacNeil: The current issue of the Canadian Forum. However, in a discussion of the defence program we have no alternative but to start from the position in which we have been placed by the attitude taken by the government. I propose this afternoon to deal with the matter, not theoretically but so far as I may from the common sense point of view, and from the distinctly Canadian point of view which it is essential we should hold at this time. I have in mind the words of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), uttered only a few days ago, in which he expressed the view that sentiment is an unsafe basis upon which to make a decision. I see no reason, under the circumstances, why we should approach this problem in a state of jitters, or why we should resort to emotional outbursts. We should take the common sense, realistic approach to the problem and attempt to work it out as practical men.
I must point out at this stage, however, that there are fundamental considerations with which we have not come to grips, fundamental considerations which some day we must face if we are to deal effectively with problems of war. At the moment I must pass on from those considerations to the more immediate and practical problems presented in the minister's outline, at the same time emphasizing the fact that if we are to escape the horrors of war we must deal with the causes of war more effectively than we have dealt with them in the past.
At the moment the minister has placed before us an immediate and practical problem, namely that of reviewing a particular program of expenditures for purposes of defence. And because of the startling increase in the expenditures for the defence program our responsibilities are greater than ever before,

Supply-National Defence

and we cannot discharge those responsibilities by a casual or desultory discussion of the problem. In his statement the minister has brought us to the point where, as members of the House of Commons we must come to close grips with the problem and give these expenditures detailed study. He states that the defence program or at least the expenditures contained in these estimates, have been the result of the government's appraisal, not only of the relevant aspects of the policy with respect to external affairs, but also of the risks apprehended and the equipment and forces required to cope with such risks. Since we last discussed defence estimates in this house certain factors in the international scene have become more apparent, and these have a definite bearing on our defence problem. I propose to enumerate the more important factors, some of which, while always present, have become more apparent.
First, the axis powers have more openly and more defiantly declared their intention to employ war or the threat of war in order to subdue or dominate other nations. Second, within the last month there has been a complete reversal of policy on the part of the democratic powers. They are now feverishly attempting to build up by means of antiaggression pacts a substitute for the league, and this is coupled with an armament race unprecedented in its proportions. Third, Great Britain has undertaken definite military commitments on the European continent. This has now been formally announced, and that fact alone must necessarily involve a change in commonwealth defence plans. Fourth, the President of the United States has declared more definitely that hostile action against Canada will be regarded as hostile action against the United States. Fifth, statements have originated in practically all the dominions and in Great Britain that in the event of Britain being involved in war, expeditionary forces from the dominions will not be expected or desired as an effective part of the discharge of mutual obligations. Emphasis from the commonwealth point of view has been more clearly placed on the responsibility of each dominion for its own defence. Sixth, and last, it is more apparent now that the axis powers have established naval and submarine bases in Spain and in northern Africa, from which bases raids may be more effectively directed against British shipping.
No doubt these are some of the factors which have influenced the administration to provide for these defence expenditures and undertake huge commitments for the future. I submit that we should not view these estimates as being merely financial commitments.
rMr. MacNeil.]
Every commitment made in this regard involves the possible expenditure of human life. We should consider these matters as being not only financial obligations but obligations or commitments with regard to Canadian lives. Our defence policy should bear a definite relation to the realities of the situation as I have outlined it, and to our resources and geographical position. If the necessity for defence is thrust upon us, we should devise a sound, well-balanced and well-coordinated defence program adapted to meet Canada's needs. The impression left by the statement of the minister is that in the opinion of the staff nothing matters but arms. A realistic view of the situation reveals that Canada cannot safely rely for defence upon armaments alone.
Our responsibility does not end merely with the voting of these appropriations. The minister has made it clear that although much is demanded from Canada this year for defence, much more may be required in years to come. Because of the imperative need for a clearly-defined defence policy, all the implications of that policy and its bearing upon our national life should be discussed in this house at this time. It is not enough that we should merely view a dangerous situation and then hurriedly sign a larger cheque on the national treasury for defence expenditures. As far as I can judge, the larger the appropriations are for the fighting services, the less we have in the way of defence and the more they want. On each occasion that we have considered defence expenditures in recent years we have been assured that Canada will be well protected, and then this show is put on all over again.
Since we must think in terms of defence, it is our responsibility to examine the existing world situation in relation to our own safety. The greater the appropriations for defence, the greater the responsibility of parliament in this regard. We cannot accept blindly any ready-made scheme. Even where there is agreement as to the necessity of increased expenditures for defence, there still can be sincere and important differences of opinion as to policy. Until certain matters of policy are more clearly defined, we shall always have uneasiness and uncertainty throughout Canada with regard to defence. We cannot discharge our responsibilities simply by voting large sums like a lot of sheep.
I ask the government to provide a more satisfactory method for the discussion of our defence policy. I think we have reached this stage in this important question. I had intended to propose a special defence committee of the house, and I am glad the leader

Supply

National Defence
of the opposition (Mr. Manion) has already suggested this. The suggestion seemed to meet with the approval of the minister. Certain items of these estimates could be referred to that special committee if thought advisable, and if necessary the committee could hold a number of closed sessions. The purpose of the committee would be, not to undertake a revision of the estimates as such, but to receive information and discuss policy. Such a procedure has been followed with most satisfactory results in other countries.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
entirely in favour of that suggestion.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I appreciate that. May I say that such a procedure would be necessary in the event of a defence emergency, and certainly it should be followed now if the dangers of the situation are so great as to involve these increased commitments. I suggest the usual reservations should be made as to military and naval secrets. Although I am intensely interested in our defence problem, I for one would not care to have the responsibility of knowing technical military or naval secrets. There need be no fear on that score. A great deal of important information was embodied in the minister's statement the other day, and after all the agents of foreign powers in Canada probably know a great deal more about defence than do members of parliament. I see no good reason why members of the house cannot be trusted to study the defence problem as they do other public issues.
Hitherto there has been a "take it or leave it" attitude on the part of the general staff and the administration. That does not make for a wholesome situation. Nothing could be more useful at this juncture than a report to the house based on the hearing of evidence from qualified technicians and the discussion of policy from all points of view. I believe there would be a most wholesome effect as a result of such discussion. There has been some justification for the articles which have recently appeared in Canadian periodicals criticizing parliament in connection with defence matters. One writer says that the members of the house usually ask the wrong questions and never get the right answers. Never at any time has there been a comprehensive survey of the whole question as a matter of public policy from all angles. I think we must all admit if we cast our mind's eye back over the discussion of defence policy in recent years that there is good ground for that criticism.
I think there is also good ground for the criticism that results are not always commensurate with the expenditures. This reaction 71492-253 i
is inevitable throughout the country when information as to policy and general plans of administrative action is disclosed only during debates largely conducted along partisan lines. A review of past years will convince any reasonable member of the house that there would have been greater confidence at this time in the Department of National Defence had there been greater frankness at the outset and throughout the years. The absurd situation exists to-day that any hon. member who criticizes or questions the defence policy as reported to the house is immediately accused of opposing defence, of disloyalty, of sabotage of national interests. I for one am not opposed to reasonable defence measures as such. I repeat what I have said before, that I believe it to be the responsibility of the government to provide defence against external danger; but when I say that, it does not bind me to agree in all matters relating to defence, nor does it prevent me from holding convictions as to what defence policy is best adapted to Canadian needs.
More than ever before, defence is a matter of vital concern to all the people, and is not merely the concern of a small official group. As far as possible, all the evidence upon which important decisions have been made should be before the house in detail. I suggest that the only way such matters can be examined in detail is by a committee of the house. In any defence emergency we shall require much more than military or naval preparedness. It will demand effective coordination of all our principal national enterprises.
A democracy is effective in defence only when public morale is at a high level. A dictatorship may move more quickly at the outset, but it cannot maintain that morale, nor can it survive any serious reverse. Canada is not in such great danger as to warrant any form of military dictatorship. I believe that for the most part we find common ground in the desire to preserve our democratic institutions, and it is very easy to destroy democratic institutions by preparing to defend ourselves in the wrong way. For that reason, I submit, our military preparations should be subject to certain controls which are an essential part of our democratic institutions. If we do not exercise those controls, if a defence program is introduced into this house with a sort of implied warning-"Hands off, or we will brand you as disloyal"-we shall not make very much progress. We must, o* course, exercise some restraint in public debate, otherwise we may be throwing crumbs of comfort to an unfriendly power. No one will deny, I think, that committee work in this
Supply-National Defence

house has served a very useful purpose, even with regard to the most contentious matters. For these reasons, it seems to me, a committee of the house should be asked to give special study to this question in the light of all the circumstances.
I submit that one of the principles _ which underlie our expenditure at this time is that all defence measures should be strictly for the direct defence of Canadian shores. No appropriation should be made for any other purpose at this juncture. There should be no doubt on this matter, and there should be no unwise diffusion of effort. It has been stated authoritatively in many quarters within the commonwealth that if we do this we shall be making our maximum contribution as a Canadian people towards collaboration with friendly nations. If we do this job thoroughly we shall be taxing all our resources. We cannot do it thoroughly if we attempt to imitate the preparations of first-class powers. It is clear as never before that Canadian defence must be planned and carried on solely with reference to Canadian conditions. The minister himself emphasized that point when he said that Canada will not be required to carry on war single-handed, but only in collaboration with first class powers. Canada is not a first-class power, nor should we pretend that we are, or make provisions in the estimates on the assumption that we can carry out the motions of a first-class power. By that I mean that we cannot hope as a nation to develop a striking force which might injure or destroy enemy forces before they reach our shores. It is in vain to suppose that we could provide, for instance, a battle fleet which might engage and destroy at sea the raiding forces of a first-class naval power. We should concentrate at this juncture on placing our own shores in a proper state of defence, to the exclusion of all other considerations.
In some quarters it is contended that we should throw our whole weight into the battle on other frontiers and thus gain the advantage of the indirect defence of Canada. Such a policy might well prove to be national selfdestruction. We shall do well if we make ready to defend ourselves without expecting aid from elsewhere. It is now made clear, I think, from reviewing all we know of empire plans of defence, that this is our first, and at this juncture our only, responsibility. If for sentimental reasons we attempt more ambitious schemes, we shall neglect the primary duty of national security, and that neglect will prove damaging not only to ourselves but to cooperating nations. Our own national

security should be our first concern, since it is clear that we shall be at war in collaboration with other powers. Let us not forget that such collaboration is weakened if we neglect our home defence.
The existence of large standing armies and navies in Europe or across the Pacific does not compel preparations in Canada to defend ourselves against invasion by any large foreign army. The whole question of trans-oeeanic warfare has been carefully reviewed during the past year by experts in all countries, particularly in the United States, and there is unanimity of opinion that no first-class power or combination of powers can successfully direct any hostile action resulting in seizure of territory on this continent. Military strategists in the United States, high-ranking officers of the United States forces, have computed that the maximum force which could be brought against this continent is in the neighbourhood of 200,000 combat troops. This is assuming that enemy powers could at the same time guard their own frontiers and dispatch an invading armada across the ocean without interference. With each combatant it would be necessary to transport four tons of supplies as well as eight tons of equipment. Upon this basis the transport of even
100.000	combatant troops would require
1.200.000	tons of shipping, or three-fifths of Germany's entire shipping. This is a computation based on estimates of experts in the United States. I submit that it is absurd in the extreme to speculate that any power or combination of powers would at one time mobilize a fleet of over 300 transports, with naval protection equivalent to the entire strength of the German navy, taking twelve days, as would be required in the case of merchantmen, to land an army of merely
100.000	soldiers on this continent. There are few ports where they would find the necessary equipment to unload artillery, combat tanks and munitions. They would have to tow various types of special landing devices. Of any such movements we would have ample warning. If the combined United Kingdoa and United States navies did not engage and destroy such a fleet, it is absurd to suppose that we could do anything about it, here, even with the forces we would have at our command on Canadian shores. No first-class power, however, would risk the consequences of such a venture. With our natural advantages for defence and reasonably efficient coastal defence we could repel such an invasion. We can brush aside for many years the alarms

Supply-National Defence
raised by some that, at any moment, there may suddenly appear on our coasts a large raiding force.
During the period between May, 1917, and November 1, 1918, the United States moved
884,000	troops across to France on American ships. They used 802 vessels apart from the British transports. They gradually put into service another 900 vessels, but in July, 1918, they were able to transport only 300,000 men a month. They could not land more than 25,000 tons of supplies a day, although they required 40,000 tons daily to keep their armies in the field. If these are the facts of the situation, the facts we know, what then have we to fear in this respect from Japan, with only 637 ships in its entire merchant fleet, or Germany, with 2,321 ships of all kinds?
The landing of an army of any size with equipment and supplies on either coast, equipped to hold and occupy Canadian territory, can be described only as an hallucination. The alarming prospect of a battle fleet laying waste our coasts also seems to hold terrors for some. Here again we may refer to the considered opinion of experts. Admiral Sims said not long ago that "a battleship fleet is tied down to its base and has a radius of not over 2,500 miles." He ridiculed the idea that a Japanese fleet could cross the Pacific and bring with it fuel enough to reach United States shores, to manoeuvre and fight, and then return 7,000 miles to its home waters.
The opinion of leading high-ranking officers in the United States is that the offensive range of modern fleets is not above 2,500 miles. Den-linger and Gary in their "War on the Pacific" put it at 2,000 miles. There is reason to doubt that any of the new German battleships, or even the Japanese battleships, have fuel capacity to enable them to engage in battle on this side of the Atlantic. We know with certainty now, by reason of investigations made at Scapa Flow, that on account of limited fuel capacity, the German fleet during the great war could not have attacked our harbours. We well remember the warnings then broadcast of the danger that a German fleet might destroy our ports. I mention these facts to show that there is no occasion for hysteria with regard to manoeuvres of battle fleets in force off our coast.
In this connection, it is interesting to note the statement made by Lieutenant-General MacArthur with reference to the Philippines. These islands are more exposed to attack than any point in Canada, and never have American naval experts pretended that they
could protect the Philippines by waging war against the Japanese in their own waters. General MacArthur stated that, with a few more years to train the native troops, he could guarantee to hold the islands against the full force of a Japanese attack. He gave as his reason that ships' guns and planes are ineffective, even against relatively weak shore defences. As Professor Lower points out, if that can be said for a distant and vulnerable position like the Philippines, it certainly can be done all the more easily for a country as naturally strong as Canada.
The prospect of devastating air raids is not as terrifying as some would have us believe. The longest single flight made by a plane is 6.295 miles. As Major Eliot points out in his recent work, The Ramparts We Watch, acclaimed by military experts, the military radius of action is roughly about one-fourth of the maximum range; that is, the plane must go out from its base, and return, which cuts the range in half. He then states that the maximum range of a bombing plane to-day is only 1,500 miles-750 miles out and 750 miles back. Admiral Leahy, recently testifying before the congress committee on naval affairs, with reference to the fortification of Guam, stated that planes could not reach Japan proper from Guam loaded with bombs, although the distance is only 1,400 miles. The evidence goes to show that the axis powers, unlike the United States and Great Britain, have not planned aircraft construction for long range flying.
With regard to air raids on this continent, Major Eliot has this to say:
While it is theoretically possible for single planes to fly across the Atlantic with a very small military load, drop a bomb or two and return, as a practical operation of war even this is out of the question, and will remain so as far as now can be foreseen; a serious attack by a large unit is still less to be envisaged. Planes which did not expect to return might raid our coasts, but no nation has enough long-range bombers and highly trained crews to waste them in enterprises of this nature.
Another alarm has been raised on the suggestion that enemy powers might establish aircraft bases at points near our coasts, and to these bases dispatch large fleets of planes for raiding purposes. There is always the possibility that an enemy may attempt to utilize some landing field at inconvenient points, but we should not overlook the practical difficulties in the way of establishing bases for continued operations. Would it be possible to establish hangars for, say, even twenty-five planes without exposing the position to a vigilant patrol? The German detail
Supply-National Defence

fifteen men to keep one plane in the air. How could a distant power maintain a base with all the necessary skilled mechanics and special machinery required? The answer is that no distant enemy power would waste men and equipment on so fruitless and costly a venture.
All reasonable calculations as to the risks confronting Canada in a world war eliminate the probability of enemy action in force. I mention these things because I am extremely suspicious when men rise and speak vaguely and in general terms of terrible dangers to which we are exposed. I wonder what they are trying to justify.
There remains only the probability of occasional hit-and-run attacks by small raiding forces of aircraft or naval forces of aircraft or naval vessels either separately or acting in combination, provided they can escape naval action on the Atlantic or the Pacific. To this may be added the possibility of submarine attacks on shipping. This is the actual risk and the outside limits of the risk to which our ports and shipping focal areas might be exposed, and then only infrequently.
As already suggested, there might be an attempt to employ the Hudson bay route during the summer season, in order to strike at vital centres in Canada. Obviously, we cannot ring these centres about with antiaircraft guns. Infantry and field artillery cannot protect cities against bombing. When we consider the actual problem, with its most dangerous limits, the answer is coastal defence. If we are vulnerable through the Hudson bay route, the obvious defence is to extend our coast patrol with air bases at suitable points, that such provision may (be made as to enable action that will close that entrance during the open season. It is not reasonable to assume that any enemy power is so well supplied with aircraft carriers at this time that it can undertake the risks of navigation to which it would be exposed and the possibility of capture that would be involved in a raid from that direction.
In the world situation outlined by the minister, it is this phase of the problem that should have priority. Any ambitious attempt by which our effort may be dissipated in other directions will mean the neglect of this primary responsibility, and ignore the known risks.
In our defence establishment, we have an intermingling of two distinct traditions. We have the colonial tradition, to which the minister has referred, and which has resulted in a string of expensive armouries across the country, an extraordinary number of unite and commands with an expenditure that is

largely waste as regards coastal defence. In many respects it is a survival of the days when we prepared to repel attacks from the south.
There is another tradition which survives from the great war, and which involves plans for an expeditionary force abroad, and the equipment and strategy of an army of manoeuvre. These two traditions are outmoded and should be abandoned for the more modern plan of devising defence as though for an island nation. All our effort in this regard should be defensive in the strict sense of the term. Under the existing circumstances we cannot risk taking the offensive even in collaboration with other powers. Any such collaboration would mean the neglect of defence, resulting in exposing a vulnerable weakness and flanking action against ourselves as well as our allies.
We should examine our naval preparations in the light of the actual requirements for coastal defence. Apparently we are to have a destroyer flotilla. What is the objective of that policy? Are we putting together some sort of Canadian navy on no plan at all, merely as circumstances press? If we are building up to the cruiser stage and intend to have a fleet, such a policy should be openly discussed and strategical objectives defined. A raiding force crossing the ocean would likely include one cruiser, carrying 6-inch or 8-inch guns. Against such ships, destroyers would be powerless. Destroyers are expensive and unnecessarily fast for convoy work. For an anti-submarine patrol, small fast ships with modem detection devices are much more effective.
Destroyer flotillas can have little useful function apart from a battle fleet. All the strictly Canadian purposes could be served more adequately and at much less expense by smaller ships. If we are thinking of Canadian vulnerability, a submarine lying in wait off the entrance to Hudson bay would prove of more value with an air patrol than all our six destroyers. Either we have no plan at all in this regard or we are actually planning the assembly of a naval unit to function as a part of the British navy. For this, the Naval Service Act provides. Our destroyer force may be serving mainly as a training school for future expansion or for graduation into the British navy. We should know in which direction we are travelling. We cannot take both courses. For defensive purposes the emphasis should be placed now on the acquisition of fast "mosquito craft," carrying torpedoes and equipped with listening devices, supported by the destroyers we already have.

Supply-National Defence
We should have mine fields and booms. These would provide much more formidable defence for Canada than more destroyers or cruisers at this stage.
When the minister says our first line of defence is our air force I think he overemphasizes its importance. Aircraft are useful for patrol, "spotting" for naval guns and shore batteries. They may be used to impede a landing or bomb out bases. We know now from experience that they can do relatively little damage to approaching ships. We know also that as the speed of aircraft increases the chances of our defence squadrons intercepting and engaging a raiding squadron decrease. The air force is essentially an auxiliary arm to naval forces and coastal batteries. If the risks are those stated by the minister, the country may well ask why we are spending so much on aircraft and have so few anti-aircraft guns and fire control instruments in the country. Large orders are now being placed for searchlights, but what practical value will they have without batteries of anti-aircraft guns to fire on the planes so spotted? Obviously the program is out of balance, unless it is proposed that we dispatch our air squadrons abroad. Here again we have the dead1 hand of tradition, more British than the British-British training, wholesale cooperation with the British authorities, everything in a groove by reason of our experience in the last war, by reason of that cooperation with England. There is a tendency to neglect primary Canadian responsibilities, with results which will prove a source of danger and may prove disastrous to any form of effective cooperation with the United States or with Great Britain. The whole spirit of the force is anti-national-it is not national. There is a slavish adherence to the British system, with the result that much of our defence organization bears very little real relation to our actual needs.
I submit that we are building a force more with the design of taking the field as an army of manoeuvre rather than with a view to problems of coastal defence. We have first the system of training based on the exchange of officers with the British authorities, all based on the idea of cooperation for purposes other than the direct defence of Canadian shores-everything for the preparation of an expeditionary force. I consider that to be the general expectation of the great majority of the officers on the active list. The whole plan of organization suggests a skeleton outline of army divisions equipped according to British army specifications. If we are still
thinking of defence, we may never have to assemble an entire army division complete in all arms and units, as they do on the European continent.
It is more likely that for purposes of defence we require a highly specialized division with emphasis on the engineering services, coastal batteries, signals and anti-aircraft work. I think we may properly question the organizing of tank battalions unless we are preparing to take the field. It may be argued that tank regiments may be useful against landing parties; if so why do we not train them on the terrain on wffiich they must fight? We have too many infantry units, and many of them are over-officered. The disposition of units and commands bears no real relation to the problems of coastal defence.


The CHAIRMAN:: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member, but he has spoken for forty minutes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think there was an understanding that the limitation should be withdrawn and the hon. member allowed to carry on.


Robert James Manion: At any rate we can make an interruption and then the hon. member can speak for another forty minutes.


Frederick George Sanderson: That has been done, but that is out of order also.


Robert James Manion: Oh, no; not if we go on speaking.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I will hasten to the end. Why should there not be a reorganization on the same basis now announced for the air force-that is, an eastern command with headquarters at Halifax, a western command at Vancouver and central training and recruiting base in central Canada? We have a large number of military districts, unnecessary duplication of units, all based on a plan of army organization not adapted to present Canadian needs, but better adapted for the dispatch of an expeditionary force. I submit very earnestly and sincerely that if suddenly we were precipitated into war and thrown on our own resources, that is exactly what we should have to do in the way of defence organization. Therefore why not do it now, plan as though we are planning for actual danger?
I question the preponderance of field artillery. I do not suggest that we should abandon field artillery now in the possession of the department. Light and medium artillery may be required to repel landing parties principally after landing has been
Supply-National Defence

made. Here again I suggest the training has not been on the terrain on which they may be required to fight. Furthermore there is no plan of highways developed to enable effective action on the part of light or medium artillery in the event that they have to deal with landing parties in force. If we are honest about the defence of our shores we must recognize that we require heavy guns, 9-2 for instance, to engage hostile ships, far more than field guns, unless we are going on some excursion abroad.
I noticed in the list prepared by the department that they are asking for howitzers and howitzer ammunition. Why howitzers instead of 6 inch or 9'2 inch guns? The howitzer is an arm used to shell enemy positions occupied in strength. Why mortars? And so on down the list submitted by the minister the other day. Apart from items for purely coastal defence, the list includes 544 infantry mortars, 60 medium howitzer equipments, 20 medium gun equipments, 500 field gun equipments, 348 anti-tank equipments; for mobile army armament, $17,000,000 and for ammunition, $17,000,000.
These questions should be answered. I may be all wrong, but as I understand the use of artillery of this sort it is for other purposes than coastal defence. It would appear that the staff have decided that we must fight abroad. I am not suggesting that the staff are conspiring against the interests or wishes of Canada, but I think they believe it likely that sentiment in Canada will demand the dispatch of an expeditionary force overseas and therefore, particularly in the light of historical precedents, they must prepare for such a contingency. They are going ahead on that basis. I submit that sentiment is an unsafe basis for such a decision. I cannot forget that at the beginning of the last war the staff was responsible for horrible blunders which cost many thousands of lives. At this time I am not going into matters which are the subject of inquiry before the public accounts committee, but we may deal with the matter of policy behind the Bren gun order.
At the outset we find the initiative was not taken by our staff. We read that it was learned that the British war office had decided that the Bren gun would be standard equipment for their forces, therefore Canada followed the example. They decided that the requirements should be 7,000 Bren guns. Now why that, when we are thinking in terms of coastal defence? The Bren gun is a light machine gun designed for use by infantry; it requires two men to operate it, it has only

thirty rounds of ammunition in the magazine; after a period of sustained lire or even after a burst at any period the barrel must be changed. It is not a weapon designed for the type of sustained fire which will be urgently required for coast defence. If I were an officer charged with the defence of a port on the coast, east or west, and had to deal with raiding forces of the type which we may expect, I should be calling for heavy .machine guns like the Vickers, capable of sustained fire, probably from a machine gun emplacement. The Bren gun would probably serve some useful purpose at various points, but certainly 3,500 on the Pacific coast and 3,500 on the Atlantic far exceed our needs for light machine guns for purposes of strictly coastal defence.
Furthermore, reports have been communicated to me from officers on active service on the frontiers of the British empire who say that the troops have thrown away the Bren gun, not because it is obsolete or defective in construction but because it is not the type of weapon required in emergencies where sustained fire is required, and 'because it requires two men to operate it, thus doubling the risk of casualties. We should know the evidence upon which such a vital decision was made, concerning a contract on the part of Canada involving commitments which may amount to $6,000,000, when we are not securing a weapon designed to meet the requirements of coastal defence. I know, from a return tabled in the house this session, that the department is securing a limited number of heavy machine guns from Great Britain, but I submit that the emphasis has been on the light machine guns instead of the heavier guns required for coastal defence.
To sum it up, the fact of the matter is that to-day we are without adequate coastal defence against those risks of which we know; the risk of armed merchantmen, the risk of raiding aircraft squadrons or cruisers able to release a few planes. That is the type of raid to which we will likely be exposed. We are not making plans to defend ourselves against these known risks, because we are attempting to follow two systems at the same time, and it cannot be done. You cannot develop skeleton plans for an expeditionary force, for an army of manoeuvre, and at the same time concentrate training forces and equipment on purely coastal defence. Even if we are to enter into any plan of collaboration with other nations, we shall be required to give first attention to Coastal defence, and I do not believe our energies and plans should be diverted from that problem now.

Supply-National Dejence
I have a word to say about an expeditionary force, because of the public statement made recently in that regard. I think that matter should be canvassed very carefully and earnestly, and perhaps a committee of this house would be the proper place to examine it.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The hon. member has exceeded his time by ten minutes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If it will be in order, I will just interrupt for a moment to allow the hon. member to proceed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On several previous occasions. Mr. Chairman, when an interruption has been made you yourself have permitted the hon. member who had the floor to proceed, and there has been no objection. I can give instance after instance of the kind, and in view of the fact that the minister himself-


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member will please confine his remarks to the point of order. He cannot make a speech at this time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. member had the permission of the committee to proceed.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I stated yesterday, and it was the understanding, that there would be no restriction whatever in regard to the discussion of this item, either in reference to time or as to the general nature of the discussion. I think that was the general understanding.


Frederick George Sanderson: Of course I am in the judgment of the committee, but the forty minute rule prevails in committee as well as when Mr. Speaker is in the chair. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) is quite right when he says an hon. member has been permitted to speak for more than forty minutes in committee by some other hon. member getting up and speaking about something not relevant to the discussion, but that has always been out of order, though it has been permitted. In committee of the whole a member may speak for forty minutes on two, three, four or five occasions, if he gets the floor, but the hon. member who has the floor now has spoken for ten minutes beyond his time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Last year it was arranged, I think with the unanimous consent of the house, that instead of debating this question of policy with the Speaker in the chair we would have the debate in committee of the whole, with all restrictions removed. I think that was the understanding again this
year; I believe that by unanimous consent all rules were waived for the purposes of this discussion.


Frederick George Sanderson: With the unanimous consent of the committee; certainly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: It is unanimous.


Frederick George Sanderson: I understand not.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You have not the consent of the house.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Ten minutes ago the hon. member who had the floor, the hon. member for Vancouver North, had the unanimous consent of the committee to proceed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not a bit.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Minister of National Defence asked that he be allowed to proceed and he was given unanimous consent, which meant that he would be allowed to proceed for at least another forty minutes. There was no objection at that time. Had there been any objection he could not have proceeded with his remarks; but having been given unanimous consent I do not think it is in order for him now to be told that he cannot proceed.


Frederick George Sanderson: As the hon. member for Winnipeg North has said, the hon. member who had the floor obtained the unanimous consent of the committee to exceed his forty minutes. He might have continued for five or ten minutes longer, which he did; then he would have to obtain the unanimous consent of the committee to exceed that time again. There, must be some rule in connection with it.


Mr. MacINNIS:: If you will permit me just one word on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think we have been treated fairly well both by the minister and by the chair, and anything further the hon. member for Vancouver North has to say can be said after someone else has spoken just as well as it can be said now, so we will leave it at that. We are well satisfied with the treatment we have received both from the chair and from the committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My position was that I wanted to carry out the understanding that there should be absolutely unlimited discussion.


Mr. SLAGHT:: I suggest that we should permit the hon. gentleman to go on now and conclude his remarks.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Supply-National Defence


Mr. POULIOT:: The rule is that one hon. member may speak for forty minutes at a time; then after another hon. member has spoken he may speak for another forty minutes. That is the rule that applies to discussion in committee. But when the chairman asks if it is the unanimous wish of the committee to listen further to the -hon. gentleman who is speaking, it means that by unanimous consent of this committee the rule is suspended, and that the hon. member has the right to speak until one member of the committee withdraws his consent. Therefore any objection cannot come from the chairman; it must come from one member who will say, "I no longer give my consent," and the hon. member has to stop speaking. As long as there is no objection by any member of the committee I do not see how the chair can intervene and fix a limit which has not been fixed by the committee itself.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Mr. LUCIEN DUBOIS (Nicolet-Yamaska) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, as I do not want to delay in the least the work of the house, I will not make a speech, but I wish to register, this year again, my renewed opposition to the increase in the defence appropriations. I believe that we are entering upon a dangerous armament race, and I strongly oppose that course.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire inordinately to prolong the debates of the house. May I be permitted, however, to make certain statements and to underline certain views which appear, to my mind, to be taking root in this house,. There is current an opinion to the effect that members who oppose the defence estimates seem to lack confidence in, or to cast doubts on the good faith of their leaders. We fully acknowledged this good faith in the first speeches we made on the subject of defence estimates. In an address delivered in this house, in 1937, I stated that one could not doubt the sincerity of the men who governed Canada to-day. It is quite evident, Mr. Chairman, that even if one were to look up encyclopaedias and lexicological text-books, it would not only be impossible to prove that I am mistaken, but, on the contrary, the error of those who claim that we have lost faith in the sincerity of our leaders would become manifest. To my mind, not to share a man's opinion and to doubt his sincerity are two very different things.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear.
[Mr. Slaght.l


Pierre Gauthier: I declare solemnly
that all such insinuations should cease and that we are entitled, whether we come from Quebec or elsewhere, to have differences of opinion with the Government without being pointed out as members who doubt the sincerity of their leaders. When western members vote against the budget or any other government-sponsored measure, none asserts that they doubt the sincerity of their leaders, but simply that they do not share their opinion.
It seems to me that we are entitled to exercise the same privilege, even with regard to the defence estimates.


Joseph-Alphida Crête: Hear, hear.


Pierre Gauthier: I think I have stated
our position clearly enough so that none can misunderstand it.
It is now being claimed, and repeatedly so, that the bombardment of our cities and coasts by aircraft is the gravest danger and threat we have to face, in view of recent scientific developments, particularly in the field of aviation. I have examined the defence estimates and I have found no mention therein of the construction of shelters in which our population could take cover during an air raid. Those who observed the march of events in the Spanish conflict, are aware that Madrid was able to hold out to the end because of the shelters which protected the civilian population against aerial bombardment by the Nationalist air force, shelters wherein the people took cover and remained until the conclusion of each air raid. To my knowledge, no such shelters have been constructed for the protection of our civilian population. It is therefore evident, Mr. Chairman, that this danger of aerial bombardment, if real, is not as serious as some would have us believe. Regarding the possibility of an enemy base being established in Hudson Bay and the assertion made in this house that we should concentrate part of our defence forces in the Hudson Bay area, may I say that I entertain certain doubts, without, however, mistrusting the sincerity of its author.
Mr. Chairman, we often hear in the course of a war, or even during peace time, particularly at the approach of an armed conflict, appeals addressed to the French-Canadians, in which they are asked to consider well all the privileges granted to them by England. Now I have no desire to attack the British crown, but I feel that especially in time of peace, such appeals should not be resorted to,

Supply-National Defence
as we would not then be obliged to wage such difficult battles, at times, in order to obtain certain favours we request on behalf of our constituents. I am not making insinuations against any department head whatever, but I would speak at greater length on the subject if it were possible to do so within the limits of this debate. Still, I consider that the French-Canadians have had to struggle for all the privileges they may now enjoy, and that they have immediately paid for everything they obtained. We have but to recall the years of 1775, 1812 and 1837, to realize that "the French-Canadians have paid a good price for whatever advantages and liberties were granted to them by the British crown.
We may be blamed and charged with narrow-mindedness for opposing the defence estimates, or rather this increase in the defence estimates. In fact, there is a great difference between the two, which everyone apparently tries to ignore, for our opposition is directed solely against the increase in these estimates. It does not mean that we are opposed to national defence, as evidenced by the building of shelters for the protection of our people against air raids, which I mentioned a few moments ago. I am sure, at least, that it would be impossible to take such shelters out of the country for use in an external war. We may seem to be lacking in broadmindedness, but I recall the statement of a man whom I consider a great patriot, even though I have been charged with doubting his sincerity. I am referring to the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). He said in this house that when a French-Canadian leaves this country he does not feel that he is returning home. I fully agree with that statement. When a Liberal member or a member from any other party protests against what he considers an undue increase in the defence estimates, it is not because he is too narrow-minded. We are quite often told about the very wide extent of our country; therefore, it seems to me that those who believe in the protection of her natural boundaries should at least be considered as broadminded enough.
Mr. Chairman, we are sometimes told that certain men are fond of popular applause because they make patriotic statements; such men are even called blatant patriots. When we show our patriotism in our own way, or, if you prefer, as we understand it, I do not feel that it is any easier, in such case, to gain popular applause than in making a show of bravery, especially when the enemy is still
3,000	miles away. It may be asked of French-Canadians and of the younger generation of
Canadians, whether French or English-speaking-for I do know that many young Canadians of English extraction are opposed to Canada's participation in external wars-it may be asked of us whether we are willing to help England or the British empire. We are quite willing to do that, but we feel that we can best do it in using our man power and our resources for the sole defence of our country and only within her territory.


Joseph-Alphida Crête: Hear, hear.


Pierre Gauthier: That is my view, and I believe there are many who agree with me. Is it sinful or criminal to believe that young Canadians should not be called upon to fight overseas? At the time the Munich agreements were signed, we began to hear appeals for the salvation of democracy, as had happened during the war of 1914-18. But had we participated in a European war at that time, on what ground would we have fought? We would have gone to war for the salvation of Czechoslovakia, a country that came into being through the treachery of Mazaryk towards the Slovaks, a treachery that was also continued by president Benes.
What did Benes say at the Versailles Conference? It would have been easy at that time to avoid carving out a country filled with countless elements of discord. However, that country was created with various nationalities and if, to-day, we were asked to fight in order that Poland might keep the German city of Danzig, could we be blamed for entertaining doubts about the advisability of our intervention? We do not doubt the sincerity of others, but we do not want our good faith to be suspected.
We claim the privilege of freely expressing our views; we are now and will continue to be liberals, because the liberal party knows no bondage and because we are entitled to our own opinions, even though they may differ from those entertained by others.
At the Versailles Conference, Mr. Benes said:
Look at this Slovak delegation. It consists mostly of Roman Catholic priests. They are sent here by the Vatican and the Hapsburgs.
How nice!
Can we blame our young Canadians for being unwilling to fight for a nation which was thus formed?
I think I have already said, and I repeat now, that I have no reason, no more than those of my opinion, to be ashamed because of our opposition to the participation of a single Canadian soldier in an external war. I remember the election campaign in which I
Supply-National Defence

fought at the side of Hon. Lucien Cannon- who is remembered in this house as a man of fairly sound judgment-when he stated on public platforms in the county of Portneuf: "Not a man, not a cent." I have no reason to change my mind, to-day. I express my opinion accordingly and I do not care if some question my sincerity and are prone to believe that I make my statement in order to secure cheap applause or victory at the next election. Man is made up of a mind and a heart. I use my mind and I let, as far as possible, my heart speak, not being convinced that I am on the wrong road.


Mr. MICHAUD:: What is the quotation?


Pierre Gauthier: It is from a book entitled "Reminiscences of Professor Francis Je'hlicka," a Slovak.


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this subject. Before proceeding with what I have in mind, may I say that I find myself in the same position as that which I occupied last year when I followed the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier).
(Translation) As I said to my friend the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) in French last year, I do not question his sincerity but I do not share his views. I do not think the views he has expressed this morning are those of the province of Quebec or of most of his compatriots. When he was speaking of conscription there came to my mind the thought that, as we say in English, he is whipping a dead horse. I say to my hon. friend that conscription is dead and that the conscription cry should not be sounded in our province at the next elections. All the parties-Conservative, Liberal and C.C.F.-are of one mind on the subject, and I do not think the hon. member will help his cause at the coming elections in that manner. As I said in English, he is whipping a dead horse.


Pierre Gauthier: My hon. friend will allow me to point out to him that I do not seek by this speech or any other to help my cause, but only to express my views and assert my convictions. When I am no longer a member of parliament I shall still be a Canadian.


William Allen Walsh: I have already said to my hon. friend that I did not question his sincerity. I know that he is sincere but I cannot share his views. I have been reading remarks which were uttered by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) both in and out of the house. I do not find myself in agreement with what he has to suggest, partic-
ularly when I review the criticism which he and certain of his colleagues have levelled at the government which occupied the treasury benches from 1930 to 1935. In one of his speeches the Minister of National Defence used these words:
The Conservative party in Canada did more to destroy national defence than has been done by any party since confederation.
I do not think that is a fair criticism to make of the attitude adopted by or the work done by the Conservative party since confederation. That criticism is not justified by the conditions which were apparent from 1930 to 1935. We must remember that up to 1936, following the great war, conditions in Canada and generally throughout the world were entirely different from what they are today. There was a period when it was considered out of fashion to discuss armaments or armed forces. The world was striving for peace and for peaceful methods of solving the problems which then confronted it. That condition existed from 1930 to 1935, just as it did from 1926 to 1930. I do not think the government which was in power from 1930 to 1935 should be criticized any more than the government which was in power from 1926 to 1930 as far as expenditures in connection with this particular department are concerned.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the house rises for luncheon, may I say that as their majesties will not arrive in Ottawa until Thursday, instead of Wednesday as was originally scheduled, it is proposed to have the house sit on Wednesday. I think this will meet with the general approval of hon. members.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock. SUPPLY



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
General.
208. Adjustment of war claims, $60,000.
William Allen Walsh: Mr. Chairman, when we
closed for the noon recess I was endeavouring to emphasize the fact that conditions, not

Supply-National Defence
only in Canada but throughout the world,
had changed very materially during the past few years, and that I did not consider the criticism which was directed against the previous government or governments, for lack of interest and lack of development in the Department of National Defence, as fair and reasonable criticism. I quote an expression which was used by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie)-an expression which has been repeated many times by other hon. members. I would call the attention of members of this committee to expressions of the sentiment which prevailed, not on the Conservative benches, but on the Liberal benches, between the years 1930 and 1935. For example, when the estimates of this department were discussed in the year 1932, a Liberal member then sitting in opposition was reported as follows:
The budget of this department-
Referring to the Department of Militia and Defence.
-is equivalent to one dollar per capita of the population. More than $260,000 are expended on the League of Nations so as to foster disarmament, while on the other hand millions are expended for military purposes. ... I state that there is no greater waste of money in this country.
The same gentleman in the same debate used words as follows:
At a time of depression, would it not have been more appropriate for the government to leave out this item instead of reducing it?
That is, one of the items in the estimates of the department. Again, another Liberal member, who had been minister of labour in the previous government, used the following words, directed at the Minister of Militia and Defence in the Conservative government:
The government is considering ways and means of saving money, and this vote affords an opportunity to effect a Baving.
The hon. member for Temiscouata used these words in the same debate:
I am pleased indeed to see that this vote has been decreased by three-fourths, but there is still one-fourth left, which might better be nothing. I remember distinctly urging upon the house last year the desirability of giving footballs and baseball bats and boxing gloves to our young boys instead of guns and drums and other militaristic paraphernalia.
No less a person than he who now occupies the position of Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), criticizing these estimates in 1933, said:
I believe it would be better to use this $300,000-
That was an item to be used particularly,
I believe, for cadet training.
-to provide food and shelter for them than to put arms and weapons in their hands.
Colonel Ralston, who had been Minister of Militia and Defence, at that time made this suggestion:
I submit that in view of our economic and financial position this item should be very substantially reduced.
I use these quotations as illustrations of the attitude of the then opposition during the years 1930 to 1935, and to show hon. members that it is not fair for those on the other side of the house to criticize the government of that day for not having done more towards the provision of defence for the dominion. They were criticized by the Liberals then in opposition for doing too much. So why should those same hon. members, now sitting on the treasury benches, suggest that at that time we were doing too little? I have here a quotation from the debate of 1933 in connection with these estimates in which the leader of the opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, used these words:
Certainly the item now before us might well be reduced, and for a year hence could be omitted altogether.
That was the prevailing attitude. And yet, according to the present Minister of National Defence:
The Conservative party in Canada did more to destroy national defence than has been done by any party since confederation.
I do not think that under the circumstances those words are justified. If we did not do more for national defence between the years 1930 and 1935, the Liberal party of that day were just as much to blame as the Conservative party. I have no doubt that the Conservative party acted as they thought best in the interests of Canada, and, because of the peculiar economic conditions, for one thing, kept the estimates of this department at a minimum. But they did so not only because of the economic conditions which then prevailed, but because of the sentiment, which was general in Canada and throughout the world, in favour of peace and a peaceful solution of all problems, national and international.
The ex-minister of agriculture, speaking in the debate of 1934, used these expressions with regard to the Department of Militia and Defence:
How long are we going to keep up these militia districts with all this paraphernalia in every province? I do not think we are con-
Supply-National Defence

fronted with a war in Canada. . . . Are we going on indefinitely with all this business of war preparations?
Following him, the hon. member for Willow Bunch spoke as follows:
I want to join the hon. member for Melville in objecting to this vote. I am one of those who cannot see why, in times like these, we should not reduce this vote for military purposes.
And the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume), following, used these words:
I am amazed at the amounts voted for military purposes.
So it seems to me that if there was laxity from 1930 to 1935 in preparations for the defence of Canada, not only should the Conservative government of that day accept the responsibility, but hon. members representing the Liberal party who sat in opposition, and were so strenuous in their objections to the amount of money which was spent at that time, must accept a greater share of responsibility for the condition in which the minister says he found his department when he took hold of it late in 1935. They criticized what was then spent. How much more should they criticize what is being spent at the present time? But I wish to follow that statement immediately with this, that there should be no criticism of the amount requested in this budget, to judge by world conditions to-day and the general sentiment which exists not only in this dominion but throughout the world.
As I was saying, we must face conditions as we find them. We all desire peace. To my mind the surest guarantee of peace is a well armed and well prepared British empire, and a well prepared system of defence on the part of the democracies of the world. In this system Canada must play a vital part. Our attitude, I think, is influenced from three different directions; there are three different influences and conflicting factors in these developments so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned. First, Canada forms a part of the British empire; second, Canada is a member of the League of Nations; and third, Canada forms a part of the American continent. There you have three apparently conflicting interests and we must guide ourselves by due consideration of them. But I would ask this question: To what extent do these interests really conflict? On the surface they appear to be almost contradictory in relation to our attitude, and yet, when we analyse them, they are not. What should we do as regards our position in the League of Nations? My answer would be that we should maintain our position within the league. 
I recognize that to-day it is an impotent agent so far as the peace of the world is concerned, and I say that with some degree of regret, because at one time I did have great hopes for the League of Nations. But, I repeat, it is impotent to-day. Nevertheless we as Canadians and as a nation should continue to give it our support, in the hope that at some time in the future the League of Nations will develop some potency and probably become that factor for peace in the world which we all expected when it was first launched in 1918-20. That is our hope, and in order to assist in the realization of that hope Canada should maintain her interest in the league and help it to develop some potency for major use.
The second point is this. We are a part of the British empire; we accept all the rights and privileges of that partnership, and therefore, in my opinion'-and I speak as a responsible member of this house-while we accept the rights, the privileges and the benefits accruing from our association with the other member states of the British commonwealth of nations, we should also assume our share of the responsibility. And our responsibility as a member of the British commonwealth of nations we can carry out in no better way than by preparing an adequate defence for the people and the shores of Canada.
May I here express my approval of the views recently put forward by the Minister of National Defence. Speaking in one of the western cities he took as his theme the present condition in Canada, which he described as a state of defence-consciousness. I quite agree with him that Canada is defence-conscious at the present time. He went on to point out that in successive imperial conferences certain resolutions had been passed, and he epitomized them in these words: First, that each self-governing part of the empire is primarily responsible for its own local defence. I do not think anyone can take any exception to that suggestion. Second, that the security of the empire is a matter of concern to all its governments. There is no exception there. Third, that the protection of our coasts and seaborne trade in time of war is the responsibility of the government. I do not think anyone can take exception to that. And, fourth, that parliament must consider defence preparations in the light of the financial ability of the public treasury.
In my opinion the Minister of National Defence is carrying out that fourth suggestion to the best of his ability and as he thinks the public treasury will bear the expense he is

Supply-National Dejence
proposing. These statements from the Minister of National Defence are endorsed, I believe, by most hon. members. Certainly, speaking from this side and for myself personally,
I completely agree with what he said on that occasion. We are defence-conscious, and the four definite suggestions he put forward meet,
I believe, with the general approval of the members of this house.
I suggest that we should endeavour to improve existing conditions in Canada from the point of view of the Department of National Defence. I understand that from 1912 to 1914 we were training a militia of between 34,000 and 40,000 men, equipped with Canadian-made rifles, the artillery having the latest type of weapons similar to those of the British army of that day. Last year we did not train more than 25,000 men. The rifles were not Canadian-made and the artillery equipment was for the most part many years out of date. Apparently our position is worse to-day than it was in 1914 in regard to the number of men trained and the equipment at their disposal. I urge that some attention be given to this situation.
We must also take into account the considerable change that there has been in the last few years in mobility and fire power in warfare. To-day both these elements are very much greater than they were in 1914. I read with some interest a speech reported at page 410 of the debates in another chamber and with the remarks of the person who made that speech I am in entire agreement.
I would bring to the minister's attention certain articles, which no doubt he has had an opportunity of reading, published in an old country magazine called Dejence. Therein we find a considerable amount of useful information that could be of practical value to the Department of National Defence. I was also very much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Brooks) and those of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). These hon, gentlemen put forward very clear and apt suggestions, and in this connection I would say to the minister that nothing commended him more to me personally than his attitude towards those suggestions, coming as they did from members on this side of the house. When the minister crossed the floor for the purpose of complimenting the hon. member for Royal at the conclusion of his speech last night, I regarded this gracious act as a tribute not only to the hon. member for Royal but to the minister himself and a recommendation of his readiness to accept any proposals that might be of practical use in the administration of the department. I am encouraged to
believe that under such circumstances a debate of this kind will certainly have some beneficial effects upon the Department of National Defence.
In conclusion I should like to offer one or two suggestions with respect to the items under discussion. We are asked for a vote of a little more than $63,000,000. My view is that under the circumstances this is inadequate for the defence of Canada under our present conditions. We must have speedy action in placing ourselves in a position properly to defend ourselves and our coasts. Sixty-three millions is little enough; it should be closer to $100,000,000, provided it could be productively spent, as it should be, and as I feel it would be after the lengthy discussions we have had from time to time in this house on defence estimates. I feel that under the circumstances $63,000,000 is inadequate, and I should like to see the amount increased in order to speed action towards a more complete defence than we have at the present time. Of course in spending any such amount of money I urge that we get better than good value for it.
I should like the minister to know also that in speaking as I have this afternoon I believe I am speaking for a considerable body of public opinion in this country which feels as I do-that this matter of defence for Canada is urgent.
I should like to close with this one suggestion. I am sometimes accused of being too imperialistic in my views, but I do not think I am the imperialist that some people suggest. I try to be reasonable in my attitude towards the empire, my attitude towards Canada. We are still a part of the British empire; we are still a nation within the British commonwealth of nations. From that we get certain rights and certain privileges, which we are all glad to accept. And I would go a step further and suggest that with these new rights and new privileges we should also accept our new responsibilities as a nation, a nation within the British commonwealth of nations. For that reason I urge more adequate defences for Canada, because in putting forward these defences we are assisting the empire at large and assisting democracies throughout the world.
The quotation I wanted to use was this:
If Britain be attacked Canada will not be neutral. Canada will stand with and for the empire to which she belongs. She will help defend the people who, she feels sure, would help defend her.
That is my position. Canada, if attacked, Canada, if in danger, wrould rightly feel that she should be able to depend on other parts
Supply-National Defence

of the British commonwealth of nations to come to her succour and defence. Other parts of this great empire, the British commonwealth of nations, should have like confidence in Canada.


Mr. WILLIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville):: I rise at this time to answer some of the arguments made this forenoon by one of the hon. members from Quebec, who quoted from Professor Francis Jehlicka regarding the Slovakian controversy. This man said: "We are neither Czechs nor Czechoslovaks. We are just Slovaks and we intend to remain Slovaks forever."
The problem with which we are to deal is liberty, and if we are going to defend our liberties then these books written before 1938 are out of date to-day. The Munich pact is dead, the treaty of Versailles may have been faulty, but we must face realities as they are to-day. In this great dominion of ours we must preach liberty, and those people who expect to have religious liberty and freedom must realize that in order to retain that religious liberty and freedom in the world to-day they must understand what is meant by British freedom and liberty and attempt to uphold it. Abraham Lincoln said that no nation can live half slave and half free. The chief danger of democracy to-day is ignorance. Professor Laski of London university says that liberty means being faithful to oneself, and it is maintained by the courage to resist. I am not going to speak in favour of large defence estimates with the idea that they will give us courage, because it is the ideal of liberty and truth and courage to live and let the other man live that we must place before our people to-day. Of course we must be prepared with skilled craftsmen, men who will be able to turn out the necessary equipment in case of crisis.
Very shortly we shall be celebrating one of the greatest events in British history. Wherever the English language is spoken, people will bow their heads in token of remembrance of our ancestors who fought for British liberty and obtained from King John the great Magna Charta. Just to-day I received a pamphlet on this subject. What does Blackstone say about the Great Charter? He says:
The Great Charter protected every individual of the nation in the free enjoyment of his life, his liberty and his property, unless declared to be forfeited by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.
It is in that spirit that I speak this afternoon. I am speaking partly on behalf of my own district, because as I have said before I

realize that my own district presents such a problem in the Canadian economic structure that we wish to make these new Canadians of the west proud of being Canadians.
WTiat have we fought for in the past? We have fought for individual liberty, Magna Charta and British freedom. That is personal liberty. We have fought for our religious liberty of which the hon. member for Port-neuf (Mr. Gauthier) was speaking this forenoon, and I realize that we must have true religious liberty. We have fought for our political liberty, we are fighting for our economic liberty and we must preserve our national liberty at all costs. In this world of ours there are many things which are precious and beautiful. But, wise and learned people, beware lest we lose them. So precious and so beautiful are our liberties, our homes and our spiritual civilization that we must prize and hold them. These things we love; shall we see them destroyed?
An attempt is being made to destroy these things, the very things we hold most dear. It is time for us to stop our dreaming and face realities. Militarism and ruthless force are determined to gain the ripening fruits of civilization by loot and war.
That is why I say the Munich pact is dead; that period of history is over forever and we must face the situation as it is. The promising repiiblic of Czechoslovakia has disappeared from the map of Europe. Why then quote extracts from books dealing with things that happened before that period, when the situation to-day is so different, unless it be to throw light on the subject of how we are to face the situation as it exists? The small adolescent Ukrainian people of Carpatho-Ukraine were given their freedom and liberty for a very short period, and the Slovak people for only one day, when they turned traitor to their own fellow citizens of the Czechoslovakian republic. And what did the citizens of this little Carpatho-Ukrainian state do? Did they give everything to the aggressor? No. To their eternal honour the citizens of this little autonomous state flung themselves into a fight for liberty and life, for hearth and home, against the invader from whom they had been emancipated. The Ukrainians who came to the defence of that small republic were disarmed, and 121 of their people were shot. Would it not have been well for the Slovak people if a hundred of her best citizens had been shot, to form a group of men whose honour would live forever in the hearts of the Slovak people? If anyone wants to take my home he will have to march over my dead body, but unless we are prepared to fight for the things we love we

Supply-National Defence
might as well give up. These Ukrainian peasants had no chance against armies fully equipped with artillery and airplanes. This little republic, whose citizens defended its flag with their blood, has ceased to exist. Among the hundreds of Ukrainian citizens who were killed was Grenja Donsky, their principal writer and poet. May his name live forever 1 This ancient and virile race has now developed a mystic flame of nationalism deep within its people. Their fervent hope and prayer is that their children may be enabled to rise again at least to the level of economic, agricultural and social betterment from which they have now been cast down.
The new rapproachement between the states of eastern Europe which feel themselves threatened by German expansion has developed. Occupation by force, audacity and speed has opened their eyes to the precariousness of their situation. The shadow of the European catastrophe falls on the world again to-day. Nations are working feverishly to increase their defences. What will be the end of it all? We must encourage manufacturing skill, honesty and integrity among our people and among our leaders. We must be true to ourselves.
I should like to leave in the minds of hon. members these words of Shakespeare:
This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day.
Thou canst not then be false to any man.


Mr. WILFRID GARIEPY (Three Rivers):: At the outset of my remarks I wish to compliment the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) upon his able address, both in English and in French. May I say to him, however, as well as to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hayhurst), that I was impressed with this idea: that if loyalty was to be measured by the expenditure of money for armaments we need not carry this discussion any further; we might as well vote any amount proposed by this or any other government. From the point of view of loyalty no hon. member objected to the motion presented to-day by the leader of the government. We sang God Save the King sincerely; and what we have said and sung in this house is only an expression of the feeling throughout the length and breadth of Canada, which feeling will be shown in the hearty welcome which will be extended to their majesties when they arrive in our country.
We are all loyal. The question is not one of faith in the empire, in the flag under which we live or in the institutions which are ours. Any discussion on these items cannot bring about any real disagreement, any
disruption or any dismemberment. In Canada we are solid as a nation from coast to coast; we can stand shoulder to shoulder to protect our common interests. The question is one of amount, of motive, of objective. Even some hon. members from the province of Quebec do not seem to get at the root of the problem and to face it as they should. The other evening a responsible minister of the crown made use of irresponsible language when he used the words "the saviour of the races" in trying to ridicule some of us who are fighting here in what wTe believe to be a good cause. The Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) has not a monopoly on wisdom. Ministers of the crown, although possessing many heroic virtues, have human frailties; and in this case a great mistake was made. I wish to protest against that form of dictatorship. Speeches against Hitler or Mussolini will not solve anything on this side of the water. The same statement might apply to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Francceur), who spoke yesterday evening as though he were a school teacher addressing school children, speaking of discipline with a whip in his hand, trying to cast ridicule, speaking of cheap popularity and cheap appeals. This sort of thing will not lead us anywhere. We are here as free men. I am the representative of a riding in which the people are as intelligent as those in any corner of this dominion. I have been told by my constituents what they want. I have received requests, letters, decisions of councils, societies and clubs, and I know what the objective is. Speaking in the city of Quebec some years ago before the Liberal youth of that district the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said, "Within the ranks of our party there is freedom. Do not be afraid to talk." I am here and I am going to say that this problem should be looked in the face and scrutinized in its proper light.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) understands me very well, I am sure. Not only is he a good speaker and a genial leader; he is also an author, and I had the pleasure of reading his book the other day. In that book he speaks of the ostracism which is the lot of the member who has the audacity to differ with the government of the day or the leaders of his party. This is a matter of duty. I want to point out right now, Mr. Chairman, that there is unanimity on the question of national defence. There is no dispute in regard to proper, reasonable defence, something within bounds, within limits; but we are running away with ourselves. My views are known; I have expressed
Supply-National Defence

them during every session of this parliament, and they have not been changed by what I have heard or by what has been done. Every speech gives an additional argument against the proposals dealt with in these items. We are not dealing with Canada; we are dealing with the world. We are not taking as an objective the welfare of our country; we are trying to save the empire, to save democracy throughout the world. In his speech the last speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville got away from our shores and dabbled in European politics-Czechoslovakia. We are getting involved-


William Hayhurst: The reason I did that-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order.


Wilfrid Gariépy: We are getting involved in European problems at a time when, apart from military matters in Canada, we have so many local things to do, things which require our attention and our funds.
There are two schools of thought. One is imperialistic and the other is strictly Canadian. We must choose between the two. If you belong to one, well and good. I belong to the second one, because I cannot forget what took place in 1914. Say what you like, we were carried off our feet; we spent money to the point of ruin. Without necessity we sent thousands of our young men to their death. At a moment's notice we became crazy with regard to conscription. To-day we have promises and we are asked to accept the word of this or that public man.
No greater Prime Minister than Sir Robert Borden has existed in Canada. He had his faults, but he has passed on now and his name will live in history. Sir Robert Borden promised solemnly in 1917 that there would be no conscription. He authorized the then Minister of Justice, the Right Hon. Mr. Doherty, to go down to the city of Montreal and promise Archbishop Bruchesi that there would be no conscription, and through that promise managed to get in line the Roman Catholic clergy of a section of my province to appeal to the men to enroll, to pay money and to become interested in war. In spite of those promises, a few months afterwards in this very house through the proposal of Mr. Borden and Mr. Doherty conscription was voted; conscription was established. This did not happen in the middle ages. This is not something that happened in the days of Rome and Greece. This did not happen in Russia. This was not in Spain; it happened in this very building, in this very room, under the leadership of a Canadian Prime Minister.

At that time I was in Alberta, but I know that in Quebec conscripts were treated like slaves. In the very city of Quebec there was bloodshed. The king's soldiers shot down peaceful men on the streets. These things are not forgotten; they live. Every man of my age, or ten or twenty years younger, has in his mind all these facts. And that is why I stand in my place to-day and pray that we may get away from an imperialistic policy -praying, too, that we may get away from any policy that will draw us into a world conflict. We want to attend to our own country, and stay Canadian. Conditions were so bad in 1918 that the hon. member who now represents Lotbiniere, then a member of the Quebec legislature-and I am sorry he is not now in the chamber-presented a motion requesting that Quebec separate itself from the rest of confederation.
The two larger political parties are now agreed that there will be no conscription, that there will be no expeditionary force. Mr. Chairman, I will give my own opinion on the subject. This aspect will change overnight. Agitation or pressure will be brought to bear on us. Last September, when there was a little stir in the old country, we were on the eve of being called to the House of Commons-and I know very well what was going to happen. I know very well what was in the minds of the ministers, the leaders of the different parties and the majority of the population.
If we analyse the arguments which have been presented by some hon. members who have preceded me, it is obvious that the minds of a certain number of members are saturated with only one object. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) said, in effect. "We have commitments; let us cooperate with England-no camouflage- the government should announce its policy in the open." He advocated a tremendous military lay-out, and no limit to expense. Then, the hon. member for Mount Royal, who spoke a little while ago, expressed himself along similar lines. The leader of the opposition, when presenting his side of the case, explained that there was solidarity among the democracies. He congratulated the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) upon the fact that fifty air pilots had been borrowed from the other side-a common viewpoint, and common ideals.
We are not dealing with Canada; we are going beyond the boundaries of Canada, and that is what I object to. I want to limit myself to the requirements of my country, not because I have no love for other countries, not because I have not at heart the

Supply-National Defence
good and the welfare of the motherland and not because I am not interested in democracy as an ideal, or as something to be preserved the world over. But I say that this country, large in size, with tremendous resources, has not the population, has not the social organization and has not the financial standing to go ahead to adopt a program such as is suggested. We should deal with local requirements, and that only.
We are told, as a commonplace, that neutrality is impossible. The statute of Westminster which we bless-I praised it myself in this house-is becoming ill understood. It is meaningless. Our powers are limited. We are not the nation we had thought had come into existence a few years ago. "When England is at war, Canada is at war." The menace is held over our heads. We must fortify-right, left, east, west! Millions must be secured and expenditures must be lavishly made I We are already in the furnace. Potentially we are committed to war-and that is where Canadianism, as I understand it, and as I believe in it, is overlooked and being discarded.
The hon. member for Mount Royal spoke of the attitude of mind. He referred to what the Liberal party had said in 1933, when it objected to too large an expenditure for military purposes. Surely; that is true. And before 1933 we had been objecting to it right along. A right-about-face is taking place just now, and has been taking place, for a year or two. The present government is a convert to imperialism; and that is where I cannot support the increased vote, not so much because of the amount, proper, as because of the reasons underlying the proposal. There is a plan which is honestly and gradually being elaborated and developed. Just three sessions ago the Minister of Justice said that the money being voted then would not be used for war purposes, that it was to protect us against communists. It was to be a purely local proposition, but it is not a local proposition any more. If there was any intention that it would be kept that way, that intention has been discarded.
I do not want to delay the committee any further. I think I have explained my view point, and I hope hon. members of the committee will get away from the idea that there is any disloyalty, that there is any weakening of affection or devotion on my part, I simply say that we are undertaking too much. This country cannot stand it. We have a relief problem in the province of Quebec and in our cities are many men without shelter and without food. There
are men in this condition in my own city. They come to me, but what can I do? Last year the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) gave the province of Quebec a mere pittance of $400,000 a month, or $4,800,000 for the year. Compared with that, we are to provide $60,000,000 for the wheat deficit, another $60,000,000 to take care of our railways, the Hudson Bay railway, the Prince Rupert elevator and other matters. We are eating into the treasury of this country at the rate of hundreds of millions, and we are still not getting rid of our troubles.
We are now being asked to vote millions of dollars more for guns and other armaments.
I do not want anyone to think I have not great admiration for those Canadians who are soldiers. There is a unit of the militia in my own town and I try to take good care of it. I am ready to support their requests when they are within reason, but I do object to hundreds of millions of dollars being spent in this way when they could be devoted to the real needs of this country.
For the reasons I have given, I shall vote against the increase in these estimates. I am sorry to have to differ with the Minister of National Defence. He is a most likeable gentleman, well gifted and well educated. I believe in his honesty of purpose. I am not paying him compliments at this time in order to excuse myself, I am simply speaking my own mind. I have every admiration for him, but I deplore the situation in which he now finds himself. The budget for these purposes is too great at a time when we have an economic crisis which is getting more serious and when our cities are filled with men who are without work and food. Our farmers are going bankrupt and the credit of the nation is being bled almost to exhaustion. At such times we should not be asked to spend these sums for military purposes, and for that reason I am going to stand by the opinion which I expressed at the beginning of my remarks.


Mr. WILFRID LACROIX (Quebec-Mont-morency) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make a speech on the defence appropriations, because I made several in this house on that subject, in particular during the debate on external affairs and conscription. However, I wish to reaffirm my opinion.
As I already said, I would have been ready to vote, without protest and even with enthusiasm, the millions we were asked to grant, had I been given a legal guarantee that they would not be used for the purpose of sending an expeditionary force to Europe.
Supply-National Defence

Since the military appropriations have been increased year after year, I protested against such increases because we did not have the legal guarantee to which I just referred. And I object all the more as it is stated that our neutrality is an impossibility when England is at war and as the house seems to be generally agreed-if we are to judge by the discussions that took place since the opening of the session-upon the necessity of participating in the next war. In consequence, I wish, this year again, when we are asked to vote those estimates, to proclaim my opposition and my protest against the increase for 1939-40.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Mr. Chairman, I hope I may be allowed to make a few points which I was unable to make in my remarks this morning. I hesitate to detain the committee but, as I said before, this is a problem which is vital to our nation and it should not be dismissed with casual attention.
I hope I was not misunderstood when I endeavoured to deal with this problem in a constructive way by making reference to our British connections. I was not arguing against any advantage which might be derived from cooperation with the British war office; I was rather pointing to the dangers which might result from an over-emphasis of any attempt to encrust our defence preparations with purely British-made plans.
The army and navy are famous for their maintenance of tradition, but we know from experience that sometimes danger lies in the maintenance of tradition. I suggest that we learn whatever may be learned to advantage from that cooperation or exchange of ideas and information; that we should adapt these ideas to Canadian needs. I might remind the committee that during the last war the Canadian corps became a really effective fighting unit when they adapted to the Canadian spirit and the Canadian temperament the lessons which *were to be learned from the regular army. That is quite as necessary for defence now.
My point is that the reasonable deduction may be made from the plan outlined by the minister-I notice this deduction was made by an editorial writer in the Winnipeg Free Press-and from the requisitions made by the general staff for equipment, that we are preparing to provide equipment for an army of manoeuvre, much equipment which cannot be utilized strictly for purposes of coastal defence. I argue that that is dangerous at this stage,

that priority should be given to the completion of plans for the defence of our coasts. I point to the fact that howitzers, mortars and light machine guns are not urgent at this moment for the purposes of coastal defence. In any scheme of collaboration with friendly powers-by this I mean the United States and Great Britain-in viewing the matter from that basis, it is important that priority should be given to coastal defence. When we come to the question of collaboration with other nations we must consider whether or not we collaborate by way of the dispatch of an expeditionary force. In my opinion that is not justified on any grounds whatsoever, nor should plans be made to that end, although it appears to be fairly certain that the staff have that contingency in mind. For that reason I referred to the fact that potential enemies now find it possible to establish naval bases in Spain and northern Africa, and from those bases can raid much more successfully British shipping. An expeditionary force, therefore, in my opinion, would become almost impossible. The disposition of the naval forces of the empire would be such as to make it practically impossible to divert naval strength in order to convoy troops across the Atlantic. This becomes particularly difficult in view of the transport of the supplies necessary under the conditions of modern warfare. I think we should remind ourselves that during the last war, according to military experts who, in recent years, have written freely on the subject, we advanced rather too recklessly and too hurriedly in expeditionary force plans, with the result that in the field we had a top-heavy force, a force to which we could not supply reinforcements except by straining the national resources, and for which we could not provide adequate supplies and equipment.
In regard to an expeditionary force I wish to make plain that under the circumstances the preparation for and dispatch of such a force would cripple and undermine our defence measures in this dominion. We could not safely spare five or six hundred thousand men for service abroad without seriously weakening our defence here. That in turn would weaken the empire front-if you wish to place it on that basis-and would thereby weaken any strategy of cooperation for our support and discharge of mutual obligations determined as a result of imperial conferences. Certainly at the same time it would intensify any attempt at direct reprisals against this dominion, for which we would be poorly prepared. We must remember in this regard, now that Great Britain is looking to Canada as being

Supply-National Defence
an important secondary source of material- I am basing these figures on German computations-that it requires eight men to maintain a machine gun in the field; it requires forty men in the factory to maintain a combat tank in the field; it requires sixty men to maintain a pursuit plane in the air. It therefore becomes apparent that, if we deal thoroughly and completely with our defence plan and all it involves, we cannot safely undermine it by withdrawing from defence, and the organization behind defence, men for overseas service.
I wish to refer to the unsatisfactory conditions under which men may be enrolled for service. True it is that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said that conscription will not be enforced in Canada. Nevertheless under stress of present-day events those assurances are quite likely to be thrown overboard; and nothing was said at that time of the likelihood of utilizing the existing provisions of the Militia Act, by consent of the Canadian government, permitting the crown or His Excellency the Governor General on behalf of the crown to enable the voluntary enrolment of men in Canada for overseas service. That is a matter which should be canvassed in a most conscientious way at this time to determine just what it involves. In my opinion the promise of no conscription is meaningless if the government permits or inspires recruiting for overseas service. It is clear that for such recruiting the legal mechanism exists in the Militia Act and the Naval Service Act. I think all the plans point to the almost immediate dispatch of air squadrons and possibly naval service units for service abroad. But if such recruiting is permitted with the consent and the support of the Canadian government, we shall rapidly move into a situation where conscription will become inevitable. Such recruiting would immediately inspire a wave of sentiment which would demand the dispatch of an official expeditionary force. Such voluntary recruiting would immediately make it apparent that there was a disorganization or inequitable distribution of service demands. Men inspired by patriotism would leave work essential to war time industry and there would be a general disorganization which could not be coped with under any such plan. Our defence arrangements would be disorganized; and while I can well understand that there would be a natural sentiment abroad throughout the country in support of such action, it would eventually lead to a situation where Canada would have a heavy stake in an overseas expeditionary force. We should be in exactly the same position as that in which we found
ourselves in 1917, when, Canada having 237,000 men in the field, the government was compelled to say: We now have an emergency which demands the imposition of the provisions of the Militia Act-and that act provides to-day, as it did then, for compulsory military service. So that ultimately the emergency would be so apparent as to warrant the imposition of conscription in Canada. Of course, no obstacles could legitimately be placed in the way of those who for their own personal reasons and at their own personal expense desired to serve abroad.
These are real problems which I think should be faced now in a non-partisan way by the proposed special committee of the house.
I wish to associate myself very heartily with the remarks made last evening by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) with regard to the shipment of war materials to potential enemies. It seems to me highly inconsistent that Canada, which is now engaged in a defence effort demanding considerable sacrifices on the part of the people, should be arming potential enemies. That is the direct effect of the shipments abroad of war materials. I do not intend to discuss that, because the matter has been dealt with fully by other hon. members. For a moment or two, however, I wish to refer to -the activities of Japanese interests on the Pacific coast, which I consider are related to the shipment of war materials to Japan.
It seems ironical that when we are erecting fortifications in Stanley park, at Albert Head, on York Island, right under the guns which we are placing there we see vessels passing and carrying concentrates, copper, scrap iron and other materials to arm a power against which we are proposing to defend ourselves on the Pacific coast. Some time ago I raised the question as to what information the government had with regard to -the activities of Japanese interests, having in mind the thought that possibly they are acquiring control of strategic sites on the Pacific coast. Again, it seems to me highly inconsistent that, with the elaborate fortifications there being erected, dummy companies, operating under English names but controlled by Tokyo interests, should be acquiring ore bodies and valuable timber limits, and engaging in various operations at strategic sites which may threaten the efficiency of our defence preparations there.
I am told on reliable authority that a Japanese-controlled firm has acquired the old Tidewater mine, -about eighty miles north of Port Alberni on Vancouver island. Some of
Supply-National Defence

the shares are held by gentlemen such as Nelson Spencer, of Vancouver; 0. F Lundell, of Vancouver; and L. L. McGhee of Vancouver, but the majority of the shares in this company are held by Japanese interests.
Again, as reported-and I questioned the government on that point-the harbour of Sidney Inlet Mining Camp and four other harbours on the west coast of Vancouver island were dredged and preparations made by the construction of tunnels suitable for the storage of oil. Some of this work was done under the supervision of a former Japanese naval captain.
The Louise Mining Company of Vancouver controls the old Iron Duke mine on Louise island, in the Queen Charlottes. In order to get this control the Japanese had to buy nine crown grants. This mine is said to have ore reserves up to ten million tons, estimated at from sixty-five to seventy per cent magnetite, which is very valuable in the manufacture of certain kinds of steel. The shareholders of this company are listed. There are men "fronting" for this company, but again we find that the majority of the shares are controlled by Japanese interests allied directly to well-known and important firms in Tokyo. The Queen Charlotte Timber Holdings Company, Limited, control nearly one billion feet of timber on Louise island; the N. S. McNeil Trading Company, Limited, control six hundred million feet of timber near Port Hardy. The real owner of this timber is the Nisso Rayon Pulp Company, Tokyo, which is controlled by the Nippon Soda Company, Limited. The shareholders are registered at Victoria. While nominally the directors are Englishmen, the control as registered is with the Japanese. The Granby mine has a three year contract signed whereby Mitsui & Company, Limited, and Mitsubishi Shoji, Kaisha Limited have agreed to purchase all the copper Granby can produce, and according to Mr. N. L. Amster, the company's president, the product goes to Japan as fast as it can be turned out.
All these operations have been going on on the Pacific coast, creating dismay in the minds of the people resident there. I submit that they should be thoroughly investigated. I queried the government about these matters, and the return tabled showed that four or five departments simply had no information and did not seem to evince any interest in the matter. If these things are actually going on, the department should be in possession of the information. I submit that the Department of National Defence should take proper steps to deal with this situation in order to prevent a potential

enemy from acquiring strategic sites or engaging in operations which in time of emergency might seriously impair the efficiency of our defences.
One other point should be kept in mind, and that is with regard to the survey of industrial institutions in Canada. The minister reported to the house that a survey had been conducted with respect to several thousand farmers, and I can see no reason why that should not be advanced to take in a scheme of industrial mobilization such as has been prepared in the United States. There should be a definite plan providing for the mobilization of industry and the conscription of industrial management in advance of an emergency with a view also to devising a plan of taxation of wealth which would result in a more equitable distribution of duty and sacrifice. That would be properly a function of the proposed committee, which could review these plans in advance and determine how the burden of service could be placed on the Canadian people in a fair and equitable manner.
With regard to defence, I have never been able to understand why greater consideration has not been given to the training of our youth physically and technically. I would remind the house once more of the words of a former corps commander, the late General Sir Arthur Currie, who said that for our defensive emergencies we would require, not too much equipment, which becomes obsolescent, a skeleton force, and above all well-trained and physically fit youth. These remarks have particular force to-day when we consider the sources from which our defence forces must be recruited. Quite apart from the military and naval activities, Canada should pay greater attention, for purposes of defence as well as for other reasons, to the physical fitness and the technical training of our young men. It will be extraordinarily difficult to build up a defence force quickly enough to meet any defence emergency if we continue to neglect this particular phase of the problem.
One other thought and I am through, and it is with reference to the general public morale. One of the most effective ways of defending democracy is first of all to put our own democracy in order, and that is what I had in mind when I said that greater attention should be paid to the problem of our young men who to-morrow will be required to defend the country. If we neglect this problem too long we may find, when the time comes, that it is too late for them to prepare to make their contribution to the national security. I suggest, therefore, that our affairs

Supply-National Defence
as a democracy should be put in order so that we may be in a position more effectively to defend our democratic institutions. I have in mind again the words of Major Eliot with regard to the general outlook on this problem. In his book, The Ramparts We Watch, he says:
For our own security we do not need, and we ought not to create, instruments of military power, capable of immediate action on land in Europe or in Asia. It is not needful that we should bear such burdens, nor deliberately propose to assume such dangers to our free institutions as might accrue from a great overseas war, requiring as it would the regimentation of every aspect of our national life.
We should recognize the precious gift of geography and natural resources. We should take advantage of our position and not squander those resources on schemes that are far too ambitious for a country of eleven million people, but we should prepare for the emergency which may require Canada to place itself, as it were, in a state of siege, and prepare to procure our munitions and supplies from within. Eor that reason I consider it dangerous to rely so blindly and slavishly on the British pattern of army organization. We are standardizing altogether too much on British types of equipment. I think there should be closer collaboration now with the United States with regard to types of equipment. There should be a fuller exchange of ideas and information, and the Department of National Defence should explore more fully the possibilities of establishing sources of supply in the United States.
A significant sentence occurs time and time again in the departmental reports with regard to equipment requii'ed in Canada, such as anti-aircraft guns, that it has been almost impossible to get delivery. Certainly as the tension abroad increases, the chances of delivery become more remote. If an emergency should overtake us, our supplies will be interrupted from trans-oceanic sources. For our own safety and security with regard to equipment we should explore the possibilities of cooperation with the United States government. That again is a break with tradition which may be challenged for various reasons. I am not a technical expert and I do not know how far we should go in that regard, but as it becomes more and more apparent that there should be friendly collaboration between Canada and the United States in this matter, there should be an exchange of ideas, less reliance upon sources of supply across the Atlantic, and closer cooperation in developing sources of supply for defensive equipment required for coastal defence.
My suggestion, therefore, is mainly this. We do not get the answer to the problems of national defence in bigger and better appropriations for defence. I believe we shall have better defence if we can achieve together, on a non-partisan basis, a more detailed study of the problem of national defence from the strictly Canadian point of view in the first place, and on that basis we may more safely discuss methods of collaboration in defence of democracy abroad.


Mr. BRUCE McNEVIN (Victoria, Ont.):: I have no desire to prolong the discussion; for I believe the situation to be serious enough to warrant giving every assistance to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) in getting his estimates through the house.
There are, however, one or two points as to policy which I desire to mention. Much has been said during the discussion of this question throughout the session with respect to a number of vulnerable points in the Dominion of Canada. I want to add this further point; I believe that if the centre of the empire, which is Great Britain, were weakened or submerged, every component part of the empire would then be vulnerable to attack from at least four or five of the powerful countries of the world. Our responsibility and duty must be clear to all thoughtful citizens. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Gariepy) made reference to the distress which we have in Canada, and we all agree that we have too much distress. But when we are considering matters of defence, considering our allotment in this country for that purpose, it might be well for us to look at taxation in Great Britain in order to inform ourselves with respect to the tremendous burden being borne by the people of the old land. I am sure we are all agreed that Britain's large expenditures for defence purposes are responsible for this burdensome taxation. I shall not cover the whole field, but I desire to place on the record a comparison of the income tax paid in Canada with that paid in the old country. I take for comparison a married man with two children; the income tax levy in Great Britain and in Canada on taxpayers included in this classification are as follows:
Tax
Income	Great Britain Canada
$2,000	$ 45 02	None2.500	
182	51	None3.000	
307 59	$ 63.500	
432	19	214.000	
557	27	384.500	
682	35	585.000	
807	44	80
Supply-National Defence

It is true that we have in several provinces a provincial income tax as well, which would add approximately an additional one half to the amount which I have quoted for Canada. In some provinces it is one-third, and I believe there is one province where it is more than half.
I might also deal with the larger incomes, but I do not want to take the time. The important thing to remember is the terrific burden of taxation being borne by the lower income groups of men and women in the old country.
That is only one field of taxation. The problem of taxation has various aspects, and one should survey the entire field in order to make a reasonable comparison. But I make this further point, that in the United Kingdom the citizen, in computing his income, must include rent for his home if he owns it. This makes his tax that much more. Then in the field of motor taxation, a licence for even a medium priced car costs almost $200 there. So that, on the whole, they are carrying a crushing burden of taxation for defence purposes.
The next matter to which I wish to refer is the dominion arsenal at Lindsay, Ontario. Some time ago there was some criticism in the press with respect to the cost of production in this arsenal when it was operating during the war years. I am not going to comment on the costs of production at that time; it would be a long story. But one point I want to make in connection with it is that the cornerstone of that building was laid, I believe, on July 1, 1915, and production started there in 1916. I may be out a year but I think that is correct. We all realize that after a year or two of war the vast majority of the skilled mechanics of this country were either overseas or already remuneratively employed in industry. Therefore it was necessary for a large number of unskilled hands to be taken on. I am sure that factor had a direct bearing upon the costs of production at that arsenal when it was in operation during the war.
I want now to convey to the minister my appreciation for the fulfilment of an undertaking which he gave in the house during the consideration of his estimates last year. The rolling mill and foundry divisions of the plant at Lindsay opened on the first of May. While the full staff in connection with that development has not yet been taken on, still the development is under way. With regard to further development I am encouraged by the statement made by the minister during the discussion of matters affecting his department to the effect that the old objections so

far as operations at Lindsay are concerned have entirely disappeared. I am further encouraged by a letter just received from him in which he states:
I can assure you, however, that in the course of the present year there will be a substantial increase in the utilization of the facilities of Lindsay arsenal.
As regards further developments there, I believe that for a period of years the Lindsay arsenal was entirely reserved as an auxiliary arsenal or a plant for production of small arms and ammunition if the country were actually engaged in conflict.
I want to emphasize this point. I do not believe this or any other government is justified in applying one policy to one arsenal and a different policy to the other arsenal in Canada. I believe we should have one policy which should be applied to both arsenals. The Lindsay arsenal and the Lindsay district had to bear the whole burden of being held for auxiliary production for many years. If we must have a portion of our government arsenals held in reserve for that reason, I think it is only fair that part of that burden should be borne by the arsenal at Valcartier and not entirely by the arsenal at Lindsay. I believe present conditions are such that the government would be fully justified in refitting every department of the Lindsay plant for the production of our much needed requirements. I have never supported the theory that the Canadian government should manufacture munitions for the British government, because I would be afraid of the development of conflict between the two governments. I suggest, again, that we should go ahead and refit the plant completely; then, if there is any part we do not need, we could lease it to some company producing munitions for Great Britain or some other part of the empire. If occasion should later arise when we needed that part ourselves, it would be a going concern; the power could be turned on and we could produce to meet our own requirements.
I have on my desk photographs of this splendid plant at Lindsay. I have shown these photographs to a large number of hon. members, and if any others desire to see them I should be pleased to have them examine the pictures if they will come to my room. I have no desire to delay the passage of the estimates under discussion; perhaps when the minister comes to items 176, 177 and 178 in the main estimates and items 622 and 623 in the supplementaries he will give me further information with regard to the intentions of his department concerning the development of the remaining facilities at Lindsay.

Supply-National Defence


Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Chairman, in connection with the defence of Canada there is one point which I think is important but which has not been mentioned. I believe we ought to come down-perhaps " crack down " would be the suitable term- on nazi propaganda in this country. I also believe the statements of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) in regard to the acquisition of properties in Canada for the use of those nations against whom we are arming should be looked into. I do not believe there is a city or province in Canada where nazi propaganda is not being carried on, no doubt some of it begun by people who came from totalitarian states, particularly Germany, but too often carried on by so-called Canadians. Now is the time to check up on these people. If they desire to live in Canada and enjoy the freedom and protection of a democracy, then they ought to be stopped from carrying on propaganda which is weakening the defence of Canada from within. No doubt the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) is well aware, as is every member of the house, that this is the new technique; this is the way they win nations now. In the case of a great number of the nations which have fallen in the last year or so, conquest has been accomplished not so much by war as by constant propaganda carried on within those countries. It is not that I am expecting that to happen in Canada, but even here I believe it has done something to lessen unanimity of opinion in regard to the value of democracy and that degree of freedom and justice which we enjoy under it. So I feel that the Department of National Defence might address itself with a good deal of vigour to the question of nazi propaganda in Canada. It is time we quit hiding every time we heard the word " communist " mentioned by anybody and think carefully about the propaganda carried on in this country by the nazis and those who sympathize with nazism.
It is heart-breaking, not only to me but to every member of this house, that we should have come again to a time when we must talk about spending large sums of money for defence. Just ten years ago now, in 1929, we thought there was a real chance that never again would we have to go through a bath of blood, that the world would never again act in such uncivilized and barbaric fashion. There was real hope we had done that for the last time. No one can discuss the question of Canada's defence and the situation in the world as it is to-day without wondering when we shall ever learn; without wondering whether, if we have another war-and it looks as though this is what we are preparing for- 71492-254
we shall be any wiser at the conclusion of it than we were when we wrote the treaty of Versailles. I have reached the point, as I think a great many others have, where I wonder how much we shall have to suffer before we learn that trying to eternally punish will not get us anywhere. If we had started being wise at the end of the last war, possibly we could have avoided spending the money that is about to be voted.
I should like to say how much I appreciated the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver North, who stressed a point which for a long time I have felt needed stressing, namely, that if we are going to address ourselves to the defence of Canada, it must be in cooperation with the United States. It is really ridiculous not frankly to admit it. We have common coastlines; and if we are going to defend the east coast and the west coast it is only reasonable to expect that it should be in cooperation with the other great nation sharing that coastline. Quite frankly, if we do have a real problem in Canada, that is, an invasion of Canada-for which I do not look-I think we shall have to rely on the United States and ourselves, or perhaps I should put it the other way round and say we shall have to rely on ourselves and the United States. I do not believe Great Britain considers coming to our defence. A great many people would not agree with that, but I believe if the unhappy day of our invasion ever comes, Great Britain will not come to our defence. As a matter of fact we could hardly expect her to defend the dominions, which are spread throughout the world.
If we are going to continue spending very large sums of money, such as $63,000,000- and that is a great deal of money-I think we have to convince the people of Canada that this money is being spent wisely, carefully and perfectly honestly. I do not think anything could have been more disconcerting than the difficulty about the Bren gun. I am not a military expert, but I did not like it, and I think everybody in Canada felt the same way, including the party which is attempting to defend that deal. That there should have been any suspicion-and I do not care how slight it may have been-was most unfortunate, because-


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but I suggest she is out of order. The matter respecting the Bren gun is now under consideration by a committee of the house which has not yet made its final report.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Well, I had said all I wanted to say about it, anyway. I wish to

Supply-National Defence

stress for a moment the fact that it is but a form of hypocrisy to say that we want to defend Canada and at the same time allow powerful interests in this country to go on arming the nations against which we are preparing to defend ourselves. It is not honest; it is not sensible. Either we must stop sending munitions and materials to make munitions to the countries we fear, or look continually foolish to ourselves.
It is such a distorted picture that possibly the less we say about it at this time, the better. But it is perfectly clear that the Canadian government is, with regard to foreign affairs, becoming a mere shadow of the British government. I do think Canadians want to know what we are going to do with this money. Are we going to use it to defend Canada, or are we going to use it in overseas wars which, so far as we are concerned, will be brought about by Great Britain? Frankly I have certainly not agreed with the policy of the Prime Minister of Great Britain. I have felt that I wanted as publicly and carefully as possible to dissociate myself from his policy-not that it would matter to him, but because it would matter to me. The Canadian government has just yes-yes'd the British government in whatever position it has taken. Whether it took one position or another, the Liberal government in Canada, led by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) came out and justified what the British government had done. That is not at all in keeping with other statements which have been made by the Prime Minister to the effect that Canada will decide what we are going to do, and that Canada will decide what our foreign policy is to be. That has not been shown to be true. As I have said, the picture is an extremely distorted one. Those people who were the great peace advocates are those who are most upset by the appeasement policy, and those who were the imperialists have become advocates of appeasement, or peace at any price.
It would take a great deal of time and very careful speaking to try to follow the situation through. I shall not take time at the moment to say more than that in the crisis last September I could scarcely believe that Canada would so enthusiastically support Great Britain. That support certainly was not given democratically, because the Prime Minister, whether with or without the consent of the cabinet was saying what Canada thought with respect to the crisis, when I do not suppose any one person in Canada actually knew what Canada did think-because Canada thought this, that, and the other thing.
[Miss Macphail.)
I am not going to speak any longer with respect to this matter, nor am I going to oppose the national defence estimates. But I do feel we ought to know what Canada intends to do with the money; and, not only that, but having spent it, what does she intend to do with the equipment? Is it to be used to defend Canada, or is it to take part in overseas wars? I would also-well, almost warn the government, to be honest with parliament and with the Canadian people. Whatever it intends to do, let it say so now. Do not let us have a repetition of what occurred during the last war, which was so heatedly referred to-and I can scarcely wonder-only a short time ago by an hon. member from the province of Quebec. The people were misled. They were definitely promised there would not be conscription; but there was conscription, and that one thing has done more to divide Canada than has any other event.
The government has a very grave responsibility, and should be completely frank with parliament, or with a committee of parliament. It should be frank with the people of Canada and state whether it will follow British policy wherever it goes, spend the money of Canada and offer the lives of Canadians to defend British policy, or whether it intends to use the money to defend Canada's shores. Those are very different policies, and, as the hon. member for Vancouver North has said, it is high time we knew which one we are pursuing.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Mr. Chairman, I am a believer in the position taken by nearly all hon. members who have spoken on this subject, namely, that we should endeavour individually to treat it absolutely free from political or partisan viewpoints. Hon. members who have already addressed the committee have shown great restraint and a commendable non-partisan attitude in expressing widely divergent views.
In discussing the estimates of the Department of National Defence I desire now, if I may, to pay a personal tribute. In my view the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), in the perilous times of to-day, is held in high esteem and regard by the great and overwhelming majority of the people of Canada, regardless of political faith -and in my opinion, deservedly so. He came to us from a race outstanding in British history, outstanding in the sacrifice that Scotland has made on the battlefields of empire. He comes to us as a distinguished soldier and a distinguished scholar. For those who believe in strict economy in measures of defence there is the added satisfaction that as a rule

Supply-National Defence
a Scotsman is not profligate with his own dollars or with the dollars entrusted to him to spend. And so from the point of view of the record of a race noted for its courage and noted for its economy where economy is desirable, we are indeed fortunate at this time of our nation's history in having at the helm of the Department of National Defence the hon. gentleman who occupies the position of minister. I congratulate the great province of British Columbia upon having given to parliament and to Canada such a man.
I support the estimates submitted and, speaking for myself only, would advocate an increase in the estimates for two branches of the service.
First, there are the land forces whose task is to protect and guard the vulnerable points of national importance against attack from without and against sabotage from within. I shall deal a little later with the devastation, danger and horror of sabotage by the enemy within our country.
The second branch of the service in connection with which I would favour enlarging the estimates is the air force. I make no apology for repeating what I said to this committee a year ago on March 24 when thf estimates of the air force were under review. I urged that the appropriation of $11,000,000 for that year should be doubled. The estimates for the air force this year are $29,000,000, and I urge this committee here and now to double that appropriation. The reasons why I advocated the doubling of these appropriations a year ago, I believe hold good to-day. Let me put them to this committee briefly.
It should be possible next year to enlist and train 4,000 men for our air service. In the following year we should duplicate this number, bringing the total to 8,000. This would represent a force of 1,000 pilots and
7,000	mechanics, which is the ratio the experts tell us should apply. Our pilots should be trained to operate the highest speed machines that can be turned out. I urged then and I urge now that we should encourage young men who have had practical experience in our garages, young university men and graduates from the schools of science all across Canada to enlist in the air service, either as mechanics or as pilots. The program outlined by the minister and the money set aside for the development of this branch of the service in sympathetic conjunction with civilian flying schools constitute a great step in the right direction.
Let us consider one of the possibilities of the near future. Should a world war become a reality and the things we hold dear be in 71492-2541
danger; should Great Britain and London be bombed, the very existence of the empire would be threatened by extermination. Is there any hon. member bold enough to predict where the front line of defence would be located in such a war? It might well be the English channel. If that should occur, I contend we should make it clear to the world that this country would instantly become involved in such a war. What greater contribution could there be to empire war service and to empire defence, including the defence of Canada, than 1,000 trained pilots with a large number of machines of the high-power type, together with machines of lower velocity, and a mechanical force of
7.000	men to service the fleet?
Could we hope by any other means to make so great a contribution to that ultimate world peace which, I assume, is the desire of every hon. member? It must not be forgotten that such a force as that would have a definite economic peace value. The development of air traffic, both passenger and freight, is in its infancy. Just as twenty-five years ago the first hard-tired, small automobile came upon the scene, the progress in transportation in the next generation will be made in the air. I regret that this type of transportation will also be used for destructive purposes. With a population of 11,000.000 people, Canada cannot hope to compete with the armies of the world. It would be stupidity to attempt to do so. But here is a branch of the service in which we can compete, and when I say that I speak from the record of the last war. By common consent, even on the part of our enemy, Canadian pilots and mechanics outshone the pilots and mechanics of every other nation. That is a well established fact.
Let me lay this view before those who lean toward the pacifist viewpoint, and before those who would prefer to have minor rather than increased contributions made at the present time. There is a selfish aspect which may be considered in the creation of an air force such as I have outlined. A force of 8,000 men, made up of 1,000 pilots and 7.000 mechanics, would in my judgment-I have verified this by conversation with one of the greatest airmen of the world, a distinguished Canadian-be of as great value in war-time as
200.000	men in the infantry, cavalry and other branches of the service.
Let me say a word to my hon. friends from Quebec. Personally I have the greatest regard for the province of Quebec and its people. I number among my warmest and most cherished friends Canadians of French descent both in and out of this house. I have a most
Supply

National Defence

profound admiration for the French-Canadian people of Quebec and I have a most abiding faith in their loyalty to the British empire. Let me say to those who entertain genuine doubts as to the wisdom of the expenditures we are now discussing that they should have no false notions as to the type and character of the enemy who threatens the existence of our empire and our Canadian national life. He is the avowed and implacable enemy of religion and particularly of the Roman Catholic religion. The philosophy of life of the leader of that enemy is recorded in his book " Mein Kampf." I should like to quote from page 377 of Hitler's book as follows:
The sole earthly criterion of whether an enterprise is right or wrong is its success.
This is the creed of the German gangsters. Then listen to what Doctor Goebbels had to say at Stuttgart on September 4, 1938:
The methods by which a people forces its way upwards are of no moment; only the goal which is reached is important.
What do we, the people of a nation who thought the golden rule counted for something, think of a doctrine of that type? What do hon. members think of the philosophy of an enemy who puts forward such expressions as that to the youth of his land? Notwithstanding the perils from air attacks by way of Hudson bay and James bay, which the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) outlined so ably yesterday, as a possible menace to Ontario, Manitoba and the prairie provinces-


Robert James Manion: And Quebec.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I had overlooked Quebec. In my opinion British Columbia, Quebec and the maritimes are in greater peril to-day than are the central parts of Canada including the province in which I reside. If that be so, then these estimates are of greater importance and offer more protection to British Columbia and Quebec and the maritimes than to the rest of Canada. Notwithstanding that, surely all true Canadians must view the defence of our country as a whole and be ready to make cheerfully their individual and provincial contributions. Why do I say that Quebec is in greater peril than central Canada? Let me remind my hon. friends from Quebec of the history of the great war, of the ruthless and cruel bombing by Germany of those magnificent cathedrals and churches at Rheims, Ypres and Albert. They were the special targets and were destroyed from the air, notwithstanding their classic and historic beauty, the result of centuries of art and culture, and the sacred shrines of worship dedicated to humanity and to her people by the Roman Catholic church. The hatred and venom of the Germany of 1914 have not been abated by the

madman of Germany of to-day. Of all the ruthless persecutions within Germany, except that of the Jewish race, the persecution of the Roman Catholic church has been the most cruel and venomous. Her sacred and holy orders have been ruthlessly disbanded and suppressed. The pulpits of her cathedrals have been silenced. Her priests, scholars and religious leaders have been arrested, persecuted and imprisoned. The youth program of that church has been strangled.
I say to the people of Quebec: You cannot expect this German leopard to change his spots; and if it ever comes within his power to enter and destroy this fair country of ours, you of the province of Quebec may expect to become a special target of the hatred and destruction dictated by a mind steeped in cruelty and revenge. Not only your great industrial plants, but your beautiful shrines, cathedrals and churches in Quebec and Montreal and dotted across your province-all these will be regarded as obstacles in the way of German kullur and be ruthlessly removed. You have developed in Quebec more water power plants for industrial purposes than has Ontario or any other province. Your plants, including the great Beauharnois, the Mae-Laren Quebec, the Gatineau and many others, produce 3,800,000 horse power. Your cities of Montreal, Quebec and other centres have great industrial plants which would be vulnerable, and which are vulnerable to-day to an enemy from within.
The danger to-day in the event of war breaking out in which the empire or Great Britain became involved is not merely from without this country. I base that statement on the actual record of German conduct in the last war. Few people in Canada appreciate what the German high command did at that time in the destruction on this continent of property, plants, foodstuffs, war supplies, arms, munitions and ships-all their activities being cunningly planned and financed from Berlin. Let me make clear, before I give this ghastly record, that there are in Canada today a very great number of foreign-born and Canadian-born British subjects of German, Italian and other nationalities who are absolutely loyal British subjects and loyal Canadians, and who are not and must not be taken to be included, directly or indirectly, in any indictments which my remarks may contain. On the other hand there are in Canada to-day-and reference has been made to the fact passingly in this discussion-certain subjects of the foreign countries I have indicated who are enemies within our bosom, who are prepared to destroy our country from within, and who, if the history of the last

Supply-National Defence
war and the known facts and lessons connected with it are to be relied upon, will be equipped with money, leadership, brains, dynamite, bombs and poison serum for the express purpose of paralyzing and destroying our contribution of supplies and man power in the next war. It is the duty of those in charge of this country and the duty of every loyal citizen to be tremendously alert and to cooperate in the necessary governmental and military agencies and through the necessary citizen agencies to counteract the campaign of espionage, sabotage and treachery to which this country will be deliberately subjected from within in the event of war.
A counter-espionage service in Canada cannot be created over-night. Its efficiency depends upon such factors as these: first, an experienced personnel; second, the possession of accurate records of suspects; third, the watching of those suspects; fourth, the piecing together of information obtained from all parts of the country; finally, a swift and firm-moving government bureau to carry out a policy of arrest, prosecution, imprisonment and deportation of "our enemies within."
We have passed an Official Secrets Act. That will help to some extent. Great Britain in the last war had a superb secret service which extended to every country in the world. Her secret service agents operated in the United States and Canada during the period when German sabotage activities were carried on to an hitherto unbelievable extent in the United States. Prior to April 6, 1917, when the United States declared war on Germany, the British secret service rendered great assistance to both the United States and Canada. But the efficiency of the secret services of both the United States and our own country should be a lesson to us not to be caught unprepared again. Let me, without comment as to its justification or lack of it, relate what Germany did in that regard in the last war. Hon. members will ask themselves whether in the next war we may expect her to be less aggressive, less cruel, less ruthless, less unscrupulous. For my part I cannot be persuaded that she will be. If there be any choice in that regard, I would fear that we may expect greater cruelty and ruthlessness, if that be possible, under the present high command than even under that which operated in the last war.
Shortly after the outbreak of the war Germany instigated and equipped a campaign of sabotage, of dynamiting, destruction and international murder by placing a large sum of money in the hands of-whom? In the hands of her diplomatic representatives then residing in the United States. On the
surface they were there to carry out their diplomatic functions and to preserve friendly relations with the United States. Surreptitiously they were there to direct German sabotage activities, which they did. Count von Bernstorff was German ambassador at Washington. Captain Franz von Papen was immediately established with headquarters in New York city at 60 Wall street as the bureau of the military attache. He is now Hitler's ambassador to Turkey. If to-day's news be true, he is not as clever as he used to be, and his mission has been somewhat of a failure, because we hear that there is now at least an understanding between Turkey and the motherland. Captain Boy-Ed located himself at 11 Broadway. Doctor Albert, another high official, opened quarters at 45 Broadway. One hundred and fifty million dollars in German treasury notes, according to Doctor Albert's later admission, were immediately brought into the United States for use, among other purposes, under the innocent looking title, "Stopping munitions for the allies, necessary propaganda-and other things." I am quoting the language of this admission of the German official himself.
Owing, sir, to the wonderful and early activity of the British secret service in obtaining and decoding German secret service messages, the following telegram was caught early in the war. The German general staff at home telegraphed the German embassy in Washington via the foreign office. From the following message I quote:
For military attache. You can obtain particulars as to persons suitable for carrying on sabotage in the U.S. and Canada from the following persons:	one, Joseph MacGarrity,
Philadelphia, Pa.; two, John P. Keating, Michigan Avenue, Chicago; three, Jeremiah O'Leary, 16 Park Row, New York.
One and two are absolutely reliable and discreet, number three is reliable but not always discreet. These persons were indicated by Sir Roger Casement. In the U.S. sabotage can be carried out in every kind of factory for supplying munitions of war.
Zimmerman.
The following almost unbelievable list of dynamiting atrocities were carried out by this gang and their tools and agents. Many of these tools and agents were afterwards caught, convicted and served prison terms in the United States, and from many of them confessions were obtained.
May I be pardoned if I cite part only oi the successful operations of this gang? In every instance supplies and munitions for the allies were destroyed. If I might have the permission of the committee I should like to put the list on Hansard. It is so long that I hesitate to read it. It would save time if I could put it on the record.
Supply-National Defence


Frederick George Sanderson: With the unanimous consent of the committee.


Robert James Manion: Agreed.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: For the moment I might refer to two or three of them. On January 1, 1915, there was an incendiary fire at the Roebling plant in Trenton; on January 3, 1915, a mysterious explosion on the SB. Orton in the Erie basin; February, 1915, an attempt to blow up the Vanceboro bridge on the Canadian Pacific railway between Maine and Canada. Werner Horn, a German reserve officer, was arrested and confessed.
On December 12, 1914, the following cipher telegram, No. 357, was sent from Berlin to von Bernstorff:
Secret: The transportation of Japanese troops through Canada must be prevented at all costs if necessary by blowing up Canadian railways. It would probably be advisable to employ Irish for this purpose in the first instance as it is almost impossible for Germans to enter Canada. You should discuss the matter with the military attache. The strictest secrecy is indispensable.
This was followed on January 3, 1915, by a second cipher telegram to the ambassador:
Secret: The general staff is anxious that vigorous measures should be taken to destroy the Canadian Pacific in several places for the purpose of causing a lengthy interruption of traffic. Captain Boehm who is well known in America and who will shortly return to that country is furnished with expert information on that subject. Acquaint the military attache with the above and furnish the sums required for the enterprise.
Werner Horn pleaded guilty to blowing up the international bridge at Vanceboro, Maine, and was sentenced to the federal penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia.
Another bomb plot prepared against Canada in the United States at the instigation of the attache was an attempt to blow up the Peabody Overall Company's factory in Walker-ville, Ontario. The German-Washington authorities operated through an agent, Kaltschmidt, who was paid $25,000. They used a willing tool named Lefler, who planted dynamite and attached a time clock. At the same time they set another charge in the rear of the Windsor armouries in which Canadian troops were billeted. The factory bomb exploded; the one at the armouries failed to go off. Lefler was arrested and confessed.
The German-Washington authorities then switched their activities against Canada to the German consul-general in San Francisco, by name Franz von Bopp. This plan was to blow up the tunnel on the Canadian Pacific between Revelstoke and Vancouver, and $3,000 was paid to a tool, Koolbergen, for the job. The tunnel was too well guarded, and the plot failed, but Koolbergen confessed and went to prison.
[Mr. Slaght.l
Early in the fall of 1914 a plot to blow up the Welland canal was formulated by von Papen. The idea was to hold back Canadian supplies and troops destined for France. The scheme had to be abandoned, however, because the canal was too well guarded.
Following the German headquarters' instructions contained in the telegram of January 13, 1915, stating that the " General staff is anxious that vigorous measures should be taken to destroy the Canadian Pacific in several places " a scheme was devised to employ Hindu coolies in the Canadian northwest to dynamite Canadian bridges and tunnels, and von Papen personally paid Schulenberg $4,000 to buy a ton of dynamite and fifty rifles to shoot any Canadian guards in the way. Schulenberg bought the dynamite and arranged the plot, but learning of a leak he got cold feet and fled to Mexico City. Arrested later, in December, 1917, and broken down in health, Schulenberg confessed the details of the plot.
The Canadian Car and Foundry Company, Montreal, whose president at the time, since gone, was my good friend W. W. " Ben " Butler, well-known to many hon. members, well-known to the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Cahan)-


Mr. CAHAN:: He was not the president; he was then an official.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: He was later president, perhaps.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Later.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: He had obtained a very large munitions contract from Russia, one of our allies, and established a shell-manufacturing plant near Kingsland, New Jersey. The contract was for 5,000,000 shells at a price of $83,000,000. On January 11, 1917, the plant was blown up, and for four hours a bombardment of high explosive shells rained down. The whole plant was ablaze. The entire plant was destroyed and the loss was $17,000,000. To that extent Russia and our allies were short of munitions. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, one of the directors of the company-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, I was not a director of that company. I was chairman of an executive committee that had supervision of manufacturing and assembling munitions in the United States.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I understood my hon. friend was, but my information from a reliable source is that the hon. member conducted an investigation and reported that the fire and explosion were incendiary and deliberate.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is true.

Supply-National Defence


Arthur Graeme Slaght: January 10, 1916-Explosion in the DuPont powder plant at Carney's Point, N.J.
January 11, 1916-Explosion at DuPont plant in Wilmington, Del.
January 15, 1916-Explosion in DuPont plant at Gibbstown, N.J.
January 19, 1916-Mysterious fire on S.S. Sygna while at sea.
January 19, 1916-Bomb explosion occurred on S.S. Ryndam.
January 22, 1916-Two bombs discovered in cargo of S.S. Rosebank.
February 3, 1916-Bomb discovered in cargo of S.S. Hennington Court.
February 12,	1916-Bethlehem Projectile
plant destroyed.
February 16, 1916-Mysterious fire occurred in S.S. Dalton at sea.
February 19, 1916-Explosion in Union Metallic Cartridge Co. plant in Bridgeport, Conn.
February 20, 1916-Explosion in Middlesex Analine Co. plant at Bound Brook.
February 21, 1916-Bomb explosion occurred on S.S. Tennyson at sea.
February 26, 1916-Mysterious fire occurred on S.S. Livingston Court in Gravesend bay.
February, 1916-A mysterious and suspicious fire was started in houses of parliament, Ottawa.
February, 1916-S.S. Carlton caught fire at sea mysteriously.
April 4, 1916-Cargo of supplies for the allies on S.S. Marta was damaged.
April 13, 1916-DuPont plant at Bluefields, W. Va., wrecked by an explosion.
April 19, 1916-Eight men were arrested in New Jersey, principally employees of the North German Lloyd Company in connection with the placing of fire bombs upon cargoes of ships.
May 10, 1916-The Atlas powder mixing plant was destroyed.
May 11, 1916-A plot was discovered to destroy the Wm. Todd Company plant at Youngstown, Ohio.
May 14, 1916-The munitions cargo of S.S. California was mysteriously damaged.
May 14, 1916-A mysterious fire was discovered in the hold of S.S. Kandahar.
May 16, 1916-DuPont Powder Company plant at Gibbstown was mysteriously destroyed.
June 7, 1916-DuPont plant at Wayne, N.J. destroyed.
July 22, 1916

Explosion in Hercules powder works.
August 18, 1916-Two attempts were made to blow up the piers of the Pacific Coast Steamship Company.
October 2, 1916-Mysterious fire discovered in hold of S.S. Philadelphia.
October 8, 1916-Mysterious fire occurred on
5.5.	Antilla.
_ October 28, 1916-Mysterious fire broke out in hold of S.S. Chicago, and she was taken into the Azores.
November 5, 1916-A fire broke out in the
5.5.	Ponus and it was put ashore in Falmouth bay.
November 21, 1916-Twenty uuexploded bombs were found in the sugar cargo of the American
5.5.	Sarnia. She was beached and flooded near Cherbourg.
November 27, 1916-The cargo of the S.S. Regina d'ltalia was partly destroyed by a mysterious fire.
December 9, 1916-Midvale Chemical Co. building at Bayway was destroyed by a fire and explosion.
December 27, 1916-Bethlehem Steel Co. gas plant was destroyed by an explosion.
January 11, 1917-The Kingsland assembling plant was destroyed.
[Mr. Slaght.l
April 6, 1917-United States declared war on Germany. Nearly all the German agents fled to Mexico as rapidly as possible. Destruction of factories, etc., ceased very quickly after this date.
I have spoken longer than I had intended; but let me expose my purpose in troubling this committee with these details. It is fourfold:
First, to expose the perfidy of double dealing by a nation who under international ethics were compelled to respect the confidence and honourable manner in which they were treated by the foreign country in. which they were situate, and used that international honour privilege as a means to destroy property and life, while at the same time dining at the White House and breaking bread1 and drinking wine with the leaders of the nation whose property and people they were destroying with dynamite and bombs.
Second, to warn the people of Canada that we may expect at the present moment to find within our midst a powerful, destructive force of secret service German agents, ready to operate against our property and the lives of our people should war with Great Britain become a fact.
Third, to bespeak the Canadian people to be alert, watchful, aggressive and communicative with headquarters against every suspicious subversive activity of which special knowledge may come to them.
Hon. members may have recently seen in Toronto and elsewhere agitations for a commission to investigate nazi activities and communism. In my view we might almost as well ring the bell and expect the secret service agents to come forward and surrender, as to hope to get anywhere by commissions of that kind with public sittings. We have a magnificent secret service force in Canada, but it is all too small-I say that with great respect for the Minister of Justice (Mr.. Lapointe)-at the present moment. His estimates for the upkeep of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will come before the committee ; they amount to six million dollars odd, and it is not my purpose to discuss-them at this moment. Our mounted police are the nucleus, in fact practically the head and front and entire body, under which our secret service operates. It is not desirable in parliament to discuss details of that type of operation. All hon. members having military knowledge know that attached to each military corps or regiment there is an officer-known as the intelligence officer. In this country he is placed in easy touch-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. I regret to
interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that he has spoken for forty minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.

Supply-National Defence


Frederick George Sanderson: With the unanimous consent of the committee.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: I thank the committee. I can conclude in less than five minutes.
Because we stinted our money contribution for a preventive service, we may have subversive elements in this country, who are able to go into Quebec or Ontario or anywhere else in Canada and destroy some of our great power plants, which could not be replaced in less than one or two or three years at best. That would paralyze the industry of this dominion. In my humble judgment we must take steps to provide our departments with sufficient money now to prevent those things happening, because the money required for such purpose would not be relatively great compared with even the .$63,000,000 that we are now voting. I believe that is the greatest insurance, the best protection both to ourselves and to the empire that we can possibly conceive at the present time.
I have given three of my purposes in introducing this subject at this time; I will conclude with the fourth. It is to arouse public opinion as to the character and tactics of the German high command, who are the product of a cruel and ruthless philosophy which I have described to the committee, and who in my opinion do not in that respect represent the real or true character of the better element of the great mass of the German people.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should be unduly aroused by the spirited speech of the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght). I was in London in December, 1914, and as the old law firm of which I had been a member were the law agents of the war department and the admiralty in Canada and elsewhere in America, I was asked by the war office to undertake certain services in the United States. I was in their service until nearly the end of 1917, so that I personally saw a great deal of the work of the British secret service and the German secret service in the United States. I then returned to Canada, late in 1917, at the request of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, and assumed a position which was called director of public safety in Canada. Then I was in close cooperation with Colonel Sir A. Percy Sherwood and the dominion police forces under his charge, and subsequently, after Sir Percy's retirement, with his successor. I have a store of copies of public documents and official reports and others which I obtained during that service. I may write it up some -day, when I have nothing else to do, in my autobiography.


Robert James Manion: Not while you are in the house.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I came back to Canada as director of public safety, and I must say, with firm conviction, that I found the dominion police force at that time thoroughly efficient and adequate to deal with all the alien conspiracies that were attempted in Canada. That force did splendid service, and there were no German conspiracies which were successful under the dominion police force in Canada. I have no doubt that, under the Minister of Justice, the dominion police, now the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is quite as efficient to-day as it was then, so I doubt whether we should feel unduly alarmed by the statement of the hon. member for Parry Sound this afternoon. That statement may serve a useful purpose, but the people of Canada can rely upon this, that if the dominion police force, now the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is as efficient now as it was in 1917 and 1918-and I believe it is even more efficient-it will be able to take care of the German secret service and control its manipulations in Canada in case another war arises. I am confident of that.
Some day I shall have to take from storage some of these documents which are now deposited in a large safe in Montreal, where I keep them safely, and amuse the public by publishing some real detective stories, dealing with my personal experiences in those years. I saw the British secret service at work in the United States for several years, as I was more or less counsel with them in some important matters. I will say, however, that I do not believe there was any police force in the British empire more efficient than the dominion police force during the later years of the war.


Arthur Graeme Slaght: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make it very clear that I intended to pay a tribute to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I know something of their work; I believe they are as highly efficient as any force in the world, and I think it would be most unfortunate if anything I said should be construed as indicating that I have any other view.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not suggest that.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: To
anyone coming from British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, the question of defence naturally suggests naval defence, the necessity of defending our shores against a naval attack. I had not intended to say anything during this debate, but some remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) suggested an opportunity once more to press upon the government a matter that is very close to my heart and that is increasingly, and



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-National Defence
[Stage Direction]
to a surprising extent, becoming the subject of discussion and deep interest in my province. People whose occupation and residence apparently would militate against taking any interest in the matter are taking up the subject.
The hon. member for Vancouver North mentioned one or two instances of the infiltration of subjects of a certain Pacific power into British Columbia. There have been several instances of this within the district which I represent. I know the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) fortified a certain island on a channel which would be one of the natural approaches to the city of Vancouver. It is within my knowledge also that a certain headland, consisting of a considerable acreage only a few miles away, has been taken over by the nationals of a foreign power, for no particular apparent reason. I know of timber limits taken up as such which anyone with the most superficial knowledge of timber would condemn as timber limits; and we know of copper mines being taken up in the way the hon. member mentioned. So we wonder if there is some association in these matters. We know also that this nation has a large body of fishermen on the west coast; and there have been instances in which some of those apparently ordinary fishermen, clad in the rough working garb of their calling, have been identified by some of the prominent men in our own naval services as being men who were high in the naval service of this other country.
I desire to give, credit to the Minister of National Defence for having two years ago inaugurated a naval reserve of working fishermen on the Pacific coast. Perhaps he was instigated to do so by his knowledge of how well that system has developed, and to what a large extent it is practised, in connection with the British navy. I had a notice of motion on the order paper suggesting the same thing. The government did not allow me to bring it forward, but the minister was kind enough to tell me that he already had the matter in mind, and since that time he has taken this action. At the present time that reserve consists of only a few hundred fishermen, but there is every possibility- and I have no doubt it is the intention-of extending it. I believe the results have been splendid. These men are the very finest class of what you might call naval reservists for the job you want them to do. In the operation of a mosquito fleet, and for service of that kind, they are probably even better than men trained on a man of war. They are familiar with every bay and channel on both

Vancouver island and the mainland, a coast line covering thousands of miles in all. Not only do they know every bay and channel; they also know every rock and shoal. As members of a mosquito fleet, as scouts, as pilots, as mine layers or mine sweepers in time of war, these men would be almost worth their weight in gold. The reserve is still comparatively small; the men are trained for some weeks in the slack fishing season, but they form a valuable nucleus.
But, Mr. Chairman, there is a dark shadow over the future prospects of our naval reserve on the Pacific. What is the minister's own colleague doing in this matter? He is undoing the good work the minister has spent time, money and energy in promoting. He is permitting and, more than that, inviting the extension of a system which will eliminate this valuable class of hardy fishermen so familiar with our western shores. Last night in the mail I received' a copy of a resolution passed by the youth council of British Columbia, who have made such extraordinary progress in recent months that they now claim to represent over 45,000 of the youth of that province. They passed a number of resolutions dealing with various matters, including one dealing with the subject I am discussing. I shall not take time to read it all, but they concluded by saying that it was the considered opinion of this large body of the youth of British Columbia, most of whom could have no personal interest in the fishing industry, that the continuation of fish traps in British Columbia was highly inimical to the interests of that province.
Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Order.


Alan Webster Neill: And I would go further
than that and say, inimical to the interests of Canada as well. I imagine my hon. friend is going to suggest that this matter is already under consideration by a committee and that therefore I should not mention it. That objection might be considered well taken; but there are moments when the consideration of matters of vital importance compels even a law-loving man like myself to break a formal rule rather than pass by an opportunity to do something for the good of the province from which I come and the empire to which we belong. I will put it this way, to meet the objection of my hon. friend; I will say that apart from the increased employment which would result, a substantial and extremely inexpensive aid to our defence scheme on the Pacific coast would be created if those traps were done away with. In that way we would guarantee the maintenance not only of the fishing

Supply-National Defence
industry but of some 12,000 fishermen who now make their living in that industry, ninety per cent of whom will be eliminated if the traps are continued. You cannot get much loyalty or protection in time of war from a fish trap, which is a lot of piles and wires.


James Samuel Taylor: I rise to a
point of order.


Alan Webster Neill: In time of war these 12,000
men will be of vital importance to us.


James Samuel Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I ask you if the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) is to be allowed to talk about fish traps when we are discussing national defence. That matter is now being considered in the committee of marine and fisheries.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: It is
remotely connected.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member has
taken his seat.


James Samuel Taylor: He has placed
the matter on record. I want to place on record the fact that the hon. member has taken a mean advantage of the generosity of this committee.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order, in my opinion
the point of order is not well taken.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe in war, and I make no apologies for my attitude in that regard. Yet I must congratulate the minister and his department upon increasing Canada's protection. There was a statement made by the Prince of Peace, which I think has been grossly abused-"Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." I think alongside of that should be placed another statement of the same Prince of Peace-"Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." I know from my own experience with volley ball that one must be able to take care of himself, and be in good shape to do so.
The cape at Thunder bay is a vulnerable place. We have, if not the bread basket of the world, at least an important storage point. In that vicinity are thirty of the biggest elevators to be found anywhere, comprising the greatest elevator system in the world and the greatest grain handling equipment. That system should be protected, and I suggest two ways of doing so.
71492-255J
First of all, our youth should be trained in a non-permanent force. I say that because the youth in Fort William and Port Arthur are second to none in Canada. They have shown that by their action in the athletic field and by their ability and brilliancy in the university. As an instance I know of a young non-Anglo Saxon who struggled against going to camp for $5 a month, who entered university, earning every cent of the money for his tuition fees, and put himself through university without financial assistance from anyone. He is now a graduate engineer, and a credit to Fort William.
When I think of the accomplishments of athletes at the head of the lakes I am convinced they are fit to take care of all-comers, whether they be from the north, south, east or west. I appreciate the attitude of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) in striving to protect our country in time of emergency, and I am right with him in that regard. I was denied the privilege of going overseas in the 13th field battery, because we had taken to our home children whose mother had passed away and whose father was overseas. The commanding officer of the battery told me I was every kind of a fool, and that I would lose my command if I went to the city of Winnipeg. I do not believe any good can come out of war, but I am convinced we should protect ourselves.
I am convinced another type of armament is absolutely necessary, whether we be in uniform or out of it. I refer to moral rearmament. I was pleased to note that emphasis was laid upon that type of armament by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght). In Fort William we have an air field, and in Port Arthur a water landing place and a splendidly equipped aeroplane plant. Planes are being turned out for use in training. I am sure we will receive from the Department of National Defence the help required to train our youth, and we shall then be able to take on all-comers.


Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely in favour of the defence program, and associate myself with hon. members who have said that in view of world conditions to-day our expenditures are not sufficient. In my opinion what we are doing is a step in the right direction.
A couple of years ago I stated in the house that orientals could land on the Pacific coast and take command of the railway, dry dock and elevator facilities, if they used only a row boat, two men and a machine gun. We could not have defended our coast at that time. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) has realized the strategic
Supply-National Defence

position of the Pacific coast and has at least tried to develop defence facilities. It is ridiculous to think that we should allow outsiders to defend our ports. It was our good fortune to have the benefit during the last war of defence by the greatest fleet on the seas. But in times such as these, can we depend upon that defence? I am pleased to associate myself with the Minister of National Defence who has seen fit to show the world that in a small way we are trying to help ourselves and not depend upon other nations for support.
One suggestion has been made to me, and I believe to many other hon. members, in connection with the awarding of war contracts for the Department of National Defence. I am not criticizing the department for making contracts on a cost-plus basis, but it has been suggested it would be in the interests of the Canadian people and would stimulate greater cooperation if the Department of National Defence were to follow the procedure of other departments and where possible let contracts by open tender. The department might well take that suggestion into consideration. Of course there might be contracts of such a nature that every Tom, Dick and Harry should not be allowed to do the work. The suggestion is, however, that wherever possible the Department of National Defence [DOT]hould follow the practice of the Department of Public Works, and other departments of the government, of letting contracts by open tender. If it were indicated that the Department of National Defence were favourably disposed in that regard, it would assure the Canadian people that there is nothing wrong. I am convinced there is nothing wrong in the department, but when a department finds it necessary to let a contract on a cost-plus basis it is sometimes difficult to convince some people that it has been properly let.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Chairman, just a word. I have listened to some of the speeches, and I agree fully with what was said by the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Slaght) with regard to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). Before this it has been my pleasure to speak well of his deputy. But, sir, there is one thing not well known outside of the province of Quebec, and that is the real feeling in that province. Of course the hon. member for Parry Sound may have read about the opinions of people in Quebec. I know he was in earnest when he made the statement he did about the people of our province. The people of the province of Quebec, French Canadians and others, are loyal citizens of their majesties. They have no
rMr. Hanson.]
bad feeling toward their fellow citizens. On the other hand, there is one thing that should be understood. They love their country very deeply. First, they love the place in which they live, whether it be city, town or hamlet; then they love their province, and then they love their country. To the great surprise of a gentleman from the United States who was conversing with one of the brilliant journalists in Montreal, a president of the press gallery during the war and a French^Canadian, he was told that no French-Canadian would have any objection to taking up a gun and fighting the enemy in British Columbia or in the maritimes. The French-Canadians look upon Canada as their country. They are ready to defend their country, but they think that the best way to do that is to concentrate our military forces in this country. That is the view of the people of my province. If the hon. member for Parry Sound has not the leisure to make a visit to our province, I invite him to come with me to the press gallery and discuss this matter with some of the prominent French-speaking journalists. I am sure they will tell him exactly the same thing.
I should like to be a pacifist, but it is rather hard because of the many requests I receive from young men in my constituency to enlist in the Royal Canadian Air Force. I doubt if the deputy minister has received more recommendations from anyone else than he has from the member for Temiseouata. I should like to see peace all over the world, but I know there is a fascinating career for young men in aviation and I cannot do otherwise than recommend them without distinction of party. The medical examination and other tests are severe, and I recommend any young man from my constituency who wants to be recommended. A number of those I recommended received appointments in the royal Canadian navy, and I have been told by the officials of the department that these young men are doing quite well.
I want to tell the minister, the officials of the department and the members of the committee that the province of Quebec is far from being disloyal. They do not beat the drum and wave the flag except when it is necessary. They are Canadians, they love their country and are ready to defend it, but they do not want to go outside their country. They think we have enough to do to defend our own country without embarking on what the Minister of National Defence described in an interview which was flashed across the Atlantic as European Machiavellianism.
I do not believe in the European diplomacy of the present time. I do not believe in the Chamberlain government. I do not believe in the intrigues that are now occurring in

Foreign Propaganda
England. I do not believe that French-Canadians or English-speaking Canadians should go to Europe to fight over Danzig. God forbid that we should ever have to live under a rule similar to that which exists in nazi Germany or fascist Italy. I believe in democracy, but I do not believe we have democracy here. I do not believe we have freedom of speech in this house. There are things here that should be looked after right away. Our democratic institutions are being undermined by an abominable bureaucracy. We should start cleaning up at home. We should put order in our legislation, in our government, in the service and in the country. That is my humble view.
We should start at home to defend our country. We should see that our country is defended and we should be most careful about the intrigues and the deceptive diplomacy of European countries. The surest way of maintaining our ties with other British countries is to show the world that we are through with the League of Nations. The League of Nations is responsible for most of the trouble now occurring in Europe. It was conceived by men who had not the ability to make a treaty that would last. The League of Nations is a farce, and I submit that the money now voted for the league should be used for the defence of this country It would thus serve a much better purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house adjourned.
Monday, May 15, 1939.