Mr. BENNETT:

Does the right hon. gentleman say that there are no reservations with respect to other things? I ask the question for information, because Lord Cushendun, whom the right hon. gentleman quoted, made a special reservation, "unless in bona fide self-defence."

Mr. MACKENZIE KING': So far as selfdefence is concerned, self-defence is inherent in human nature and in nations, and as my hon. friend' has just observed, Lord Cush-endun's language carried before the words selfdefence the word "bona fide", and neither the League of Nations nor any other organization on earth regards bona fide self-defence other than as a right residing in every individual and in every nation.

Mr. CAHAN:

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

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

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

Mr. CAHAN:

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

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Why should the hon. gentleman wish to throw suspicion or distrust on other nations?

Mr. BENNETT:

Because we have had experience.

Mr. CAHAN:

The facts now speak louder than words.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, speaking the other day of the United' States, said that the United States newspapers-

Mr. BENNETT:

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

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

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

Mr. BENNETT:

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

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Will my hon. friend give me the names?

Mr. BENNETT:

I have on my desk a

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

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I am making no apologies for anyone except my hon. friend.

Mr. BENNETT:

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

Mr. DUNNING:

Self-defence.

Mr. BENNETT:

Well, his excuse for the assertion may be regarded as self-defence; but I think not. Now, I venture to say that the reason for the right hon. gentleman's manifestation of heat was that he asked a question to which I gave the answer-experience. I may be permitted to remind him once more of what I read to this house last session, namely, an extract from Lord Charnwood's life of a great president of the United States, the late Mr. Roosevelt, who negotiated a treaty with Great Britain for the settlement by arbitration of differences with respect to the Alaskan boundary. According

244 COMMONS

International Peace-Mr. Bennett

to Lord Charnwood, he intimated, through one of his friends in London, that the English plenipotentiaries would have to agree with those representing the United States, otherwise he would take his soldiers and run the line. That is what I meant by experience. If desired I will get the book from the library and give my right hon. friend the page where that passage will be found. Those words made a profound impression upon me when I read them. And when the right hon. Prime Minister referred to the International Joint Commission it brought to my mind that our friends to the south have always insisted upon an equal representation on arbitration tribunals, which usually necessitates one of our representatives giving in in order that their will may prevail. This was the case in the Alaskan boundary award, which caused so much discussion in this country. I could multiply those instances. If the right hon. gentleman desires, he will find them pet out at length in a book written by a prominent gentleman across the line. The work is entitled Conquest by John Carter, and in it are reviewed all the activities of our friends on this continent during the last hundred years by force of arms, by economic pressure and by other means. That was the reason why I made my observation in answer to the question of my right hon. friend, and I am rather surprised that the Prime Minister of a great British dominion should display such heat, because I take it that every member of this house has a deep and abiding anxiety for peace.

No form of democratic government can survive without peace. The very essence and basis of democracy is peace. Everyone realizes that. And when the right hon. gentleman referred to the fact that we had attained to a position where we were consulted and had the opportunity to express our approval by becoming a signatory to this great Briand-Kellogg pact, I could not but think that that was won for us by the gallant men who gave their all on the battlefields of France. If to-day we rejoice in the fact that we have some position in the world as a people, a position that enables us to attach our signature to a pact that makes for the world's peace, we should never for one moment forget that that position was won for us through war and all! that war involves in the way of sacrifice of blood and treasure, the latter being the least significant; and this country will not for a half a century recover from the loss sustained in the sacrifice of her gallant sons, a sacrifice which won for us the position which now enables us to become a party to this treaty.

It does not seem to me necessary that any member of this house should take any length of time in saying that we welcome, and the Canadian people welcome, every effort and every instrument that will make for the preservation of the world's peace. But when we speak of peace being maintained by treaties we must never forget that the stream of time, as I said the other day, is strewn with the wrecks of nations that have broken solemn treaties to which they were parties; and as long as human nature is as it is we cannot contemplate, in view of the lessons of history, the possibility of a golden age being ushered in by the mere signing of a document that outlaws war and says that it shall no longer be had recourse to as an instrument of national policy. Merely to say that we abhor war, that we outlaw war and will no longer have recourse to it as an instrument of national policy, is but to say something that has been said by statesmen during the last nineteen centuries. We started for a golden era when our Saviour himself was on earth, and down through all the centuries you will find men making these declarations. But we' know what has followed. It will not be forgotten, for instance, that a solemn treaty was signed recognizing the integrity of Belgium and that it was violated, and that this violation by Germany brought the British Empire into the Great war. Yet great nations, mark you, pledged their honour to uphold that treaty. In the same way the honour of nations is pledged to the treaty now before us.

We are practical people, and when we speak of peace we must not for one moment forget that the price of peace is effort, and that means effort for peace. It was President Wilson who in one of his addresses to congress said: If we are to have peace we must have the will to peace. The will to peace means much more than the mere expression of words, it means .that we live in accordance with that will, and that instruments of war are not created. For there can be no peace, even with the will to peace, if the concrete effort finds expression in the creation of great armies, great navies, and great aircraft squadrons, and the manufacture of chemicals with which to carry on diabolical chemical warfare. These things we must recognize and realize, and the first step to be taken, if this treaty is to be maintained and enforced by the Canadian people, is to bring about disarmament. It must be remembered that this treaty contains no sanction, other than the sanction of honour, it contains no provisions as does the League of Nations covenant by which pressure may be exerted, even to the

International Peace-Mr. Bennett

extent of pressure by force; no provisions of that kind. It is, as the Prime Minister has said, a document based entirely upon a national sense of honour. There are no punishments provided; the only punishment that we can impose upon the nation that breaks it is by our abhorrence of and revulsion in such a breach of plighted honour.

That being so, it does seem to me that we, being a practical people and living in an age of actualities, must see to it that there is behind that will for peace itself an expression in concrete shape by disarmament, by bringing about the lessening of armies, by bringing about the lessening of navies, by bringing about the lessening of aircraft, by bringing about the cessation of manufacture of the materials by which chemical warfare is carried on. Unless we do that this covenant becomes something, a little higher perhaps than covenants of days gone by, but it becomes after all a byword and a reproach. The very essence of this instrument is that those who sign it-not this country alone but every other nation in the world that becomes a party to it-begin at once to destroy by peaceful means those instruments by which peace is rendered impossible.

I think it was Shakespeare who said that the sight of means to do ill deeds makes deeds ill done; and so long as there are armies and navies, aircraft and chemicals, just so long will men and women think in terms of war instead of peace. The very presence of these instruments of war induces thinking in terms of war. It seems to me, therefore, that the complement of this obligation which we have incurred is that on every occasion, at all times, we should be glad and willing to assist in every possible way to see to it that these instruments, by which men are led to think in terms that are the very opposite of peace, shall not be maintained and supported by the people. Failing such an effort, any treaty becomes nothing more than sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. There is no doubt about that. I think of the language of Lord Cushendun with relation to the emotional reactions that follow moments of great exaltation, when we speak in terms of peace as though the golden age had come; but we must not forget that in this world to-day there are great armies- hundreds of thousands of men under arms, owing allegiance to the very nations that have executed this pact. There are great navies built and building; there are thousands of aircraft built and building; there are great factories being erected and organized for manufacturing chemicals to be used for purposes of devastation and destruction during war. If,

therefore, we desire to realize the purpose of this pact this can be done only by the complete recognition on our part of the educational obligations that rest upon us to see to it that there shall be more than the mere signing of an agreement-that the instruments by which the purpose we have in view will be nullified shall not be created or maintained.

This is all I think it is incumbent on me to say at the moment. I am as anxious and desirous as every thoughtful man or woman must be in Canada to see peace prevail. Believing as we do that the one great means by which peace throughout the world is to be established and maintained is to create that will for peace which finds expression in disarmament and in the lack of preparation for war, or the destruction of the instruments whereby war may be carried on, whether on land or sea or in the air, we execute a document such as this, which marks one more step forward towards the end we have in view. But any student of history, whoever he may be or however casually he may read, cannot but be struck with the fact that during all the long centuries of which we have a record men and women have been striving for peace as the great ideal, only to see their hopes shattered and their expectations disappointed, because the human equation has been what it is, because in moments of great stress the multitude, the masses under democratic forms of government, fired by emotional appeals, exalted for the time being to think that their eagerness for war really expressed their patriotism, have shaped and moulded and controlled public opinion through statesmen and governments, so that governments and men who would willingly and gladly have refrained from war have been compelled to rush into conflict with other nations. That is the history of mankind; and until such time as mankind has no longer before it the means by which war may be made possible, so that when men's emotions are aroused by appeals to false sentiments of patriotism-appeals to the jingoistic spirit that sometimes manifests itself in every country-until such time, I say, the possibility of war will remain. We must, therefore, destroy the instruments that make for war, so that when such appeals are made to the emotions there will be no response-* no cannon, no navy, no troops. That is the only means by which peace can be made lasting in this world; and we must not be misunderstood if we suggest that this document, great as it is, is not nearly so great as people are sometimes led to believe it is. This is a document which, based upon principles of high honour, records the view that war, here-

246 COMMONS

International Peace-Mr. Bennett

after, shall be considered illegal and no longer an instrument of national policy. But let us bear in mind, there are no sanctions, and for the maintenance of the principles it embodies it is essential, in my poor judgment, that there should be no means by which the purpose aimed at may be frustrated. We know the weaknesses of human nature, we realize all the difficulties which in the past have surrounded treaties in relation to peace- difficulties such as found expression at the time the boundaries of Belgium were disregarded and the German troops marched through that country.

I certainly desire to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) upon the part he has taken in connection with the execution of the treaty. We Canadians realize that the first minister of the crown, in dealing with the matter as he did, spoke not for the government but for the Canadian people in his capacity of leader of the government of Canada, and to that extent we are proud to think that our country had an opportunity thus to associate itself with the other nations of the world in declaring the Canadian people's abhorrence of war and their view that war as an instrument of national policy should hereafter be regarded as illegal and a menace to the world. This, I think, is a fair and reasonable attitude to take. Canadians are proud to reflect that we have had this opportunity to be associated with the other nations of the world in the outlawing of war and in the endeavour to maintain, as far as possible, the peace of the world. But if there are amongst us, as there are, men who believe that the best means to effect peace is to insist that the instruments which would wreck peace shall not be allowed to exist, then I am sure we shall not be charged with wrong motives, or with any other than a sincere desire to do what we can so that when we have pledged our honour, as other nations have done, to prevent war, [DOT]there shall not Ibe a gradual accumulation of the very instruments that make peace impossible and war but an inevitable consequence. For those who know most, those who have written most carefully on the subject, those who have investigated it most closely are all agreed that but for the instruments which one great nation and empire sustained before the war there would have been no war; because where there are millions of men under arms, millions of tons of warships, great guns, great arsenals and great factories for the production of explosives, these instruments must ultimately 'be used for war. It is because people demand a use for them that

the inevitable end comes; and there will be no success from this or any other treaty until the time comes when the instruments of war are made no longer available. It is for that reason that I made the other day the observations to which attention has been called. We are endeavouring to ensure the security [DOT] of Canada, and we believe that the creation of instruments of force, which would be all-powerful even as against ourselves, if it were the desire of others to use them, are but an incentive, an invitation to arouse the passions of mankind which, during the long centuries of which we have record, have manifested themselves at critical moments in one way and one way only. Since the days when the old orator stood in the Roman tribune and thundered his attacks against a rival city, closing with the four words, "Carthage must be destroyed,"-since then until the present day, war has always been the result of an appeal to the passions of people, who have been only too ready to resort to the use of the instruments at hand. We must, therefore, strike at armaments and navies, armies and aircraft, if treaties are to be inviolate and we are to achieve the end we have in mind.

I have no desire for a single moment to betray any spirit of recrimination or suspicion. But after all one realizes that history is indeed a useful guide; and with the long record of mankind before us to guide us to the high and noble purpose we have in view, we should be indeed false and recreant to the trust reposed in us if we did not take advantage of the lessons which history has taught us. These lessons are there: he who runs may read, and the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein. I associate myself with what has been said as to the great advantages that will accrue to the world by having this open declaration of all communities as to the desirability of peace.

There are certain matters with which I might fittingly deal when the estimates having to do with the League of Nations come before this house; it is not necessary for me to refer to them now, but I do say that upon these two continents of North and South America we have had striking indications during the last few weeks that the power of the League of Nations is very little indeed. That power has not amounted to much with regard to these two continents, and the reasons which induced Brazil to withdraw from the League of Nations, and I assume the same reasons which have induced Btazil to refrain from signing this peace pact are those reasons which must be in the minds of thoughtful

International Peace-Mr. Woodsworth

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

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, after the very

comprehensive and eloquent presentation of the cause of peace by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and the equally eloquent plea by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), that we should banish those instruments without which war is impossible, it seems to me almost too bad to utter anything of a jarring nature. Someone behind me suggests the word "cynical." I hope what I say will not be cynical, but I think we must look at things from the standpoint of reality, and we must understand very clearly the implications of this solemn treaty which *we have to consider. Ten years ago the treaty of Versailles and the covenant of the League of Nations contained undertakings providing for a general reduction and limitation of armaments. As Mr. Lloyd George pointed out recently in the British house, Germany is the only nation which has honoured that undertaking; since Locarno the British, French and Italian armaments have increased. What about British honour and Canadian honour with regard to those provisions of the treaty of Versailles? Further, ten years ago in connection with the peace treaty a charter of labour was drawn up which proposed to grant to organized labour almost all the things for which it has stood for many years and was solemnly signed by the members of the League of Nations. Canada was a signatory to that treaty. With very small exceptions these labour clauses have not been ratified by Canada. I know the difficulties in the way; under our British North America Act, of which we hear daily, there are certain Dominion-provincial difficulties, but I maintain that if Canada were in earnest means would have been found long ago for the ratification of those sections of the treaty. Again I ask, what about the obligations of honour into which Canada entered ten years ago?

One phrase uttelred by the Prime Minister goes a long way to reconcile me to the action which we are asked to take to-day, and that is that this treaty should be the basis in the

future of all our relations with foreign countries. If that is carried' out in its entirety it means that this is indeed the dawn of a better era.

' We are told by the Prime Minister that war is an obsolete method, and again that war must be abolished or war will annihilate our civilization. I do not need to say anything further in that connection, but let me bring out some points which it seems to me may be glossed over at this time of enthusiasm. In the first place, what about the limitations of the treaty? I can hardly understand how the Prime Minister can say that Great Britain made no reservations. We recall the letter written by Mr. Austen Chamberlain at the time this pact was being negotiated, in which he said:

The language of article 1, as to the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, renders it desirable that I should remind Your Excellency that there are certain regions of the world the welfare and integrity of which constitute a special and vital interest for our peace and safety. His Majesty's government have been at pains to make it clear in the past that interference with these regions cannot be suffered. Their .protection against attack is to the British empire a measure of self-defence. It must be clearly understood that His Majesty's government in Great Britain accept the new treaty upon the distinct understanding that it does not prejudice their freedom of action in this respect. The government of the United States have comparable interests any disregard of which by a foreign power they have declared that they would regard as an unfriendly act. His Majesty's government believe, therefore, that in defining their position they are expressing the intention and meaning of the United States government.

We sometimes boast that upon the British Empire the sun never sets, and to-day there are regions which undoubtedly are considered by the present administration as vital to the interests of England, such as Egypt and India. The idea of self-defence is so widely interpreted in this letter by Mr. Austen Chamberlain that it may be made an excuse by the British Empire for war in almost any part of the world. I think that should be made quite clear, and hence I was sorry when the Prime Minister undertook to tell us there were no reservations. If we come to the United States the interpretation given by Mr. Kellogg surely is a form of reservation. He stated that there was nothing in the American draft of an anti-war treaty which restricts or impairs in any way the right of self-defence. Then he said:

Every nation is free at all times and regardless of the treaty provisions to defend its territory from attack or invasion, and it alone is competent to decide whether circumstances require recourse to war in self-defence.

248 COMMONS

International Peace-Mr. Woodsworth

Instead of that being an advance over the peace treaty of Versailles, Mr. Speaker, it is a distinctly retrograde step. The peace treaty undertook to say that the league would decide whether or not a war was a war of selfdefence, but here Mr. Kellogg enunciates the dangerous doctrine that each nation must decide whether or not a war will be a war of self-defence. Until some way is provided by which wars of self-defence may be much more clearly defined it does not seem to me that we can hope that this declaration of the outlawry of war will carry us very far. Did Great Britain ever wage anything but a war of selfdefence? I will venture to say that almost every Conservative in the British Empire will say that every war was a war of self-defence, although practically every historian denies it. Of course, all British wars are wars of selfdefence. I believe Mr. Norman Angell ironically made a statement of that kind not long ago in the city of Toronto. To his astonishment, doubtless, the Torontonians all cheered him not that they caught, his point, but that they could not conceive of Britain as other than always right. We must remember that all large nations claim that their wars are wars of self-defence. What about France? She is the Ruhr to-day and I suppose if the League of Nations undertook to move her out, or the Germans tried the same thing, immediately we would have a war cf selfdefence.

A very excellent editorial appeared in the Free Press a few weeks ago, dealing with the second clause of the Kellogg treaty. This clause reads as follows:

The high contracting parties agree that the settlement or solution of all disputes or conflicts of whatever nature or of whatever origin they may be, which may arise among them, shall never be sought except by pacific means.

The editorial reads:

The optional clause grows slowly in favour. Additional signatures to it forthcoming in recent weeks are those of Hungary and Spain. Meanwhile the official attitude of all the British nations, as frankly is stated at a recent meeting of the league council, is that while they heartily approve of other nations signing the clause they do not intend, for the time being at least, to sign it themselves.

Is that the British way, to approve of everyone else signing but refusing to sign themselves? In this connection I asked a question of the Prime Minister the other day regarding Canada and the optional clause. He very kindly answered one of my questions, but the most important one still remains unanswered.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Would my hon. friend like it answered?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Yes, I should like

it answered now.