Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My hon. friend will recall that during the last imperial conference a desire was expressed on the part of the governments assembled there that no one part of the British Empire should formally accept the optional clause without giving to the other parts of the empire an opportunity of discussing that particular subject. We have advised the other parts of the empire that in our opinion Canada should sign the optional clause, and we are at present receiving communications from other parts of the empire in reference thereto. We are carrying out our undertaking at the conference not to sign formally until there has been an opportunity for discussion, but we have made known that it is our desire to sign the optional clause.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I am delighted to hear that. May I ask when Great Britain was notified to that effect?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I do not recall the exact date, but it was either the end of last year or the early part of this year.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

When the question was raised in the British house last July I note that the Prime Minister of Great Britain stated that no communication had then been received from Canada. Personally, I am delighted to know that Canada is moving along that line. .

There is another question I asked the other day as to whether Canada is taking any steps towards the signing of what is known as the general act for the pacific settlement of international disputes, as drawn up by the ninth assembly of the League of Nations. Possibly the Prime Minister could answer that to-day.

Mr. MACKENZIE ICING:

I have the answer, and I will give it to my hon. friend. The general act or model convention referred to was only drawn up in September last, and so far as we are informed, has not yet been accepted by any member of the league. As it covers in some measure the same ground as the permanent statute of the court of international justice, which Canada has accepted, and the optional clause under the statute which is at present under discussion, we have thought it desirable to have the optional clause question finally determined before proposing further action.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

It seems to me it would be a splendid thing if Canada, could be the first of all the nations of the world to sign that agreement. But are the nations really

International Peace-Mr. Woodsworth

in earnest in this matter? The leader of the opposition has rather suggested that the United States may not be. We have had the cruiser bill, which certainly does not seem to be a very consistent action on the part of the United States. I would remind the house that only a short time before that we had the Anglo-Franco naval compromise, which perhaps, in part at least, provoked the cruiser campaign, Great Britain was undoubtedly responsible in being a party to that compromise. I asked the Prime Minister a question the other day as to whether Canada was consulted in this matter. I think we should have an answer to that, and if the Prime Minister feels he can give it here I shall be delighted.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I believe in March of last year we were advised that the British government intended to enter into conversations with the French government with respect to the consideration of armaments and their possible reduction. The information we received in this particular was public knowledge within a week after. We were not kept advised of the progress of the negotiations. At the imperial conference of 1926 it was laid down that before one part of the British Empire entered into negotiations with another country, whieh negotiations were likely to affect other parts of the empire, all parts of the empire should be advised. If these negotiations were calculated to impose obligations upon other parts it was understood that those parts of the empire would be kept advised of the progress of the proceedings and their assent obtained. I take it that the British government felt that the negotiations were not likely to impose any obligation on Canada and that, therefore, we were not advised of the progress of the negotiations. Our first knowledge as to what had actually been arrived at was received after some of the governments had had their formal notification through the British Embassy.

Mr. CAHAN:

Were these negotiations not

purely tentative for submission to the United States?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I understand they were.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

May I venture to

comment on that by suggesting that the Prime Minister's statement would show that the present arrangements with regard to our imperial affairs are decidedly inadequate? If we can learn of important decisions of this kind on the part of Great Britain only after they are public property, it would appear that to me we are absolutely helpless with regard

to the most vital matters in our world relations. It seems to me that the Prime Minister and the government have taken too narrow a view of the position of Canada in world affairs when they thought we were not directly involved in a matter of this kind.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I never said anything of the kind. We were advised that certain conversations were about to take place, and that was all the knowledge we had of what was going on until we learned of the tentative agreement that had been reached.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Whatever the details may have been, it seems to me that any proposed arrangement along naval lines between Great Britain and France must have been known to involve the whole question of the freedom of the seas. The merest tyro in international affairs must know the great difference of opinion that exists between Great Britain and the United States with regard to that matter, and surely, therefore, our government must have been aware of the seriousness of the situation. I happened to be in close touch with members of the British parliamentary delegation when the opposition of the United States was announced, and the resentment of the British parliamentarians to what they considered American interference was very keen. Anyone who has been in touch with British statesmen knows how widely conservative opinion in Great Britain differs from the American position. ^ My point is that the position of Canada in relation to the United States is a very peculiar one and that we must safeguard our own interests. Whilst we are members of the British Empire-and some of us are glad to belong to the great association of the British commonwealth of nations-we must recognize that we have distinct responsibilities towards our own people, and that we ought to know, clearly just where we stand in matters of this kind. The other day in my speech on the address I read a paragraph from an editorial which appeared in the Western Producer, and I should like to read a little more from the same editorial as it places this situation squarely before the people of Canada. The editor of that paper, I suggested, could not be called unpatriotic or pusillanimous. We know him and his record. This is what he said in referring to a book of Commander Kenworthy, in which the latter had suggested that if there was a possibility of war between Great Britain and the United States, Canada would find herself in an impossible position :

Canada might manage to save herself if she immediately severed all connection with the

250 COMMONS

International Peace-Mr. Woodsworth

British Empire and crawled, squirming on her hands and knees, with a couple of Mackenzie King's speeches held out before her. If she did not do that, and it is doubtful if that would be of any use, she would be in the war five minutes after hostilities had been declared. The war between Canada and the United States might last a week. Without moving off her own territory, American gunners could paralyse all the industries in Ontario depending on water power. American aeroplanes could reach every commercial and industrial centre in Canada within an hour or so. Navigation could be stopped on the St. Lawrence without much trouble. The industries which depended on coal in Ontario could not function for a week because the supply of coal would be cut off from Pennsylvania. The transcontinental lines of railway could be cut in a dozen different places on the prairies. Industry, transport and commerce would be at a standstill. The port of Vancouver could not be saved. It is true that the Hudson Bay railroad might be kept in operation for month or so if the Americans were not in a hurry, but there is little doubt that Canada would be abjectly defeated in considerably less time than it took the Germans to subdue Belgium at the outbreak of the last war. The truth is that Canada, with the British fleet standing by her with every gun and ship, could no more fight the United States than could the newest Canadian baby fight Gene Tunney. Canada cannot hold her place as an independent nation by military strength any more than Holland, Denmark, Haiti or Baffin-land.

Then came the paragraph which I quoted the other day followed by this in conclusion:

If Kenworthy is right, and British diplomacy is liable to involve her in a war with the United States, British Statesmen should also understand that they can count Canada out in the deal. Full acceptance of the Kellogg antiwar pact, both in letter and spirit by Great Britain and an airtight understanding that, under no circumstances, will war be resorted to between the two countries are the only terms upon which Canada can consent to remain a working partner in the British family of nations.

It is as well that we should face the actual facts in the situation, and while none of us likes to contemplate the remotest possibility of war between Great Britain and the United States, we make that absolutely impossible only if we take the strong stand that under no circumstances shall we and our neighbours to the south of us be involved in war. I am glad to know that this is the interpretation which the Prime Minister places upon the treaty which he is asking us to ratify.

It seems to me, then, that we should vote in favour of such ratification with a distinct understanding on two points. First, that so far as we are concerned there are absolutely no reservations, and, second, that we are willing to implement that ratification of this treaty by ourselves taking the lead in the reduction of our armaments. I have spoken about the inconsistency of Great Britain.

Miss MACPHAIL:

Of the United States.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Of Great Britain.

I will say also the inconsistency of the United States; it seems to me that both have been inconsistent. But what about our own consistency when this year, according to the estimates brought down yesterday, we are increasing our defence estimates by a million dollars?

If we are in earnest about this matter we might rather expect the government to bring down a bill to abolish the Department of National Defence. If we really mean what we say according to the terms of the treaty, namely, that we are denouncing war as an instrument of national policy, why do we any longer need a Department of National Defence? The United States, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, is our only neighbour, the only country with which we are likely to come into conflict. Why, then, do we need this Department of National Defence? These are matters that ought to be considered.

Mr. GEARY:

When the hon. member

speaks of Canada signing the treaty without any reservations whatsoever, does he mean to withdraw from Canada the right of self-defence?

Mr. WTOODSWTORTH:

I think if we are serious about this, we shall have to recognize that we pass to a sphere that Lord Cushendun in those eloquent words of his has spoken about as a venture of faith. You cannot very well shake hands with a man and at the same time hold on to your gun. If we are going to shake hands in real earnest, we shall have to lay aside our arms; we shall have to trust our neighbours.

Mr. GEARY:

I think the hon. member

does not quite understand me. He said that one condition should be that we should enter this treaty, if at all, without any reservations. What is in his mind when he makes that statement about reservations?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

There is a reservation implied in our very relationship to the British Empire when that Empire assumes the position implied in the statement that Mr. Austen Chamberlain made at the time of the negotiations. Further, there is undoubtedly a reservation of self-defence, and as I endeavoured to say a little while ago, selfdefence has been and may be so broadly interpreted that almost any war may be undertaken on that ground. WTe have to move away from the old idea of always being prepared to defend ourselves by force and recognize that under modem conditions the best self-defence that we can have is the active promotion of goodwill among the nations.

International Peace-Mr. Woodsworth

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

May I ask the hon. gentleman a question in order to clear up this point? The hon. gentleman has just intimated that he thought there was some implication in which we were involved because of the so-called reservations of Mr. Chamberlain. Surely the hon. gentleman does not mean that Canada is compelled to observe or to honour the implied reservations of Mr. Chamberlain's letter?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I did not want to be so understood. I wish to be clear on that.

I think that Canada ought to decide this question entirely on her own responsibility, that she is quite capable of doing so, but at the same time, I do recognize that Canada is a part of the British Empire, and that so long as we remain a part of the British Empire we cannot escape all responsibility for certain decisions upon the part of other members of the empire, particularly upon the part of Great Britain herself. Mr. Chamberlain has so interpreted the Kellogg peace treaty, and unless we expressly repudiate his interpretation it may very well be that the British government may be inclined to think that we might accede to their position in these matters. I mentioned that the other day with regard to the freedom of the seas. Do we or do we not accept the British interpretation of the freedom of the seas?