Mr. McGIBBON:

May I ask if my hon. friend accepts it?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

No, decidedly not, and I think no one who has studied the developments of history could possibly accept it to-day. I suggested my position on that the other day when I referred approvingly to a statement of Commander Kenworthy and my hon. friend might have saved himself the trouble of asking the question-that is if he is simply desirous of knowing my position. Commander Kenworthy said:

The British will have to envisage now the eventual renunciation of the right of independent blockade, instead of as now, tacitly recognizing that in future it will be impossible to enforce it without American approval; while the Americans will have to envisage now, eventually recognizing, that freedom of the seas and sea law cannot be guaranteed without an Anglo-American convention which will have to be brought into relation with the covenant of the league.

Mr. McGIBBON:

Does the hon. gentleman think we could have won the war on that ground?

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

No, but if this

treaty which we are asked to ratify to-day had been in existence in 1914, and had been taken seriously by the various nations, we

would not have had any war. I would close from a quotation from a very respectable source, the Montreal Gazette, which in its issue of October 25, 1928, says:

It remains with the political casuists to explain just how the augmentation of armaments, alongside the increase of national debts, is going to further the economic recovery of nations from their crushing burdens imposed by the Great war, or how a gesture of this sort can be made to chime with the disarmament proposals still in the offing of international diplomacy, but not as yet piloted into dock.

A little 'later the editorial says:

Nor is it at all olear by what logic it can be maintained that the increase of armaments tends to preserve peace. Lord Grey said: "The moral of the last great war was that great armaments did not prevent war, but brought it about." And speaking upon the same topic, Lord Asquith said that armaments are not accumulated and builded for ornament and display. They are intended to be used and will be let loose upon the world.

I would say in answer to my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary) who asked me a question a few moments ago, that I think we shall have to adopt that attitude. If we have our own navy, small as it may be but easily capable of becoming a unit in the British navy, if we have our own airships more or less standardized so that one day they might readily become a unit in the defence of the empire, if we have our own army and maintain that army and train our boys for these services, we are doing so having in the back of our minds the thought that some day these armaments and these soldiers and these cadets may be used.

Some of us on occasion have been accused of not being loyal to the British Empire-this simply because we undertook to criticize certain policies that have been adopted in the past by certain administrations in Great Britain. I do not think that is a fair accusation. My own hope is that before very long a new regime will come in Great Britain, and I feel that it may be quite possible that we shall then be able more fully to endorse the stand that will be taken by the then existing government of Great Britain. Some of us have been accused of not being patriotic because we criticized the policies that prevailed here in Canada, but I want to say in all sincerity that I believe that those who are trying to create armaments in this country and are insisting upon increased defence are, from my standpoint-doubtless not from theirs-playing into the hands of the so-called patriots of other countries, the armament people of other countries, Our attitude will be used in other quarters to enable the patriots of other coun-

252 COMMONS

International Peace-Mr. Thorson

tries to advocate larger armaments for their nations. I would like to think that if we take the lead in disarmament, although we are a comparatively small country, our example may encourage a still larger measure of general disarmament. It is only as we do this that we can hope-in the excellent phrases of M. Briand-to organize the peace that we are seeking to proclaim.

Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):

Mr. Speaker, the welcome that was

extended to the Prime Minister on his return from Europe last summer was not that of a political party to its leader; it was the voice of Canada in wholehearted approval of his services in the cause of international peace. The Prime Minister was a central figure at Paris in the opening of the Canadian Embassy, and in the signing of the general treaty for the renunciation of war. He was likewise a central figure at Geneva in the deliberations of the council and of the assembly of the League of Nations. It is the declared policy of Canada to promote international amity between herself and the nations of the world with whom she is associated and the people of Canada may well be proud of the manner in which her representative expounded that policy to the other nations of the world. All of the events in which the Prime Minister and those associated with him participated are closely interwoven in that they indicate the growing importance of Canada among the nations of the world and reflect the increasing interest of the Canadian people in international affairs.

This parliament is now asked to approve the general treaty for the renunciation of. war, commonly called the Briand-Kellogg Treaty, or the Paris peace pact, signed at Paris on the 27th of August, 1928, on behalf of His Majesty for the Dominion of Canada by His Majesty's plenipotentiary, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada.

It is now almost ten years since the League of Nations was formed in an effort to establish world peace by the substitution of reason for war in the settlement of international disputes. There have been criticisms of the league even in this house, but thoughtful men are of the opinion that the league has grown in prestige and value to the world year by year, for it has created among the nations of the world a new sense of security, based upon an international public opinion that acutely realizes the horrors of war, and is keenly anxious for peace. The great value of the League of Nations, and of the covenant that binds together fifty-five nations of the world, lies in the abandonment of much of

the old diplomacy, with its cold exchange of formal notes, and its ultimatum that so frequently resulted in war, and the substitution of open conference and public discussion. The covenant of the league sets up machinery for the investigation of international disputes, and- for their settlement by pacific means, either by a reference in appropriate cases to the permanent court of international justice, or through the processes of arbitration, conciliation or conference. The covenant of the league also prescribes a period of delay before war shall be resorted to, during which efforts may be made to settle the disputes by pacific means. The league does not depend upon force, and is essentially a pacific institution. It seeks to bring the disputes of its members into the clear light of day, relying upon open conference and public discussion as safeguards against war.

No greater tribute has ever been paid to the value of the league-and this statement may answer the question put forward by the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) -than the considered opinion expressed by Viscount Grey and supported by General Smuts, that if the present machinery of open conference and public discussion provided by the covenant of the league had been in operation, the outbreak of the Great war in August, 1914, could have been avoided.

The covenant of the league did not, however, preclude the possibility of war. In fact it recognized the legality of war as a last resort in the solution of the disputes that might come before the league. There was a very good reason for the recognition accorded at that time, for those who drafted the covenant were trained in the old schools of international law and in the old conceptions of sovereignty. It was the old view that no limitations whatsoever could be put upon the rights of sovereign states to act as they might desire, and therefore the framers of the covenant felt that they could not deny to sovereign states the right to wage war as a last resort in the furtherance of their national interests. There have been remarkable changes in international conceptions during the last decade and it is manifest that if there is to be international peace the old doctrine relating to the sovereignty of states must be recast. Membership in the league is itself inconsistent with the old conception of sovereignty, since it restricts the liberty of action of its members. No nation in the world, whether limited in status or not, can be permitted to act in whatever way it may desire to do if lawlessness among the nations is to be prevented and the peace of the world assured.

International Peace-Mr. Thorson

Therefore it was necessary to go further than the covenant of the league had gone, and this further step was taken when the peace pact was signed. Article I of that document provides:

The high contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

Fifteen nations of the world, of whom Canada was one, signed this solemn pledge, and since that time forty-seven other nations have expressed adherence to its terms. Under Article I of the peace pact war as an instrument of national policy has been declared by sixty-two nations of the world to be illegal, and the rights of sovereign states have to that extent been abridged. It is no longer the legal right of a state that has signed or expressed adherence to the peace pact to wage war in furtherance of its national interests. A great forward step was taken, for as long as the legality of war was recognized competition in armaments could be justified as preparation for the exercise of a legal right and the settlement of international disputes solely by pacific means was impossible. The gap in the covenant of the league caused by its recognition of the legality of war as a last resort in the settlement of international disputes has been closed.

The peace pact has been criticized as a mere gesture of peace with no substance to support it, and an echo of that criticism has been heard in this house. It is urged that " war as an instrument of national policy " is not defined in the pact; that is true; that wars of self-defence are not affected by the pact; that also is true. It is pointed out that all nations, in recent years particularly, realizing the national dishonour involved in wars of aggression, have claimed that the wars in which they themselves were engaged were wars of self-defence. Secretary Kellogg and Senator Borah agreed with Sir Austen Chamberlain that there was no way of defining legitimate wars of self-defence as against wars of aggression. The critics argue further that no visible test exists whereby to determine whether violation of the pact has been committed; that no machinery is provided for the punishment of those who break its terms; that there are no international obligations involved;-in fact that the peace pact is a glaring example of international hypocrisy. As proof of their view that the nations of the world have no real intention of renouncing war as an instrument of national policy, they point to the armament programs of the nations who signed the pact.

It must not be assumed that international peace has been secured by the mere signing of the peace pact. The pact is however more than a mere gesture of peace, for it has one very important result-it has brought the United States actively into the struggle for world peace. Furthermore it is an additional guarantee of peace, for now a warring nation that is a member of the league and refuses to settle its disputes by pacific means breaks two solemn covenants instead of one, and thus doubly runs the risk of international disapproval. The critics also forget the importance of Article II of the peace pact, which provides 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.

Article I of the peace pact is important as an article of faith, declaring, as it does, the illegality of war as an instrument of national policy. It brings the nations of the world to the threshold of a new era. The second article is however the more important of the two, for it sets forth the positive commitments of the contracting parties; it does furnish a visible test as to the honesty of the nations who signed the paot. Article II is the mansion of the new era whioh the nations now agree to build in place of the shambles of war.

It is true that the term "pacific means" is not defined in the pact, but it is clearly wide enough to include the machinery set up by the League of Nations-the permanent court of international justice and the processes of arbitration, conciliation and conference. The signatory powers are, of course, not confined to the pacific means provided by the league, but they are committed, positively and definitely, to one of two courses: either to leave their international disputes unsettled or to settle them only by pacific means; settlement through the medium of war is illegal.

What are the guarantees of the observance of the pact by the nations who became parties to it? The pact itself, in the preamble, suggests one which might better have been a separate article:-

That any signatory power which shall hereafter seek to promote its national interests by resort to war should be denied the benefits furnished by the treaty.

A violating nation will lose the pledges of peaceful relationships afforded by the pact. It has been realized that we are at the beginning of a new era in international relationships, and several suggestions have been made as to additional guarantees of peace. General

International Peace-Mr. Thorson

Smuts makes a special appeal to the United States to apply to the peace pact the same moral and economic sanctions by way of boycott of the aggressor as are provided for violators of the covenant of the league by Article XVI of the covenant. Somewhat the same idea is behind the resolution presented by Senator Capper to the United States Senate and Mr. Foster to its -House of Representatives, empowering the president to forbid the export of munitions to any belligerent nation that has violated the peace pact. Both suggestions are of value even although there is an element of danger in economic boycott in the disturbance of the ordinary channels of trade that ensues from such boycott, but there is a greater guarantee than either of these two.

Philip Kerr, writing in the Journal of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, in November 1928, points out that the greatest obstacle to the peace of the world has been fear of aggression and its resultant desire for security. This desire for security resulting from fear makes for alliances and ententes, based not so much upon mutual friendships as upon common enmities and common hatreds. Nations build up armaments to increase their sense of security; this leads to counterarmaments, and counter-armaments increase the sense of insecurity; and so the mad competition proceeds, with the necessary consequences of war. There is no possibility of lasting peace if each nation is to be allowed to proceed along its own way in providing for its own security, anxious always to seize points of strategic value to itself. It is essential that the sense of fear that is behind the desire for security at the present time should be overcome: a new basis of security must be found. That basis is, in my humble opinion, the international will for peace. Secretary Kellogg expressed the same idea very simply when he said at New York on Armistice day:

If the people are minded that there shall be no war there will be no war.

The value of the peace pact depends, therefore, upon the strength of its acceptance by public opinion rather than upon any special sanctions. The rule of law in a properly organized state does not depend upon force but rather upon the willingness of the people to submit to it and, similarly, the rule of peace among the nations of the world will depend upon their will for peace. It is for the peoples of the world to decide whether there shall be lasting international peace.

The old platonic idea of the state, in which each class had its special functions to perfMr. Thorson.]

form, has gone. It is not long since it was considered that only those had the right to govern who were specially trained in the art of government. Government of the people, by the people, for the people, is a new conception. It is the ideal of democracy based upon the right of man to his self-realization and his self-determination in so far as these are possible. The ideal of democracy that pervades a normal and well ordered state will pervade the international field. We are on the threshhold of a new era, where the conUwl of international affairs will no longer be in the hands of men trained in the old schools of diplomacy, or in the hands of naval and military experts trained by the precepts of war, but in the hands of the people themselves, desiring international peace and amity among the nations. War is to the world what anarchy is to the state, and as the rule of law has become the foundation of the state, so peace among the nations will prevail if the peoples of the world will that it shall be so. In order that the idealism of the peace pact may not be lost, it is essential that a strong international public opinion should be created, based upon a determination that there shall be no war.

The senate of the United States ratified the peace pact without reservations, and with but one dissenting vote. This must be taken as an indication of the will for peace in the great republic to the south of us.

How can Canada assist in promoting the cause of world peace? In order that she may play her proper part in promoting amity among the nations, she must become one of them, and this she is rapidly doing. She became an independent member of the league in her own right and she has been honoured by election to the council of the league. She has successfully asserted her right to negotiate her own treaties with other countries and she has sent her own ministers to represent her at the capitals of the United States, France and Japan; and these countries are all now or soon will be diplomatically represented at Ottawa. Canada has emerged definitely as a nation having a separate international personality of her own. The best proof of this fact is to be found in its official recognition by the countries that have entered into separate international relationships with her. Will anyone seriously deny that the presence of Mr. Massey at Washington and of Mr. Phillips at Ottawa are powerful factors in promoting international understanding and good will between this country and the republic to the south? So, too, I think we may safely assume that our

International Peace-Mr. Thorson

other ventures in international relationships with France and Japan will have similar results. In any event the ventures were made in pursuance of Canada's foreign policy of promoting international amity and I have no doubt that further appointments will be made when it is in the interests of Canada to make them in furtherance of her policy of peace.

The appointment by Canada of separate ministers to represent her in foreign countries has been strongly criticized by the hon. leader of the opposition; last session he referred to the proposal to open a Canadian embassy in Tokyo as "a bogus representation of nationality." Frankly I find some difficulty in understanding that criticism; I do not know whether he meant that the representation was bogus or that the nationality was bogus, but I pass the criticism by. Later, on September 24, less than a month after the signing of the peace pact, he addressed the Winnipeg Conservative club and is reported as follows:

He declared that the presence of a Canadian ambassador and a British ambassador in a country would not make for that "decisiveness and rapid action" that Spender had declared to be the first requirement in foreign policy, and he quoted Napoleon as saying that an ambassador was useless unless he had the backing of force.

It may be well to review briefly the changes that have taken place in the matter of foreign policy as far as Canada is concerned in order that we may properly understand the force of the criticism and be able to reply to it. I shall not go back farther 'than 1911, when the Prime Minister of Great Britain declared to the representatives of the dominions and to the world at large that responsibility for foreign policy, for the making of treaties, for the maintenance of peace and the declaration of war was for Great Britain alone, and could not be shared by the dominions. That was the doctrine of centralized control thus strongly expressed, but that doctrine was repugnant to the growing desire for autonomy on the part of the dominions and it has been definitely abandoned.

Mr. ADSHEAD:

Was it Premier Asquith

who made that statement?

Mr. THORSON:

I am not certain. In

1917 the right of the dominions bo an adequate voice in foreign policy was recognized, and centralized control over foreign policy gave way to a joint control in which the dominions weTe to have an adequate voice. Then in 1926 the question of foreign policy received further consideration; at the Imperial conference of that year the doctrine was laid down that the dominions were autonomous

communities equal in status to Great Britain and in no way subordinate to her in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs. Therefore it follows as a consequence that Great Britain can no longer commit Canada to any foreign policy unless Canada concurs in it. War will be more difficult for Great Britain to wage since she does not automatically carry the dominions with her. The necessity for consultation with the dominions is a guarantee of delay and therefore a guarantee of peace. The change is as beneficial to Great Britain as it is to Canada and it is beneficial to the world at large.

It is fortunate for the movement towards international peace that "decisiveness and rapidity of action" are not as readily possible as they once were. The covenant of the league prescribes a period of delay as a safeguard for peace, and the new relationship of the British nations towards one another is likewise a guarantee of peace in as far as they are concerned. The world has suffered too much in the past from "decisiveness and rapidity of action"; it would often have been better for the peace of the world if rapidity of action had given place to delay.

Mr. BENNETT:

I suppose the hon. member realizes that the observation by Mr. Spender was directed to the fact that if England had been prompt in saying that she would support France, in his opinion there would have been no war.

Mr. THORSON:

I am glad to have that

explanation from the hon. leader of the opposition; an utterance of the kind made by him without some explanation is unworthy of the leader of a great party.

Canada has declared her policy to be one of peace, and by her declaration that she would decide for herself what active participation she would give in time of war, after full knowledge of the facts had been given to her, she saved the peace of Europe in 1922. I refer to the Chanak incident; delay upon that occasion guaranteed peace. For over a century Canada and the United States have set an example to the world in settling their international disputes by pacific means. I quite agree that the settlements have not always satisfied Canada, but who w'ill say that the pacific settlement of these disputes was not better than war. Canada lives in no fear of aggression, and she knows the value of peace. She is peculiarly fitted, by the composition of her people and by her understanding of the differences of language, race and creed which exist in this country, to be a competent instrument for the promotion of

256 COMMONS

International Peace-Mr. Church

peace among the nations of the world and to assist in the task of bringing about by the force of public opinion that state of international society where war as an instrument of national policy shall be no more.

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):

Mr. Speaker, one thing that stands out in connection with this treaty is the failure of open diplomacy during the past ten years. We have just concluded ten years of pacifist rule on two continents, with the result that we have had nothing but pacifist speeches and a legion of peace pacts and agreements. The net result has been the complete failure of open diplomacy. I look upon this particular treaty as in the nature of a New Year's resolution; one makes the resolution to-day and to-morrow it will be in the waste paper basket as a scrap of paper. Canada does not need any treaty with the United States for the continuation of peace; we have had a hundred years of peace with the United States, and that peace was not founded upon pacts or agreements or documents but upon something higher than the written law, namely on ties of race and of blood and of friendship. We are of the same kith and kin and the same stock and have the same high ideals of civilization.

The ink was hardly dry on this treaty at Paris before the powers who had signed it were getting behind doors and seeing how they could break it. If this is a treaty, why are the big powers arming to-day? Mr. Kellogg of the United States is the author of this scrap of paper, because that is all it is, yet on one side of the capital of that country at Washington you hear proposals of peace and on the other side they are voting 274 millions of dollars for additional armament. There is an article and a picture on the front page of the Ottawa Journal which says that the United States are about to " junk " airplane carriers which cost $86,000,000. They have been in service only fifteen months, but already the cost of running them has shown that their design is a mistake.

We are sitting here to-day dealing with this treaty and we are not even a nation. We have not even a rowboat to protect us in case of war. We must rely upon the motherland for maritime freedom. We are content to rely on this mythical society known as the League of Nations.

We have this farce down in Washington of one secretary with a peace note and another with a war vote of 274 millions, and it is strengthened by the election of Mr. Hoover. He is a big navy man, and so have been Mr. Smith and Mr. Coolidge. Increased votes

are being made by the United States for armaments both on land and sea. There has been more criticism of this treaty in the United States than anywhere else. They regard this treaty as a lot of humbug. Mr. Mussolini of Italy called it a lot of horse-play. It would be far better for Canada if it would draft a respectful note to the incoming administration of Mr. Hoover and tell him that this country wants a proper reciprocity pact with the people of the United States. Tell him that we are no longer content to take a smash on one side of our face and then turn the other side and get another crack. We would get the same treatment from either the Republicans or the Democrats. We should write a note to the people of the United States and. tell them that we can no longer continue to buy $800,000,000 of high priced manufactured goods each year, nearly all of which could be manufactured in Canada, and pay for it out of our raw materials. That kind of one-sided reciprocity has gone forever. So I say, instead of putting our scrawl on some scrap of paper, it would suit the people of Canada far better if we showed a little national spirit and told the people of the United States in a note that this kind of reciprocity can go on no longer.

Mr. Clemenceau said that Lloyd George thought he was a second Napoleon. Woodrow Wilson was the author of this League of Nations, and he looked upon himself as a second Messiah or a Prince of Peace. Ten years after he has gone, what do we find? We find an utter failure of the very policy which Mr. Woodrow Wilson proposed, namely, the policy of open diplomacy as an aid to peace.

This particular note, designated in the resolution before us by the high sounding name of " General Treaty for the Renunciation of War " was signed at Paris on the 27th day of August, 1928, on behalf of His Majesty by the Dominion of Canada. This is a new effort at separatism. We are separate countries and we are making treaties over the head of the British parliament and over the head of our sister dominions of New Zealand and Australia. We are a separate country but we have no fleet. We have a little navy that hugs the shores; it is too proud to fight and too proud to put out to sea. The Prime Minister of this country would not sail over to Paris on it or from our maritime ports. He goes to New York and sails on the steamer George Washington, accompanied by Mr. Kellogg, the author of this note. If we are a nation, why did he not sail in this wonderful little fleet of ours, flying the flag of Canada instead of the Union Jack? Did the Prime Minister have a British passport, or did he take a pass-

International Peace-Mr. Church

port of our new status and our new Canadian nationality? I have never been across the ocean, but if I ever go I will never take a passport of the Canadian Department of External Affairs. I would want a British passport if I had any respect for my life, and I think every member of the house would want one too.

I said a moment ago that it was said that Lloyd George thought he was a second Napoleon. In my opinion, Woodrow Wilson thought he -was a second Messiah or a Prince of Peace. The Prime Minister of this country seems to think he is the author of a new ten commandments on peace for the nations of Europe, and the big powers are going to keep them by writing notes and agreements, and before the ink is dry on them openly treat them with contempt.

This particular treaty or note was not drafted originally by Mr. Kellogg at all, he just copied it from somebody else. It was written by M. Briand as an agreement between France and America. It was enlarged upon by Mr. Kellogg to include sixty nations who were members of the League of Nations. He got in all the little fellows. The big powers like Italy would have nothing to do with it; Mussolini, the sovereign head of that country, called it a lot of horse-play. Russia would have nothing to do with it, neither would the Balkan states. The United States would not join the League of Nations and follow in the footsteps of the late Mr. Woodrow Wilson. The Kellogg note has been signed by all the little fellows in the League of Nations and they go over there and sit around the table and talk in hundreds of languages. If you went over there you would think you were in a tower of babel. There are some sixty of them now and every one of them is for the Kellogg peace note. No doubt before they are finished they will have about a hundred of them and every petty kingdom on earth will sign this magnificent note to which we are asked to put our signatures as a separate nation with a- seat in the League of Nations. As I said yesterday, in regard) to the decline of the House of Commons and the decay of parliament, it is just notes like these that bring about the decay of parliament and the decay of Canada as a nation. We are not a nation; we never were a nation. God forbid we ever were a nation. Ini the late war, but for the protection of the British fleet, the German fleet would have been across the Atlantic and up the St. Lawrence and would have blown down the citadel at Quebec. Dear knows what would have happened to us, not only in

Canada but in the United States, in Boston and New York harbours, only for the protection of the British fleet.

In this particular Kellogg note and policy, what do you find? It is a sort of shorter catechism of the peace party. By the first clause it talks peace and renounces "the pomps and vanities of this wicked world and all the sinful lusts of the flesh." The first article reads:

The high contracting parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another.

They solemnly renounce war as an instrument of national policy. It does not matter whether those sixty petty little countries renounce it or not because the five great powers could gobble them up at any time they feel like it should war break out again. As regards Canada, some day we shall have what is called the Pacific question on the Pacific coast and then Canada, after ten or eleven years of passiveness, will wake up to find out how we stand and to whom we owe our maritime freedom. This parliament repudiated a treaty with Japan; it declined to give a contribution to the Singapore base, which is the Gibraltar of the Pacific for the protection of British Columbia and our empire and of maritime freedom in the Pacific. New Zealand and Australia contributed something toward it; as a matter of fact, New Zealand, a country smaller than the city of Montreal, contributed five million pounds spread over a period of years. On the other hand, Canada is content to sponge on the mother country for protection. Canada wants to do all the talking it likes from the housetops about peace, but you are content to do all the sponging on the motherland for your maritime freedom.

Many of the papers in this country have spoken out about this particular New Year's resolution or Kellogg note. If the nations of the world could have ten years' rest from these peace pacts and agreements, there would be some chance of peace. Every peace pact that is proposed breeds distrust among the nations. There was one at Washington under the Harding administration a few years ago. What do they all lead to? They lead to an open distrust of one large power against another. In my opinion the League of Nations is comic opera at its worst and the Kellogg note is burlesque at its worst. The Kellogg note is nothing; the Monroe doctrine is nothing, and nothing plus nothing equals

258 COMMONS

International Peace-Mr. Church

nothing. If there is a Kellogg note there can be no Monroe doctrine; if there is a Monroe doctrine, there can be no Kellogg note, because they are the antithesis of each other. This note says that it does not interfere with any country that fights in self-defence. Did you ever know of a war in the history of the world when one party did not say that it was in self-defence they went to war? Both the high parties of the late war so contended that it was a war of self-defence. Where does the Monroe doctrine enter in this particular matter? It is, like the Kellogg note, just a scrap of paper, and I am surprised no members of parliament, knowing what we owe to the motherland, do not rise in their seats and oppose this particular pact. Lord Birkenhead had something to say to the United States in reply to Mr. Coolidge's speech attacking Europe some time ago about this matter. He had resigned his position as Secretary of State for India and he said:

As far as England is concerned, I am not sure that we specially require it. We have not asked the United States, as far as I am aware, to do anything for us.

Asserting that the United States entered the war, not from any desire to assist the allies, but solely because U.S.A. nationals were being murdered by German submarines, he said:

"My answer to the President of the United States would be that we ask nothing from them except goodwill."

All Canada wants is goodwill when we discuss questions of naval policy, whether we are pacific or not. The same thing applies to the Kellogg note. The United States senate, after a day's deliberation, passed a huge war vote amounting to 8274,000,000. After a great debate, which meant nothing, they decided to pass Mr. Kellogg's note, but they believed in something more practical and tangible and so they voted $274,000,000 for naval armament. The Kellogg note was automatically placed in the discard and in future will have a place in vaudeville. Time will prove that it is nothing but a lot of cant and hypocrisy. Nations are judged by acts and facts, never by aspirations or pacts, or cheap notes which nearly always turn out as scraps of paper. Let us take some of the treaties that this country has passed. We do not need a treaty with the United States to preserve peace, because if we look over the list of these treaties, we shall find that they are all scraps of paper as I call them, more so by the United States. There is the Monroe doctrine, the Jay treaty, the Rush-Bagot treaty, which has been openly treated as a scrap of paper on the great lakes where armed cruisers are enforcing United States revenue

and liquor laws, then there is the Boundary Waterways treaty, 1909, which is treated as a scrap of paper by the Chicago steal. There is the Jay treaty permitting free passage of citizens between the two countries, and the .United States treaty with Belgium in 1839. These were all treated as scraps of paper. The Kellogg note is not even a scrap of paper; it means nothing and it will amount to nothing for world peace. The Harding administration, five years ago, called the Washington conference and then made a scrap of paper of their resolutions as to the reduction of capital ships by passing a larger navy and army vote and a reopening of war plants as peace plants to add hundreds of ships to their merchant marine in order to catch up with and pass Britain's merchant marine supremacy. That is the way in which they kept the Harding pact. England observed that pact; she suspended the building of capital ships, but the United States did not.

The Kellogg peace pact is a fine example of smart American politics last summer with a presidential election in view. Now with the election over, the senate and the president have practically vetoed the Kellogg note. We have an example of Canada as a nation in what happened in the past two or three years in the disasters on the great lakes. We have a sample of the hypocrisy of Canada calling herself a nation and leaving the brave Canadian sailors on the great lakes to the mercy of the United States life-saving stations. When disaster threatens, instead of shouting from the housetops about Kellogg peace notes they have to wait for hours until American lifesaving stations blow their sirens, and our sailors have to be saved by American lifesaving crews. That is a sample of the cant of Canada as a nation and of Canadian nationalism under our new status.

Canada has made a great fuss over the Kellogg note. What does it amount to? It will amount to nothing so far as world peace is concerned. I represent a constituency of Canadian soldiers, one of the largest soldier constituencies in Canada, a constituency of British born, and the people of my riding do not believe in this peace note. They know what war is, and the harrow of it. In one large block in my constituency, in Earlscourt, there are twenty war widows, and God forbid that this country should ever see war again. These people suffered more than anybody else, but they do not believe that the government of this country is going the right way to produce a lasting peace by supporting almost every other year some new kind of peace note or peace pact and at the expense

Railway Act

of the freedom of the seas for the motherland which protects us.

I wish to refer for a moment to the English Review, of November, 1928, in which the great patriotic experts of the motherland write articles. It speaks of the folly in our time and of how Europe after ten years of peace talk is still an armed camp. It goes on to refer to the naval pact and its lesson, and to the danger of open diplomacy. It says:

The voice of the peacemonger resounds today over continents, to a never-ceasing accompaniment of treaties and undertakings, but we are drifting toward war. How easy it would be if we could simply scrap our armaments, sign a few more pacts, and preserve that peace which is the only serious political interest of ai! decent and Christian men. Instead, we must do our duty, and face naked facts. We are approaching the tenth anniversary of the armistice, and of a genuine and lasting peace there are no signs. The practice of open diplomacy and the august patronage bestowed on international intercourse by the League of Nations and Mr. Kellogg have created an atmosphere of open and public suspicion more alarming even than in the years immediately preceding 1914. Apostles of the new methods can ingeminate peace as much as they like, but they cannot shirk their terrible responsibility before the bar of history for the disastrous practical consequences of their ten years' experiment.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

After Recess

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. DUNNING:

This is not indicated on the order paper as having been printed.

78594-17$

Mr. THORSON:

This bill, according to the copy I have, has been printed and distributed.

Mr. SPEAKER:

It is not so indicated on the order paper. Any objection?

Mr. DUNNING:

Not printed.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Stands.