March 21, 1934

LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Yes, and to reexport.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
CON

Bernard Munroe Stitt

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STITT (Nelson):

From there no doubt it is distributed to wherever they can find purchasers, but I do not think the hon. gentleman has any right to presume that the output of that nickel refinery in Norway is going to Japan or Russia or any other country to be used for armament purposes. If he wants to prevent war, why stop at nickel? Napoleon once said that an army fights on its stomach. Why not stop the export of wheat?

The hon. member for Pictou enlarged on the subject of copper, and I agree with him that copper is very much more important than nickel so far as the manufacture of armaments is concerned. Why not stop the manufacture of meat, clothing, boots, shoes, lead, zinc and other items I could mention that are used in war? I do not need to remind the hon. gentleman that wars were fought long before nickel was produced and will be fought again even if the production of nicker is prohibited. In no time science would find a substitute for it. I have been through a couple of skirmishes in a couple of wars, and if I have to be shot to-morrow, I would very much prefer to be shot by a nice clean nickel bullet than by one of those old lead balls, if the house wants to get down to the human side of this matter.

Nickel production is one of our most important industries. It suffered, of course,

during the depression along with all other industries, and has recently started to pick up, due to the fact that all other industries in the world have also started to improve. Industries are increasing their production by the help of the NfR.A. in the United States, and probably, to some extent, by similar methods in Great Britain. What do we find in connection with this great industry in Canada? I have the figures for only ten months and I find in ten months the industry paid out: .

Wages and salaries $7,700,000

Capital expenditure 2,580,000

Supplies and upkeep 6,650,000

Railways and utilities 3,300,000

In the last seven years it has paid out in plant and equipment $55,000,000, and it uses in its mines 2,000,000 feet of Canadian lumber per month. Surely as the leader of a great party-I do not think it is a great party but I expect the hon. gentleman does; he would be a poor leader if he did not-as leader of a party that is continually damning this government for not finding work for our unemployed, the hon. gentleman must see that this resolution is ill-timed, and, I think, should be withdrawn. I do not know how he is going to face these workingmen in the town of Sudbury where, as the hon. member for that riding just told you, about three-quarters of the miners have for the last four years been almost on the verge of starvation, a lot of them on relief. The industry now is just getting back its stride and starting its men back to work. Surely the hon. member as a labour leader does not want to do anything to cripple that great industry and drive the business to some other country. Because it is very clear that if only 4J per cent of Canada's exports of nickel goes into armaments, other countries capable of producing 10 per cent of the nickel supply could provide the nickel needed for armament purposes. I know the hon. member has achieved his objective in getting this material before the house. I am not questioning his sincerity for one moment, but I think the resolution has served its purpose and I hope he will withdraw it in the interests of that great industry that means so much to Canada.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
CON

John Franklin White

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):

I have been quite interested in the discussion of the resolution presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworkh). I believe that every member in the house will pay tribute to the honesty of the hon. gentleman in bringing this resolution before the house-

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Hear, hear.

1702 COMMONS

Nickel Control-Mr. White (London)

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
CON

John Franklin White

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WHITE (London):

I think his honesty of purpose is unquestioned, and his interest in humanity. Also I have every sympathy with his efforts to prevent the further manufacture of armaments. But, sir, I cannot see that the idea he has presented will have much influence on the manufacture of armaments or on wars which may occur in the future. As to the desirability of curtailing the manufacture of armaments, we need no other evidence than was presented in this city last week when the annual convention of the Canadian Legion was held here. No man could go to that convention, or see the members of the legion going about the streets, and not come to the conclusion that war is hell.

The hon. gentleman has assumed in his discourse that most of the nickel produced comes from Canada, 90 per cent he said, others say 82 to 85 per cent. He has assumed that most of it is used in armaments and things of that kind, and for that reason he proposes to forbid its export.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Oh, Mr. Chairman, not all nickel; I expressly said merely nickel to be used for armament purposes.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
CON

John Franklin White

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. WHITE (London):

I understood the

hon. gentleman to say just what he has said now. But the question arises, can we prevent the export? We have 85 per cent of the world's nickel as at present known, and there is a very considerable world demand for this product, no doubt developed by the International Nickel Company metallurgists and the results achieved by the users of nickel. The question of forbidding the export for armament purposes may be a very serious one and lead to international complications; but I do not intend to proceed further with that. The main question, it seems to me is, would the prevention of export have the desired effect? The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) has shown on other occasions and again to-day that there are other alloys that can be used in the manufacture of steel which produce the same qualities as nickel. The argument has been advanced: " Perhaps so, but it will cost more." But our experience in recent years has shown that the cost of war is not a very great consideration while the war is being conducted; that comes later. The quality which is given to steel by the use of nickel is toughness, practically that only. Other alloys are used to secure other effects. I have the report of the International Nickel Company, for the year ending Decem-

ber 31, 1933, in which they say in part that the improvement in sales- has been well spread among all consuming fields and that nearly every buyer took more nickel than in 1932.

Then it goes on to cite the world's consumption in various years. It also refers to the uses to which nickel is put. Then I quote the following passages:

The channels through which nickel has passed to the ultimate consumer have continued to be mainly those industrial applications, either old-established or of more recent development, which have been the principal support of the industry since 1921. Many of the more recently developed uses for nickel have, however, made even greater strides during 1933 than the industry as a whole. . . .

The automotive industry was the outstanding consumer of nickel steel in 1933. . . . Nickel steel has been used in other fields as well,- in locomotive equipment particularly in Europe, in oil-drilling and oil-refining equipment and in the machinery field generally. Several thousand tons of 3-5 per cent nickel steel are specified for the new San Francisco-Oakland bridge. . . .

Under the stimulus of orders from an important railroad, nickel steel boiler plate is now manufactured in Great Britain, and this has led to the adoption of nickel steel by another leading British railroad. . . .

The amount of nickel in use throughout the world for subsidiary coinage was increased quite substantially in 1933. Three new governments. those of the city of Danzig, of Iraq and of Japan, were added' to the list of those which have issued such coins, comprising now some 27 countries in all. ... It is estimated that there are now about three billion pure nickel coins in circulation, employing about 15,000 tons of nickel in all.

So that you will see, Mr. Speaker, thatthere are many uses for nickel. There is afurther feature, that nickel once incorporated in steel always remains. In that fact is a partial answer to the question propounded by the hon. gentleman who introduced the motion as to what happens to nickel. He quoted figures to show that the termination of the war was accountable for the drop in the sales of nickel. I offer another reason forthat; I think it is largely owing to the fact

that scrap material had been gathered from all the battlefields of Europe, and re-melted, and as I said, the nickel content always remains. Further melting or manipulation in the way of rolling and so on causes very little disappearance of nickel, in fact nothing like the percentage that disappears of the steel itself. So we have the presence of scrap containing nickel which on many occasions helped certain countries over a hard spot in their need for nickel. Nickel is used largely in automobiles; automobiles are scattered throughout the

Nickel Control-Mr. White (London)

world, there is always an export trade going on in automobile scrap which is a source of supply of nickel steel. Nickel is also used in heat resisting metals, for purposes such as locomotive grate bars and things of that kind. It is impossible to keep track of nickel after it has once been put into steel.

Now, sir, it seems to me that in view of all these facts the adoption of this resolution would have a very damaging effect on Canadian industry. To begin with, we cannot prevent wars, we cannot prevent war material being made even if we curtail the export of nickel. But we should consider the amount of work being done and employment being given in Canada by the International Nickel Company and the Falconbridge Company. I suppose the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), being a labour representative, will appreciate these figures, though perhaps he may not appreciate my first statement. Roughly speaking there are one hundred thousand shareholders of the International Nickel Company. According to the last report the company has 8,300 employees, of whom 4,800 reside in Canada. The company has plants in the United States and in England. Even to curtail the export of nickel would affect Canadian industry as a whole and, as I have said, would not achieve the desired object.

Something has been said with regard to the different countries that import nickel. During the last year the United States has been our best customer, with the United Kingdom next. There are two countries whose exports of nickel cannot be tagged. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) I think referred to the fact that the Falconbridge Nickel Company refined their ore in Norway. My information is that in its early development the Falconbridge Company endeavoured to have the International Nickel Company refine its ore in Canada. The International Nickel Company were not particularly interested in helping to develop the property and business of a rival, and the two companies could not come to any arrangement in that regard. About that time, owing to the exhaustion of certain ores in Norway, a nickel refinery was for sale or for rent, and I am told that the Falconbridge Nickel Company rented or in some way acquired this refinery and with it certain very desirable processes in the refining of nickel. So any exports from Norway really are Canadian nickel sent out in the raw state, refined in Norway and then shipped to wherever they can be sold. It may be that, therefore, the nickel which goes to the Netherlands and to Norway may ultimately find its way to the countries of Europe that 747:3-108

are perhaps interested in the development of armaments. The bald fact remains, however, that the United States and Great Britain are the two countries that consume the greater part of the nickel produced in Canada.

Now I should like to say a word as to the actual object of this resolution. I do not believe anything can be done along the line desired by the hon. gentleman through the reduction of exports. I do think, however, that a great deal can be done by constantly advocating that the governments of the various countries take over the production of war material. I think it is a great mistake to have private enterprise interested in such production. We have heard from many quarters that disputes are fostered and animosities engendered all for the sake of business. If the various manufacturing countries of the worid would take over the manufacture of all armaments and war supplies I think a great forward step would be taken in the promotion of peace. How far our present machinery will carry us in that direction I am unable to say. The League of Nations has done some good, perhaps, but in many instances it seems powerless to prevent conflict. Perhaps a rejuvenation of the ideas which prompted the establishment of the League of Nations might have some effect; I believe it would, and I am glad to know that the influence of the League of Nations has been sufficient to bring about renewed interest on the part of the people of this country, and incidentally the people of my own city, in the reduction of armaments and the ultimate elimination of war.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
CON

Arthur Edward Ross

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take just a few moments to discuss this matter. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North 'Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is quite sincere in introducing this question, but his amendment means nothing unless back of it is the idea of lessening the possibilities of war. I think that must be the whole purpose behind it. So far the arguments have been that the export of nickel cannot be prevented without crippling the industrial activities of a great many countries, and in these days that is not desirable. We must bear in mind the important fact, however, that armaments are no longer produced in arsenals; to-day countries do not depend upon local arsenals for the production of armaments.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, I gave a short talk here as to the nature of a modem war, and I pointed out that the next war would be determined by air activities. In that connection nickel will play a very small part indeed.

Nickel Control-Mr. Ross

The supplies for the next war will come from the materials used in the industrial life of all countries. 'Glycerine, which is used in the manufacture of soap, is one of the necessaay ingredients of explosives; benzine, which is used in a great many factories, is the source of some gases; picric acid, another explosive, is a product of chemistry and is used in so many industrial processes that it could not be controlled. So I think these materials deserve far more attention than nickel, and that is why I say that if the amendment is not based on the idea of reducing the possibilities of war, it means nothing.

In the next place, I do not think you will get very far unless you can get all the nations interested. At a meeting of the nations before the great war it was resolved that bombs and gases should not be used. Great Britain and Germany signed that pact, but the United States refused to sign, and when the move was not unanimous nothing resulted. To-day, however, poison gas and aeroplanes are the important elements of war, and nickel has no part whatever in their production.

I rose principally, Mr. Speaker, to refer to a point which was raised by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt.). Perhaps I have seen more destruction and more wounded men than any man in the house. I have seen 5,900 cases go through our hands in one day. If you are going to have war you must remember that nickel is one of the most humane things that can be used. Before the introduction of nickel we had nothing but lead bullets; to-day the nickel-plated bullet is one of the most humane instruments of warfare. To show how slight is the damage that can be done by a nickel plated bullet I need only point to my finger; it was struck by a nickel plated bullet. I have seen a w'ounded man who was struck by a nickel plated bullet; it went through the bone and left a hole but did not cause a fracture. I have risen to say simply this, that science which produces so many destructive things has also produced industrial activity, and I say that we cannot have a great mass of destruction without chemical factors behind it. Here is one factor which is humane in its use, and it would be a sad day for us if we had to return to the old lead bullet, if we could have the protection and the possibility of lesser injury from the nickel plated one.

Nickel-plated armaments to-day are positively out of date. The nickel-plated and steel-protected cruisers about which hon. members have been talking, are obsolete. The amount which would be spent in building a battleship or a cruiser would to-day build hundreds and hundreds of aeroplanes. No nation to-day having in mind the possibilities

IMr. A. E. Ross.]

of modem warfare is using the same number of nickel-plated cruisers and battleships as it used before.

In conclusion may I say that the motion now before the house amounts to very little, so far as tlhe prevention or possibility of war is concerned. The day of the steel cruiser is past; the armoured train is gone; the old guns are out of date. Infantry travelling along at twenty miles an hour is out of the picture altogether. The tank which was used in the late war is obsolete, when it is faced with the potential strength of aerial activity. The air battleship which can race upon its enemy at the rate of 150 miles per hour is taking the place of all these things, and removes the necessity for heavy expenditures on nickel. I believe that if we tried to understand the attitude of the people, and remembered, tihat year after year conventions, leagues and other bodies are trying to prevent war, and that those who have suffered more than others are definitely opposed to modern warfare, we might accomplish something.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Mr. Speaker, with the purpose which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has in mind, I am in deep sympathy, and I am sure every hon. member in the house is sympathetically inclined, although some may differ as to the effectiveness of the means he has suggested. There is no hon. member for whom I have more affection than the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley).

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
CON

Thomas Cantley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CANTLEY:

Thank you.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

He told me on one occasion that although he could not share my views and did not like some of my opinions he had a sneaking affection for me which I heartily reciprocate. But my hon. friend is a man who holds strong views of his own, and one who is rather impatient of views different from his own. I believe all hon. members will agree, however, that the hon. member who has moved this resolution is sincere, and that he devotes much thought, energy and activity to the solution of the problems he has at heart. I believe the difficulty is one of facts. As a member of the national executive of the League of Nations Society may I say that this question was discussed at the annual meeting held last November, and upon that occasion the same difference of opinion occurred as has been expressed to-day. We had received resolutions from different associations throughout Canada asking that a resolution similar to

Nickel Control-Mr. Lapointe

the present one should be adopted and sent to the government. One member of the executive, who is a scientific expert, took the view which the hon. member for Pictou has expressed, and said that to state that the great increase in the export of nickel which has taken place in recent months was due to the increase in armaments, was not in accordance with the facts. Secondly, if nations or manufacturers of armaments were deprived of using nickel they have substitutes which they could use in its place. The result was that the national executive adopted a resolution asking the government to investigate those various questions concerning the production and export of nickel. I suppose the investigation is still taking place, because to my question of yesterday as to whether or not a report had been received the reply was in the negative.

I agree with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) that to be effective a move of this kind should be the subject of an agreement with other nations; there should be international agreement. In that respect the fact that Canada is the largest exporter of nickel in the world gives her a position of great influence in any conference or any meeting where the question might be discussed. I am in agreement with the view expressed in a remarkable study by Mr. Escott Reid entitled Canada and the League in which he states with regard to this particular matter:

In order to show her good faith, however, Canada should state that she is willing to accept such international regulation of the nickel industry as the permanent disarmament commission considered desirable.

The permanent disarmament commission might recommend that it should, from time to time, for each country, set an annual quota of so many hundredweight of fine nickel for all purposes, industrial, monetary and' armaments. The commission could grant permission for imports in excess of this quota on proof being furnished that the increase was desired for purposes other than the manufacture of armaments. Under such a scheme export from all countries would be by licences similar to the licences granted for the export of narcotic drugs. The annual world production of nickel might also be set from time to time and each producing nation be given a quota. Canada, would, of course, be given about 90 per cent of the total world quota.

A similar control might be exerted over other raw materials essential to the manufacture of munitions such as manganese, tungsten, tin, chromite, mercury and mica. This control in the interests of disarmament might be made part of the general international control over the distribution of raw materials, which has already been recommended.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, at the conclusion of his remarks, 74726-10?J

rather adopted that view and stated that international control is most desirable. I think it is not only most desirable but it is the only way to reach the goal we have in view. As to the private manufacture of armaments of course, we, in common with other member nations of the league, have all said, in the covenant of the league we agree that the pi'ivate manufacture of munitions and implements of war is open to grave objection and that the council shall advise how the evils attendant upon such manufacture can be prevented. On various occasions Canada has expressed its unanimous support of the control or even prohibition of the private manufacture of armaments. This matter is now before the league. In his motion the hon. member suggests that we should request the League of Nations to set up the necessary machinery. This question has been discussed most extensively by both the council and the assembly of the league, and the matter is still before these bodies. In 1931 the council adopted a resolution which linked up this question with the questions to be discussed at the disarmament conference. I am glad that that conference has not been abandoned entirely, as my hon. friend suggests; I have hopes that it will be revived.

I was glad to hear the hon. member for London (Mr. White) express himself so emphatically in favour of the control of the private manufacture of armaments. Canada has expressed herself as being in favour of such control and has given a leadership to the world. I must say with some regret that apparently the British representatives at the conference were not so enthusiastic as those lrom Canada. France and other countries have expressed themselves as being in favour of such control and I think Canada should exert her influence to convince the other members of the British commonwealth of nations. We did convince them in connection with the acceptance of the optional clause of the statute setting up the court of international justice. Great Britain was very reluctant to accept this clause but Canada urged that it should be accepted and it was finally accepted by Great Britain and the other members of the commonwealth. This demonstrates that action by Canada may have some influence and a great deal of effect upon the other countries of the commonwealth. I think Canada should express herself in no uncertain terms on this question, and I am sure such action will have good effects.

Nickel Control-Mr. Lapointe

There is no doubt that the private manufacture of armaments is an evil, and this is stated in the covenant of the league. One has only to remember what has taken place during recent years. Everyone regretted the civil war which took place in China but the manufacturers of armaments were competing with one another to sell the munitions with which that war could be carried on. The same thing happened recently in the conflict between China and Japan. Nations were quarrelling with one another in their efforts to sell their armaments at the highest possible price. This is an evil which all nations should combine together to end.

I desire to congratulate the leaders of the nations for the work they have done, especially during the last few months, for the promotion of peace. The New Year's message of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), issued jointly with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), has done a great deal of good in Canada and has offered a great inducement to all those who would work in harmony for the promotion of peace. I desire also to congratulate the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). I have listened with great interest to his speeches over the radio; although I do not attend the meetings at which he speaks-perhaps he forgets to invite me-I have read the reports and I realize that during the last few months he has done a good work. I should like to see something practical done, something which would signify to the league and to the world that Canada has taken a stand and is more than ever willing to help to promote international control of armaments. I hope the government is investigating all the phases of the production and export of nickel and will let the house have all the facts before the end of this session.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
CON

Wesley Ashton Gordon (Minister of Immigration and Colonization; Minister of Labour; Minister of Mines)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Mines):

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to those who have addressed the house on this resolution. I do not think I need dwell upon the fact-I think it is a fact-that no hon. member of this house and but very few people throughout the country desire to see an occasion arise when difference between nations must be adjusted by force. I regret that there is a vocal class- I make no reference to any hon. member in this house-not only in this but in other countries which is constantly talking about war. It would seem that those who were farthest removed from actual contact with the last war are perhaps more vocal than those who

were actually concerned with it. Many hon. members are returned soldiers, but it is rarely indeed that we hear any reference to war made by any of them. If you attend the meetings of the Canadian legion you will not find any member talking about war or the fear of war. Their minds are turned to the betterment of their fellowmen through the channels of peace. I cannot help but observe that it would be much better if the newspapers and public men of this country would desist from talking about the fear of war and things of that character. They should devote themselves to the advancement of the position and the condition of their fellow men instead of creating fears and anxieties in the minds of the people.

With respect particularly to this resolution, if I thought that the prohibition of the export of nickel would result in the abolition of war or the postponement of war, then I most certainly would vote for the resolution. But would it? Are we not just playing around with the larger question? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) described a battleship with fourteen inch armour toughened by the introduction of nickel, which would protect those on board against destruction from huge shells. It is curious, if that would be the effect, that we should even think about banning the export of nickel. I would say, let everybody have nickel and save everybody, rather than ban it at all. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) says that wars were fought before nickel was ever heard of, very destructive wars, and I have no doubt that is true; and again I say, following the observations of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) that if we are to make any considerable impression, if we are to make advances in international affairs that have to do with war, then let the League of Nations or any other international body pursue its course and bring the nations together, and, if they are driven to the point where by international action they think that they can stop war by the prohibition of the export amongst the nations of the instruments of war, let them do it. But without international action how is it possible?

We have of course a great industry at Sudbury and mills in other parts of Ontario, and there are mills in Britain and in the United States that have to do with the refining of this metal, and so far as I can learn from the best informed sources, at the outside there is not more, some say less, than probably four per cent of the nickel going into armaments. Now, it is well known that

Nickel Control-Mr. Gordon

a much greater percentage than that is produced outside Canada over which Canadians have no control. The development of the nickel industry in this country has gone on for a long period of years and huge expenditures of money have been made, many hundreds of millions of dollars; and until very recent years the fate of that industry was by no means bright. A huge sum of money has been lost in the development of the industry because the science of metallurgy had not solved the intricate questions associated with the development of nickel alloys that could be turned into the arts of peace.

The International Nickel Company of Canada since 1922 have devoted a considerable annual sum, probably more than a million dollars, to the development of metallurgical practices designed to discover nickel alloys that could be used successfully in industrial life, and great advances have been made in the last half dozen years. It is one of the large and major individual units of industry in Canada. The city of Sudbury is totally dependent upon its success. When the nickel industry is prosperous many thousands of Canadian miners are prosperous; when the nickel industry is prosperous it provides a great sum of money yearly-the figures have been mentioned and I will not go over them-in our transportation business. Last year the nickel company at Sudbury consumed 90,000 tons of Nova Scotia coal. This coming year I am hopeful that the nickel mines at Sudbury and the refineries and smelters there will consume over 135,000 tons of the same coal.

The development of the Sudbury nickel field and the practices in the refining of their ore, as well as their mining practices, have been so perfected that there is little fear to-day that the other known nickel deposits of the world will be developed. But there are other nickel deposits outside of Canada, apart from Caledonia and some places in Europe. There are known nickel deposits in Russia. Supposing we, by some governmental action, put a ban on the activities of the International Nickel 'Company, of such a kind as would inspire the Russians to develop in their country nickel mines and refineries: I wonder whom we would send there as emissary to convince the soviet that they should adopt such an altruistic course as has been suggested.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
CON

Thomas Cantley

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CANTLEY:

The member for Winnipeg North Centre.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
CON

Wesley Ashton Gordon (Minister of Immigration and Colonization; Minister of Labour; Minister of Mines)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GORDON:

No, I would not say that; but we should have to search with care to

find anyone in this country who would be able to convince the soviet that they, with their nickel production, should adopt the course suggested in this resolution.

Mr. WOO'DSWORTH: May I point out

to the minister that it is not suggested in any way that nickel production would cease at Sudbury.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
CON

Wesley Ashton Gordon (Minister of Immigration and Colonization; Minister of Labour; Minister of Mines)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. GORDON:

That is quite true; but once let a government start on the course suggested in this resolution and I greatly fear that we should find the business of that company seriously hampered, because there are so many people uninformed concerning the activities and hazards that surround that business, that one thing would lead to another. I say this 'because of the obvious difficulty, if not impossibility, of identifying the nickel that actually goes into armaments. This is probably the first time since I have been a member of the house that I have ever referred to a newspaper, but I have before me a clipping from the Northern Miner of November 23, 1933. This, paper which is published in Toronto, is certainly the oldest mining paper in Canada if not on the continent. Discussing this question, it says in part as follows:

A part of the Canadian public has seized on the erroneous idea that nickel is some sort of sinister metal when there is war talk. People profess to become alarmed, even somewhat horrified, over the prospect of this country supplying metals to belligerent nations and they speak of restricting or controlling production and exports of a metal of which Canada has a practical monopoly.

Actually nickel is not half as important in war operations as copper. In the last great war there was not nearly the employment for nickel that had been anticipated. Significantly, nations that could not secure it in quantity got along well enough without. Germany was practically shut off from supplies and the warmaking of that nation lingers in the memory.

The principal war use for this war metal in the great conflict was as a covering for lead bullets that would have torn our troops to pieces unless so protected. It acted in a merciful rather than in a sinister role. It deserved a red cross.

That is probably in keeping with the observations made by the faon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). The article continues:

How could war be conducted without copper, lead and' zinc? They are absolutely essential metals in war operations. Has there been any talk of restricting production or export of these metals in time of war? Certainly not.

And the article goes on. Then the hon. member for Quebec East in discussing what was taking place in the League of Nations, in substance made this Observation, that the nations of the world, at least some and probably all of them, were quite content to con-

Nickel Control-Mr. Luchkovich

trol the exportation of nickel, and on the other hand Canada was quite content that the manufacture of armaments should be done under governmental supervision. It will be noted that the nations which wanted to control the export of nickel do not produce any and Canada does not manufacture any armaments, so that the representatives to the League of Nations, I should say, should put the matter very bluntly to the nations of the world when they sit around the council table.

The products of the International Nickel Company to-day enter into almost every industrial activity where steel is used, from kitchen sinks to bathtubs. I do not know whether all hon. members are aware of the uses to which nickel is now being devoted. Monel metal is only one of the alloys; there are a dozen of them that during the last eight or ten years have been discovered and are peculiarly adapted to some sort of industrial activity. How is it possible, even if it would be effective, for anyone without impeding the wheels of industry to earmark nickel that might get into armaments?-because it is a comparatively simple matter to take the scrap into which nickel is introduced, refine it and reintroduce the nickel into armaments.

In conclusion, let us not for the sake of publicity or otherwise, for the sake of having our observations recorded in Hansard, fool around with a prdblem that is so serious, namely that of the settlement of men's differences by force. Do not let us fool around with the question whether we will ban nickel or not, but let us continue to support the only international tribunal that is at present available and Canada need take no second position to any other nation in the world in that respect. Let us continue to support the League of Nations so long as that body can command the respect and is entitled to the support of this country, in the hope that those who sit around the international council table will be able to devise some scheme or method whereby in the future nations will be constrained to submit their differences to that or some other tribunal for a peaceful solution. If we do not adopt that attitude, then if nations get into a clash where one concludes for some reason that another nation is not dealing fairly with it, probably at some time we may have some more war.

Every time anybody talks about war and every time a paper puts in a scare headline in regard to it, there is always a certain section of the community, irresponsible at first it is true, but in an ever growing circle which simply lends itself to the support of the idea. I would say in great sincerity: Stop talking about war.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
UFA

Michael Luchkovich

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
LAB

Humphrey Mitchell

Labour

Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):

Mr. Speaker, I do not know

whether I have the job of talking this question out, but I agree entirely with the direction in which the proposer of this resolution is moving. Like the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) I had some practical experience in the war. In the navy we always used to say that what one man stuck up the next one could knock down. I remember vividly in connection with mines, the British invented a paravane which carried on the front of the ship permitted that ship to steam through a mine field. Thereupon for some time it was possible for us to steam through these mine fields and nip off the mines without any danger to the ships, but then the Germans brought out a mine with jaws in the anchor that cut the paravane adrift. I think some such thing probably would happen if we did away entirely with nickel in the manufacture of armaments-I mean some substitute would be found. Frankly I believe it is not a question of material; it is a psychological, a mental question. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) said: Do not talk about war. I

think if he, like myself and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), had been in Europe

this summer, he would have heard a lot about war. When I was in Moscow I observed that the Russians, who have a great war psychology, seem to think everyone wants to go to war with them, and I believe they have certain grounds for thinking that way in view of what has taken place in the last seventeen years. A newspaperman concocted a story that even the Americans wanted to go to war with the Russians. I said: I know nothing

about the policy of the American government, neither do I know anything about the official policy of the Canadian government, but I do know the viewpoint of the man in the street in America towards the next war in Europe, that is, "cash on delivery." I think that reflects the viewpoint of our people. I speak now more from the viewpoint of their mental attitude because a change in the men tality of the people in Europe is essential When I was in Brussels I gave a picture of the conditions on the North American continent, told them we have an international boundary 3,600 miles long without a gun on it, yet within the confines of our nations we have all the bloodstreams that exist in Europe to-day, notwithstanding which we are able to get along in peace in the new world; I said, you people should exemplify the spirit of peace which we have proven practicable on the North American continent. The situation is, whether we like it or not, that there is possibly goiDg to be war in the east as soon as the snow thaws; I think it is a reasonable analysis of the situation that there will be war. A system of dictatorships exists in Europe at the moment-dictatorship in its very essence is predicated on war. You have Mussolini telling the Italian people his dreams of an empire and power recreating the glories of ancient Rome. In the carrying out of that policy the British people will have something to say. Then there is Hitler, half-clown and half-fanatic, who tells the German people that one of the policies necessary to meet the present economic problems confronting that country is an expansion of the boundaries of Germany into Poland and the Ukraine. Of course Russia and Poland will have something to say about that. The same old diplomatic game is going on in Europe. After all it does not matter whether it is civil servants or nations, ambition makes strange bedfellows. You see Stalin saying to Pilsudski: Come to Moscow and talk things over; in other words "Come up and see me sometime," yet six months ago he was calling Pilsudski a

Nickel Control-Mr. Mitchell

butcher. You see Herriot, the radical French socialist, going to Russia recently and saying to the Russian people all the nice things he could say and in my judgment making observations absolutely contrary to the facts, whereas only six months ago the attitude of the French government was directly the opposite in regard to the Russian government. You see the emissaries of Mussolini coming to Paris and saying nice things about the French, whereas these countries have been at loggerheads ever since the close of the great war. We have seen the development of a gigantic vise around Germany, ready to crush out her very national life if the German people should move in the direction of carrying out the policies enunciated by Hitler prior to the last election in that country. So I believe sincerely that it is far more than a mere material problem; it touches the very mainsprings of the individual nations themselves. It is a psychological problem, and I think it can be said that North America has made a magnificent contribution in the last seventeen years in its approach to international problems in Europe. It would be different if we were fifty years away from the last war; if the people of these countries had not lived through the carnage and the physical, mental and material suffering; if they had not experienced all that. They have the exemplification of the utter futility of war in the enormous cemeteries that exist at their back doors and in the maimed and crippled such as we saw in Ottawa last week during the convention held in this city.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that no one would welcome international cooperation in connection with the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre more than I would welcome it. I believe Canada is making its contribution. It was pointed out by the ex-Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that there must be some form of international agreement in connection with this matter. I believe he was on absolutely sound ground in making that statement; I do not think there can be any argument against it. After all is said and done you cannot justify bad judgment on the grounds of good intentions; I think your premises must be sound. I think we have exemplified, through the representatives of the Canadian government at Geneva, the attitude of this dominion towards war in Europe. It is rather disheartening to go to those countries and see that almost every

other man is a soldier; to go to Russia, where they have snuffed out the lives of millions of people in the last ten or fifteen years but where their greatest contribution-I am speaking now, of course, of the territory within the confines of their own country-is the creation of an army possibly second to none in Europe to-day. Of course they argue that it is to be used for defensive purposes. Frankly I would rather follow the policies that reflect the mentality of the Canadian people.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the proper approach to this problem, apart from the mental viewpoint, is that the governments themselves should control the munitions factories within their own countries. Put the children on the doorsteps where they properly belong. Then, of course, I think no government has a right to lead its people into a great war without first crystallizing the viewpoint of the people in relation to that war. I think a referendum should be taken in each country. If that were a part of the machinery of the league; if it were provided that this must be done in any country contemplating carrying on a war, I believe that in the interval that would elapse between the declaration and the actual carrying on of the war the people would find that their spirit would cool down and they would reflect upon suffering that would result if their country should embark upon a war.

Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am heartily in accord with the purport of this resolution in the direction of controlling, by national and international action, the warlike forces of this and every other country in the civilized world.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

If no one else wishes to speak-

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
CON

Edgar Nelson Rhodes (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) :

Mr. Speaker, there is no reply open to my hon. friend. I was going to suggest that perhaps his purpose has been accomplished by bringing about this discussion, which has been illuminating and, we trust, informative, and which we hope has served some useful purpose. I was going to suggest that perhaps it would meet the wishes of my hon. friend to withdraw his amendment now.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

I understand that I have no reply, Mr. Speaker. May I say that originally my purpose was to introduce this matter to the house in the way of a

Questions

private motion, but the only way I could introduce it to-day was by means of an amendment. I very gladly withdraw the amendment as it now stands.

Amendment withdrawn.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXCHANGE OF RAW MATERIALS FOR WAR PURPOSES
Permalink

March 21, 1934