Proposal for International Peace Department
Description
- Créateurs
- Macphail, Agnes Campbell, Speaker
- Simpson, George, Editor
- Médias
- Text
- Type d'élément
- Documents
- Description
- House of Commons Debates hansard sent by Agnes Macphail to a constituent in Grey County. The relevant page number is handwritten on the first leaf. See subsequent pages to read Agnes Macphail's motion for the establishment of a government department for International Peace in Canada.
- Notes
- Archival record shows that:
The hansard records the motion moved by Agnes C. Macphail. The item is still in a House of Commons envelop with free postage stamp, addressed to Mrs. Purdy Ceylon, Ont. [typed]. Handwritten upon the envelop is "acmacp MP". The recipient would have been Rebecca Purdy (nee Stone). - Inscriptions
- [Page 1 handwritten]
"Page 1773 Peace"
[Page 1773 Col.2]
INTERNATIONAL PEACE
MOTION FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey) moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, the time has come for the establishment of a government department for the promotion of peace and international understanding.
She said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion asking for the establishment of a department to work for peace and international understanding, I assume that all hon. members in this chamber are anxious to bring security to our country, and that any differences we have in the matter relate to the methods to be employed in bringing about peace rather than to any doubt as to the desirability of securing peace. I conclude that we all want to have security at home and friendship abroad. At one time almost everyone, possibly indeed everyone, had confidence in military preparedness and war as methods of bringing about security and of settling international differences. But I think that no one will now deny that that confidence in military preparedness and in war which used to be so complete has been very much shaken. Still while some to-day have simply scrapped the old way and have found a new method, and are relying upon the development of good will as the greatest security that we could find, there are others who, while they have not perfect confidence in war or in preparedness for war, still think of these methods as the best to adopt. Then there are others of our citizens and of citizens of the world who stand between the two ideas and are not quite sure in which faith to rely. The last war with its frightful loss of life and treasure caused all of us to think of this subject as one of very great importance. Not only did Canada lose sixty thousand of her very best men, but the world lost ten million of its best men, and if we are going to view this question from the point of view of humanity we must consider that loss of ten million young men a dead loss and one that will cause concern to every citizen in the world, including the citizens of Canada.
The cost of the last war was greater than that of any previous war, although all wars
[Page 1174 Col. 1]
and all preparations for wars in the past have been exceedingly costly. So great has been the cost of preparing for and carrying out wars that in the first twenty years of the twentieth century, fourteen countries spent the fantastic sum of $61,000,000,000 in preparation for and carrying out war. England alone to-day spends on war or preparation for war fourteen shillings out of every twenty shillings of her national expenditure. The United States spend 82 cents out of every dollar on war or preparation for war. The total debt of the United States prior to the •war was $1,125,000,000 and to-day it stands at between $18,000,000,000 and $19,000,000,000. How much greater even that that—and that is a terrific increase—must be the increase in the debt of such countries as France and Germany because of the war? In Canada the exact figures are not available, but certainly more than fifty cents out of every dollar of our national expenditure go to pay for wars past and preparation for wars to come. Some claim—and they may have figures to substantiate their claim, but I do not have them under my hand—that two-thirds of every dollar of Canada's expenditure goes for this purpose. When one thinks of these figures, the amount of money involved alone, one thinks of what the spending of this money for the good of the people could have done. I have not any doubt at all that had the one fantastic sum I mentioned of $61,000,000,000 been spent to bring knowledge, a high standard of living and happiness to the common peoples of the world, wars would by now not be necessary. The house, however, may not agree with me in that. More and more people are coming to believe, and even people in high places are stating quite fearlessly, that they believe security must come by means other than military preparedness. There are many statesmen one could quote, but I am going to confine myself to very brief quotations. The first one is Field Marshal Sir William Robertson, who was Chief of the Imperial General Staff from 1915 to 1918. That is, he was a military man trained in military tactics, and indeed he must have been a very successful one to have filled that position in those stressful years. In speaking of war—I am quoting from The U.F.A. of December 15, 1927, and this report appeared also in the daily press of a few days previous—he said:
War has become a wholly detestable thing, and is almost, if not quite, as disastrous to victors as to vanquished.
Never in history were preparations so complete or so widespread as during the fifty or sixty years previous to 1914, and yet never were wars so frequent as in that period.
[Miss Macphail.]
[Page 1174 Col. 2]
A little later on in the same speech he is reported to have said:
Every man and woman should energetically support all efforts made for devising some more sensible and humane way of composing international differences than the destructive and futile methods upon which reliance has hitherto been unsuccessfully placed.
That is the only conclusion I can reach after a military career covering on Sunday next, a period of exactly fifty years.
So that this great British gentleman, who had been trained in a military school for fifty years, comes to the conclusion, speaking first, I suppose, for British men and women, and afterwards for all men and women, that they should set themselves to the task of finding some other and better way of settling international disputes.
Every one was sorry and grieved at the death quite recently of Field Marshal Haig. I wonder if we are willing to honour his memory by heeding his words. On one occasion he said:
I urge you to a crusade paving for its object the freeing of the whole world from the devastating scourge of war.
I might mention too such outstanding work for a new international spirit as was done in Great Britain by E. D. Morrell, now gone, and as has been done by Lord Robert Cecil, Ramsay MaeDonald and the Right Hon. Arthur Ponsonby. These are all men of high standing in British public life and they all take the stand that we shall not get security through military preparedness; that we are simply wasting money, and that military preparedness cannot bring about the thing we are seeking for, namely, security at home and goodwill and friendship abroad.
Whatever may be the opinion of members of this house as to the degree of military preparedness necessary, or as to the advisability of disarmament, I think every hon. member will agree that such things as ignorance, suspicion and fear must be got rid of before we can have permanent peace. While it is true that other things cause war, these three, ignorance, suspicion and fear, leave the common people of all countries the prey to the propagandist in the hours of crisis. It makes them willing to bear these crushing burdens of debt caused by armaments, because, through lack of knowledge, they are led to believe that they must endure this staggering taxation in order to bring security to themselves in their own country. We have not in Canada, and indeed not to any extent anywhere in the world, studied constructively the art of making peace or the technique of peace. I think the technique of war has been studied by some of the most astute minds in all
[Page 1775 Col.1]
countries; but had the same amount of energy, had the same wealth, had the same knowledge of the psychology of the people been used to promote peace as has been and is yet being used in Canada to promote preparedness for war—because I am afraid it is still being done —we would to-day be far on our way towards the settlement of international disputes by some method other than war, and it would be true to-day that the institution of war in Canada would not be the respected institution it is. No one can doubt that in Canada the institution of war is a most respected one which the " best people" like very much. I have noticed that these people, when questioned, do not admit it; but in following the votes of money and the comments in the house on the subject of war, one cannot help concluding that the institution of war is still a respected one. I view this condition with alarm.
I do not however question the patriotism of those people in the house and in the country who believe that that is the way to be a patriotic citizen. I grant quite freely that they are patriotic people, and they are working for what they believe is the best thing for their country. I simply question their wisdom, not their patriotism. On the other hand, often in the past in this house, the patriotism of people like myself and those who think with me has been questioned. They think we are not patriotic, that we do not love our country. One might ask, what is patriotism? Surely it is loyalty to a group; but sometimes we forget that we owe loyalty to many groups. We cannot have too much loyalty, either absolutely or in comparison with the loyalty of other peoples. But we can have too much loyalty to one group, forgetting the other groups to which we also belong. We are more and more coming to know that everyone of us belongs to1 that group which is known as humanity, and that we do owe a very great loyalty to, that largest group of all—humanity.
For Canadians, for a Britisher, for a citizen who is a member of the British Commonwealth of nations, it should not be difficult to build a larger loyalty out of our present loyalties, because our loyalties have grown to include not only our own country and the mother country, but a group of countries which cover a large part of the surface of the earth. Surely then we ought to be willing, and mentally and spiritually able, to take the lead in the world in developing a still larger loyalty that will not stop until it has included the whole shrinking world. It is worthy of note, too, that patriotism is not an inmate thing; it is
[Page 1175 Col. 2]
cultivated, and it will be just what we train it to be. If we train, the children and the young people of this country to view patriotism as a very much bigger thing than we have thought of it in the past, then, within one generation, if we set about it with decision and a desire to win, we shall have a new patriotism, which, while not making light of the love of our own country, will expand to cover the needs of all countries.
Canada's position geographically makes her a country that is important in the history of the world at this moment. Geographically we belong to one continent. Politically we belong to another continent. There is no good reason why we cannot be the interpreter of the one continent to the other. Then, too, the Canadian mind is used to a large framework. Canada is a large, if not too thickly populated, country, and the Canadian, mind can move with ease from Halifax to Vancouver, surely with much more ease than the European mind can move over the same distance. That should make it easy for us to give the world a lead in learning to cover mentally a larger space. The international mind is really nothing more than a mind that does not stop at the bonders of one's own country, but bridges that gap that lies between one's own country and other countries, and bridges it sympathetically.
Canada is young. As countries go, we are merely a youth, and youth always looks to the future. In looking to the future, and. not to the present, we must all realize that we need to build the security of the world on something more stable than military preparedness. We have had since the end of the great war a very great many memorials to the brave who gave their lives in the service of their country during that awful conflict. My own personal opinion is that many of the memorials which are supposed to lead us to think of the service and love and devotion of those who died simply glorify the institution of war. I think that the formation of a peace department would be a fitting commemoration of the devotion and sacrifice of the 60,000 Canadians who died, if we remember what was said during the war and directly after, fighting a war that was to end war. We have at the front of this building a tower which is called a peace tower. I was greatly interested in going through it and looking over it carefully, and my conclusion was that it is a very exquisite piece of work, but that it is misnamed. No one who looks over it carefully can call it a peace chamber. It so clearly, one might almost say so brazenly, though beautifully,
[Page 1176 Col.1]
glorifies the institution of war. That sort of thing will never lead the young men and young women of Canada to think of new methods. It will simply lead them to think of the glory of the old; and it is not a fair way of putting the thing up to the young people of Canada, because the truth of war is not told, only the glory of war, not the misery, not the death, not the disease, not the broken hearts, not the shattered lives. Nothing of that is told at all; it is just the glory of war. I wonder who named the tower the peace tower. It is a queer idea of peace. A name will not bring us peace, I am sure of that.
Canada since the world war has been drawn more and more into world currents. There is an evidence of that in our appointing ambassadors to the different countries of the world. We have also been given a place on the council of the league of nations. All these things show that we are, whether we like it or not, becoming citizens of the world. But up until now very little of anything has been done by the Canadian people or the Canadian government to prepare Canadians for the new responsibilities which are ours. A department of peace would act as a focus or centre for peace thinking and peace activities. While there are some engaged in peace thinking and peace activities at the present time in Canada, they are scattered, and they have no help from—well, I will leave it at that: they have no help. They are the rank and file of the people, many of them, and it is hard for them to get the knowledge they desire. There has been no lead given in peace activities in Canada, with one or two notable exceptions which I shall mention later. I believe that under the British North America Act the Dominion government has jurisdiction over war and peace in so far as control rests in Canada. It is therefore the business of the Dominion government, rather than of the provincial governments to help the people to find some new way of settling international disputes. Canada has a long and indeed a very honourable history in the settling of disputes through conciliation, and the most noted of all is the Rush-Bagot treaty which was made at the end of the war of 1812-14. In the histories which I studied and from which I taught this treaty was given some prominence. To be exact, I think some sixteen pages were devoted to the history of the war and two paragraphs to the peace, but still two paragraphs was something. They told, and told sympathetically, of the importance of the Rush-Bagot treaty, which disarmed the border line between Canada and
[Miss Macphail.]
[Page 1176 Col.2]
the United States, which from that time on has been an example in peaceful settlement to the whole world. But in the new histories now used in Ontario, a copy of which I now hold in my hand, as many pages are devoted to the war, but there is not one single line devoted to the Rush-Bagot treaty; it is not even mentioned. I am not familiar with the history texts used in the other provinces, but the children in the schools of Ontario reading these histories do not know anything about the Rush-Bagot treaty, do not know anything about the greatest incident of that period of the history of United States and Canada, because no one will doubt that the peace treaty was much more important than the war. This treaty shows that Canada in the past has been interested in finding new methods rather than relying on the old. In the case of the Rush-Bagot treaty we prepared for peace, and we had peace. I think that is logical. The old idea that if you prepare for war you will have peace is a fallacy. If you prepare for war you will have war, and if you prepare for peace you will have peace. The International Joint Commission, which has been in existence for some seventeen years and has settled over twenty differences between Canada and the United States, has been mentioned twice, just lately, in far-flung parts of the world. I am quoting from an editorial that appeared in the Citizen of March 1, 1928:
Recently Charles Evans Hughes spoke of conciliation between Canada and the United States at the Pan-American Conference in Havana, where he submitted the plan of the International Joint Commission as a model method of maintaining peaceful relations between neighbouring countries. A few days later, the League of Nations security committee at Geneva listened with keen interest to a description of the working of the commission. The Canadian member of the committee Dr. W. A. Riddell, told how this model scheme of conciliation has worked successfully in dealing with over twenty cases in the last seventeen years. He recommended the adoption of similar permanent boards of conciliation between other nations whose frontiers adjoin.
The editorial continues:
Dr. Riddell urged that security could be increased more by disarmament than by military measures.
I want the government to tell us if Dr. Riddell was speaking on their behalf. If so, are not the words which he used in Geneva and the action of the government in straight contradiction? If it is true that security comes through disarmament, then why is it that our military estimates have been increased from eleven million dollars in 1925 to eighteen million dollars this year? An
[Page 1177 Col. 1]
explanation is due the country. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) recently addressed the Ottawa branch of the League of Nations Association and gave expression of his views. He said:
The only way of securing peace is by what is usually called moral disarmament, and that moral disarmament can be obtained only when a strong public opinion, the opinion in the shops, in the factories, on the farms, in the universities, in the schools, when opinion everywhere is deeply and intimately convinced that war is a calamity and the worst of all calamities.
These are noble words, and I feel that the hon. minister believes in their truth. So I am going to suggest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that for the good of Canada and the good of the world he request the Minister of Justice and the Minister of National Defence to exchange portfolios. I anticipate the Prime Minister will say that he does not want to form a new department. Personally I am quite willing to accept a department of defence through security and goodwill, with the hon. Minister of Justice at its head, if he is allowed to do what he wants to do. In looking over the personnel of the cabinet I have often been puzzled to discover who are the military members. Who are they? They all look so peaceable that I am amazed at what is happening. It is quite clear that some of the ministers are pushing things from the military side. There is no excuse—if there is, I shall be glad to hear it—for the increase in our military estimates, and for the aggressive development of war psychology in the Dominion.
I do not wish dogmatically to lay down what a department of peace might do, but I hope I shall not tire the house too much by offering a few suggestions as to the work of such a department. I would have suggested by resolution a peace bureau either in the Department of External Affairs or the Department of Secretary of State, but I did hot wish it to be shoved off into corner while a department to bring security through military measures was given a better place. Already we have a full-fledged department of war, although I notice that in the debate on the motion of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) the Minister of National Defence said that his department is not preparing for war, but for peace; that really he is a minister of peace. I am glad to hear it, but in the face of the activities of his department I regret to say there is nothing on which I can rest my belief, much as I should like to accept his declaration.
[Page 1177 Col.2]
A department of peace should be twofold in character. First, it should have general supervision of an extensive program for peace throughout Canada. Secondly, it should cultivate friendly relations with other countries by promoting our knowledge of other people with regard to their cultural, moral and social achievements. This would be very interesting to Canadians, and we have very much to learn along this line. Then, too, it should encourage the work of international institutions, including the League of Nations, and make known their work to our people, so that we would be made acquainted with all the machinery that has been set up in any part of the world for finding new methods of settling international difficulties. I think that such a department should also study the causes of war, and by frank discussion present evidence revealing the wastefulness and ineffectiveness of war. It might also make clear to our people some of our own mannerisms that offend the sensibilities of other nations. I do think we have a British superiority complex which must be very offensive to other nations, and cannot be making any contribution to the harmony of the world. This department would quite naturally work in cooperation with all agencies that wanted the data and other material which it would collect. It would develop the will to peace through education by working with peace societies, schools, churches, labour associations, women's, farmers' and social clubs, and any other Canadian agencies whose efforts in the direction of peace could be made more effective by such co-operation. The department could also prepare a list of speakers, who, while not employed by the government, could, through the department, be made available for addressing public meetings—speakers who were authorities on some one phase of this great question. Our government departments issue booklets, pamphlets, posters and films, and there seems to be no good reason why a department of peace could not use the same means to make known to the Canadian people the truths regarding peace and war.
And how little money it would cost the government to make a gift of books for the promotion of peace. These books could be issued to our public and school libraries. We have Rhodes scholarships in this country. We might establish peace scholarships on a somewhat similar plan, allotting a scholarship to each province. The Rhodes scholarships I think are confined to young men, but I would want these peace scholarships available to young women as well. The winners of these scholarships would go abroad each year to
[Page 1178 Col.1]
study along lines which would make them better world citizens and at the same time better citizens of Canada.
It has occurred to me—I do not claim any originality for the idea—that we might very well establish a yearly peace award for the best work done in the cause of peace. This award I suggest should be given by the government and might be confined to Canadians or be made open to the citizens of any country. The award would not be confined necessarily to the greatest contribution scholastically to the peace of the world, but to the best work to this end along any line.
We have a military college where young men are prepared to be warriors. Why not establish a college to train young men in promoting peaceful understandings throughout the world? This would be far better work and those engaged in it would become much better citizens, with all respect to the graduates from the military college. Then instead of making grants for the training of cadets in summer camps—and but for these grants the cadet movement would not continue for another five years—the government might use the money to much better purpose for the establishment of summer schools to promote the study of international friendship. I imagine a great many Canadians would be glad to get together for a few weeks to secure a better understanding than they possess today of the problems of the world. In fact I should think that the work of this department would be very interesting; it would be unlimited, adventurous and wholly positive rather than destructive as is military training at the present time. Such a department would call to the highest in us; it would call out our mental and spiritual attributes, challenging them, rather than the physical, which is on the lowest possible plane.
My words this afternoon may seem quite futile; all words on this subject may seem futile. But what are disarmament conferences, even conferences of the League of Nations, conferences to promote good will, unless they are backed by a conviction on the part of the peoples of the world, the common people, the rank and file of the nations? It is my opinion— it may or may not be right—that the common people of Canada, certainly the farmers, and I believe the common people generally, are exceedingly concerned that the government, and we working together with the government, shall strive to find some new way of settling international disputes. The common people are sick of war; they are tired of the glorification of it. The swank that goes with it to-day does not carry much force in the country. In international politics, as in every-
[Miss Maophail.]
[Page 1178 Col.2]
thing else, the misfortune is that our aim is too low. The real crime after all is low aim, and by aiming high the government or any international body will call out the latent idealism of the common people. And after all the latent idealism of the common people is the greatest force for peace in the world to-day.
In closing I would ask the government not to consider the matter lightly, because it is not a trivial subject; it includes within itself all others and is the most important subject facing mankind to-day. If we do not find some new way there is nothing surer than that, if we keep on for another twenty-five years as we have been going since 1918, we shall have another war whether we like it or not. Nothing can prevent it if we keep preparing for war. - Éditeur
- King's Printer
- Lieu de publication
- Ottawa, On.
- Date de l'original
- 1928
- Date d'événement
- March 26, 1928
- Dimensions
-
Largeur: 25 cm
Hauteur: 16.7 cm
- Sujet(s)
- Identifiant local
- 987.14.94a
- Collection
- Purdy Estate Collection
- Langage de l'élément
- English
- Couverture géographique
-
-
Ontario, Canada
Latitude: 45.4259857091922 Longitude: -75.697603225708
-
- Déclaration de droit d'auteur
- Public domain: Copyright has expired according to Canadian law. No restrictions on use.
- Date du droit d'auteur
- 1928
- Détenteur du droit d'auteur
- Government of Canada
- Détenteur du droit d'auteur - Coordonnées
- Ottawa, On.
- Conditions d'utilisation
- Reproduction of digital objects is restricted to fair use for personal study or research, any other use must be done with permission of copyright holder.
- Contacter
- South Grey Museum
Ajoutez un commentaire
Créez une carte postale numérique
Image maximum
Groupes de dossiers semblables
Expositions de photo
