1926-03-22

ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDRESS IN REPLY

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to
inform the House that I have received a message from His Excellency the Governor General, signed by his own hand, reading as follows:
I have received with great pleasure the Address you have voted in reply to my Speech at the opening of parliament, and thank you for it sincerely.
Byno or Vimy.
Government House, Ottawa,
18th March, 1920



DEATH OF QUEEN ALEXANDRA

Hewitt Bostock: I have reoeived a message from His Excellency the Governor General which reads as follows:
Members of the House of Commons:
I have the honour to thank you for the resolution of the House of Commons forwarding an Address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King expressing the deep regret and -heartfelt sorrow of the Senate and [Mr Meighen.]
Commons of Canada at the demise of Her Majesty the Queen Mother. I have forwarded this Address to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in order that it may be duly laid at the foot of the Throne.
Byng of Vimy.
Government House, Ottawa,
19th March, 1920.



MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS CERTIFICATE OF ELECTION

Hewitt Bostock: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer a certificate of the election and return of the Hon. Charles Avery Dunning for the electoral district of Regina.



INTRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Charles Avery Dunning, Minister of Railways, member for the electoral district of Regina, introduced by the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, and Hon. I W. R. Motherwell.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the names of Messrs. Chabot and Parent be substituted for those of Messrs. Jenkins and Jones on the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.
That the names of Messrs. Lapierre, Evantuxel, Hanson and Ryerson be substituted for those of Messrs. Robichaud, McLean (Melfort), Maybee and Grimmer on the seleot standing committee on Banking and Commerce.
That the name of Mr. McLean (Melfort) be substituted for that of Mr. Goodison on the select standing committee on Mines, Forests and Waters.
That the name of Mr. Lapierre be substituted for that of Mr. Euler on the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines.
That the names of Messrs. Chabot and Evanturel be substituted for those of Messrs. Black (Yukon) and Duff on the select standing committee on Standing Orders.
That the name of Mr. Lapierre be substituted for that of Mr. Duff on the select standing committee of Public Accounts.
That the name of Mr. Lapierre .be substituted for t int of Mr. Euler on the select standing committee on Printing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Tem-iscouata):: I rise to a question of privilege.
I refer to an article published in the Montreal Gazette some time ago. On the 10th March instant, there appeared in that paper a quotation from a speech delivered in Montreal by "the man on the street"-I mean Sparks street, namely Mr. R. P. Sparks, who repeated the same thing in Toronto. More-

Questions
over, I see that in the same article Mr. Theodore Morgan voiced the opinion that the statement should be printed in pamphlet form and distributed throughout the country-"Sherwin Williams paint covers the world 1" In his speech Mr. Sparks said:
All the organized bands of crooks that are living at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada hope that it will be a fiasco.
He means the customs probe.
A whole group of corrupt customs officers who are taking bribes hope that it will be a fiasco. American prison contractors who are shipping thousands of dozens of goods here, I am sure, are hoping it will be a fiasco. If Mr. Pouliot does hope so, he has got lots of company.
In explanation of those things let me refer to a former article in the same paper, the Montreal Gazette, on March 8. It is a resume of a speech I made at Montreal at the Reform Club on March 6. I wish to quote this extract from that resume:
The member for Temiscouata did not go deeply into the subject of the customs inquiry, but advised his listeners to spread counter-propaganda against the "odious attacks of Mr. Stevens," which he claimed are being distributed throughout the country in pamphlet form.
This is the point. I only said then that the Tory propaganda in connection with the customs probe would be a failure and an immense fiasco. I have nothing to say about the result of the customs probe, except that Mr. Sparks' nonsense may make of it a fiasco.
Mr; MEIGHEN: I rise to a point of order. I have not detected in anything quoted by the hon. gentleman any subject matter of a question of privilege. Certainly, even if there were, the remarks which he is making are away beyond his right as a member at this time.


Jean-François Pouliot: I think I have a right to explain my position on such a question of privilege and moreover I have just a word to say-


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Mr. Speaker, I ask for your ruling. I should have risen, I think, on many other occasions similar to this. If this is permitted, there might be no end to orders of the day.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman states that he rises to a question of privilege respecting certain statements made by Mr. Sparks in commenting upon a speech delivered by the hon. member himself at the Reform Club. He has indicated the remarks he
made after having quoted from the Montreal Gazette, and I suppose he is coming now to the remarks made by Mr. Sparks and wishes to deny certain statements attributed to that gentleman.


Arthur Meighen: The point is this. He came some time ago to the only reference to himself which was contained in these words:
If Mr. Pouliot does hope so he has got lots of company.
He is at liberty to deny those words or the implication of them, but he cannot go into a dissertation of this kind.


Hewitt Bostock: I hope the hon. gentleman will state briefly the question of privilege-what he would like to deny before the House.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wiii say why Mr. Sparks said that.


Arthur Meighen: That is not privilege at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: He said that because he went to the Prime Minister to ask for protection on clothes which he manufactures, which protection was refused.


Hewitt Bostock: I would like the hon. gentleman to follow the rules-state the question of privilege, make a personal explanation and leave the matter at that.


Jean-François Pouliot: The personal explanation is this, that to use parliamentary language I should say that Mr. Sparks is neither a snake nor a skunk, but that he has the high qualities of both.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 12, respecting Joliette and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Denis (Joliette).

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
LIVE STOCK OFFICIALS Mr. SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):
1.	How many officials of the Department of Agriculture are now on the pay-roll and being paid out of vote No. 49 for live stock, in each province, classified as follows:	sheep; promoters; poultry promoter*;
poultry inspectors; egg promoters; egg inspectors?
2.	What amounts were paid out to the above by provinces during the calendar year 1925, under the heads of salaries, bonuses and expenses?
Questions
["It was when I was about to resign my position as High Commissioner in 1922; I came back to Canada and consulted with the Prime Minister before actually putting in my resignation. Now, I submit that this is too serious a question to be brought up in the form of a private member's resolution, and I take exception to the method that has been adopted. It seems to me that if we are to discuss the matter we should do so on a motion by the government, with a statement of their policy. For these reasons I move the adjournment of the debate.\nMotion agreed to and debate adjourned.\nOn motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.37 p.m.\nTuesday, March 23, 1926"]
Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1 and 2.
Prince Edward Island.
3	Egg inspectors	
Nova Scotia.
1 District sheep promoter.. .
1 Sheep promoter	
1 Promoter of egg production
1 Egg inspector	
New Brunswick.
1 District sheep promoter.. . 1 Junior sheep promoter.. ..
1 Poultry promoter	
1 Promoter of egg production 1 Egg inspector	
1	District poultry promoter.. Quebec.
2	Sheep promoters	
4	Egg inspectors	
1	District poultry promoter.. Ontario.
2	District sheep promoters.. .
2	Sheep promoters	
1 Junior sheep promoter.. ..
1 Chief egg inspector	
9 Egg inspectors	
3	Poultry inspectors	
1	District poultry promoter.. .
2	Promoters of egg production.
2 Poultry promoters	
Manitoba.
1 District sheep promoter.. ..
7 Egg inspectors	
1 Senior egg inspector	
1	District poultry promoter.. . Saskatchewan.
2	Egg inspectors	
Alberta.
1 District sheep promoter.. .. 1 Sheep promoter	
3	Egg inspectors	
3	Promoters of egg production. 1 District poultry promoter.. . 1 Poultry inspector	
British Columbia.
1 Sheep promoter	
5 Poultry inspectors	
1 District poultry promoter.. . 3 Egg inspectors	
Salary
and
Bonus	Expenses
$ 3,900 85	$ 2,001 22
2,160 00	2,765 61
1,575 00	1,844 24
1,980 00	2,806 12
375 00	133 54
2,370 00	2,058 80
1,443 75	1,495 05
1,573 50	1,991 51
734 61	770 99
1,500 00	933 90
2,400 00	2,087 80
3,203 53	6,211 58
6,275 49	1,453 17
3,420 00	2,323 62
4,800 00	4,373 84
3,672 56	1,899 11
1,443 75	1,245 84
2,850 00	1,132 80
12,353 86	7,947 77
3,038 SO	3,410 3S
2,400 00	1,331 27
3,578 23	2,768 32
1,673 81	1,566 10
2,130 00	2,402 42
10,169 25	5,433 42
616 00	85 35
2,400 00	2,439 27
3,158 52	1,976 07
2,400 00	3,222 05
1,695 00	1,908 45
3,909 76	3,006 01
5,492 56	6,521 10
2,370 00	2,945 17
1,573 50	1,991 51
1,785 00	1,141 03
6,810 80	6,795 09
2,370 00	708 55
5,248 58	3,325 57
It should be noted that the above employees are listed in the provinces where their respective official headquarters are located. In many cases, however, these employees are, for certain periods of the year, required to work in neighbouring provinces as the necessities of the work demand.



Mr. CHAPLIN (Kent):: 1.	Was there a government dredge at work in the Thames river during the month of October, 1925?
2.	If so, on what date was it promised, and on what date did it start?
3.	How many days did it operate?
4.	At what coat?
5.	Is it proposed to continue the work during 1926?

Questions


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Authorized in August to be done as soon as SS. Thousand Islander had laid up for the season; (b) September 28, 1925
3.	Forty-five.
4.	$9,738.55 approximately.
5.	Yes.


AMALGAMATED CIVIL SERVANTS OF CANADA
Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	Is there an organization known as "The Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada?
2.	If so, where are its headquarters?
3.	What is its object?
4.	What are the qualifications required for membership?
5.	Is it recognized and approved by the government?
6.	How many other unions or associations of civil servants are recognized and approved by the government?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Vancouver, B.C.
3.	Its object as stated by its official publication called The Organizer is as follows: "The Amalgamated Civil Servants of Canada are organized for the purpose of uniting all federal employees and Dominion civil service bodies* into one association, the more effectively to advance and maintain their social and economic welfare."	[DOT]
4.	No information.
5.	No information.
6.	No information.


EXPENSES OF MINISTERS WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
Hon. Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: With respect to the following ministers and exministers without portfolio:	Honourable Messrs.
Marler, Massey, Sinclair, McGiverin and Dandurand, what has been the cost to the country, inclusive of expenses, secretarial and other assistance, of each of such ministers, for each of the years up to the 1st January last during which they were in office?
flight Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:
Hon. Mr. Dandurand, nothing.
Hon. Mr. McGiverin, nothing.
Hon. Mr. Marler, nothing.
Hon. Mr. Massey, nothing.
Hon. Mr. Sinclair:
1921-	22	$2951922-	23	
3091923-	24	
6251924-	25	
3201925-	26	
450


$1 999 ILLEGAL LOBSTER FISHING OR PACKING
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 1.	How many prosecutions were undertaken for infraction of the fishery regulations in regard to illegal fishing or packing of lobsters in the province of Prince Edward Island during the year 1924, and the year 1925, respectively?
2.	What are the names of the parties proceeded against, on what charge, the official undertaking the prosecution, and the result in each case?
3.	Were any convictions secured against regularly licensed packers, and if so, were their licenses renewed for the following year?
4.	Were fines and expenses collected in any or all cases? If not, on whose recommendation or authority were they suspended?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: Name of Defendants	Charge	Complainant	Judgment1924 Chester Llewellyn	Fishing lobsters during close season, Bough ton Island. it	Overseer P. A. McLcl-lan.	(c) $100Lem Allen	R. H. Williams	Having lobsters illegally in possession.	Overseer R. W. Square-briggs.	(b) $220 and costs or 6 months in jail.
1925			
J. E. Jardine		Running lobster lines before six a.m., Pownall Bay. Having berried lobsters in possession Woods island. Having illegal lobsters in possession. U	Inspector S. T. Gallant. Overseer J. C. Shaw....	$25 and costs. $50. $50. $20. $50. $50. $100. $5.
L. E. Moser				
Alex. McLeod				
Jn. W. Cantello				
Neil S. Morrison		u		
O'Hanley Brothers		Destroying berried lob-		
J. J. Arsenault		sters. Having lobsters illegally in possession. Fishing lobsters in close season.	Overseer R. W. Square-briggs. Overseer J. C. Shaw		
Charles Burt				
			
3.	Yes. Yes.
4.	Fine marked (a) suspended by magistrate owing to youthful age of defendant. Fines marked (b) allowed by magistrate to stand pending good behaviour. Fines marked (c) allowed by minister to stand pending good behaviour, owing to needy circumstances of defendants. All others paid.


ALIEN ENEMY PROPERTY-HUNGARY
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: What is the total amount received in cash by the Custodian of Alien Enemy Property from property wholly or partially disposed of, on account of Hungary?
Hon.- Mr. LAPOINTE:
The total amount received in cash in respect of Hungarian property was $18,181.86. This amount has been reduced by reason of releases granted, and the actual amount now in hand is $7,328.45.
3. The sum of $189155 was paid for expenses of the Indian members of the delegation.
[DOT] 4. Expenses of Indian delegates were paid from Six Nations funds.


Mr. SENN:: 1.	Have any members of the Six Nations Indians at Brantford been enfranchised under Chapter 50, section 3, amendment to section 107 of the Indian Act of 1920?
2.	If so, how many?
3.	Has a patent for any lands on this reservation of the Six Nations Indians been issued by the crown to anyone under Chapter 50, section 3, amendment to section 107 of the Indian Act of 1920?
4.	If so, how many and to whom?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1. UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


SIX NATIONS INDIANS
Mr. SENN:: 1.	Did a delegation from the Six Nations' reserve at Brantford come to Ottawa last summer at the summons of the Superintendent of Indian Affairs or other official of the department ?
2.	If so, who were they?
3.	What amount did each receive for expenses?
4.	Was this money paid out of the funds of the band?


REPORTS ON ENEMY PROPERTY
Henry Lumley Drayton: For a copy of the report or reports, finding or findings, made by the late Honourable William Pugsley, in his capacity as Custodian of Enemy Property, or any other capacity while in the pay of the government of Canada, since his retirement as Lieutenant-Governor of the province of New Brunswick.


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Yes. Upon request of the Indian council the visit of the delegation was authorized by the Deputy Superintendent General.
2.	F. L. Johnson, Wiliam Smith, John R. Lickers, Hilton Hill. Accompanied Lieut.-Col. C. E. Morgan, Indian Superintendent.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY
Henry Lumley Drayton: For a copy of all correspondence and reports made by the management of the Canadian National Railways or any officer or official thereof to the government or any department or officer or official thereof, in relation to the construction, operation or financing of the Hudson Bay railway.

Unopposed Motions for Papers


WHARF AND PORT AT BIC, RIMOUSKI
Mr. DOUCET:: For copy of all correspondence, telegrams and paylists in connection with all repairs made to wharf and port at Bic, Rimouski county, Quebec, during financial years 1924-25 and 1925-26.


WHARF AT NEW RICHMOND, QUEBEC
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, paylists and other documents relating to repairs mado to the wharf at New Richmond, Quebec, in 1922, of which repairs Mr. John B. Cyr was foreman for the Department of Public Works.


MR. JOHN HANNA
Mr. MAYBEE:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, petitions and other documents exchanged between the Department of Railways and Canals or any other department of the government, or any officers of the said departments and any person or persons, relative io the dismissal of Mr. John Hanna, bridge master or tender on the Murray canal.


BONNYVILLE, ALBERTA, POST OFFICE AND POSTMASTER
Mr. BURY:: For a copy of all correspondence, complaints, reports, communications and documents of all kinds in connection with the investigation held by the investigating post office inspector into the post office at Bonnyville, Alberta, and into the conduct of Mr. Potvin, the former postmaster there.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY AND PORT NELSON
Mr. NICHOLSON:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence or proposals made by or on behalf of any company, individual, or group of individuals, to the government of Canada or any department thereof in relation to the taking over and completion of what is known as the Hudson's Bay railway, from a point at or near The Pas to Port Nelson or Fort Churchill, including such harbour works and materials as have been constructed or are at Port Nelson or along the line of railway, also any memoranda or estimates of any character whatsoever with regard to the proposed taking over of such railway line and harbour works.


OFFICERS AND MEN OF PERMANENT FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Doucet:
For a return showing:-1. The numbers of each of the following, lieutenant generals; major generals; colonels commandant; colonels; lieutenant colonels; majors; captains; lieutenants; non-commissioned officers of each rank; privates at present or at the latest date at which the information is available, in the employ of the government of Canada in the permanent force, including civilian employment and the air force, (a) at headquarters at Ottawa, (b) at each military district in Canada.
2.	How and where each is employed, appointment, regimental, staff or otherwise.
3.	The amount paid each annually (a) in cash, (b) amount given to each annually by way of allowance, showing details of allowances.
4.	The amounts deducted from or charged to each annually on any account (other than penalties) showing details of deductions.
5.	Those employed as instructors, with the rank of each and where employed.
6.	The number of persons instructed from August 1, 1924, to August 1, 1925, the rank of each, the course given each and where each instructed.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend (Mr. Doucet) agreed with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Antigo-nish-Guysborough) that he would particularize more in detail the information he wanted so as to avoid the large amount of correspondence here indicated being brought down. If the hon. member is agreeable to the motion being adopted on that understanding there is no objection to its passing at the moment.


Alexandre Joseph Doucet: I am quite agreeable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Hanson (for Mr. Culligan):
For a copy of any letter or letters written by Mr. H. Boulay, of Sayabec, county of Matane, to the Minister of Militia and Defence at Ottawa, on January 18, 1918.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: When this motion was first moved the Minister of National Defence requested the mover to indicate the subject matter of the correspondence he required, inasmuch as in his department the correspondence is filed according to the subject matter and not under the names of correspondents.


Mr. HANSON:: The hon. member is not in his seat and the motion might stand.
Motion stands.


SETTLEMENT OF IMMIGRANTS
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Boys (for Mr. Morand):
For a return giving a settlement of all permits issued by the Minister of Immigration, under section 4 of the Immigration Act, showing the names of all persons permitted to enter Canada under the said section during the years 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925; the occupations and former residences of all such persons; the dates and places of entry into Canada; the duration of their stay in Canada as allowed by such permits and whether still in Canada; and if so, their present places of residence; and if not now in Canada, the dates and places when and where they left Canada.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: The motion asks for "a settlement of all permits" issued by the Minister of Immigration; I think what is meant is a statement.


Arthur Meighen: It should be "statement."


Charles A. Stewart: I would call attention to another matter: I do not think the hon. member wants all the information he is asking for. There are two kinds of
Unopposed Motions for Papers

permits; the minister may issue a permanent permit or one of a temporary character. The motion would indicate perhaps that it is only the temporary permits to which the hon. member has reference, and if the order were allowed to stand I could look into it.
Motion stands.


DOCUMENTS RELATING TO WAR CLAIMS
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Nicholson:
For a copy of all orders in council, letters, telegrams or other document? between the government of Canada or any department official or appointee thereof, and parties presenting claims of any character whatsoever incurred or presumed to have been incurred during and as a result of the Great War, 1914 to 1918, or the clearing offices in Germany and Austria, and falling under any of the articles of the treaty of Peace and more particularly under Articles 296, 297 , 298 , 299, 300, 301, 302, 303 and the annexes or general provisions relating thereto.
Ernest Lapointe: I am sure that if I merely indicate to my hon. friend what this motion would involve he will not insist upon it. Otherwise I shall be compelled to ask that it be transferred to debatable motions. There are 7,560 files relating to this question and the number of claims is upwards of 10,000, while the number of documents in support of these claims is 20,002. There have been 101,700 letters written and 100,000 received, many in foreign languages. It would take three years and a half to complete the work, and the wages alone would be $21,600.


George Brecken Nicholson: The resolution may stand and I will confer with the minister.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands-for conference.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- ROUYN RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. O'NEILL moved:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and reports relative to the construction, financing or operation of the Rouyn railway passing between the government or any department or official thereof and:
1. The management of the Canadian National Railways or any officer or official thereof;
2.	The government of the province of Quebec or any department or official thereof;
3.	The Rouyn Railway Company or any officer or official thereof;
4.	Messrs. Dillon, Read and Company or any official thereof;
5.	The American Exchange Securities Corporation or any official thereof;
6.	The Noranda Mines Limited, or any official thereof.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Stand.
fMr. C. A. Stewart.]
Arthur Meighen: I think the mover of
the motion might have a little say whether it stands or not.


Mr. DUNNING:: I make the request
merely as a matter of courtesy. I did not intend to infringe upon the privileges of any member. Just as a matter of courtesy, if the mover would permit, I would ask that the motion stand.
' Mr. O'NEILL:	Yes.
Motion stands.


PULPWOOD EXPORTS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton) for Mr. James Arthurs moved:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrama or recommendations relating to an embargo upon pulp-wood or to a proposed export duty upon pulpwood shipped from Canada. Such order to apply to correspondence, etc., subsequent to January 1, 1921.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: if this is allowed to go through, it is on the understanding, after consultation with the mover, the hon. member for Parry Sound, that he designates just what he seeks because, this involves a great deal of correspondence which would 'be of no interest to him.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, Canada should refuse to accept any responsibility for complications arising from the foreign policy of the United Kingdom.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a subject which, I clearly recognize, has a great many bearings, and upon which there may be considerable difference of opinion not only as between parties, but as between individuals within the various groups. I fancy there has been in the past somewhat of a tendency to treat rather lightly matters that relate to the foreign policy of this country; but now that the war hysteria has passed and feelings have more or less subsided, it would seem that it is high time that we should give a little more serious consideration to our relationships with the Mother Country with regard to foreign policy.
I know that there is likely to be some opposition to this proposal, but I would point out that nearly all reforms are opposed, dire results are foretold, and very frequently there are fervent appeals to what is known as patriotism. Glancing over a bit of history

Canada's Imperial Relations
the other day, I noticed that during the debate on the Reform Bill of 1832, introduced by Lord John Russell, Lord Macaulay in supporting the measure said:
My hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) tells us that if we pass this law England will soon be a republic. The reformed House of Commons will, according to him, before it has sat ten years, depose the king and expel the lords from their House.
I do not think I need point out that although nearly one hundred years have passed by, the king has not yet been deposed and the lords still sit in their chamber.
In Canada the tendency is for some of us to be more British than the British. We sometimes neglect the spirit which underlies British action and imagine that loyalty suggests slavish conformity. In terms of psychoanalysis, I suppose we may be said to suffer from an inferiority complex. Some of us imagine that we are not quite big enough or wise enough to consider these things in our own right, and have simply to take secondhand the opinions of someone on the other side of the water. I do not know of a better illustration of this inferiority complex than that which is afforded by a statement credited to one of the Toronto members not very long ago. The Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) has already quoted it this session. I refer the House to page 67 of Hansard, where the member for Northwest Toronto (Mr. Church) in a speech criticizing his leader's new war policy is reported to have said:
Had we had this autonomy in 1914 Canada would not have been represented in the Great war. There would have been no 60,000 soldiers in France from Toronto.
I suppose he might have added: Nor 50,000 Canadian boys in French graves. Frankly, I had thought more of Toronto than would be indicated by this speech of one of__its representatives. Think of itl He says: Had we had autonomy we should not have entered the war. Are we then to be dumb, driven cattle, and simply go into any adtion because we are forced into it? I take it the time has come when if we are to enter upon any such action it should be entirely of our own free will. It is well that we should place our position clearly before the world.
The preliminary question arises as to whether Canada has indeed a foreign policy. No one seems to know. Last year, while we had assurances from the government that we would be able to discuss foreign affairs, as a matter of fact the discussion was postponed until after midnight on the last day of the session; that was the only opportunity that we had during the session to discuss the 14011-112
foreign affairs of Canada. Yet I would point out that Canada must maintain very intimate relations with the United States 365 days of the year, and that we ought to have our foreign policy, so far as the States is concerned, very clearly defined. Fortunately since the union of the two great races in this country there has never been a war between England and France. I would, however, point out that if that contingency ever arose, which God forbid1, we would 'all be placed in an exceedingly delicate position, and therefore we ought not to shut our eyes to what might develop. I would further point out, coming as I do from the west, that we have hundreds of thousands of immigrants who call one or other of the various European countries the fatherland or thie motherland, as the case may be. What would happen in the event of war with some of these European countries in the days to come when the numbers of their nationals in this country are greatly increased? Further than that, within recent years Canada has become keenly interested in the Orient. Personally I am inclined to think that a great many of our trade developments in the days to come will be on the Pacific rather than on the Atlantic, and that more and more we shall have to pay attention to our relations with our trans-Pacific neighbours.
In the last war, though having no im-rhediate concern with European affairs, Canada found1 herself involved, and we are still struggling under the burden of the debt-created by that Great war? What about the next War? Perhaps hon. members will say: It is too early to consider the next war. I am not at all sure about that. I noticed that just the other day Major General J. H. MacBrien was talking to the Anglican Fellowship Club in this city. By the way, I should like to take this -opportunity of protesting against any employee in the public service going around doing propaganda work for any particular policy. We do not permit it in any other of the departments. I would call upon the government to forbid any employee definitely engaging in political propaganda with respect to a question on which there is a wide divergence of opinion in this House. On December 15 last this gentleman said:
It is useless to deceive ourselves into believing that there will not be another war. . . . The cause for this next war to come might well be an adjustment of frontiers in the European countries.
Well, here we have our chief of staff definitely preparing us and the country at large for another war that is likely to arise, as he



Canada's Imperial Relations
says, because of the adjustment of frontiers in the European countries. If that is the case, surely it is high time that we took full opportunity of a discussion such as may be initiated by my motion. Almost at the same time we have Viscount Jellicoe suggesting that Canada should contribute $36,000,000 a year for the next few years towards the cost of the Imperial navy, and should provide a squadron of four cruisers within the next four years at an annual cost of approximately $10,000,000, during the four-year period of construction. He also suggests a cruiser in reserve. He estimates the annual cost of the maintenance of the four cruisers at approximately $4,290,000. So here we have not merely our own War men but those from the Motherland urgently pressing upon us the need of preparing for the next war.
I think it unnecessary for me to point out that the question of Canada's relationship to foreign nations is inextricably involved with Canada's relationship to the United Kingdom. Under existing circumstances, we cannot deal with our policies without dealing with our relationship to the United Kingdom, and I am glad to see that there is coming to be somewhat of a changed sentiment with regard to this matter. Hon. gentlemen may recall that in 1922 the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) gave utterance to his famous expression "Ready, aye, ready. We stand by you." Now, three years have passed, not a very long period, but a few weeks or months ago we find the same gentleman saying at Hamilton:
I believe it would be best not only that parliament should be called but that the decision of the government, which of course would have to be given promptly, should be submitted to the judgment of the people at a general election before troops leave our shores. I
I am inclined to think that the right hon. leader of the opposition has gone too far in that. If we are to assure the effectiveness of any war, it would hardly do to call parliament together in order to provide an opportunity for a referendum. But while I am inclined to think he has gone too far, I do not think we are going too far in settling the principle before another war is in sight. Now is the time to decide such a matter. As a further indication of a change in sentiment, I would quote a clause from the constitution of an organization which we have in western Canada, known as the Native Sons of Canada, a patriotic and fraternal society. The plank in their platform or constitution relating to Canada's status reads as follows:	.
It is imperative that the parliament of Canada shall have sovereign rights. Our Dominion must acquire the constitutional status of a nation, enjoying absolute
fMr. Woodswortli.]	*
equality with any other component part of tile British Commonwealth. The rights hereby demanded should not rest on sentiment, nor the assurances of statesmen, but should be enacted as law by the proper parliaments. Generous safeguards and covenants, protecting the vested rights of provinces, and civil and religious liberties, should be preserved.
It is not my purpose, Mr. Speaker, to enter at any length upon the question of Canada's legal and constitutional status. I hope that before this discussion is over some of the legal gentlemen who are specialists in this matter will take advantage of the opportunity and go into this question more fully. But from my standpoint, as an ordinary layman, I do not know that such discussions help us very much. We are told that if Canada wants her autonomy she' may have it, that no obstacle will be placed in the way by Great Britain. That may be true. Personally I am inclined to think that the greatest obstacle has been the fact that we have never asked for larger autonomy, and have never been determined to gain it. In fact it is only within recent years that there has grown up any considerable sentiment with regard to that question. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we are not to-day attributing blame or casting aspersions upon the authorities of Great Britain; we are not declaring that they refused to give us this, but we are taking the position that it is quite within our rights to discuss whether or not we want it. It will be time enough afterwards for Great Britain to say whether or not she is agreeable to our having it. I would point out that the constitutions which have been drawn more recently than our own go much further than the British North America Act. For example, when the Irish Free State bills were being discussed in the British House of Commons, it was pointed out that there is no phrase in the British North America Act making the Dominion of Canada a co-equal member of the community of nations forming the British commonwealth of nations. Similarly, there is in the Canadian constitution no such declaration as that contained in the Irish Free State constitution, which states that all powers of government and all authority, legislative, executive and judicial, are derived from the people of Ireland. The Irish constitution also provides that save in the case of actual invasion the Irish Free State shall not be committed to participation in any war without the consent of parliament.
At the last Imperial conference it will be remembered that the prime ministers of the dominions refused to attempt to define by resolution the present relationship of their

Canada's Imperial Relations
dominions to the Mother Country, and Mr. Bonar Law welcomed the refusal. He added:
I say without hesitation, that if this parliament were to pass an act which attempted to limit the powers of the dominions, according to statute, it would re-echo all through the dominions, and would be one of the most dangerous things that could happen.
I am not very sure, however, that our powers in Canada are not already limited. For example, during the last few days we had the report of a decision of an appeal to the Privy Council from two judgments of the Supreme Court of Alberta, in which we find that the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Cave, in speaking of the powers of the Canadian parliament, said-:
In their Lordships' opinion, section 1025 of the Canadian Criminal Code if and so far as it is intended to prevent the sovereign in council from giving effective leave to appeal against an order of a Canadian court is repugnant to the Judicial Committee Acts of 1833 and i834 which have been cited and is therefore void and inoperative by virtue of the act of 1865. It is true that the code has received royal assent, but that assent cannot give validity to an act which is void by imperial statute.
I say I am not blaming the imperial authorities, but I would suggest that our legal standing has not kept pace at all with constitutional developments.
In discussing the constitution of Ireland a writer in the Canadian Gazette, which is published in London, under date of November 30, 1922, suggested that the relationship of the various component parts of the British Empire should be that of a partnership by consent. I accept the phrase, Mr. Speaker, and I fancy that if we worked out our relationship somewhat along that line we would get a great deal further. A partnership by consent means by the full consent of each partner. We are, however, frequently told that we should not avoid our imperial responsibilities. This is said to us by some of our militarist advocates, especially with regard to contributions which they think should be made to the Imperial navy. I would like to point out what Lord Milner said several years ago in his little book entitled Questions of the Hour, at page 97:
We could not afford to reduce it-
Speaking of our army.
-even if we had no empire at all. And as for the navy, we need it for the protection of our world-wide commerce and mercantile marine, and we should need not a smaller but a larger navy if we were deprived of the navy bases which the empire contains.
So it would seem that we are under no very great obligation to the Motherland with regard to the maintenance of a navy. I should like to urge the general principle that financial responsibilities are contingent on moral responsibility. The Imperial confer-14011-112i
ence of 1917, on the resolution of Sir Robert L. Borden, stated that we-
-should recognize the right of the dominions and of India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, and to provide effective arangements for eontinunous consultation in all important matters of common imperial concern.
With regard to this, I should like simply to ask two questions, and urge that they be answered by anyone 'who still maintains that we ought to assume responsibility for actions of the United Kingdom. My first question is: Can anyone say that to-day Canada has an adequate voice in the foreign policy and in the foreign relations of the United Kingdom? My second question is: Can we hope to have an adequate voice, can anyone suggest any plan by which we could possibly have an adequate voice in the very complicated questions which are continually arising in the foreign policy of the great British Empire ?
It is not my purpose, Mr. Speaker, to deal at any length to-day with the question of Locarno. I am of the opinion that this question is of sufficient importance to Canada to be dealt with under a separate order, and I should like to think that the Prime Minister would give us the assurance that we would have a full opportunity of discussing the Locarno treaty. But, incidentally, I should like here to point out that the conference of Locarno has produced a significant and important international declaration affecting the status and obligations of all the dominions of the British commonwealth. Article IX of the Rhineland security pact between Great Britain, France, Belgium, Italy and Germany reads:
The present treaty shall impose no obligations on any of the British dominions or upon India unless the government of such Dominion or of India signifies its acceptance thereof.
Speaking to the journalists assembled at Locarno, Mr. Chamberlain, when asked if he represented and spoke for the whole British Empire said:
You do not appear to know the constitution of the British Empire. The dominions and the other parts of the empire are bound only if they ratify of their own free-will and accord.
I would like to accept that statement of Mr. Chamberlain. However, while I do so I recognize that there is the other side of the question as well. This is pointed out by Lord Parmoor, who is one of the highest authorities on the subject. He is reported by the press as saying:	*
The Locarno pact was signed without previous consultation with the dominions. It places upon Britain an obligation to fight on the side of either Franco or

Canada's Imperial Relations
Germany in the case of aggression, and the dominions cannot escape some of the results of these obligations.
It is true that Mr. Chamberlain inserted a clause protecting dominion interests so that the dominions are not obliged to send troops or any form of assistance in the event of war arising from the Locarno treaty, but if Britain goes to war, the rest of the empire automatically goes to war, and no general election in Canada or vote by the Canadian parliament can alter this international fact. All that Canada can do is to refuse to assist, but under international law she still remains the enemy of Britain's enemies.
I would call this to the attention of the right hon. leader of the opposition, with his suggestion that the whole matter should be referred to the people at large before troops leave our shores. Let me repeat it:
No general election in Canada or vote by the Canadian parliament can alter this international fact. All that Canada can do is to refuse to assist but under international law she still remains the enemy of Britain's enemies.
I have been speaking so far of the danger that we experience here in Canada of being dragged into war without having an adequate voice in saying whether or not we desire to go to war, but I would further 4 p.m. point out that even in Great Britain the power of parliament is decidedly limited. I should like to quote a few paragraphs from a little pamphlet entitled Foreign Policy and the People, by Morel and Lees-Smith. It may come somewhat as a surprise to some of the members of this House to know how limited are the powers even of the British parliament with regard to the making of war. The article reads:
The powers now enjoyed by the executive and by individual ministers in matters of foreign policy may, 'hen, be summarized as follows:
(1)	Ministers can conclude and ratify a treaty with a foreign power o-r powers, committing the country to go to war under certain contingencies, without the prior consent of (parliament, and without, therefore, any precedent national debate. Parliament is only informed after the act has been committed, and the country has become bound. Theoretically, no doubt, parliament being thus presented with such a treaty can throw out the government that has concluded it, but for a host of reasons 'this is well-nigh an impossible course for parliament to pursue. It never has so acted. Considerations of party politics and of personalities make it virtually impossible that it should so act. A government with a dependable majority behind it can always defeat any such attempt.
Example: the Anglo-Japanese alliance.
(2)	Ministers can, wihen presenting to parliament the text of such treaty, withhold from the published text certain clauses either attached to the original treaty itself, or embodied in a separate document. The treaty, as presented to parliament, may do no more than -provide for the settlement of various disputes and for the diplomatic support of the power with whom the treaty is made for certain olvects which that power may -be pursuing. But the secret clauses may be of such a character as to alter entirely the general character of the treaty, and be tantamount to involving the nation, without i-ts knowledge, to go to war under certain contingencies. The danger of

the exercise of this power is the greater in so far as parliament and the country in this way may be entirely misled as to the real character of the agreement entered into.
Example:	the secret clauses of the Moroccan-
Egyptian convention in the Anglo-French general settlement of 1904.
(3)	Ministers can conclude and ratify a -treaty with a foreign power or powers committing this country to go to war under certain contingencies, or committing it to a vast extension of military and political liabilities without informing parliament for an indefinite period.
Example: the conventions with Italy, France and imperial Russia during the war.
(4)	Ministers can authorize joint military and naval co-operation for potential war with another state or states without informing parliament, and without even informing their colleagues in the cabinet.
Example: the Anglo-French military conventions of 1906-1914.
(5)	Ministers, sure of their parliamentary majority, can levy direct and indirect war upon another state or states without giving the country the right to pronounce upon their action.
Example: the military and naval operations, directly and indirectly continued, against Soviet Russia in 19191921.
It is, therefore, in the power of the executive to commit the nation without national debate and even without national knowledge to irrevocable decisions.
Further, and this is something that we hardly recognize in Canada, there is in Great Britain what is known as the Committee of Imperial Defence. Arthur Ponsonby, the late Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his recent book, Now is the Time, says, page 42:
This body which is outside parliamentary control and not subject to political change in the same way as a cabinet gives a military and strategic interpretation to all questions of policy, and in a -powerful yet inaccessible position forces the administration of the day, whatever its political colour may be, to modify and, if need be, abandon projects conceived on the lines of international co-operation.
This is the situation which exists with regard to the control of foreign affairs even by the parliament of Great Britain. Much less may we in Canada by the very indirect means provided, hope to exercise any effective control. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I urge that we be honourable, and that we now serve notice that our partnership is one of limited liability. Someone who has been reading my motion has suggested that it may possibly leave itself open to the interpretation that never under any circumstances should we go to the defence of the United Kingdom. Such I think perhaps is rather a far-ifetched interpretation. However, I have no desire at all to insist upon certain phrasing being maintained. I think my resolution is sufficiently clear to enable every member of this House to understand its purport, namely, that without reference to, or decision by this House we assert that we

Canada's Imperial Relations
do not propose to be bound by anything that may be transacted overseas.
In bringing forward a resolution of this kind I am not anti-British, but I am antiimperialistic, which is an altogether different matter. In 'Canada we all know there are a great many different classes of people and different policies. There are advocates of higher tariff and advocates of lower tariff. There are advocates of what has been called the National Policy, and there are those who condemn the "National" policy. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) is not accused of being unpatriotic because he attacks the policy of the present government. The leader of the Progressives (Mr.-Forke) is not accused of being unpatriotic because he attacks what is known as the National Policy, nor might I say am I antiBritish when I oppose the imperialistic designs of a small but powerful group in Great Britain. In fact, in arguing along this line to-day I am in line with the policy of the British Labour party. If certain gentlemen feel that they have a perfect right in this House to support the imperialistic designs of some individuals in Great Britain, I as a Canadian have an equal right to support the ideals and policies of that great party in Great Britain which before Jong will again be the government of that country. In their pamphlet issued several years ago, at the time of the organization of the British Labour party, we find this statement of the position of that party towards foreign affairs:


LABOUR AND THE NEW SOCIAL ORDER
[Stage Direction]
We desire to maintain the most intimate relations with the Labour party overseas. Like them, we have no sympathy with the projects of "Imperial Federation," in so far as these imply the subjection to a common imperial legislature wielding coercive power (including dangerous facilities for coercive imperial taxation and for enforced military service), either of the existing self-governing dominions, whose autonomy would be thereby invaded; or of the United Kingdom, whose freedom of democratic self-development would be thereby hampered; or of India and the colonial dependencies, which would thereby run the risk of being further exploited for the benefit of a "White Empire," We do not intend, by any such "Imperial Senate," either to bring the plutocracy of Canada and South Africa to the aid of the British aristocracy, or to enable the landlords and financiers of the Mother Country to unite in controlling the growing popular democracies overseas. The autonomy of each self-governing part of the empire must be intact.
And as I know there are members of this House who do not keep very closely in touch with affairs in Great Britain, and yet who feel themselves quite competent to speak on any and every occasion as the representatives and protagonists of Great Britain. I should like
to read a certain resolution of the National Council of the Independent Labour party passed February 13. Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, v'ho is one of the outstanding members of this organization, is now of course well known throughout Canada. This document reads:
The I.L.P. declares itself in favour of the ending: of political and economic imperialism by a policy directed to the following ends:
1.	The development of systems of full self-government in all countries at the earliest opportunity in accordance with their racial characteristics, and the extension to all non-self-governing countries, in the transition period, of a re-constituted mandate system, instead of the sole control being left to single powers.
2.	The creation of world economic organization, with the object of establishing a progressive international standard of labour conditions, the protection of native peoples from capitalist exploitation, the rationing of world supplies according to need, and the regulation of credit.
In particular the I.L.P. dpmnnrl*
1.	The recognition of the independence of Egypt by the withdrawal of British troops, accompanied by the submission of the issues of the Suez canal and the Sudan to the League of Nations.
2.	The immediate withdrawal of all repressive measures in India, the declaration of an amnesty for all political offenders, and the recognition of the right of India to self-government and self-determination, by acceptance of the proposal of the Indian Legislative Assembly that a representative Indian Convention should prepare a constitution for India, and by using British influence to secure the withdrawal of the disabilities from which Indians suffer in the British Empire and other countries.
3.	The complete revision of the treaties impo&<fd upon China by the Great Powers, with a view to the restoration of .full self-government.
4.	The reversal of the Imperialist naval policy in the east, including the abandonment of the Singapore Dock and the "Indian" Navy.
5.	The termination of the British occupation of Irak.
Finally, the I.L.P. urges upon the British and international labour movements the necessity of assisting the workers of Asiatic and African countries which are passing through capitalist control to organize industrially and politically for their protection against exploitation and for their ultimate emancipation. It recognises that the interests of the workers throughout the world, of whatever race, colour or creed, are one, and that international socialism cannot be fully realized until the workers of the wmrld have united for their political and economic liberation.
If one of us labour men suggested a policy of that kind in Canada he would be liable to be accused of sedition. In England that is the policy of the Independent Labour party of which a former prime minister is a leading member. In regard to the particular issue we are now discussing I came across only the other day, in the little book to which I have referred-Now is the Time-at page 81, this declaration from Mr. Ponsonby:
The dominion citizens are, therefore, more completely than we are at the mercy of the false appeal to participate in international war. Their governments, too, are in a position Of disadvantage which has become one of the chief concerns of imperial statesmen. No means has been devised of consulting
[Stage Direction]
Canada's Imperial Relations
dominion governments on foreign podicy. Indeed the intricate tangle of European relationship and intercourse from which at any time questions of moment may arise would seem to make continuous consultations with the component parts of our extensive but loosely knit empire impossible.
Moreover the interests of the various dominions necessarily differ. The problem has assumed an acute form since the conclusion of peace, and there is a growing feeling even among the dominion governments that they cannot be dragged at the heels of the Mother Country, unless they have full knowledge and have expressed approval of the policy in question.
I would call the attention of the House to this very significant statement.
Any disposition on the part of our dominions to refuse to join in these wars of European origin will be all to the good. The deadweight of a reasonable pacifism from that quarter might have a moderating effect on the home government.
Thus we have leading members of the British House of Commons welcoming such a declaration as that which is contained in my resolution now before the House.
I said that I was against imperialism. I recognize that there are various imperialisms in the world to-day. There is a German imperialism, not at the moment dangerous, having been ruined by its own ambition. There is a French imperialism that since the war has threatened Europe. There is an Italian imperialism that struts in the person of Mussolini and. there is an American imperialism which is perhaps more dangerous to us in Canada than is British imperialism. I should like to read, as giving my idea in this regard, a short quotation as reproduced in the Western Producer of November 19, entitled "American Bankers Enslave the world." This is the quotation:
During the last year Americans have loaned to and in foreign countries an average of $115,000,000 per month. The foreign loans and investments of Americans now amount to $9,500,000,000 in addition to the $10,500,000,000 owed to the United States government with accrued interest of $1,500,000,000, making a total of $21,500,000,000 of loans and investments of Americans to and in foreign countries. Five per cent on this amounts to $1,075,000,000 annually.
The article goes on later to say:
The net income of the exploiting class in America amounts to at least twenty-five billions annually.
There is a situation in which we find a new economic imperialism developing on this continent. I should like to say very frankly that I prize our British connection because of the possibilities it holds in respect to resistance to American imperialism. As I look forward to the next few years I sometimes wonder what will happen when labour and socialistic ideals prevail in Great Britain. I wonder then whether our flag-waggers in Canada will follow as loyally the British lead as they advocate that we should do to-day. At this

time, as a Labour representative in the House of Commons of one of the British nations, my special duty is to deal, not with German imperialism, or French imperialism, or Italian imperialism, or American imperialism. I hope we shall have an opportunity at some later date of dealing with the latter in connection *with the discussion on the exploitation of our natural resources. But to-day I wish to deal with what has been termed British imperialism, and in this connection I should like to quote from a little treatise used as a textbook by labour groups in Great Britain. I do so because it affords a convenient summary and also because it gives the point of view of the workers of Great Britain, which is, I think, altogether too little understood by the rank and file of the people of Canada. I intend to trespass upon the patience of the House while I read a page or so which gives an outline of what is meant by modern or economic imperialism:
Modern European history and its wars easily and naturally divide themselves into three main epochs- the periods of mercantilism, nationalism and imperialism. The mercantile period was that in which the western European countries were striving to gain trading markets and monopolies in the other continents. It was one long period of wars small and great; and it necessitated military activity, so also it found appropriate political expression in such policies as (a) the balance of trade, which "estimated the worth of a nation's intercourse with another by the excess of the export over the import trade, which brought a quantity of bullion into the exporting country"; (b) the Navigation Acts, "designed to secure for English vessels a monopoly of the carrying trade between England and all other countries which sent goods to English or to colonial shores"; (c) the fostering of home manufactures. Its triumphs furnished both the stimulant and the necessary capital for an extension of manufacture, and thus brought about the inseparable but conflicting interests of the industrial capitalist class and the modern proletariat.
Next is nationalism:
Nationalism. With the development of capitalism the nations became absorbed in the effort to achieve geographical boundaries which would at the same time render them economic units. In order to accomplish this the rising manufacturing class sought political power and cleared away the old barriers to production and trade which the feudal system and the mercantile policy had created. It was the politics of industrialism which liberated the great (productive forces that were so quickly and so completely to change the face of the earth. It is easy to see now-for everyone can be wise after the event!-that this struggle is the real, although for the most part unconscious, meaning of the passionate appeal for nationality which so stirred Europe, and not infrequently plunged her into war, during the nineteenth century.
I should like to suggest that we in Canada are perhaps passing through the period of nationalism although we are still dominated by the ideals and policies of the earlier mercantile period. In the meantime, the world

Canada's Imperial Relations
has come to their third period, that of imperialism :
Imperialism. External policy under the mercantilist regime had provided at once the dynamic and the necessary means for the internal industrial transformation of the west European countries. Now that internal development in turn stimulates a new period of inter-nationaJ relations. The evolution of capitalism consists in the ever more rapid accumulation of capital in a few hands, and especially in the constant revolutionising of machinery and the methods of production. The value of these changes lies in their "labour-saving" quality. Living labour-power is replaced by machinery, the flesh and blood man by the "iron man." Thus masses of workers are from time to time thrown out of work, and a relative over-population is caused: there are more men than there are jobs for. The presence of this army of unemployed is one of the most powerful factors in keeping down the wages of the employed workers to mere subsistence level. Yet at the same time, the productivity of labour increases by leaps and bounds. Thus the masses are less and less capable of buying and consuming the ever-greater amount of commodities they produce. Capitalism presents the paradoxical spectacle of an always-growing power to produce wealth, together with widespread want and misery among the masses. Moreover, precisely at the moment when the wealth actually produced ig most plentiful, workers are thrown out of employment because they have already produced more than their -masters can profitably dispose of. With unemployment comes a stoppage of wages also, and thus a further closing of the markets-i.e., the market represented by the expenditure of the wages of the workers; and this dn turn intensifies the great problem of capitalism: how to dispose of its surplus product.
The treatise goes on to show how capitalism is forever changing customers into competitors. Let me read:
Exploitation of the masses at home, the destruction of the home market by the lowering of the standard of life among the masses to the level of mere subsistence-such is the original cause of the necessity for seeking spheres of remunerative investment abroad. In creating these spheres of investment, the latter are themselves transformed into capitalist nations, or at least are set on their way to becoming capitalist nations.
And here is the point:
This creation of new spheres of influence and investment, and the political control of backward countries constitutes the essence of modern imperialism. Its motives are primarily economic; it enters into the political life of the native country as a means to that economic end.
I suppose we are now far enough away from the South African war to view it somewhat dispassionately; hence I venture to cite it as an illustration of the development of this modern imperialism. Mr. J. A. Hobson in his Evolution of Modern Capitalism says:
Nowhere in the world has there ever existed so concentrated a form of capitalism as that represented by the financial power of the mining houses in South Africa, and nowhere else does that power so completely realize and enforce the need of controlling politics. . .Recognizing that the success of their financial operations and of their political adjuncts was dependent upon the movement of public opinion and public sentiment in South Africa in Great Britain,
they bought the leading organs of the South African press, subsidized political parties in South Africa and Great Britain, and organized a moral propaganda among the churches and philanthropic bodies. . .By a concentrated exertion of all their moral and intellectual influence they engineered a catastrophe, from the ruin of which they have emerged with a firmer grip than ever upon the substantial resources of the country and its government.
Think of it, Mr. Speaker: Within the short space of a little over a hundred years Great Britain has fought with the French and the Russians, with Arabs and Afghans and Zulus, with Boers and Ashantis and Burmese and Chinese, with Germans and Austrians, with Turks and Bulgarians, and with a host of smaller peoples. Are we forever to continue this game, and are we in this fair country of ours to be dragged in at any time that some of our commercial adventurers undertake to exploit some still unexploited part of the world? Think of the history of imperialism even since 1882, a date which is within the memory of most of us in this House. I would simply glance over some of the events. In 1882 Egypt, in which country the foreign control encouraged the nationalist movement, Great Britain crushed the revolt and there followed the so-called " temporary " occupation which still continues. Then there was the Venezuela boundary dispute of 1895 and 1896, closely connected with the gold fields, and the trouble in Persia in 1896 indirectly connected with the growing tobacco trade at that time and later on certain loans. In 1895 came the trouble in South Africa to which I have already referred, and concerning which Mr. Brailsford has summed up the cause in a couple of sentences:
What the mine owners really at bottom desired was cheaper labour, and their effort to acquire political power through the franchise had no other object. "Good government," as one of them reckoned, would mean two and a half million a year in dividends- War of steel and gold, pp. 55-8.
This war resulted in the establishment of Kaffir and Chinese cheap labour and compound slavery in the Rand mines, and in the reduction of white men's wages. I need not refer to the Anglo-Japanese alliance into which Britain was practically forced because of her growing isolation in other quarters, nor to the Fashoda incident after the settlement of which the Associated Chambers of British Commerce passed a resolution in favour of an entente between England and France for the mutual commercial benefit of the two countries. Nor need I go into the question of the Moroccan crisis, nor of the Anglo-Russians relations of 1906-7, concerning which we have not yet heard the last and because of which we have had so much trouble
Canada's Imperial Relations
[Stage Direction]
in re-establishing relations between Great Britain and the Soviet republic. The treaty between Great Britain and Russia had reference to their relations in Persia, Tibet and Afghanistan. Then there was the Triple Entente of 1907. Great Britain about this time became involved in financial complications in China. The republican reformers were led by Sun Yap Sen. Their powerful backers, the Shanghai Chamber of Commerce and the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, were representative of British economic interests in China. With regard to all these imperialistic ventures I do not know that we have any clearer statement than that made by Sir Edward Grey in the British House of Commons on July 10, 1914, just before the outbreak of the war, when he said:
I regard it as our duty wherever British capital is forthcoming in any part of the world, and is applying for concessions to which there are no valid political objections, that we should give it the utmost support that we can, and endeavour to convince the foreign government concerned that it is to its interest as well as our own to give the concessions for railways and so forth to British firms who carry them out at reasonable prices and in the best possible way.
I think it is nearly twenty years ago since personally I became aware of some of the evils of imperialism. In the Evangelical school in which I was brought up, people were in the habit of referring to some particular time and place as the time and place of their conversion. Well, I can date my conversion so far as imperialism is concerned. I was converted as the result of a visit some twenty years ago to the Army and Navy museum in Whitehall, where, as I went through chamber after chamber, I saw flags that had been picked up on various battlefields, stained with the blood of British soldiers. I saw tattered garments that had been stripped from the bodies of poor natives in almost every part of the world, and I saw engines of war, ancient and modern. It was then that it began to dawn upon me what imperialism really meant and what militarism involved, and from that time on I have tried to do what little I could to keep this country at least out of the imperialistic game. My convictions arrived at in Whitehall were confirmed a few months after by a visit to Egypt, where I learned something of what was going on at that time on the upper Nile, and how the British had been sending in punitive expeditions whenever it was necessary to quell the justifiable ambitions of some of the native tribes who were fighting for their very lives.
To-day I do not intend to discuss in any detail the causes of the Great war, although I feel that we have there the very best ex-

emplification that we can find of a great struggle brought on by what were fundamentally economic causes. In this connection, I should like to refer the House to our distinguished fellow-citizen, John S. Ewart, whose very painstaking work on the Roots and Causes of Wars is well worth perusal by every hon. member. With regard to modem wars, may I give the opinion of the late President Wilson. In a speech delivered at St. Louis he said:
Is there in this audience any man or any woman, nay, is there any child, who does not know that the seeds of war are sown in hot, successful, commercial and industrial rivalry?
There are some people in Canada, it would appear, who have not yet learned that, even after the years that have elasped since that utterance was made and since so many books have been published on the question.
Without fully going into the references on this question, with the consent of the House, I should like simply to place upon Hansard particulars of about a dozen books in .which the sources, at least so far as the British writers are concerned, are given in detail. They are:
Itoch:-Lloyd George and the War. (Ohatto & Windus).
Repington:-The First World War (Chapter 1). (Constable 2 vols. 21/ each).
Lord Fisher:-Memories.	(Hodder & Stoughton.
21/-).
Lord Haldane:-Before the War. (Cassell, 7/6).
Lord French:-1914. (Constable, 21/-).
Peter Wright:-At the Supreme Council. (Nash, 7/6).
Sir Julian Corbett:-Naval Operations.
Miss Durham:-Twenty Years of Balkan Tangle. (Allen & Unwin 16/-).
Nielson:-How Diplomats Make War. (Huebsch, New York, $1.50).
E. D. Morel:-Truth and the War. (N.L.P., 2/-).
E. D. Morel:-Pre-War Diplomacy. (U.D.C., 6d.).
E. D. Morel:-The Poison that Destroys. (U.D.C. pamphlet).
E. D. Morel:-Military Preparations for the Great War.
Siebert:-Entente Diplomacy. (Putnam of New York).
Rene Marchand:-Un Livre Noir. (Paris).
Mr. G. P. Gooch, the eminent British historian, in the Contemporary Review of August, 1921, at page 181, said:
We have now discovered that the Great War was caused by the bungling of a handful of highly placed individuals in different countries.
That is the historians have now come to the point where they frankly recognize that much that was told us during the war consisted of fairy stories, and that many of the appeals made during the war were absolutely without any true foundation.
But, Mr. Speaker, I am not so much concerned about the last war as I am about the next war. Now, what about the next war?

Canada's Imperial Relations
Within the last few days we have had a statement that I think ought to give any thoughtful man pause. According to the report in the Montreal Gazette of March 18 of a speech delivered by Sir Esme Howard, British Ambassador, before the Chicago Association of Commerce, he said1:
The next war will be a struggle for markets, and will be waged as bitterly as any that has ever sprung from traditional hatreds, national jealousies or territorial ambitions.
And again:
The whole energies of governments will be bent toward the all-important, all-absorbing object of finding markets in other countries for the surplus production of their own, and of preventing their own from being swamped by the surplus production of the others.
AVe have clear revelations of the designs of the imperialists all through the carrying on of the last war. In passing, I would refer to the secret treaties, of which we in Canada were given no information whatever, and to the best of my knowledge have never yet been published in any of our leading Canadian papers. There was the treaty dealing with the partition of Persia in 1915; the treaty with Russia respecting Constantinople in 1915; the secret treaty-and I think the most disgraceful-with Italy of 1915; the treaty for the partition of Asiatic Turkey in 1916; the treaty between Russia and Japan in 1916.
Had I time I should like to have referred to the economic clauses of the Peace treaty of AYrsailles where, from every one of those clauses there sticks out the imperialist ambitions of certain great groups in the United Kingdom. But I must content myself by referring hon. members to Keynes' Economic Consequences of the Peace, or to any other book in which those clauses are set forth and explained.
I should like also to have referred to the system of mandates which has grown up in the period following the war, a system which, it seems to me, is absolutely unjustifiable in its character, since through it the more backward countries are placed under the arbitrary control of certain "advanced" nations.
I should like to refer to the imperialism that is manifested in the Dawes report, a report concerning which no less an authority than Lloyd George said a few years ago that it was not the work of the statesmen of Great Britain and of France, but was essentially the work of the international financiers. This Dawes report has had the effect of threatening to reduce the workers of Germany to industrial serfdom. Already its reactions have been so keenly felt in Great Britain that she is being forced to safeguard the standards of life in Germany in order that there will not
be unfair competition from German workers in the products that are also manufactured in Great Britain-and so, as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) suggests to me, lowering the standard of life in Great Britain. Thus so intimately is one country to-day connected with the other that in order to maintain the prevailing standard of life in Great Britain the British government to-day is forced to consider the maintenance of proper standard of living in Germany.
As I said a little while ago, I do not propose to discuss the bearing of the Locarno treaty on the subject matter of my resolution. Someone has said that it is the political supplement, as the Dawes report is the financial supplement, of the Versailles treaty. It may seem to be taking a good deal of the time of the House to go into these matters even in so cursory a way; still it is eminently fitting that we should do so. We are now at peace, and when we are at peace we have the only opportunity which is ever given to a people to discuss the question of international relations; when we are at war there is no opportunity whatever. I want to read a paragraph or two from an authority whom I have already quoted to-day, Mr. Arthur Ponsonby, Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs in Ramsay MacDonald's government. Mr. Ponsonby is not by any means an alien; he comes from one of the oldest and most respected families of Great Britain; he is not in any sense irresponsible; he is not even a member of any communist organization. Yet what does he say? In a letter published in the Nation and Athenaeum of September 14, 1925, I find the following:
Our government denied 'having made any agreement with France before the war. Yet an agreement not only existed but turned out to be a binding "obligation of honour."
Our government knew that Germany alone was not solely responsible for the war, and although this fiction had to be put into the Treaty of Versailles there is no responsible minister who would maintain it now. But at the time it had to be declared.
Our government knew that France and Russia had been expecting and preparing for Avar (as the disclosed communications between their ministers have since proved to be the case). But they represented the outbreak of wrar as coming from the enemy on innocent and unprepared nations.
Our government knew that if Germany had not violated Belgian neutrality France (would have done so; and a French general has recently admitted this in an article in "l'Ere Nouvelle." It was only the common sense of military strategy, of which wre were fully aware. But the popular indignation which could be roused by the invasion of Belgium was an immense asset.
Our government knew during the course of the war that the Serbian government were directly responsible for the murder of the Arch-Duke at Serajevo. But they neA-er fold us.
Canada's Imperial Relations
[Stage Direction]
Our government knew that the Russian general mobilization preceded and caused the German mobilization, but we only discovered the documents to prove this towards the end of the war.
Our government knew there were no Russian troops in this country. But it was a rumour of strategic value, and they carefully abstained from ever denying it.
Our government knew that there were no corpse factories in Germany, but they framed their answers in parliament to this ridiculous supposition by suggesting, although never affirming, that there were.
I could multiply instances had I the space. But these may suffice to show how -war makes it necessary to suppress the truth, which is the most insidious method of spreading falsehood.
I said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, that during a time of peace we have our only opportunity of discussing war, and to prove this I should like to read from an order in council passed in Canada in April, 1918. It is well that in peace times we remember how during war times our freedom is taken from us. The order in council is as follows: Whereas the mind of the entire people should be centered upon the proper carrying out in the most effective manner of that final decision, and that all questioning in the press or otherwise of the causes of that war, the motives of Canada, of Great Britain, or the Allies, in entering upon and carrying out the same and the policies of them adopted for its prosecution must necessarily divert attention .from the one great object on which it should be so centered, and tend to defeat or impede the effective carrying out of that decision, .... It shall be an offence to print, publish, or publicly express an adverse or unfavourable statement, report, or opinion concerning the causes of the present war, or the motives or purposes for which Canada, or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or any of the allied nations entered upon, or are prosecuting the same, which may tend to arouse hostile feeling, create unrest, or unsettle, or inflame public opinion	
This, I may say, was under penalty of a maximum fine of $5,000 or imprisonment for five years, or both. In harmony with this order in council, the houses of parliament authorized their Speakers to delete from the official reports of the debates any adverse statetaent, report, or opinion concerning the causes of the war, or the motives -or purposes for which Canada and Great Britain, or any of the allied nations, had entered upon the struggle. During war, then, it becomes treason to talk peace. Surely, now that we aTe between wars, it may be permitted to us to speak.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am firmly convinced that the common people of Canada do not want another war.	If we
want war we must prepare for war, but I say it is equally true that if we want peace we must prepare for peace. That is the great truth this House must learn. While we have had war policies for a number of years in this country, and while the war (psychology

has dominated even this house of parliament, I believe the time is rapidly approaching when peace policies may be freely discussed upon the floor of this House, and when the general sentiment which is growing throughout the country wiil.1 enable us to adopt steadily and definitely those policies which will make for peace. The war lords, the imperialists, the great financial and commercial and industrial kings, have largely captured the machinery of the government of the empire. Perhaps I cannot prove that; I think you have but to read many of the official records of the war and many of the books written since the war to have that statement fully borne out. Let me repeat it-and I give it here simply as a statement, because it affords the reason for the introduction of this resolution at this time:	The war lords,
the imperialists, the great financial and commercial and industrial kings, have largely captured the machinery of the government of the empire. It is for us to join hands with those of the other parts of the empire who are striving for peace. Surely we should at least assert our right to protect the lives of our children.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that we are too prone to think of the triumphs of the past, and too little given to consider what our action ought to be with regard to the problems presenting themselves to us now? In the age-long conflict between the forces of advance and the forces of reaction, the tide of battle goes backward and forward. Sometimes we are apt to say, "Well, our fathers carried the field; our fathers took this trench, and we are proud of what our fathers have done". Yes, then what shall we do? There are those who would sit down in the trench and fly their little flag and say, "My father took this trench, and from now on I dedicate my life to singing the praises of my father". In the meantime the battlefront has swept five miles ahead. I suggest that true patriotism consists not so much in looking to the past or in singing the praises of the past as in getting out of that trench and forward into the firing line. We have had wars in the past, all through history; we all know that. We have made advances in freedom in times past-I will not say whether because of wars or in spite of them-but we are proud of the advances which have been made in liberating peoples in times past. To-day, however, we face a greater problem, that of securing for the people of this country and of the world complete economic freedom. The battle is sweeping on ahead, and the problems are new. Our fathers never had

Canada's Imperial Relations
to face such problems, and I would suggest that we show true loyalty to the spirit of our fathers if we leave the trenches which they have taken and press on to more advanced ground. I would even venture to suggest that we are most truly loyal to the principles of our British forefathers if we do not rest on the precedents or institutions which they have created, but rather ourselves advance to create new precedents and new forms of government by which we may work out our common life in this new age.
Mr. W. W. KENNEDY (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members the reason for this resolution. What is there behind this resolution brought forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth)? What purpose does this resolution serve? What purpose can this resolution serve?	I submit, Sir, that this
resolution deserves nothing better than to be buried by this House without the aid of bell, book or candle. It is a resolution which, in my humble opinion, does not deserve anything but very short shrift at the hands of this House.
Why is it brought here? I do not purpose to go into any detailed discussion as to the position of Canada within the empire; I do not think such detailed discussion is called for by this resolution. I do take this opportunity, however, to say to this House and to the people of Canada, that the sentiments as enunciated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre do not in any appreciable degree represent the ideas or thoughts or the people of the great city of Winnipeg.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I might interrupt-


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I may tell
my hon. friend that when I am finished, if he cares to ask me any questions, I shall be glad to answer any and all questions that he
sees fit to ask.
Mr. Speaker, I say it is not only my privilege but my duty to rise upon this occasion because, representing, as I do, a constituency of the city of Winnipeg, I feel that I have a very personal and a somewhat local interest in what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says. Let me read the resolution:
That, in the opinion of this House, Canada should refuse to accept any responsibility for complications arising from the foreign policy of the United Kingdom
" Canada should refuse to accept any responsibility." Mr. Speaker, a refusal predicates a demand, an insistence, or at the least a request. When has it ever been demanded of Canada by the United Kingdom
that Canada should, in the words of the hon. member, be dragged into any of the empire's wars? Never since Canada was, has Canada by the demand of the United Kingdom been dragged into her wars? Never has she been requested to enter into them, nor is she requested at this time.
Under what conditions has Canada entered into the empire wars? By her own choice, by the choice of the people of Canada, and by that choice alone. I agree to this extent, that Canada recognizes no compulsion. Canada is impelled by no compulsion other than by the free-will choice of a loyal people, other than by the call of blood, other than by the call of kin calling to kin, other than by the desire of one nation in the great British commonwealth of nations to answer some great call of national or imperial need, answering some great call to fight for the right. Under such conditions in the past Canada has willingly entered. May I here and now express the hope that under such conditions in the future Canada again will enter, if need be.
Now why this resolution? Is there some imminent, pressing peril of the day from which we would escape? Has some call come over to Canada to send men again for the empire's need? If the ears of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre have caught it, I doubt if those of any other hon. member have heard it. If it be true, and it is true, that Canada to-day decides of her own volition whether or not she will enter into empire wars, if the Mother Country never has demanded, and does not demand to-day, that Canada take part in her wars, if we are under no compulsion to take part therein, then why this resolution? Why the need?
5 p.m. Is it to sever some link, to cast off some bond that binds us to the Mother Country? Is that the purpose? Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre think that by this parliament passing such a resolution, by declaring here and now to the world at large that Canada under no conditions will accept any responsibility for the needs of the empire-does he think that by such a declaration to the world Canada as a nation is going to increase in stature? Does he think that will make Canadians prouder to be Canadians than they are today? Why declare that we will not do something which we are not bound to do?
Let me give an illustration. The law does not require any hon. member of this House to give succor in time of stress to his own mother. The law impels no such duty; it imposes no duty upon the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or upon any other
Canada's Imperial Relations

member to provide such succor; but will any hon. member increase his stature by one cubit, will any hon. member improve his standing in the community, will he rise in stature as a man, by declaring to the public that he will not be responsible under any conditions for the needs of his own mother? Let us then not do something at this time which will not add to the stature of Canada or of Canadians, but rather will make us walk through the streets of our cities, not with upright head and buoyant step, but ashamed of the fact that we are Canadians, ashamed of the fact that some have thought it necessary to advertise to the world that under no conditions will we be responsible for assistance to the empire-and that at a time when we are enjoying many, many of the benefits of membership in that empire.
While it cannot add to our stature, may it not do harm to pass a resolution such as this? Envisage the passing of this resolution by the elder daughter, so-called, of this British commonwealth of nations. What will the citizens of the empire treading the streets of London say? What will the citizens of the city of Melbourne say? What will the people say in Capetown and India? What will the people throughout Canada say? I say that if we pass this resolution we shall be going out of our way to place ourselves as Canadians in a position which I feel sure few hon. membera of this House would care to occupy.
Again I ask, why, then, this resolution? What is behind it? I ask this House, is it a sincere desire on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to help Canada? Is that his purpose? I say no. I say his purpose is simply to gain a little kudos with a certain little coterie of agitators in this country of whom we as Canadians ought to be ashamed. That may be a hard thing to say of a member. I was pleased to learn when I came to this House that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had acquired something of a reputation in this House for sincerity. I call now into question the sincerity of the hon. member.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. My motives in introducing this motion to-day were questioned a moment ago, and now my sincerity is questioned. I think it is not in keeping with the rules of the House that that should be done.


Hewitt Bostock: Perhaps the hon. gentleman can find another epithet. In this House members are supposed to be honest and
sincere.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I might say, Mr. Speaker, I chose the softest word I could think of.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I must ask that that expression be withdrawn.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I will withdraw, upon the ruling of the Chair, the intimation of his lack of sincerity, but I question here and now the motive that lies behind this motion. Perhaps since the question of the sincerity of the hon. member has been raised, I might draw attention to a little incident that occurred in this House not very long ago, on the evening when this House adjourned for recess, and referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a few days ago under the question of privilege. It appeared to me that the hon. member designedly left with this House the impression that he did not rise w'hen the national anthem was being sung, partly by inadvertence and partly because of the particular setting of the background under which the anthem was being sung. That was the impression left with this House.
I endeavoured to ask the hon. member if he would state to this House whether he himself had any personal objection to rising when our national anthem was sung, but he declined to answer. In order that his position on that matter may be perfectly clear to this House, I take this opportunity of saying- and I declare it to be true-that subsequent to his election as a member of this House on the 29th October last, and prior to coming to this House, he with his colleague, the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and I) were invited to attend the banquet of the Manitoba branch of the Canadian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy held in the Royal Alexandra hotel in Winnipeg, the exact date of which is immaterial. On that occasion, when the programme was completely finished, and we were guests, and the toast to the king was called, and that great assembly of banqueters stood up, toasted the king and sang the national anthem, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleague the hon. member for North Winnipeg, who were seated at the same table with myself, sat throughout.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I must protest
that that statement is absolutely untrue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Mr. HEAPS:: I make the sajme statement as my hon-. colleague. On the occasion that the hon. gentleman refers to I, with my hon. colleague, was standing up.

Canada's Imperial Relations


Arthur Meighen: May I point out that
the hon. member who is speaking was present and is in as good a position to know as either of the hon. gentlemen, and he does not have to withdraw a word he says.


Hewitt Bostock: The rules of the House
are well known. When a member makes a statement about another member, and that other member denies the statement, the member making the statement must accept the denial, and I 'hope the hon. gentleman will accept the denial made by the the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Arthur Meighen: He was there himself.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask hon. members to carry on this debate in a calm and dignified manner, and I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who has impressed this House with his eloquence and ability, will live up to the traditions of the House.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Being a
new member, I find the rules somewhat confusing. I am not permitted to say to the hon. member from Winnipeg North Centre that he is insincere, and yet apparently he is permitted to rise and tell me that what I have said is an untruth.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the statement
the hon. member has made is a reflection on the ruling of the Chair. The hon. member for Winnipeg 'South Centre has made the statement that both the member for Winnipeg North Centre and the member for North Winnipeg at a banquet given in that city did not rise during the singing of the national anthem. Both those hon. gentlemen deny that statement and say it is not a true statement.


Arthur Meighen: I desire to put before
you, Mr. Speaker, more fully what I sought to say a minute ago very briefly. I quite realize that if any hon. member in this House makes a statement as to another's conduct, either on the basis of report or on any evidence whatever, save the evidence of his own senses, he must accept the denial of that other member if it comes; but surely the rules of this House do not go to the extent that an hon. member who is present himself, who is just a3 competent to give a statement of the facts as the hon. member about whom the statement is made, must accept the word of the hon. member against the evidence of his own eyes. He is in just as good a position as the hon. member to state the facts. If the same rule were applied to both, the member for Winnipeg
South Centre could call upon the member for Winnipeg North Centre to accept his word. But it does not go to that extent. It merely goes to the extent that he must accept his word as the word of a man of honour when "peculiarly" in a position to know, and that is all.


Hewitt Bostock: I am not prepared to
accept the position so ably put forward and argued by the right hon. leader of the opposition. In a court of law a judge has to decide between the statements of the party on one side and the party on the other. Here I have to follow the traditions and usages of the House and to say that the denial of the hon. member must be accepted. In the present instance we have the further fact of the denial of two members against the statement of one. Surely, as a judge, I must accept the word of the two hon. members. At all events it is a well knowrn rule that when a statement is -made and categorically denied by the hon. member of whom it is made the denial must be accepted.


Arthur Meighen: Why not have the other hon. member accept the statement of the hon. member who has the floor? They are both members of this House.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for
Winnipeg South Centre has made the statement that the hon. members for North Winnipeg and Winnipeg North Centre did not rise during the singing of the national anthem at a public banquet in the city of Winnipeg, and the hon. members in question having denied the statement, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is obliged under the rules of the House to accept the denial.


Arthur Meighen: I have not made myself clear. I quite agree that no unworthy motive can be imputed. The hon. member himself knows the motive and nobody else knows it. His word must be accepted as the word of a man of honour. But there has been no imputing of motives in making the statement about the hon. members standing or rising. It is no more incumbent on the member for Winnipeg South Centre to accept the word of the member for North Winnipeg or the word of the member for Winnipeg North Centre than for them to accept the word of the member for Winnipeg South Centre.


Hewitt Bostock: I think there is no need
to discuss this point any longer. I have given my ruling. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre states that the two hon. members to whom he has referred did not rise during the singing of the national anthem, but the statement being denied by both of
177S
Canada's Imperial Relations

them the hon. member is bound in honour to
accept the denial.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I defer to
your ruling Mr. Speaker. Still it puts me in rather a-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understand your ruling, Mr. Speaker, means the statement must be withdrawn.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I repeat it
is true.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. By the rules of the House the hon. gentleman is bound to withdraw the statement.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I defer to your ruling. Sir, and withdraw whatever statement you desire withdrawn as to the conduct of these hon. gentlemen. I am not permitted to say I saw it.
I was discussing a circumstance which to my mind casts some light upon the motives which might lie behind such a resolution as this. Perhaps I might discuss some others. Shortly after the opening of this House, the hon. member for North Winnipeg saw fit to make some lefeience to a strike which took place in the city of Winnipeg in 1919. I do not propose to go into it at length, but I will say this that the strike took place at a time following over four years of a great war which stirred this country to its very roots, at a time when our men were returning- to their cities, and those who returned to the city of Winnipeg in those days found there a condition of riot, which was, to them at least, a matter of great surprise in a country which they thought was then a country at peace.


Abraham Albert Heaps: W7hy did the objection
come-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Am I to understand that the hon. member who has the floor allows the hon. member to put the question?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If as stated by the hon.
member there was such a condition of peace in the city of Winnipeg at that particular time, why did the objection come from h* side of the House to the production of papert concerning the 1919 incident?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am sure
(he hon. member for North Winnipeg does not think the papers are under my control.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The objection certainly came from -that side of the House.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: While it is
quite true that the hon. member for North W irmipeg was clever enough to be acquitted when he was tried following those strikes, he and his confrere, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, were two of the prime movers in that strike.
Mr. V7OODSW7ORTH: I again must absolutely deny the statement which has just been made and I must ask that the statement be withdrawn. Let me say, if I may, whilst the strike was in progress


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Am 1 allowed to
make a statement?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is
entitled to explain his question of privilege.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I might say that
I arrived in Winnipeg in the middle of the strike. -I did not know when il left my home in Vancouver that the strike had been called. I was not a member of the strike committee. I could not be said to be a prime mover in it and when the government then in power passed legislation which took away-


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a point of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Have I a right to
make my statement?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think a member has a right to rise to speak in the middle of an hon. member's speech without permission, especially when there is no ground of privilege.


Hewitt Bostock: I differ from the right
hon. gentleman. I understand there is a question of privilege raised by the hon. member. There seems to be a great deal of excitement over this question of the Winnipeg strike which has nothing to do with the matter under debate. I understand the hon. member rises on a question of privilege because the hon. member who has the floor said that he had -been one of the prime movers in the Winnipeg strike. Will the hon. member state his point briefly so that I may direct the hon. member if he has to be directed in the present instance?
Mr. W700DSWORTH: I am attempting to do that. I said that so far from being one of the prime movers in that strike, I did not

Canada's Imperial Relations
arrive in Winnipeg until the strike had been in progress for three weeks; that I was not a member of the strike committee, but after legislation had been passed which deprived-


Arthur Meighen: I rise again to a point of order. Is the hon. member to be allowed to make a reply to a speech under the shield of a question of privilege?


Hewitt Bostock: No, but the hon. member must be given an opportunity of denying or explaining. I have heard only one part of his statement. I want him to conclude his remarks and then I will rule.


Arthur Meighen: If he is allowed to conclude his remarks, there is no use of rising to a point of order at any time.


Hewitt Bostock: Does the right hon. member rise to a question of order?


Arthur Meighen: Certainly. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has the floor. He has made a statement as to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that is a personal allusion within his peculiar knowledge and he denies it, that is his right on a question of privilege, but it is not competent for an hon. member to rise and argue the subject out and say it is a question of privilege. He cannot do that. He is not entitled to argue the matter.


Hewitt Bostock: I do not share at all the views of the right hon. gentleman. If I were accused of having been the chief mover in a strike, especially the Winnipeg strike, I would consider my personal honour was in question.


Arthur Meighen: Yes and would deny it.


Hewitt Bostock: I would rise on a question of privilege because the honour of a member is thus impugned. The statement having been made by the hon. member who has the floor, the mover of this resolution rises and he is stating that- he was not the chief mover in that strike. I want to let him finish his remarks in order that I may rule exactly. If he is interrupted at any moment, there cannot be any debate. I would ask the hon. member to be as brief as possible.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am trying to be brief. As I was saying, I did not arrive in Winnipeg until the strike had been in progress for three weeks. I was never a member of the strike committee nor had I any part in the direction of that strike. When legislation was passed by this House at the instance of the right hon. gentleman, who is now leader of the opposition, which had the
effect of depriving a large number of workers, in fact everybody born outside of Canada, the right to trial by jury-


Arthur Meighen: Now I want to make a speech in reply to that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I have the floor.


Arthur Meighen: I am rising on a question of privilege.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The right hon. gentleman is rising on a question of privilege.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has stated that the government of which I was the head passed legislation which had the effect of depriving a great many people out of work of their right to trial by jury.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


Arthur Meighen: What was it?


Air.   AATOODSAVORTH@: AA7hich had the effect of depriving a large number of workers, in fact everybody bom outside of Canada, of the right to trial by jury.


Arthur Meighen: I want now to make a reply to that. In the first place, the legislation to which the hon. member refers was not passed by the government of which I was the head. The hon. member is quite as near the facts in this regard as in any other part of his entire speech. The legislation was passed some time before the government, of which I had the honour to be the head, came into existence. It did not deprive anyone of the right to trial by jury. The legislation referred to was legislation under which those who came from other countries, if they were subject to deportation from Canada under the rules and laws of the Immigration department, were equally subject whether they came from the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
Some hon. MEA1BERS: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: The right hon. member is not speaking just now to a question of privilege.


Arthur Meighen: I yield to your ruling, Air. Speaker; it is entirely right. I only ask that it be applied to the hon. member (Mr. AYoodsworth).


Hewitt Bostock: May I urge the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre to be as brief as possible in his statement? He is interrupting the hon. member who has the floor (Mr. Kennedy, Winnipeg) on a question of privilege and such a question should be
Canada's Imperial Relations

stated concisely. If such a practice is not rigidly observed no debate is possible.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I can easily state
my point, Mr. Speaker. I have said that I was not present when the strike began, nor was I responsible either for its initiation or for the conduct of it. I repeat, however, that we had legislation which deprived those born outside of Canada-
Mr. ME1GHEN: I rise again to a question of privilege.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: I have explained a matter with which I was definitely concerned-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: I rise to a point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: Do I understand that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is raising a point of order in relation to the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen)?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I have not yet stated the question of privilege to which I have just risen.


Ernest Lapointe: I have raised a point of order.


Arthur Meighen: I submit, Mr. Speaker, I have the right to state my question of privilege before the Minister of Justice raises his point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask members on both sides of the House not in any way to defeat the rules of the House. I am sure the debate can proceed without undue interruption. I have heard the statement of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with reference to the suggestion that he had been one of the chief movers in the strike of which mention has been made, and I am satisfied from his explanation that he denies having been one of the promoters of that strike. He denies the allegation. Is that correct?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is correct, Mr, Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: Then the right hon. member who leads the opposition is bound to accept that denial. Let me read the following from Bourinot, who undoubtedly will be
{Mr. Speaker.]
readily accepted by hon. members on both sides:
It has been formally ruled by Speakers in the Canadian Commons that a statement by an hon. member respecting himself and peculiarly within hia own knowledge must be accepted, 'but it is not unparliamentary to temperately criticize statements made by a member as being contrary to the facts; but no imputation of intentional falsehood is permissible.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


Hewitt Bostock: Now let the debate
proceed.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. But since the hoa. member for Winnipeg North Centre has seen fit to take up so much .time by way of explanation, perhaps he would not be averse to explaining further by answering this question: Was he one of those who assisted in forwarding the Strike in question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Am I permitted
to answer that question?


An hon. MEMBER:: Surely.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I answer the
question, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that a
question has been asked of the hon. member.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, so far as the question goes, I -would say that after that legislation had been passed to which I have referred-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. WOODSWrORTH: -one of the gentlemen concerned, a man of British birth and editor of the newspaper to which reference has been made, was threatened with deportation. Although his arrest had not been legal he was threatened with deportation by the right hon. gentleman who is at present leader of the opposition.


Arthur Meighen: I rise to a question of
privilege. This statement, which the hon. member makes by way of excuse from the manly duty of answering a direct question, is wholly wrong and entirely aside from the truth and the facts. I want the hon. member to withdraw it.
Some lion. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


James Shaver Woodsworth: ' I would say-
Mr. MEIGHEN. I insist that the hon. member withdraw the statement.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) must accept the denial of the

Canada's Imperial Relations
leader of the opposition, who repudiates in toto the charge just made.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the
right hon. gentleman what it is he wishes me to 'withdraw?


Mr. STEVENS:: I beg to submit to youi,
Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit with deference,
Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) should withdraw the statement, which is objectionable.


Hewitt Bostock: I have already asked him to do so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He must submit to the
ruling of the Chair just as any other member has to do.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I must ask the
Chair to tell me what I am expected to withdraw.
Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac). You had better withdraw all that you said. That would be the easiest thing to do.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) made a statement concerning the leader of the opposition which that right hon. member has denied unqualifiedly. Under the rules that denial must be accepted and the statement withdrawn to whidh objection has been taken.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I withdraw the
statement until such time as it can be debated on the floor of the House.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member must
withdraw it absolutely. Any delay would be eternal if until the hon. member might prove that statement, for the reason that I was never Minister of Immigration.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member must
withdraw the statement without qualification.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. Now am I permitted to say-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member may
state his case as briefly as he can.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All I want to say
is this: After the editor of the paper had' been arrested and, as I have said, although he was British-born, threatened with deportation,, I acted as editor for one week out of the six 14011-113
weeks of the trial. There was brought against me a charge with which the crown could not proceed when the matter came before the courts. That is the connection I had with the Winnipeg strike.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Speaker,
I wish now to refer to something that was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) shortly after this House opened. When the question-


An hon. MEMBER:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Give him a chance, sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: There cannot be a point of order, no statement having yet been made concerning the hon. gentleman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: I must ask members on both sides of the House to comply with the rules and not make these frequent interruptions. I must also ask the hon. member who now has the floor to confine himself to the subject matter of the resolution. The Winnipeg strike has nothing whatever to do with that resolution. The resolution before the House is:
That, in the opinion of the House, Canada should refuse to accept any responsibility for complications arising from the foreign policy of the United Kingdom.
Will the hon. member please confine himself to this resolution?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I was endeavouring tp direct the attention of the House to certain incidents which, in my opinion, throw some light upon the reasons underlying such a resolution as this. I now refer to what the hon. member for North Winnipeg stated in the early days of this session when we were discussing the question of breaking precedents derived from British parliamentary traditions. His words were to this effect: he never heard of a precedent being broken but it gave him pleasure. Now, I ask this House to go behind the statement to the mind that prompted it. I think only one conclusion can be reached-that when a member in this House, which goes to the mother of parliaments for its inspiration and for its rules and traditions, makes such a statement, and supports this resolution, if he does support it, his motive can be easily divined.



Canada's Imperial Relations


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I rise to a point of order now, Mr. Speaker? May I tell the hon. gentleman that I have not yet seconded the resolution? I have not yet stated my views, and until he knows what stand I take, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that he has no right to indulge in prophecy.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the point is well taken.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the hon. gentleman had stated what his views were on this resolution, but I am indulging in a little forecasting, and I think I can do so pretty correctly. It is not the first time that prophecies have been uttered in this House. Now, you will find not only the mover of this resolution naturally behind it, but unless I mistake very much the mentality of the member for North Winnipeg, and the man as I know him, he too will be found behind the resolution.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I may say that the entire Labour party is behind it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I charge that behind this resolution there is the purpose to stir up in this country dissension and discord. Further, I say that it is not policies for the upbuilding of this country, policies that tend to the unification of all classes in the Dominion behind which we find the hon. member for North Winnipeg or the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Rather are they to be found behind those policies that provoke dissension, discord, agitation and discontent. Discord and dissension are the meat and drink upon which they batten. While these hon. members express great concern for the labouring men throughout Canada, it appears to me that in matters of vital interest to labour they are more concerned with keeping alive discontent and dissension that in helping to solve the real problems of sane labour.
The hon. member in speaking to his resolution referred to himself as, "one of us labour men." If he and his colleague from North Winnipeg are to be deemed the friends of labour in -this country, I say, God save labour from its friends.
Let me say again that the views expressed by the mover of the resolution are not the views of the citizens of Winnipeg at large, they are not the views of western Canadians at large, and I feel sure they are not the views of eastern Canadians at large. This resolution is but the fruition of certain lines of agitation 
that have been sedulously fostered by such men as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre through papers of the kind he has already referred to; I charge that on every occasion possible he takes the opportunity, not of endeavouring to solve the problem of labour, but of stirring up agitation. I say to hon. members on both sides that he owes his seat in this House, as does the hon. member -for North Winnipeg, simply to the fruits of such agitation.
Now, Sir, I close with one reference. I would draw the attention of the House to the majority of three by which this government was sustained on the first vote in this parliament,-the most vital vote so far. This government was saved by a majority of three. A change of two would have been sufficient to vote it out. I ask the government to consider that they are maintained in office by virtue of a pledge given in writing to the hon. members to whom I have been referring, the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre and North Winnipeg. I ask them to consider the fact that they are retained in office-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: - by these two hon. gentlemen.


Ernest Lapointe: This is not relevant, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: They don't like the truth.


Ernest Lapointe: Can you keep silent I Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has made a speech, three-fourths of which was absolutely irrelevant; and his reference to the motion which was voted at the beginning of the session is equally irrelevant to the subject of debate. That is my point of order, Sir.


Hewitt Bostock: I would call the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that the House should deal with the resolution brought forward this afternoon. All these personalities have nothing whatever to do with the question under discussion, and I believe the people of this country expect much from this debate. I would request hon. members to speak to the resolution.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who moved this resolution.

Canada's Imperial Relations
suggested that perhaps it should be passed in order that the position of Canada, particularly as affecting the United States of America, should be made clear. It occurs to me that we do not need a resolution such as this to make clear to the United States the position of Canada within the empire. I daresay the informed people of the United States are as well aware of our position as is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I might also suggest that in my opinion admiration for that position is widespread throughout the neighbouring republic. I do not think, therefore, that a resolution such as this can do anything towards clearing the air, either for the United States or for any other nation of the world.
Let me say this in closing. The hon. member asks where Canada stands, and suggests that our position within the empire should be clarified. I would simply say that so far as Canada's position within the empire is concerned, there is no doubt. As to what action she shall take respecting any future war, we may well abide the arrival of that day. Our position in relation to the empire to-day is that of a nation within a commonwealth of nations, and one of the senior members of that partnership. As in the past, so in the future, Canada will, I trust, be prepared, so long as she shares that distinction and that honour, to accept her full responsibility and whatever obligation her position entails.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I do not quite agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Kennedy), if he thinks that the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) can be disposed of in such an easy manner, nor do I think that the people of Canada or the other portions of the empire would be much enlightened by the connection he has tried to draw between the constitutional position of Canada in the empire and the part played in the Winnipeg strike by the two Labour members. Neither do I believe that it will advance anyone, any party or any country to attempt to minimize the importance of an issue of this nature by impugning the motives of anyone connected with it. I am prepared, for my part, to listen with much patience to the most ardent imperialistic argument that can be presented on an issue of this nature; and I suppose there is an equal desire on the part of sincere imperialists to listen to those Canadian and British subjects who take an opposite view. It seems to me that if we are to develop in this 14011-1131
House and outside of this House something of what was called the spirit of Locarno-I hope it is still alive-it will not be done by stifling any expression of opinion on any aspect of this huge problem of imperial connection.
Now, Sir, to come at this time and say that we should wait for the next war to deal with the matter is, I think, entirely unworthy of our responsibility to the people of Canada and unworthy also of the connections which-we have with Great Britain-connections which, for my part, I desire to preserve as long as possible and to make useful to Canada, to Great Britain, to the other portions of the empire, and to the world. Men just as devoted to the British Empire as the hon. member who has just taken his seat have judged that this is the time to discuss in a broad way the question of imperial relations. In Great Britain, in South Africa, in Australia and in New Zealand, men of all varieties and belonging to all shades of opinion, from the highest imperialist to the most radical antiimperialist, have discussed these issues ever since the close of the war. They were considered at imperial conferences; they have been debated in the various parliaments of the empire; valuable articles have appeared in British reviews and in foreign publications. A very short time after the war-in fact, I should say when the war was still on-one of the most enlightened British imperialists, one of those devoted, sincere imperialists who have given much thought to this question, Mr. Lionel Curtis, went all around the British Empire, including Canada. He came in contact with men of various shades of opinion; he insistently spoke and wrote on the necessity, for the people of Canada as well as those in the other portions of the empire, of preparing, immediately after the war, to take up these issues of political and constitutional relations with Great Britain. Why should we not look upon these questions from that point of view, whether or not the wording of the motion is exactly that to respond to the needs? That is a very limited aspect of the question after all. Can we not at this time take one day to look seriously at these problems?
As this is a very broad subject, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to now call it six o'clock, so that after dinner, and after the appeasement of the little squabbles we have had this afternoon, we may consider this question in a serious and, I hope, a broadminded spirit.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

Canada's Imperial Relations
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker -


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: With the hon. gentleman's permission, I should like to ask him a question. Before we rose at six o clock he used the words "ardent imperialist." If he is going to discuss this question, I would like very much if he would tell us exactly what he means by the word "imperialist" in that sense.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: My excellent friend and neighbour who represents the county of Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) puts me a very simple question, but a very hard one to answer. I think it was Pascal who said that to properly define was a divine prerogative, that the man never lived who could give a proper definition. I am an ordinary man and, besides, I am very British in my concept of political things, and therefore not much given to .cut-and-dried definitions. I think my hon. friend will easily find out from the observations that I am going to make what I mean by imperialist in the British sense. I may simply say at the start, in order to please my friend, for whom I have a great deal of personal friendship, that by imperialist or ardent imperialist-I do not care much for the "ardent"-I mean a man who believes that the British association of nations should be conducted primarily from London, by the influence of London, for the advantage of the United Kingdom, in the same sense, for example, that the Roman empire was governed for the benefit of Rome, in the same sense also in which the word was used some twenty-five years ago by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, who was the great prophet of modern Hritish imperialism.
Let us come back now to the question raised by the 'hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and to what I might call the interruption of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy), with regard to the importance of discussing the problem of inter-imperial relations now. While this somewhat marginal debate, if it can be called debate, was being carried on just before six o'clock, I was thinking of an observation made in the midst of the war by an English statesman, one of the most sensible, thoughtful, and practical men who governed the United Kingdom, and indirectly the British Empire, during the war, though not perhaps the most brilliant; I refer to the late Mr. Bonar Law. Even before the war was finished, when England with the other nations of Europe was

in the thick of the struggle for victory, Mr. Bonar Law gave this warning:
After this war the relations between the great dominions and the Mother Country can never be the same again.
This he wrote in December, 1915, in his preface to Sir Max Aitken's book, Canada in Elanders. Evidently this was not a casual thought, because a few months later, in September, 1916, speaking in London at a luncheon offered to Sir Edward Morris, Prime Minister of Newfoundland, Mr. Bonar Law, still Secretary of State for the Colonies, developed the same idea. He said:
So far as the dominions are concerned, this war is being carried on under conditions which never existed in the world before, and which it is almost incredible to believe could have existed now. These great dominions are, in fact, independent states.
I recommend this definition to Canadians who are apt to get into a flurry every time the suggestion of autonomy or independence is made, contrary to so-called expressions of faith in solidarity between the various portions of the empire. Bonar Law proceeded:
We oeuild not have compelled a single one of them to send a man or contribute a penny. But they have sent their 'best, not so much to help us as to help the empire of which they are a part. These conditions can never occur again. It requires great good-will and good sense on the part of both the dominions and the authorities at home to enable the arrangement to work by which one set of men contribute lives and treasure and yet have no voice as to the way in which those lives and treasure are expended. That cannot continue. There must be a change.
These were not the words of a rabid revolutionist, with sinister motives, looking to a radical and sudden change in the relations between the Motherland and the self-governing dominions. No, it was the thoughtful word of a man closely connected with the affairs of the United Kingdom, of which he had become a distinguished citizen and statesman, and with the great Dominion of Canada in which he was born. With a sense of British citizenship, he had kept more than a mere trace of pride in the Dominion. He thought, as Mr. Joseph Chamberlain thought, that the dominions would not consent to continue to supply the men and treasure-willingly if you like-but at least to supply the means of war to be put practically at the disposal of a government responsible to only one of the parliaments of the British Empire, that parliament itself being responsible only to one section of the free electorate of the British Empire. Mr. Bonar Law had kept enough faith in the pride of British citizenship all round, not to believe that the free people of Canada, of Australia, Newfoundland, South

Canada's Imperial Relations
Africa oi' New Zealand, would go on spending money and giving their blood for imperial causes, unless they had a voice and a real voice in the government of that empire and the framing of its policy. Perhaps he was wrong, but I do not think so, especially if one remembers that after all, those great problems of external policy, that control of foreign affairs which results occasionally in war, which manifests itself in diplomatic relations with various countries, has a direct or indirect bearing upon all internal policies. On this point, no student of British affairs, I think, has put it more clearly before the free peoples of the British Empire than the thoughtful writer whose name I mentioned this afternoon, Mr. Lionel Curtis. In 1916 he issued his first volume on the Problem of the Commonwealth, and in this volume I find these linos:
In matters of peace and war, the first, greatest and most comprehensive of all public interests, South Africans are subject, in fact as well as in law to a government which exists, not in Pretoria nor in Cape Town, but in London. And so it is with Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It is in London and not at Ottawa, Melbourne or Wellington that (their ultimate destiny is made or marred	They may
manage their own domestic affairs, regulate their commerce, create forces by land and sea, and do anything they pleavse short of attempting to handle for themselves the ultimate issues of national life and death. Those issues, the moment they are raised, must be left to a government in which they have no more voice than the ipeoples of India, Egypt, or of Fiji. So far as the first, last and greatest of all national interests is concerned they are not self-governing dominions. They are simply dependencies, and no thinking man can 'face this conclusion and yet believe that communities like Canada and Australia can long continue to accept that position.
Now I ask how a question of such momentous importance, involving such far-reaching developments, can be settled with a striving for small party advantage, or by gibes of such a nature as we have heard this afternoon? I do not want to insist upon it, but I claim that we should give more thought, deep and intensive thought, to a problem of that nature and look at it from a point of view, I will not say entirely divergent from party interests-I quite well realize the exigencies of the party system-but I think we can for a moment put a stop to the narrowness of party spirit and think of these questions from the broad Canadian point of view, with the ultimate intention of coming to an agreement with Britain and the other dominions of the empire which would give satisfaction to all and advantage to the whole community.
But with regard to the effect of such a policy, or should I say lack of policy, upon internal matters. Mr. Curtis goes more deeply into the subject, and he appeals especially to
the self-governing dominions on this ground.
He says:
On .paiper their autonomy in local affairs remained as before, "absolute, unfettered and complete."
These words were borrowed from Mr. Asquith's speech at the Imperial conference in 1911-
But in 'practice those affairs were all pro roundly modified by the exigencies of war. Schemes of development were cancelled, projects of social reform, were suspended, and the peopls of the dominions suddenly discovered that the issues of .peace and war are an interest which overmasters all others. They have found that until they control that interest their control of all others is purely provisional.
Now we are getting at the root of the question. It is the whole problem of conciliating the powers of self-government of each individual state in the British Empire and the common interests which ail British communities have to conserve by conciliation and by understanding. It seems to me a problem well worthy of study and consideration in peace time, rather than in war time, when the voice of blood, the exigencies of national defence, or, if you like, the exigencies of imperial solidarity, stifle all other considerations. I think this is the proper time, when the empire is at peace and before the next Imperial conference, that the parliament of Canada should go into this problem with serious thought, with a full degree of selfconsciousness of what is due to itself, its people and its future generations, of what is due also to those other communities composing the British Empire, so that we may all give to the world at large a striking example of the combination that can be made between principles of liberty and principles of unity.
No doubt the Great war, with the sacrifices it entailed to the various British communities, brought about a tremendous change in the relations between Great Britain and the self-governing possessions of the empire and also the great empire of India. But with due respect to those who have emphasized that change, may I suggest, as I have done on many previous occasions, that the change after all was not so extraordinary or unexpected as is generally considered now on account of the facts that underlie the change? To my mind, in this respect as in all other respects, the evolution that has taken place in the frame, the government and the life of the British Empire is the continuance of that extraordinary process, unique in the history of the world, which makes of British institutions a standard lesson, I will not say always to be copied, but certainly always to be studied with fruit and advantage by all, always to be admired

Canada's Imperial Relations
of peace and war were discussed freely in conversation-and in writing also, fortunately- and they are preserved in the archives of this parliament as well as in the archives of the Colonial office in London. Anybody who will take the trouble of doing so will find there in what spirit the Fathers of Confederation made their solemn agreement with the government of England with regard to Canada's contribution to defence and to matters of foreign policy. The exchange of thought was very free, very outspoken. Nobody then was afraid to speak of Canadian rights as separate from British rights. They had sense enough to understand that Canada, a country in America, has some interests different from those of England, a country in Europe; and they acted accordingly. In the report which was signed on July 12-


An hon. MEMBER:: A bad date!


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh, no, not then; on
July 12, 1865.


John Wesley Edwards: I hope the report was equal to the day.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh, yes, the report was
superior to the day, and far superior to such reports as we usually get now of that day. It was signed by such puny Canadians as John A. Macdonald, George Etienne Cartier, George Brown and A. T. Galt.


John Wesley Edwards: The first of those is a good twelfth of July man.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, but they understood the twelfth of July in a rather different manner and in rather different colours than the hon. gentleman. In those days the Orange order was under the authority of the government of Canada and of the Conservative party; now the Conservative party seems to be under the authority of the Orange order.


John Wesley Edwards: We are
making progress all the time.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Surely; the hon. gentleman should take this as a compliment; it shows he is the power behind the throne and above the throne.


Mr. EDWARDS (Froptenac):: The only
difficulty I have is in appreciating the hon. gentleman as an authority. I am rather doubtful of his opinion.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I quite admit that I am not an authority on orangeism.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I assume that
the hon. member who has the floor is not objecting to these interruptions.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: In that report the
delegates of Canada related on what terms and basis they had presented the question of defence to the imperial authorities:
On the part of Canada we expressed the desire that this plan for the defence of all iparts of the province should be taken as the basis of arrangement and that a full and candid discussion should be had as to the share of the cost that ought to be borne respectively by the imperial and provincial exchequers. We expressed the earnest wish of the people of Canada to perpetuate the happy existing connection with Great Britain, and their entire willingness to contribute to the defence of the empire their full quota, according to their ability, of men and money. But we pointed out that if war should ever unhappily arise between England and the United States, it could only be an imperial war on imperial grounds-that our country alone would be exposed to the horrors of invasion- and that our exposed position, far from entailing on us unusual burdens, should on the contrary secure for us the special and generous consideration of the imperial government.
And further on:
We pointed out that, while fully recognizing the necessity and prepared to provide for such a system of defence as would restore confidence in our future at home and abroad, the best ultimate defence for British America was to be found in the increase of her population as rapidly as possible, and the husbanding of our resources to that end; and, without claiming it as a right, we ventured to suggest that by enabling us to throw open the northwestern territories to free settlement, and by aiding us in enlarging our canals and prosecuting internal productive works, and by promoting an extensive plan of emigration from Europe into the unsettled portions of our domain- permanent security would be more quickly and surely and economically secured than by any other means. We did not fail to pornt out how this might be done without cost or risk to the British exchequer, and how greatly it would lighten the new burden of defence prepared to be assumed at a moment of depression by the people of Canada.
Now, this was fully understood at home, and Mr. Edward Cardwell, Colonial Secretary, in .a despatch to Lord Monck on the terms of the agreement, reiterated practically what the Canadian delegates had told him. He said:
On the last point-
The point of defence.
-it seemed sufficient that Her Majesty's government should accept the assurances given by the Canadian ministers on the part of Canada that that province is ready to devote all her resources both in men and money to the maintenance of the confederation of the provinces. To this we, on the part of Her Majesty's imperial government, fully acknowledge the reciprocal obligation of defending every portion of the empire with all the resources at its command.
Some twenty-two years later, at the first Imperial conference convened in London, the delegate of the Canadian government, Sir Alexander Campbell, one of the Fathers of Confederation, one of the most thoughtful leaders of the Conservative party-the good old Conservative party-who afterwards, if

Canada's Imperial Relations
I am not mistaken, was Minister of Justice in the government of Canada and 'later Lieutenant Governor of Ontario-


John Wesley Edwards: Would the
hon. gentleman in referring to the Conservative party leave out the word, " old " and bring it more down to date?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course, I suppose
the hon. gentleman allows me the freedom of making a distinction between the Conservatives of sixty years ago and those of to-day, unless he is specially desirous of being classified with the fossils of his party?
I am not quite sure.


John Wesley Edwards: No, I am
not quite that old j'et.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Well, T am sneaking
of the old Conservative party, which was a very respectable national party. I am not qualifying at all the present Conservative party; I leave that to my hon. friend.


John Wesley Edwards: I was
anxious to have my hon. friend's opinion brought down to date.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Well, no; it is nicer to
talk of the past than of the present.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, that is right.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I want to keep as peaceful an atmosphere as possible in this debate. It started in strife; I hope it will finish in amity.
At that Imperial conference, where for the first time in a gathering of that nature the question of interdependence between the Motherland and the various dominions was discussed, Sir Alexander Campbell summed up all that had1 passed between the home government and the Dominion government; and when it came to the point of the I860 agreement he said.
The imperial government had previously given us notice of their intention to withdraw from the colony Her Majesty's troops, and they declared their resolution to carry that out. The government here agreed to undertake the naval defence of Canada, the Canadian authorities undertaking the land defence of the colony. Upon that basis the confederation of all the provinces was formed, viz: that Her Majesty's troops would be withdrawn (the withdrawal was then in course of being carried out), and that the local authority were only to undertake the land defences.
So, Sir, when during the Great war, and previously during the discussion carried on in the province of Quebec against the proposed policy of the Liberal government to build up a so-called Canadian navy and the policy of
the Conservative government later to contribute to the British navy; when we said that these proposals were going beyond the solemn agreement entered into between the British government and the government of Canada, we stood by the letter of the agreement and the spirit of the "solemn contract", as Sir John A. Macdonald called it, which was concluded between the two governments. That was exemplified in fact very early. Confederation had hardly taken place when our frontiers were attacked and sometimes transgressed upon by Fenian raids from the United States. The Canadian government stood true to its engagements; Canadian volunteers were sent to various points on the frontier, and Canadian territory was defended by Canadian soldiers. But after the troubles were over, Macdonald, P.Firt.ipr and Campbell did not forget that before defending the British Empire they had the duty of standing by Canada's rights. Sir Alexander Campbell went to London to claim from the British government compensation for the moneys spent and the blood shed on the frontiers of Canada. As Sir Alexander Campbell stated then, "We have been true to our engagement, but if we have spent money and blood in the defence of frontiers it is on account of your policy, right or wrong. We are not passing judgment upon your Irish policy, but we have suffered thereby and we claim compensation". They did' not beg for it, buit claimed it as a matter of right. It is true that -compensation was not obtained; but there again it was put in black and white that these relations between the home government and the colonial government, so far as peace and war were concerned, were to be determined on every occasion by the degree of responsibility exercised by either government; that when -the Canadian people were called upon to spend money and to shed blood, even in defence of their own territory but in consequence of British policy, the British people at home should pay for it. You are free to say to-day whether -those men who made confederation, who brought peace between England and Canada, who raised the Canadian people in the eyes of the people of the British Isles to a higher degree than they had before attained-whether they were disloyal and traitors to the crown, but we who chose to stand1 by their ideals and their conception of social and political justice should be free to say so.


John Wesley Edwards: Would the
hon. gentleman permit a question?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Certainly.

Canadas Imperial Relations


John Wesley Edwards: Did the
Canadian authorities referred to by my hon. friend specify the acts on the part of the British government which led to the Fenian raids?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh, yes.


John Wesley Edwards: Would you mind giving those specified acts?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes. I suppose my hon. friend is prepared to take the responsibility if he contributes to the length of my remarks?
Mr. EDW.ARDS (Frontenac): To be perfectly frank, I do not think it will make any difference what part I take.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: That remark seems very kind, after your question.


John Wesley Edwards: (Frontenac): What is wrong with it?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I will try to find what my hon. friend wants. I have here a report from Sir Alexander Campbell to Sir John Young, Governor General of Canada, which will be found in the sessional papers of 1871, number 12, page 41, and also number 46, page 26. Really, if I could induce several hon. members of this House to read these papers, they would find them very interesting. These men took the time to write their reports, and they make splendid reading. I suppose they were not so busy with patronage or disputing power as they are now. The report contains these words:
We thought, a very strong case might be made out for a demand for indemnity from the United States.
Sir Alexander Campbell wanted the British government to demand an indemnity from the United States in favour of Canada, on
account of the Fenian raids.
Messrs. Cartier and Macdonald had asked that such a demand should be made with reference to the loss sustained in 1866, and we considered that we were entitled to ask for indemnity in reference to all the expenditure that had been since caused to us by the Fenians. Failing the obtaining of such an indemnity from the United States, we thought the empire should join Canada in meeting the losses: the Fenian difficulties were not of our creating, but grew out of real or imaginary wrongs that the empire had in the past inflicted on Ireland, and we were fighting battles which were not ours but those of the empire. We were quite ready as a portion of the empire to bear our share of these or any other troubles in which the country might be involved, but it was not fair that we should be allowed to suffer alone all the losses and consequences of the imperial acts or policy which were complained of. and I strongly urged .that for the past and the future, should any further Fenian troubles arise, the empire, as a whole, should bear the burden of resisting such attacks, and that Canada should only contribute as a portion of the empire.
I need not remind the House, Sir, that that demand or request was not countenanced. I

am not prepared to say that the British government were wrong. Hooking at 9 p.m. it after these years I think it was wisdom on the part of the British government; I think it was deep instinct of government rather than reason or logic which made the British statesmen of those days understand that after all each portion of the empire must suffer the consequences of its own situation and of its connection W'ith the empire, provided it would not be called upon to suffer the consequences to be endured in some other part of the empire on another continent, as we will see later. I think the Canadian statesmen understood it the same way. At least, they did not insist upon their claim. But when some fifteen years later the Soudanese war broke upon Great Britain, after the disaster at Khartum and the slaughter of "Chinese" Gordon, frantic appeals were made by certain Can-andian officers to the Canadian government to raise troops for the defence of the empire in the Soudan. But Sir John A. Macdonald, leader of the Conservative party and of the Canadian government, faithful to the principles laid down in 1865 and maintained in 1871, refused his co-operation to the British government in the enlistment of troops. Nobody was scandlalized, nobody raised the cry against him that he was disloyal to the empire. No, everybody understood that he was doing his duty to Canada, and in doing his duty to Canada he was thereby helping to maintain those relations which had been established and maintained between the two countries for thirty years-the safest manner, in the long run, of maintaining those relations.


John Wesley Edwards: Did the
British government make formal request to Canada on that occasion for troops?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not speaking of that.
Mr, EDWARDS (Frontenac): How could the Canadian government refuse a request if it was not made?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: They refused the request from certain Canadian officers of the type of mind of the hon. gentleman.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not wish to be offensive to the hon. gentleman, and I do not suppose he wishes to be offensive to me-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not at all.


John Wesley Edwards: Then you might just change your mode of address. What do you mean by the type of man of

Canada's Imperial Relations
the hon. gentleman? I am perfectly willing to have my type of mind compared with that of the hon. gentleman.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Certainly. I mean people who are rather restive, people who every time they hear of a little flag here or a little flag there get nervous, and therefore are apt to lose their good sense-excellent thinking people, as my hon. friend is, only they do not always think deeply or take the time to think.


John Wesley Edwards: Might I point out to my hon. friend that no person was more restive and had a greater regard for the flag than he had when he was in France in 1914? He was glad to get out under the flag then.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I would not like to follow the course taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) this afternoon and get away from this debate, but I may say to the hon. gentleman that I did not get out of France under the British flag, but under the French flag, by pure accident, as many other foreigners from many other countries got out at that time, after the war had broken out-in spite of the legends that have been printed in the Ontario papers.


John Wesley Edwards: Well, perhaps.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: What I want to say is simply this: In 1885 there began to grow a new conception of imperial relationship. I am not condemning that, I am simply pointing out. the fact. Some people wanted to give expression to that new conception of relations by committing Canada officially, as a government. as a nation, to that war in the Soudan. Well, Sir John A. Macdonald thought it was a wrong conception. He thought the right conception was the one arrived at after a century of struggle between French and English in Canada, and between Upper and Lower Canada. He thought that the only means by which moral unity could be maintained in the British Empire was by respecting to the fullest extent, the needs, the desires, and the will of each of the self-governing dominions to frame its external as well as its internal policy according to its will, according to its needs, according to its prejudices,-its narrowness of mind, if you like,-but, nevertheless, according to its free British conception of self-government. Not only was the attitude of Sir John A. Macdonald on that occasion supported by his party, but it was not even challenged by the opposite party. So strongly entrenched still was the principle of dominion autonomy at that time that neither party thought it advantageous to attempt to attack the other party for taking that attitude.
The first attempt at making political capital out of this question of military preparation was in 1896, when the Conservative government, a few months before dissolution, thought it necessary, rightly or wrongly-I am not discussing the policy at all

to devote a certain sum of money to the purchase of arms. The Liberals of Quebec then started a campaign of denunciation against the Conservative government for spending money to fight England's wars. Mind you, there had been no suggestion whatever that this appropriation of money was to fight England's wars; it was simply to increase the munitions of the Canadian militia. That was in 1896.


Mr. CAHAN:: The hon. gentlemen will admit that at the time of the purchase oi those arms there was very grave danger of complications between Great Britain and the United States. Secretary Olney, of the Cleveland administration, had sent his message, and there was very grave danger of trouble on the Canadian frontier.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Quite so. I am not discussing at all the propriety of the thing. On the contrary, the responsibility of first raising the issue as between the duty to Canada and the duty to England came from the Liberal side, who challenged that purchase of arms, without, I think, any justification. Three years later the game was reversed. Trouble had begun to arise in South Africa. In the summer of 1899 a so-called delegate of the Outlanders of the Transvaal and Orange Free State, but as was proven later in the House of Commons in England, a paid agent of the De Beers Mining Company and the company under the control of Mr. Cecil Rhodes, came here and secured from both parties a resolution of sympathy with the Outlanders of South Africa. The negotiations at Bloemfontein dragged on for a few weeks, and the Montreal Star launched its campaign for consultation with the mayors of the various municipalities of the Dominion. All the answers favourable to the intervention of Canada were published with heavy headlines, but all those opposed to it were thrown into the waste paper basket; this I have from a member of the staff of the Montreal Star of that day, and it is typical of the means the Montreal Star has resorted to on several occasions of that nature. The Liberal government began by stating that it . could not intervene. Sir Wilfrid Laurier gave an official interview to the Toronto Globe, stating that under the constitution of Canada he could not intervene. Ten days later he

Canada's Imperial Relations
gave way, after he received a telegram from Sir Charles Tupper, leader of the Conservative party, and he did exactly the opposite. He decided to send troops; nevertheless his government took the precaution, rather childish as I thought, to put in the order in council deciding on the enlistment and sending of troops, a statement that it would not constitute a precedent. Later on, in the House of Commons, on the 13th March, 1900, the Prime Minister laid down this principle, which at least was in accordance with all past precedents and constitutional doctrines as applied heretofore:
But I have no hesitation in saying to my hon. friend that if as a consequence of our action to-day, the doctrine were to be admitted that Canada should take part in all the wars of Great Britain and contribute to the military expenditure of the empire, I agree with him that we should revise the conditions of things existing between us and Great Britain. If we were to be compelled to take part in all the wars of Great Britain I have no hesitation in saying that I agree with my hon. friend that, sharing the burden, we should also share the responsibility. Under that condition of things, which does not exist, we should have the right to say to Great Britain: If you want us to help you, call us to your councils: if you want us to take part in wars let us share not only the burdens but the responsibilities and the duties as well.
That was in 1900. Two years later there was an Imperial conference and there the reaction began to assert itself both in England and here, against the principle-I should not say the principle, but the policy-of imperial solidarity adopted in 1899 contrary to the well established principle and practice of dominion autonomy carried on during thirty years previous to that war. In England, the so-called Little Englanders came back to power under the guidance of that able though not brilliant statesman, Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman, and at the conference of 1907 he laid down very properly the principle which applies of course to all forms of defence, though in its terms it speaks only of naval defence. He said:
The cost of naval defence and the responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs hang together.
In other words, as was agreed in 1865, as was reiterated in 1887 by Sir Alexander Campbell, and as admitted by the Prime Minister, the dominions 'have no responsibility in the general defence of the empire at sea or on land, so long as they have not control of the foreign -affairs of the empire in the same manner, with the same degree of power, with the same measure of control, which the people who rule the United Kingdom have, and the same degree of responsibility to the people who elect them to power as the rulers of England have to the people of the United Kingdom. But unfortunately that did not

last long. Two years later the naval scare was launched. Anyone who has taken the trouble to study the documents and evidence in London knows now that that naval scare was launched simultaneously in Germany and England in order to enhance the shipbuilding trade, but let that pass.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Yes, you had better.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Better?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think it would be better.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: In a way, yes, because I would not like to introduce to-night controversial matters. But it has a very interesting bearing on German as well as on British imperialism. Parliament agreed upon the necessity of doing something. The Liberal government came out with a policy that was defined by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Fielding, of building up a Canadian navy, Canadian in time of peace and imperial in time of war. It was rather a queer policy. Later on, the Conservative party in the House of Commons came with a counter proposal of a contribution to the British navy.
Perhaps it may not be out of place, not for the sake of resurrecting old arguments, but simply to show on what principle or basis of argument we rely to oppose these changes in our relations with the United Kingdom without any thoughtful reflection being given to it, if I now read a resolution which was adopted after the election in Drummond-Arthabaska, and framed if I may mention it by myself in conjunction with the late Mr. Monk, later on Minister of Public Works in the Borden government. It reads thus:
This meeting approves and ratifies the verdiet rendered by t-he electoral division of Drummond and Arthabaska; re-affirms the will of the Canadian people to uphold the rights of the British crown in Canada; declares itself ready to approve of all necessary and efficient measures to make sure the defence of Canadian territory. But it considers as contrary to the principle of Canadian autonomy and the real unity of the empire, any policy tending to impose upon Canada, that has no voice in the government of the Empire, any share in the external responsibilities or in the military defence of the Empire, outside of the Canadian territory-the only portion of the Empire upon -which the Canadian people may exercise any political or constitutional action.
This after all was a mere enunciation in a condensed form of all the principles and policies that had been laid down for half a century; that had been supported by argument and by correspondence; that had been applied in practice as well as upheld in doctrine by the leaders of the two great parties whether in opposition or in power. It seems to me therefore that there was no reason for one party to attack the other on this ground in the province

Canada's Imperial Relations
of Quebec, while denouncing and combating the men who were instrumental in maintaining that policy.
At the following session, after Mr. Monk had moved an amendment to the Address in conformity with this resolution, Mr. Borden, leader of the Conservative party, moved a subamendment; but when his sub-amendment had been defeated he rallied himself with all his party in support of Mr. Monk's motion which was nothing but a confirmation of the policy asserted in Drummond-Arthabaska. It was then that Mr. Borden very properly laid down this policy in the name of the Conservative party:
I think the question of Canada's co-operation upon a permanent basis in imperial defence involves very large and wide considerations. If Canada and the other dominions of the empire are to take part as nations of this Empire in the defence of the empire as a whole, shall it be that we. contributing to that defence of the whole empire, shall have absolutely, as citizens of this country, no voice whatever in the councils of the empire touching the issues of peace or war throughout the empire? I do not think that such would be a tolerable condition; I do not think the people of Canada would for one moment submit to such a condition. Shall members of this House, representative men, representing 221 constituencies of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, shall no one of them have the same voice with regard to those vast imperial issues that the humblest taxpayer in the British Isles has at this moment? It does not seem to me that such a condition would make for the integrity of the empire, for the closer co-operation of the empire. Regard must be had to these far-reaching considerations.
If it were legitimate, proper, for the leader of the Conservative party in 1910 to lay down and to express in such clear terms the doctrine of Dominion autonomy, of equality of right with the United Kingdom in matters of foreign policy, why should we be branded as traitors to the crown because we persist in saying that this is the true and the only principle upon which it is possible to maintain the dignity of the various component parts of the empire, and at the same time that unity which has been and will be found under British rule alone as long as British rule means liberty of opinion and liberty of action?
The next year the Imperial conference dealt with these matters. It was probably one of the most interesting of those Imperial conferences. It came before the war, before our minds were troubled by the anxieties of the war, and close enough to the war to enable far-seeing statesmen to see what complications would arise in connection with inter-imperial relations, in case of a war in Europe. At that conference, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Sir Joseph Ward, a staunch imperialist with a logical mind, came with a motion in favour of the organization
of an Imperial council to deal with all these matters and to enable the various portions of the empire to stand on a footing of equality. To this the Prime Minister of England, Mr. Asquith, made this reply:
For what does Sir Joseph Ward's proposal come to?
I might describe the effect of it, without going into details, in a couple of sentences. It would impair, if not altogether destroy, the authority of the government of the United Kingdom in such grave matters as the conduct of foreign policy, the conclusion of treaties, the declaration and maintenance of peace, or the declaration of war, and, indeed, all those relations with foreign powers, necessarily of the most delicate character, which are now in the hands of the Imperial government, subject to its responsibility to the Imperial parliament.
And he added these significant words:
That authority cannot be shared.
That was a pretty clear and stiff declaration. It passed, but later on, after the change of government had taken place in Canada, Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister of Canada-whom I will always credit with some of the most timely and courageous declarations that have been made in favour of Canadian autonomy and whose pertinacity of thought in this matter has rendered great services to Canada and the empire-Sir Robert Borden, when proposing his naval contribution, came out with this declaration, very interesting because it combines at once the statement of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1907 and this late declaration of Mr. Asquith in 1911:
Responsibility for the empire's defence upon the high seas, in which is to be found the only effective guarantee of its existence, and which has hitherto been assumed by the United Kingdom, has necessarily carried with it responsibility for and control of foreign policy.
This is practically a repetition of Sir Hemy Campbell-Bannerman's statement in 1907.
When Great Britain no longer assumes sole responsibility for defence upon the high seas-
Naturally, I repeat, this applies to land war operations outside of the country.
-she can no longer undertake the same sole responsibility for and sole control of foreign policy which is closely, vitally, and constantly associated with that defence in which the dominions participate. It has been declared in the past, and even during recent years, that responsibility for foreign policy could not be shared by Great Britain with the dominions. In my humble opinion, adherence to such a position could have but one and that a most disastrous result. During my recent visit to the British Islands, I ventured on many public occasions to propound the principle that the great dominions, sharing in the defence of the empire upon the high seas, must necessarily be entitled to share also in the responsibility for and in the control of foreign policy. No declaration that I made was greeted more heartily and enthusiastically than this. It is satisfactory to know that to-day not only His Majesty's ministers but also the leaders of the opposite political party in Great Britain have explicitly accepted this principle and have affirmed their conviction that

Canada's Imperial Relations
the means by which it can be constitutionally accomplished must be sought, discovered and utilized without delay.
The answer was not slow to come. This was pronounced on the 5th December, 1912; and on the 10th December, Mr. Harcourt, Colonial Secretary, sent a despatch explaining the position. He said:
The Canadian government having changed in the autumn of 1911 it w*as necessary, when Mr. Borden and his colleagues visited England this summer, to put these proposals before them, as they were, of course, unaware of the previous proceedings. Subject to consultation with his colleagues in Canada, Mr. Borden provisionally accepted the resolutions as passed and stated that he saw no difficulty in one of 'his ministers either with or without portfolio spending some months in London in order to carry out this intention. Mr. Asquith and I had, subsequently, several private conversations with him, at which he expressed the desire that the Canadian and other dominions ministers who might be in London as members of the committee of imperial defence should receive, in confidence, knowledge of the policy and proceedings of the Imperial government in foreign and other affairs.
Mind you, a very reasonable request, just to have knowledge of what was going on.
We pointed out -to him that the Committee on Imperial Defence is a purely advisory body and is not and cannot under any circumstances become a body deciding on po?icjr, which is and must remain the sole prerogative of the British cabinet, subject to the support of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
Now, I do not dispute the soundness of this policy from a practical point of view. I quite realize the difficulties in which these men in London find themselves, when from day to day they must keep in touch with what is going on in Africa, in Asia, in Europe and elsewhere, keep up their diplomatic correspondence with all their ambassadors and ministers and consuls, keep in touch with all foreign governments, and so forth. I quite realize the difficulty, not to say impossibility, which they must experience in keeping governments in Ottawa, in Melbourne, in Capetown and in other parts of the empire equally informed as to what is transpiring, and the still greater difficulty of getting the sense of these various governments in respect of any policies that are propounded. Very well; I fully appreciate the situation. But, then, is it not a natural consequence that so long as a means is not found of putting the selfgoverning dominions on an equal footing of responsibility with the United Kingdom, it is unfair, it is unjust, it is un-British to ask those outlying dominions to share the same consequences ensuing from imperial policy as the people of England and Scotland and Wales, who at every by-election or general election can reach by their votes the men whom they hold responsible for such policy, and can re-
ward them if they have done well by their country' or punish them if they have betrayed their trust?


John Wesley Edwards: Have they
ever been so asked?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Who?


John Wesley Edwards: The overseas dominions.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No; I am afraid my hon. friend is under a misapprehension. No one has ever claimed, I least of all, that the British government has at any time endeavoured to impose any policy upon us. It is worse than that. What I have always maintained, and what I have stated to-night, is that for the past twenty-five years a growing number of Canadians have lost their sense of British citizenship to such a degree that they' are prepared to assume burdens which the British people would never think of undertaking themselves, or of imposing upon us.


John Wesley Edwards: It still rests with the people of Canada.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course it does. I
should not like to do so, but if my hon. friend grates upon my British nerves I may be tempted to make a comparison.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: This surprises hon. gentlemen, but they are so much imbued with the modern Yankee type of imperialism that they do not realize how it is possible for a man, foreign by blood to British institutions, to be deeply attached to those institutions. It is not an attachment of blood with me, but purely one of reason; and therefore I am not carried away by impulse in these matters. I try to reason them out. In my reasoning I may be wrong, but I nevertheless claim the right to remain faithful to principles which I believe to be sound, principles that have been respected for a full century as constituting the only safe basis of imperial relations. I claim the right as a Canadian and a British subject to remain faithful to that ideal without being branded a rebel or a dialoyal French-Canadian. The fact is that not being English by language, nor American by mentality, nor Prussian in spirit, I choose to remain British in the sense in which our Canadians were British fifty years ago. And here my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Per-ley) may begin to realize the distinction I draw between an ordinary British-Canadian and what I call an ardent imperialist.

Canada's Imperial Relations
Now 'the Great war came on with none of these problems settled, but all of them raised before the people of the various British communities in a haphazard manner. This is not the time to discuss whether or not Canada or any other of the British dominions ought not to have entered the war. I merely mention one outstanding feature of the whole thing, with which everyone agrees, apart from a few eccentrics, namely, that each dominion was free to participate in the war or to refrain from doing so, as it might see fit. Everyone shared that view. IMr. Bonar Law, among other British statesmen, was of the opinion that neither Canada, nor Australia, nor New Zealand, nor South Africa had any obligation whatever to take part in the war. But if any dominion undertook to go in it, it meant a tremendous contribution in men and money to the new doctrine of imperial solidarity. I say it meant a contribution to the doctrine of imperial solidarity, for it cannot be pleaded that either Canada or Australia went into the war as full-fledged nations. No; had they entered the war in the status of full nationhood they would have been obliged to make a declaration of war against Germany, Austria, Bulgaria and Turkey, according to the time that those countries entered the conflict. Before even England had declared war, the government of Canada had sent a despatch to London offering tiroops. True, parliament was convened after the offer had been made, but in point of fact no declaration of war was ever served in the name of Canada to the German or the Austrian governments. How, therefore, did Canada come to take part in the war? No one has ever answered that question precisely. It is admitted on every hand1 that the declaration of war by the British government could not commit us to -action, although of course it did render the territory of Canada liable to attack from the enemies of Great Britain. Everyone is agreed on that point, But according to the doctrine and practice that had been followed up to the South African war and maintained during that war, a declaration of war by the British government did not carry with it any obligation on the .part of any of the selfgoverning dominions to enlist one man or to spend one dollar. I do not think I need labour that point; it has been acknowledged not only in England but in every one of the self-governing dominions as an incontrovertible principle. Well, then, how did we come to participate in the war? I leave aside to-night, of course, the very eloquent reasons that were advanced during the war-the defence of democracy, the assertion of the principle of self-determination, and all that. Let us suppose that those had been .the true reasons: they would nevertheless have imposed upon us the necessity of declaring war upon the enemies of the empire just as the United States did in 1917. The fact is, we went into the war without any declaration of war on our part because of the new doctrine of imperial solidarity, irrespective of the geographical situation of any of the selfgoverning dominions, and irrespective equally of the local or particular causes of war which any of those dominions might have against Germany at that time or against any other country subsequently. This is what was new.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Might I ask the hon. member if he thinks we did wrong?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I will tell my hon. friend frankly. The hon. gentleman must know, or he might ask some of his friends who know me, that I am not afraid of saying anything. I stated at the beginning of the war that I thought we did right, but I added this: First, that parliament should have declared, previous to its decision to participate in the war, that it reserved for the free and peaceful will of the people of Canada to decide what would be her future relations with the empire, and should not have acknowledged the principle of imperial solidarity as opposed to the principle of dominion autonomy that had been sustained heretofore. That was the first reservation. The second was this: I considered that Canada should have measured her participation in that war according to her means of action, according to the number of her population and according to her future needs, not only as regarded herself, but as regarded her true contribution to the British Empire, which will never be so efficacious as when we accomplish it on the soil of Canada by making Canada populous, prosperous and happy. In the light of what has transpired since, I would not now say that we did right in going to war. But I repeat, I do not say it was wrong then. I do not blame those men who voted in sincerity for the participation of Canada in the war; but I say, first, they departed from the established practice and principle upon which the relations between Great Britain and Canada had been carried on for a century, and happily for both countries; and, second, that this having been done, they must be prepared now to stand manfully in a broad way the consequences of that participation. Surely there is not a representative of the people of Canada, whether he be French or English by birth, whether he

Canada's Imperial Relations
be Conservative, Liberal or Progressive by party affiliation, who will come to me and say that after we have spent in four years' time as much money as we had spent in fifty years' time to build up this country', after we have made greater sacrifices for England and France than generations of Canadians had been called to make for Canada, after we have either compromised or endangered the solution of every national, provincial, racial or economic problem of this country in order to come to the rescue of England and France,-surely not one such representative will tell me that this is not the time to study the problem, and that we have only to look upon the past actions of this or that gentleman in some little street in a Canadian city, town or village. No Sir! The most patriotic and practical men of England and Australia, of South Africa and New Zealand, have been concerning themselves with this problem for the last ten years. This coming fall the Prime Minister of Canada, whether he be this right hon. gentleman or the other right hon. gentleman-the purely party of point of view for the present time I want to forget-will go to London, and with men representing the free peoples of Australia and the other outstanding dominions will discuss those problems with the representatives of Great Britain. Is it improper that as a Canadian, tracing my ancestry back through generations of Canadians, I should desire that some one will speak out in those councils of empire with the same thoughtful voice and after the same due reflection that the representatives of the other portions of the British Empire will carry there? Is this improper? Is this unpatriotic? Is this disturbing the House of Commons from the tremendous problem of whether certain gentlemen painted in blue shall take the place of certain other gentlemen tinted in red? I repeat with Lionel Curtis: this issue of peace and war, of relations between Great Britain and the sister dominions, out of which the maintenance or the downfall of the British Empire may be assured in the next twenty-five years, is predominant over all other domestic issues that we may have to deal with; because according to the solution that will be given to this supreme issue, the other issues will be governed and directed and finally settled.
Now, have we progressed in the way of participation in the government of the empire in the same proportion as we have progressed in our contribution to the war expenditure of the empire? Not later than last fall Sir Robert Borden-who is now free to speak his mind, who has no longer the re-

sponsibility of a government or a party, and who, I am happy to say, has preserved his freshness of mind and his constitutional knowledge-went to a very interesting yearly gathering, the Institute of Politics of Williamstown College, Massachusetts. He spoke there on August 17, 1925. He did not think, as did our good friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy), that it was not worth while speaking of this, that we should wait till the fire is burning the house to know what measures we rvill take to extinguish it. No! Sir Robert, ever since he quit politics, has lost no occasion of talking on these matters and, I think, on the whole, very sensibly. He spoke of the part which the dominions played during the war in framing the war policy. He spoke of the imperial war council, and he defined it as:
A consultative body in which all important questions respecting the conduct of -the war snd the war effort of the empire were discussed and determined, and in which dominion -ministers sat on terms of perfect *equality with their British colleagues.
Then he spoke of the imperial war conference of 1917:
The well-known resolution -passed by this conference to which the British government was a party, based the constitutional relations of the empire -upon a full recognition of the dominions as autonomous nations of an imperial commonwealth, and Of India as an important -portion of the same, confirmed the right of the dominions and India to an adequate voice in foreign policy a-nd foreign relations, and declared the necessity of -providing effective arrangements for continuous consultation and necessary concerted action.
My old friend Sir Robert still has an affection for the adjective, "adequate." -I remember when he spoke of "adequate protection." Of course, that is pretty difficult to define. Let us see how in practice that adequate voice granted to the dominions and to India in the various conferences or congresses in which they took part during the war and since the war was heard.
First there was a negotiation which resulted in these instruments of diplomacy-I will not say of peace-which followed the war: the treaty of Versailles, the treaty of Trianon, the treaty of St. Germain, and so forth. There was one Dominion statesman who saw through them, or at least who saw through the treaty of Versailles. That man was General Smuts, who, -before affixing 'his signature, entered a solemn -protest -because, as he said, "This will not -bring peace." I think events have proven that he was perhaps the most clearsighted of all the British representatives there. I have been told by one very close to the peace negotiators that forty-eight hours before that so-called instrument of peace, the Versailles treaty, containing the covenant of

Canada's Imperial Relations
the League of Nations, with nearly four hundred articles and appendices, was signed, not one of the Dominion representatives had read it. I do not know. There is one thing I do know, however, that at the next meeting of the League of Nations at Geneva, the Hon. Mr. Doherty, Minister of Justice in the late Conservative government and representative of Canada, wanted article 10 of the covenant of the league to be revised in such a manner as to resurrect in different form the old doctrine of colonial and dominion autonomy, although it was not stated in so many words. Later on Sir Lomer Gouin, Minister of Justice and representative of the Canadian government at the following conference, also endeavoured to have a revision of that article, He came closer to the goal, but did not succeed. There it stands, committing Canada with all the other full-fledged nations, nations able to frame their policy and constitution to their needs and having the right of self-government in foreign as well as international matters. We stand committed by signatures made in haSte by our representatives because they were told to rely upon the wisdom of the British representatives.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does not the hon. gentleman admit that at a later date the representatives of the present government, of whom I think the Minister of Justice was one, did secure an authoritative interpretation of article 10, which changes it in its bearing very considerably, and which relieves the dominions of some considerable responsibility that would have been imposed upon them under the original article?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If my hon. friend means, as I do, that after second thought and reflection we have come to a point where article 10 will not hurt us the way it might, I quite agree with him.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does not the hon. gentleman admit also that on a day before the signing of the original treaty of Versailles Sir Robert Borden himself at Versailles made a strong protest against article 10, and reserved the right so far as Canada was concerned to secure later if possible an authoritative interpretation or the repeal of that article?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am very happy to learn that he did so, but unfortunately he signed the treaty as it was, and the treaty had been negotiated outside of his knowledge.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I submit to the hon, gentleman that he should not state in that precise 14011-114
way that Sir Robert Borden was ignorant of the terms of the treaty at the
10 p.m. time it was signed, and I do not think he should conceal altogether from this House, whether or not it is done intentionally, the fact that Sir Robert Borden under the circumstances, having made his protest, regarded it as in the interests of Canada that the treaty should then be signed and that a reservation should be made with respect to Canada's future relations under article 10.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I must say I have not heard of Sir Robert Borden's protest. I do not find it anywhere in the documents relating to the Peace conference.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It appears in a number of
the reports.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, unofficial reports,
but even then that strengthens my contention that in that so-called association of nations which took its first form in Paris, an article was introduced in the treaty which was supposed to govern in the future the relations of the British Empire at large with all other nations. It was supposed, as a consequence, to govern the inter-imperial relations of the various British dominions whose representatives affixed their signatures. There was an article framed in closed chamber between Mr. Wilson, Mr. Orlando-no, he was not there- Mr. Clemenceau and Mr. Lloyd George, which forced Sir Robert Borden, as representing Canada, to enter a protest which is not noted in the international documents, and which has no official bearing. Later on, when Mr. Doherty, representing Canada, tried to make that protest effective, it did not carry weight, and when Sir Lomer Gouin again tried to make that protest, it did not carry. I am simply taking this as an example to show that the so-called equality of representation between Great Britain and her self-governing dominions in these matters of diplomatic concern has not been satisfactory nor complete nor true to the letter or the spirit.


Peter McGibbon: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question? What good does he think that treaty would have been without article 10?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not going to enter into a discussion upon that with my hon. friend. I am simply pointing out, or giving this as an illustration, that it is not according to fact-and it could not be, as I will show in a moment-to say that the representatives of the various self-governing dominions were represented in the council of nations at Versailles on the same footing and with the same

Canada's Imperial Relations

voice as the representatives of the United Kingdom. We have an example of that later on, and again I want to show the good work and the splendid spirit evinced by Sir Robert Borden in very difficult circumstances. In the year following, when 'this treaty was brought up for ratification iby this House, he laid down this doctrine, which I may say is also mine-irrespective, of course, of the merits of the treaty:
His Majesty the King and his advisers have recognized the right o*f this parliament to express its opinion upon this treaty. I made that pledge to parliament and the British government 'have been informed of that pledge. They recognize the situation, and they are not disposed to deal with this treaty, so far as Canada is concern d, apart from the approval of the Canadian parliament.
This was challenged by Mr. Fielding, who endeavoured to make out that even if the parliament of Canada did not ratify the treaty, the treaty would go on just the same, to which argument Sir Robert Borden replied:
I am stating to the hon. gentleman an absolute fact, as to which I hope he (will not doubt my word. I toll him it is recognized by the ministers of the crown of Great Britain that this treaty must be submitted to the Canadian parliament for its approval, and that we desire, we insist, upon the judgment of the Canadian parliament in regard to it before we advise the King on behalf of Canada that the treaty should be ratified.
Again Mr. Fielding derided this pretension. He claimed this simply meant that if the treaty was not ratified the Conservative government would be defeated, to which Sir Robert Borden replied:
I beg my hon. friend's pardon. He has forgotten what I said a moment ago. Failure to ratify .the treaty would involve very serious consequences indeed.
Hon. Mr. Fielding:	What are they?
Sir Robert Borden: The consequences would be that Canada would stand out of a treaty of peace accepted by the empire.
Hon. Mr. Fielding:	Would we be at war?
Sir Robert Borden:	I have already said what in
our opinion our status would be in that case. If my hon. friend means that, notwithstanding the arrangements which have been made, the conventions which have become recognized, the status which has been accorded to the Dominions during recent years, we are still subject to have this treaty ratified by His Majesty on behalf of Canada whether the parliament of Canada is willing to ratify it or not, then I tell him he is dealing in ancient history and that his ideas should advance with the progress of recent years.
Later on he adds:
His suggestion was that ratification by the parliament of Canada is merely a farce, that the government of the United Kingdom possesses such constitutional right in respect of this Dominion that they can impose their will upon us .without regard to this parliament. I repeat that if such is the opinion of the hon. member, he is thinking in terms of a hundred years ago, and not of to-day.
There Sir Robert Borden laid down quite clearly and unmistakably the doctrine that

neither the government of Canada nor the government of Great Britain can compromise the future or the present rights of the people of Canada without the explicit and expressed consent of the parliament of Canada. This is good nationalist doctrine, and I accept it when it comes from a Conservative leader just as readily as I would accept it from any other authority.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is good Conservative doctrine, and if I understand the statement of policy made in times past by the right hon. leader of the present government, it seems to me it is a statement of good Liberal policy as well.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course; that is what I am going to prove in a moment. The only thing is I would like to have it asserted by parliament as early as possible in time of peace, when people possess their cool senses, instead of waiting for the excitement caused by the approach or the declaration of war to have it disregarded by both parties. The observation of my excellent friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) dispenses with the necessity of my .giving another quotation from Sir Robert Borden on the rights of the parliament of Canada from that same lecture at Williamstown last summer, but I may well give this short quotation, which I think was meant as a warning to London:
It will be wise for British statesmen constantly to remember that the commonwealth cannot go to war in sections, and that engagements which may involve the Dominions in war ought not to be undertaken without their full concurrence.
Now let us see how this worked out in practice after the war. Not long after the conference in 1922, came what has been called the Chanak incident. After some squabble had been going on between the Greeks and the Turks, the Turks being encouraged by the French, and the Greeks being encouraged by the British-that is a matter of history now- the matter became rather ugly. The Greeks were thrown out of Asia Minor, and of a sudden came a message from Mr. Winston Churchill to the Canadian government, as well as to the governments of the other Dominions, asking practically for a declaration of empire solidarity in the action which the British government contemplated taking in the Mediterranean. Of course, it has been explained since that this action was not very well thought out, that the British cabinet had not been consulted, and that there was not much danger; but, Sir, past experience should prove to us that even when the whole British cabinet is not consulted, that does not mean

Canada's Imperial Relations
that nothing will come out of it. At the beginning of this session I reminded the House of what is also a matter of history, that the obligations laid upon the shoulders of the people of Great Britain on behalf of France, and which eventually came with a vengeance upon our own shoulders, were undertaken solely by some members of the British government, in the ignorance of the Prime Minister of England and of two-thirds of his colleagues in the cabinet. The truth was known in the three fateful days which elapsed between the declaration of war by Germany upon France and the declaration of war by England upon Germany. So I do not think any incident of that nature can be overlooked, and I think also the present Prime Minister did the right thing by Canada, did the right thing by the British Empire, and did the right thing by the world, when he refused to be stampeded by that blackmailing process of Mr. Winston Churchill. Likewise I think he remained, absolutely faithful, in word' as in deed, to the old doctrine and the old practice of Dominion freedom of action, when he refused to be bound by the terms of the treaty of Lausanne, when he refused even to accept the invitation to be represented at Lausanne which came just a few days before the conference was opened, and when this government had not been kept in knowledge of what had elapsed since the Chanak incident, and when the conference came practically as a sequel to that incident.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is the hon. gentleman speaking with knowledge and authority on that point?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: On which point?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As to whether the government were kept informed or not during that interval?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I take the exchange of telegrams which has been published both in London and here, in which I find, and it has not been contradicted, that the British government assumed that the Canadian government would act at Lausanne in the same manner that it had acted at Versailles and elsewhere; to which the Canadian government replied that the case was rather different because at the Peace conference they had been invited beforehand; they had taken a share in the negotiations, and they had signed for what they were worth the treaties of peace. Of course, I cannot read the whole correspondence, but it can be found in the Sessional Papers of 1924. I will read just this one paragraph, which I think sums up the 14011-1141
whole thing. This is in the despatch of Lord Byng to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, then the Duke of Devonshire, dated December 31, 1922:
Your Gra-ce is quite right is assuming that as regards treaties in which Canada is supposed to have a direct or immediate interest, the procedure here outlined is the one which our government would wish to follow.
In the case of the main political treaties concluded since the war, .in general the rule seems to have 'been followed that, wherever the Dominions could be said to have a direct or immediate interest, the procedure was shaped to include their participation in, and signature of, the proceedings. That in the case of the conference at Lausanne a like procedure has not been followed with respect to representation and participation by Canada, has been regarded by us as evidence that in the opinion of the countries by whom the invitations to the conference at Lausanne were extended, Canada could not have been believed to have the direct and immediate interest which she was supposed to have in the conference at Versailles and Washington.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understood the hon. gentleman to say, not that Canada had not been invited soon enough to Lausanne, but that the government of Canada had in the meantime not been kept informed as to the progress of events.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh, I do not know.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then I misunderstood the
hon. member.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: What I mean is that
there was not such official communication between the government in London and the various dominion governments in regard to this as there is between any full-fledged government and foreign governments with which it is allied-that is, in the way of diplomatic correspondence, such as was exchanged during the war or for some time previously, for example, between the French and English governments.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I read all that, but I did not place the same interpretation upon it as my hon. friend does.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If my hon. friend will allow me, I will not go into the details. I am taking the official documents and trying to make out what has been the general trend of relations between the two governments. I would not like to discuss any small issue connected with any of those instances.
This was not merely a free handed or self-willed determination of this government. The attitude observed in the Chanak incident and with regard to the Lausanne treaty, one before and the other after, was in exact conformity with the principles laid down at the Imperial conference in 1923 and .adopted1 unan- ' imously by t'he conference with regard to

Canada's Imperial Relations
negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties. There for the first time-and this is one of the redeeming features in that whole history-it was fully acknowledged, unanimously acknowledged, that with regard to negotiation, signing and ratification of treaties, each portion of the British Empire stood as a unit. If the matter for negotiation concerned only one of those countries, then the treaty was to be negotiated by the representatives of that country and signed by them. If it concerned more than one, then those self-governing countries of the British Empire concerned should be represented, always with regard, of course, to the interests that might arise, or that might connect their actions with the situation of other portions of the empire. In other words, there was a return by a roundabout way to the old principle that the obligations of each portion of the British Empire are measured by their responsibilities and by their interests. Under that new rule, each country controls, or is entitled to control, its foreign affairs according to its situation and its interests, and takes part, by its representatives, in diplomatic relations or in the diplomatic conferences which deal with those things. That is practically what has been done by the present Minister of Justice in the so-called Halibut treaty. I must say that I do not attach a great deal of importance to that; but it is at least a landmark in that interesting process of evolution in our relations with the Motherland. Instead of being looked upon as a revolutionary procedure it should be accepted as a healthful sign of the development or the renascence of the sense of dignity and nationality in ithe various .portions of the empire. For my part I am prepared to congratulate this government on their attitude in those instances, just as I congratulate Sir Robert Borden in the instances I have mentioned, and just as I congratulate the right hon. leader of the opposition for his attitude in London in regard to the Japanese treaty. Why should we always look upon the action of our leading men from the small point of view which would enable one party to take advantage of the other, instead of looking to the general advantage accruing to Canada through the effort which any of its representatives may make in London or elsewhere to assert the dignity and the interests of the people of Canada?
I must say, not to be too complimentary, that I think our representation by the so-called panel system in London, the year after, is one of the most absurd things I ever heard of. The idea that the British Empire should be represented in an international congress by
[Mr. BourassaJ
the British government first, last and forever, and then in the case of the dominions, one of the dominions on Monday, another on Tuesday, another on Wednesday and the other on Thursday, is surely laughable. Of course the reason is easy to understand. Foreign nations, realizing the tremendous possibilities that might accrue from that evolution in the constitutional government of the empire, have begun to challenge the right of the dominions to be represented independently, or rather to be represented as units in an international congress. It is a well-known fact now that the dominions.could not be represented equally with the United Kingdom in London in 1925 because of the opposition of the French government, among others. Time and again I have read-not time and again, because foreigners do not take much interest in our affairs -several times I have read very thoughtful studies by foreign authorities on this situation, as it affects international affairs. They say the British Empire must make up its mind whether it is One nation or several nations. If it is one nation, then it must be represented by one authority. That authority cannot be shared, as stated by Mr. Asquith several years ago. If it is several nations, then it cannot at leisure act as one, or as six or seven, according to its fancy or its interests. I admit this is the one aspect of the question which is the most baffling at the present time. I have confidence enough in the common sense of the British people at home and abroad, and I have confidence enough, in spite of appearances, in the sense of just pride in these young nations that have grown all the world over on the pattern of the Motherland, to believe that we can solve that problem as between ourselves. But with regard to the foreign world, it must be admitted that since we have abandoned the safe and sound policy of The Fathers of Confederation, we have created a very complex- situation in our relations with the outside world. The moment we have chosen to share in the responsibilities of the empire the world over, we must be prepared to face that problem, not only from the British, not only from the Canadian, but also from the international point of view. It is worth while being considered and studied; and for that reason alone, it is urgent that the best minds of this country should give it their deepest thought as right-thinking men, in England and in the other portions of the empire, are doing now and have been doing ever since the war.
With the adjunction of the Free State of Ireland to the association of nations called the British Empire-with Lord Milner, I do

Canada's Imperial Relations
not like the term "British Empire;" I think it is a, misnomer-a new phase has developed. As the hon. member for Winnipeg Nor-th Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) pointed out this afternoon, the constitution of the Free State of Ireland is in advance of our constitution. Between the two stands the constitution of Australia, which in some respects is in advance of ours and in some respects backward of that of Ireland. Last year, in Washington, at the interparliamentary conference, Mr. Fitzgerald, foreign minister in Dublin and representative of the Free State of Ireland at that conference, suggested that the British Dominions should assert their right to remain neutral in any war in which Great Britain or other portions of the empire might be engaged, and that this should be recognized internationally. Of course, the resolution was withdrawn. Numerous articles appeared in England, but more so in Canada than in England, denouncing this as a novelty, as a suggestion of secession.
It is strange how the drifting policy which we have followed for twenty-five years should have made so many of us forget the elements of our national history. As far back as 1862 the same idea was suggested in Montreal by another Irishman, it is true, but I hope this in itself does not discredit the contention. He said:
The present is not the fittest time, nor is the hustings the fittest (place, to enter fuMy into the subject of our colonial defences. I will only say for myself, gentlemen, what you, as my electors have a right to know, that while I am thoroughly convinced the connection with the Mother Country ought to be an object, of attachment with us, second only to the love we bear to our own institutions-that while I believe next to England our duty is to cultivate a good understanding with the United States-that having these maxims to steer by, on the right hand and the left, I am still of opinion, speaking as a Canadian publicist, that some recognized international status must be found for this country which will preserve her better than any armed force, from being made the battleground of quarrels, which she can neither make or avoid.
He suggested finally-
Some such arrangement as established the neutrality of Greece in 1831, and the neutrality of Belgium in 1839. With such an arrangement our own militia would be quite adequate for an internal defence, and Great Britain would be honourably relieved from the anxiety and outlay of her Canadian garrisons.
This was suggested in 1862 by Thomas D'Aroy McGee, who a few days later became a member of the Canadian government, and who two years later entered into the coalition government which made confederation. I find no trace in the journals or the public expressions of the day that anybody was scandalized by that. Whether agreed to or not, everybody seemed to think that it was a fair point for discussion. So much was this the
case that at the opening of the next session that speech was reproduced and added to the debates of the House as a very valuable contribution to the great subject of the relations between Great Britain and Canada. More than that, when three years later Sir John A. Macdonald presented the Quebec resolution before the parliament assembled here, on what basis did he ask for the approval of the parliament and the people of Canada? That under those new terms of nationhood Canada was looking for a "permanent alliance'' with Great Britain which she hoped would be reciprocated; but in the very same sentence he reserved to Canada the right to form alliances with foreign nations. Just imagine, Sir, the idea that Canada could, of her own free will, make alliances with foreign nations without regard to whether that pleased the people in London or not! That was not the saying of a striker in Winnipeg or of a French rebel in the province of Quebec who will not stand up every time or place the national anthem is sung. No, it was stated by the leader of the LiberalAHonservative party, by the chief of the coalition government which made confederation, and it was stated as the principle upon which Canada would stand henceforth in her relations with Great Britain.
Why, then, should it be improper to think and to state that in readjusting our terms of partnership with Great Britain we should come back to t'he sound policy that was laid down in those days by the men who succeeded in reconciling race with race, in adjusting provincial differences, in doing away with all the bitter remembrances of the past; who destroyed, both in England and in Canada, the idea that secession was unavoidable, because it was impossible to get along? It was by relying upon the sense of nationhood of the Canadian people and upon the common sense and sense of fair play of the British people that confederation was made possible. I admit it is perfectly legitimate to look to something else, to look to closer partnership, to unity of action in time of peace and war. I have no grudge against those who hold that doctrine as the proper one, but I would1 simply ask them and the people of Canada to think a little over the consequences.
England is a world power; she rules the vastest and most complex empire that has ever existed, not only because it covers more land and contains more inhabitants than any other human conglomeration of the past, but because it is scattered on all continents of the earth and therefore raises problems of a complexity and diversity such as no other nation has ever been called upon to consider and to solve. Surely it is a great testimony to the
Canada's Imperial Relations

political1 genius of the British nation, to the marvellous tradition of policy of her ruling men, whether kings, statesmen or leaders of opinion, that England could have got along, especially during the last century and a half, carrying that extraordinary burden. Let us leave aside the stock phrases about philanthropy and duty to humanity. No, the English conquered their empire for their interest first. But they rule it with genius, and administer it with perhaps a lesser proportion of injustice than any other nation. And that is saying much. So far as we are concerned, however, let us consider for a moment what it means
Take the situation of England in Europe. A century ago, England was allied, with Austria and Russia to fight France; and after France had been defeated, England had a rapprochement with her, and later fought with her for Turkey against Russia, and in contradiction of Austria's interests in the near Orient. A few years later one of the wisest statesmen of England, Lord Salisbury, said that the English had ridden the wrong horse. We were not concerned with that. But if the present doctrine had prevailed then, I suppose we should have been called upon to fight against France at a certain period and with France at some other time. Then came the reaction of the sixties, when England, without actually fighting, upheld morally and diplomatically the policy of Prussia and of united Italy against France and assisted coolly in the defeat of France in 1870. It was in those days that such a wise and thorough English statesman as Lord Stanley expressed this view in the House of Lords:
The government and the people of this country have seen with entire acquiescence, and even, I believe, with approval, the enormous aggrandisement which has accrued to Germany, or rather to Prussia.
That was three years before the Franco-Prussian war, one year after Sadowa, and three years after Prussia had deprived little Denmark of the whole of Holstein and a part of Schleswig. I am not saying that the British were wrong. I am merely pointing out how complex a situation exists in Europe, and showing that British statesmen must change their policy according to the circumstances, the needs and the interests which they are obliged to meet. But it does not follow that we should acquiesce, especially to the point of being prepared to shed blood and contribute money eveiy time they choose to alter their policy.
About ten years later, Great Britain stands alongside Germany and France, against Russia, in negotiating the Berlin treaty, in preparing the way to the Balkan crisis which precipitated the last war. Then she favours the Triple

Alliance against France and Russia; then she allies herself with Japan to crush Russia in Manchuria in 1905, and looks complacently upon the development of the Central Europe policy of Germany and Austria, to the extent that the Bagdad railway was first brought to the attention of Europe and of European finance by the London press. So sympathetic was England at that time to German policy as against the Russian and the French. It was in those years that Mr. Chamberlain launched his famous appeal, to the United States on the one side, and to Germany on the other, to consummate the consolidation of the Teutonic races to counteract the influence of the Latins and the Slavs. But there was a sudden reversal of policy. The moment Germany began to develop her naval programme, the moment her fleet became a menace to the sea power of England, British statesmen saw the necessity for changing their policy. I do not blame them for that But what was the result? The result was that in less than five years the astounded world saw England, France, Russia and Japan allied against Germany, Austria and Turkey. The war being over, we again see England preparing for a reversal of policy to side with Germany and Italy against France and the Balkan countries. Again, I say, I do not blame her. On the contrary, I think her statesmen are very wise and far-seeing.
At the beginning of the war when our newspapers were filled with denunciations of the wild Huns, with the darkest pictures of the horrors that would befall Canada, should Germany win the war, I had the advantage of meeting an accredited English publicist, with the best letters of introduction that could be had from the British authorities. I asked him what he expected would be the result not, of course, of the war-he did not know any more about that than I did-but of British policy after the war. I wanted to find out from him what he thought would be the next turn in that policy. "How is it", I asked him, "that the sentiment in Great Britain against Germany has grown so suddenly?" He answered: "For the simple reason that we discovered that they were getting better than ourselves at our own game." I asked him what he meant. "I mean," he said, "at the game of settling colonies and building navies. They are improving upon us in this game and we will not let them get the better of us." I asked him further what England would do in relation to Asia Minor after Germany had been crushed. I did not know then of the secret treaties under which Sir Eward Grey, our spokesman, the spokesman of the empire, had

Canada's Imperial Relations
given a free hand to Russia over Turkey, including Constantinople, and had agreed with the French government in one month to hand over a certain piece of territory to Greece and the next month to Italy, the difference being that in one treaty the same territory was called North Epirus, to satisfy Greece, while in the other it was described as South Albania, to please Italy. I asked this gentleman what he thought England's policy would be after the war. In reply he declared that the moment the end seemed imminent, just before Germany was crushed, England would form an alliance with Germany to keep Russia down. I said, "Do you think you will bring the French to agree to that?" He replied, "They will have to agree, for if they don't we will isolate them." That was practically five years in anticipation of the policy which began to assert itself in Genoa, which asserted itself still more clearly in London and also at Lausanne, and which was apparent, with a slight modification, at Geneva this year. But wait until next year.
Once more, I repeat, I do not blame England. For their own good and for the good of Europe, British statesmen have changed their policy after each war. As Mr. Lloyd George said on one occasion, "My attitude at Genoa was exactly the attitude of Lord Castlereagh at Vienna. Just as Lord Castle-reagh prevented Austria and Prussia from crushing France, because England's interest did not lie in the direction of crushing a great nation, so I do not want France to crush Germany." That, I say, is good policy, inasmuch as it makes for the peace of Europe and of the world. For that reason I have, time and again, to the great scandal of some of my friends in the province of Quebec, praised the policy pursued by England after the war, because it conduced to peace. But after this war is forgotten, we should be careful of England's policy, because then, it will likely lead us into another war; and that, not because England wants war, but because, in view of her enormous possessions, it is imperative that she shall remain mistress of the seas. England so long as she remains mistress of the seas over which is flung the greatest empire that has ever existed, is 'bound to go to war to crush any nation that threatens her naval supremacy or her colonial power.
Well, we are a young nation with a population little larger than that of the city of London, scattered over a territory as vast as Europe. Is it, then, socially right; is it politically right; is it British-like, that we should impose upon the future generations of this country burdens of empire equal to those which the people of England must bear of
necessity because of England's unique situation and because of the tremendous responsibilities which she must inevitably shoulder?
So far I have been speaking only of the situation of England in Europe. Just this week I was reading a protest from the mouthpiece of the ultra-loyalist element of Cape Colony, the Cape Times, reminding the British government about Locarno:
Great Britain is bo occupied with the confused currents of European diplomacy that she has forgotten that she represents the British Empire. The British partnership is the greatest power in the world as long as it speaks with one voice, and Great Britain should speak not as a European power, but as a delegate of the empire, and refuse to be drawn into the vortex of European complications.
It is easy to say that in Cape Town, but not so easy to put it into action in London, on the borders of Europe. But this precisely opens the door to the other aspect of the situation. After all, England is a secondary power in Europe. She is a first-class power only on account of her navy. And she has her navy on account of her possessions-not for our protection, but for the protection of her water routes, to keep the avenues of trade open so as to give nourishment to her people and to bring raw materials to her industries. The day that England loses her empire and her navy, that day she would come down to about the level of Holland after that country lost its navy and practically had to rely on the grace of England and the other great maritime nations for the retention of her colonies. But nevertheless it is true that England is much more of an Asiatic power than a European, nearly as much of an American power, and of course much more of an African power than either an Asiatic or American. Well, what does that mean? It means that England in her relations with the rest of the world, with Europe as well as with her dominions, is obliged to think all the time of India, of Egypt, of Asia Minor, of Africa-painted in red from Cape Town to Cairo-of Australia, of Canada. She cannot disconnect any portion of her policy from her general situation in the world. This is an evidence of her tremendous imperial genius, but it makes a problem that is rather hard to deal with for a small growing nation such as we are with the tremendous home responsibilities that we have. Take her Asiatic and African policy; for a century at least it has been dominated by the simple fact of her possession of India. Let us look at one single aspect of that relationship-Hindu emigration to the other portions of the empire. Our friends from British Columbia, would not, I think, be prepared to agree that in order to make the government of England easier in India they should open

Canada's Imperial Relations
the doors of their province to Hindu immigration; but if they looked at the question from the imperial point of view they would see the other aspect. I remember being in London just at the time when our naval policies were so tremendously discussed here. I was asking a high official of the India office in London: What is really the best contribution that Canada could render to the imperial cause? "If you could bring British Columbia to open her doors to Hindu immigration, that would be worth all the dreadnaughts you could build in ten years." Well, that is an aspect of the imperial question. The Australians see it from another point of view. But that is not all. There is Persia, as my hon. friend stated this afternoon, there is Irak, there is Palestine, there is Egypt, there is Morocco.
But let us come to America and terminate there our review of British policy and Imperial entanglements in the last century. Strange to say-and I do not think I am boasting in saying it-I stand as perhaps the only Canadian public man who on the whole has upheld British policy as applied to American affairs. I well remember at the time of the Alaska boundary award, when I was denounced in this House of Commons as a traitor to my country because I stated that Lord Alverstone's decision was sound according to law and to fact. I still believe it. I know that numerous writings have appeared, mostly in Toronto, denouncing British diplomacy as regards Canada. I do not view it that way. Of course, we boast very much about the century of peace between this country and the United States. Undoubtedly we owe it to a large extent to the common sense of the Canadian people; but we owe it also to the common sense of the British people; and when we were accusing Great Britain of sacrificing our interests for ithe sake of maintaining peace with the United States,
I think we were making a mistake. England was doing the only thing she could do in that respect. I never understood it better than on my second last- visit in London, a few months before the war. At that time there was a great deal of discussion about difficulties in Europe, Irish affairs, and all that. We had had our two squabbles about naval policy-naval contribution as proposed by the Conservative party and a so-called Canadian navy .as proposed by the Liberal party. I had an excellent occasion to get opinions on the merits of those policies from two of the most respected British authorities on naval matters-authorities whose opinions I valued much because they were generally in absolute contradiction to each other; I mean

the late Lord Charles Beresford and the late Lord Fisher. Norv the two old sea-dogs have gone to their reward, I hope that on the other side of the world they are not quarreling as much as they did while here, and I think I can without any indiscretion repeat exactly what they told me.
Of course, Lord Charles Beresford's opinion w7as well known. On the one hand, he did not believe in the dreadnaught policy. Then he had expressed himself quite openly on the Monroe doctrine as being the main safeguard of British possessions in America. But with regard to Lord Fisher, I did not know. So I went to him and asked what he thought of our two naval policies. " Well," he said, " my good fellow, I don't think much of either. Of course, if you have money to squander you may do anything you like, but if you regard it either from the naval point of view or from the national point of view for your protection, it is a great mistake. Don't make any mistake, England will never spend one penny and will never shoot one gun to defend Canada against the United States-simply because we cannot do it. It is just as well you should understand it. It would not be rendering service to you to fight the United States, either for Canada or for anything else. If you need help as against any other country, you must not count on us; you must count on the United States. If you want to make an arrangement for national defence, don't come to London; go to Washington." " Well," I said, " that would be very ill received by our super-patriots and imperialists in Canada." " Ah," he said, " are you so foolish as that in Canada? Don't you realize that the whole world's policy is based on inter-dependence?
I think we British have some degree of national pride, and yet we rely upon the French army to fight for us against Germany, just as France relies upon our navy to fight against the German navy, just as in times past Germany relied upon us to give her money to fight against France. The whole of the world's relations is based on interdependence. How can you imagine that you, a small nation of nine million people scattered over a country as large as the continent of Europe, alongside a nation of a hundred and ten million people, can count upon the support of a fleet in Europe,-the main use of which is to keep our sea routes open-to defend your own land against the richest and most powerful country on earth? Of course,
I repeat that if you have money to squander, throw it in the water if you like; it does well there from a sentimental point of view. We cannot stop you, but really we do not need your money; you had better keep it at home."
1S05

Canada's Imperial Relations
So I came back convinced that in opposing any such policy, while I might be styled a traitor in Canada, there might still be a few men in England, whose names are connected with England's power and glory, who have enough British common sense to understand that Canada should look on her own situation as Great Britain looks on hers.
I thought that was sound advice then, Sir, and I think it is sound advice now. Why do we not come to a reality? Why do we not come back to the old principle which was so strongly enunciated by Sir John A. Macdonald, and later by Sir Charles Tupper? There is no man I know of in our Canadian history who resented so strongly as Sir Charles Tupper the accusation that Canada was a sponger upon the British nation because she did not contribute to the maintenance of the British navy and army. I know of no Canadian and no Britisher who ever brought out so strongly, and with such explicit facts, the evidence that by building up our territory, by bringing in population, by being peaceful here and making Canada strong we were making our best contribution to the British Empire. That was the way I looked at things twenty-five years ago and I confess that it is still my view. It seems to me there is no harm in asking the Canadian people to look over these things, to compare the policies pursued in late years and what they have cost Canada, with no real profit to Canada and the empire, with the results obtained by the humbler but more practical policy enacted by constructive statesmen of sixty years ago, who based all our relations with Great Britain upon the sound principle that each country should look to itself and leave the British statesmen to look after the general affairs of the empire.
These ideas are growing; they are having a rebirth, so to speak, in the minds of many people. A year or so ago, I think, Sir Clifford Sifton, once a member of the Liberal party and another time an ally of the Conservative party, whose policy may be open to discussion on many issues, but whose common sense and keen mind no one will dispute, put that problem before the people of Toronto in as clear and unequivocal a manner as it could be put. It is not so long ago that an English imperialist, one who knows much about Canada, Mr. Percy Hurd, in the House of Commons in England, reminded the English rulers that they should not forget that Canada has interests in America which are not the interests of Europe, and that Australia has interests in the Pacific ocean which are not the interests of Canada.
Now, Sir, our connection with the British Empire may last long or may terminate abruptly. For my part I stated twenty-five years ago, at the time of the South African war, and I state again to-night with the same conviction, that I am not longing for secession.
I believe we need for a long time, not the protection of Great Britain; I do not think Great Britain can afford us any protection that we are in need of, but I prize the association with Great Britain. I repeat, without any idea of offending members of this House or anyone of English stock; that I appreciate that link with Great Britain in a certain degree more than they can, because it is an appreciation based on study and on reflection; it is not the voice of blood. You cannot expect the French-Canadians to love the British; why should they? But you may expect the French-Canadians at ail times to appreciate their connection with Great Britain. For my part I appreciate it more, perhaps, than a great many other French-Canadians, because I have frequently been in Great Britain and have, so to speak, imbibed the atmosphere of British political life. And why have I been so often in trouble in this country? It is because I have persisted in thinking that I could have the same freedom of thought and language in this country as is enjoyed in England, and I propose to stand by that contention. I believe the association with Great Britain is needed by us for a long time, in order to help in developing our minds to the same broad standard of individual and political liberty. I believe the association with Great Britain is a great help to us if we view it in the right way, and if we act upon it with the same British spirit of self-determination and selfrespect. But I repeat, Sir, that it is not by playing the servile worshipper of everything English that we are going to benefit by that association.. On the contrary it is by standing up in the face of Great Britain, not in a defiant attitude but in an attitude of selfrespect and virile admiration, asserting to Great Britain that there are certain matters upon which we can agree with her, and that there are other matters upon which we cannot agree, because they have interests which are not the same as ours and because we have trusts to perform and to hand over to generations to come with which neither the Englishman nor the Australian can deal for us. We have a duty to perform by Canada; the Australian has a duty to perform by Australia, and the British have a duty to Great Britain which no other country can accomplish. If we only revive these principles, these elementary truths in the minds of the people of this country or in the other portions of the
1S06
Canada's Imperial Relations

empire, I am quite sure that this great problem of inter-imperial relations will soon be solved.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to vote for the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth). I think, with all due respect to him, that it is rather narrow in its wording. On the other hand I will not associate myself with those who denounce him for bringing forward the motion. Whatever 11 p.m. be the wording, I consider that the hon. gentleman has rendered service to this country and has done his duty in proposing this motion. But I would respectfully suggest an amendment to the motion, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), which is as follows:
That this be referred to the select standing committee on Industrial and International Relations for consideration and study, with power to invite expert advice, such committee to report to the House during the present session.
I suggest, for example, that that committee invite such men as Mr. Ewart, Sir John Willison, Sir Robert Falconer, Mr. Skelton, Under Secretary of State; men holding various opinions on this problem, who would come and give us their view of what some would call the imperial solution and others the national solution, and even the solution of independence. Why should we be less free in our minds than the men of sixty years ago? Are some hon. members of this House so afraid of their loyalty that they cannot hear anyone proclaim Canada's right to independence, as our forefathers did? In order to show my spirit in proposing this amendment, I would suggest-not as a motion but as a mere suggestion to the committee- that, in the opinion of this House, Canada is not bound by any obligation assumed by the government of the United Kingdom, in matters of foreign policy, unless and until the government of Canada, duly authorized by parliament, expresses its adherence thereto.


Arthur Meighen: I do not rise to address the House on the motion, nor yet on the alleged amendment, but to take exception to the amendment as no amendment at all. It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the motion go to a committee.


Hewitt Bostock: That was my opinion
when the hon. member moved his amendment. According to rule 45, there is such a thing as a motion to commit a bill or question. It reads as follows:
A motion to committ a bill or question, until decided, shall .preclude all amendment of the main question.

Then the instructions to the proposed committee might be made the subject of another motion, no notice being required. If the hon. member would amend his motion, it would be preferable, because as it stands I shall be obliged to declare it out of order. Under Rule 45, the hon. gentleman should simply move that the question be committed to the committee on Industrial and International Relations. But his motion having been put, the mover should now get the leave of the House to withdraw it and move another one. Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. gentleman shall have leave to withdraw the motion I read a moment ago?


Arthur Meighen: Ordinarily I would not object, but now that it is to be followed merely by a motion to commit this to a committee, I do take exception.


Hewitt Bostock: The amendment has been declared out of order, as contrary to Rule 45. I suggested that the hon. member should move another one in conformity with rule 45. There is nothing now before the House.


Arthur Meighen: The main motion is before the House.


Hewitt Bostock: Except the main motion, of course.


George Halsey Perley: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I shall not speak very long, but I would like to say a few words on this resolution.
In the first place, I take exception to the form of the resolution. I think I might make the same comment on it that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy) did. I do not see how we can be called on to pass a resolution refusing to accept a responsibility when we have never been asked to accept it. I have another objection to the resolution, and that is that it raises indirectly the question of the future status of this Dominion, whether we are to stay out of the empire or not. I think a question of that importance should not be raised in this indirect way. It seems to me that if a matter of that kind is to be discussed it should be brought up by the government and some statement of government policy be given on the subject, in order that we may have a proper debate carried on from day to day, and that everybody may have a chance to express his opinion.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) has spoken to us a long time this evening on a great many subjects. May I suggest to him that when he is discussing a matter of this kind-really an important problem-he ought not to go over the whole past history of this

Canada's Imperial Relations
Dominion? As a matter of fact one is not surprised that he should remember with pride some of the things in the history of his ancestors, but the fact remains that we are now in the year 1926, and, as he said at the end of his speech, many things happened during the war. Precedents were created. Sir Robert Borden took a stand for this country which has never been equalled by any other Canadian statesman, a stand which resulted in our being recognized in every way as a nation having complete authority in all matters, not only of domestic concern, but in regard to outside questions affecting us as well.
Remarks have been made again this evening about our autonomy. Somebody said that it was absolutely unfettered and complete, a quotation, if I remember rightly from Mr. Asquith. The time has long since passed, Mr. Speaker, when any effort is being made in the Old Country to bring pressure on us, and no such effort will be made. No statesman over there would for a moment suggest that any pressure should be brought to bear on this country, and there is not a man in Canada, so far as I know, who would give up in the slightest degree our powers and our rights of self-government. Those things are all settled; we have got them; we are going to keep them; they are acknowledged by everyone; so why raise the question here? Why take up the time of this House in killing a dead horse?-for that is really what a great deal of this discussion amounts to.
The question before this country to-day and the empire is this: Can we so arrange matters that six independent countries shall work together in matters of foreign affairs and common concern? I am going to criticize this government for not taking some steps that I think they might have taken to help us along with this problem; and that could be accomplished by continuous consultation with the Motherland and with the other parts of the empire.
As I understand it, the great bulk of the people of this country want to continue our connection with the British Empire. The hon. member for Labelle this evening left me in a bit of a doubt. When he commenced his speech he said that he desired that the connection with Great Britain should be preserved, but when he came toward the end of his speech I could not make out where he stood, and I do not know now whether he thinks we should be independent or should continue as part of the British commonwealth of nations. However, the Prime Minister of this country, speaking in this House on June 9, 1924, stated his position. After oeinting
out that there were three avenues of political development, he said:
For my own part, I believe that the future of thi* Dominion will be happiest and best, most prosperous, and in every way most to the good, if its development is along the line on which it has been thus far, towards a fuller recognition of national status within that community of free nations which comprise the British Empire.
He went on to say that the imperial parliament was not a possible thing, and an imperial council was a thoroughly bad thing.
I entirely agree with him in both these statements, and in the idea that our best chance for future development lies within the British commonwealth of nations. But what has the Prime Minister done, and what has the government done, to try to bring that about? What have they done to further our relations with the rest of the empire?
In connection with our desiring to remain a part of the British Empire, I want to read from a statement which quotes a remark made by General Smuts, a man of as great ability,
I think, as anybody I have ever known. It quotes General Smuts as follows:
The empire was a priceless blessing and was to-day, with American abstention from the league, the main force supporting the advance of great human causes and ideals in the world. The maintenance of solidarity and a united front were therefore essential.
If we are to maintain the British commonwealth of nations we shall have to have more consultations from day to day than we have at the present time. We have to find some way, in between the Imperial conferences, by which we can have this consultation which is absolutely essential to our getting on together and seeing eye to eye in regard to matters of foreign affairs and common concern. As to the necessity of that and as to the feeling that people in England have on the subject, I want to read a couple of extracts. In the first place, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, when he brought in the Locarno treaty, referring to the Dominions, said:
Their liberty and freedom of action are safeguarded specifically under the treaty. It is recognized that only their own governments, acting with the authority of their own parliament, can undertake for them the obligations that we are asking the House of Commons to undertake for Great Britain, but we hope that we may discuss this matter fully whenever the next Imperial conference is set up, and that that Imperial conference 'may not be too long delayed. I do not think that it is possible to treat matters of this great consequence, covering so wide a field, by dispatch or cable across thousands of miles of ocean. For a true appreciation of the .position personal contact and personal explanation are necessary.
Now Mr. Chamberlain states a truth which we all know, namely, that you cannot discuss intricate and delicate matters unless you are
180S

Canada's Imperial Relations
face to face with the men with whom you are dealing. In connection with the same matter he said:
The Dominions could not be committed to obligations without their assent, but he earnestly hoped that not only might those negotiations not be an obstacle to future co-operation, but that they might excite in every government of the empire a keener desire to find a machinery by which our foreign policy could become in every act and at every hour the foreign policy of the empire and not of this country alone.
In other words, statesmen over there would welcome some method 'by which we should have continuous communication or consultation between the different parts of the empire, a method -by which the government here would be constantly informed through their own representative about what was happening over there. That representative would have no plenary power, but he would act in such a capacity the government would know from day to day exactly what was happening every hour as they cannot know from cables or letters. A number of thoughtful articles appeared in the London Times last year on this subject, and I should like to read an extract from just one of them:
If British foreign policy is to be one which will command the approval and support of all parts it must be the outcome of collective discussion and agreement about the ever-changing problems of the international world. Unless that consultation can be brought about it is only a question of time, as recent incidents have shown, for a crisis to arise which will show opinion so divided that action is paralyzed or the unity of the empire endangered.
We are living in a very interesting age. We are making now, in the British Empire, an experiment which has never been tried before in the history of the world. Canada has complete autonomy. Nobody has challenged it, and nobody ever will. When the hon. member for Labelle states that there are people in this country wihom he calls imperialists who want to have the control of affairs in Canada centred' in London, I think he is making a mistake. I do not know where they are. If there are any such people, they are a negligible quantity.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not think there is
any number of people suggesting that our affairs be settled in London.


George Halsey Perley: Centred.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Oh yes, the hon. member is quite right; I do not believe that either. But I think there is a large number of people who believe that all imperial affairs, even those which concern ourselves, should be settled in London.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY, The hon. member means Canadians?

Mr. BOURASSA, Yes.


George Halsey Perley: All I can say is that there must be very few of them. They must be a negligible quantity, because most of us in this country are of one mind. All governments from confederation on whether Liberai or Conservative, have asserted the right of this Canada of ours to govern herself and never was that right asserted more strongly than by the Conservative government during the war. If there were time to-night, I could cite several instances which came under my direct notice where steps were taken definitely to assert the right and authority of Canada in regard to her own affairs, whether they had to do with matters in this country or after our troops had left for overseas. I would also like to read, for the benefit of the hon. member for Labelle, a statement made by Lord Milner, one of the most ablest of the English statesmen, who has unfortunately passed away, regarding this delicate question. He said:-
The only possibility of a continuance of the British Empire is on a basis o-f absolute out-and-out equal partnership between the United Kingdom and the dominions. I say that without any kind of 'reservation whatsoever. It is very easy to say that; -but undoubtedly the working out of it in practice without bringing about the severance of relations between us and the dominions -will be one of the most complicated tasks which statesmanship -has ever had to face. I am not afraid of it, and yet I have to admit that the difficulties are such that our best efforts may end in failure. I hope not. At any rate, there is no other way out.
That is from a speech made by Lord Milner in England, and I heard him say it. It was a carefully made statement; it expresses the situation exactly as it stands, and I agree with every word of it.
I am one of those who hope and believe a way can be found for having the independent nations within the British Empire act together in matters of common concern in foreign affairs. I remember one Dominion day before the war when we had our annual dinner in London and I was in the chair, I made some similar remarks pointing out that the question was a difficult one, but that I believed the energies and abilities of the English nation were such that it could be solved. The hon. member for Labelle, who was present, said1 to me: you are just trying to square the cirde; you are trying to do the impossible. I am still of opinion that by care this question can be solved, but before it can be solved the government of this country should take the proper steps to see that we have some system of continuous consultation with the people of the rest of the empire.
I did not read the whole of the Prime Minister's remarks of June, 1924, but I take
1S09

Canada's Imperial Relations
it for granted we all desire to remain as part of the British commonwealth of nations, and I am starting with that assumption. If that is so and if we are to avoid breaks and make the thing work, wTe must have some other method of consultation. From a business point of view it is idle to think we can get along under the present system. When I came back from England-naturally I took much interest in and heard a great deal about this question-it was my pleasure to call upon the present Prime Minister and to talk the matter over with him. He has always been most courteous to me, but I am going to charge him now with exhibiting either indifference or neglect with regard to this important matter. He gave me all the time I wanted to talk the matter over and to explain my feelings in regard to it. I had ideas of my own as to how the plan ought to be carried out, but that is a secondary matter. Ail I want to press home to-night is that some way must be found of continuous consultation among the various parts of the empire if it is to hold together. It is impossible to imagine our going on as we are now with the possibility at any moment of some serious question developing. The inaction of the government in this respect has brought us into difficulties on several1 occasions. The despatch about Chanak would never have happened if there had been any system of consultation by which somebody close to the government had been in London and could have talked these matters over with the foreign secretary or the Prime Minister and have been given access to them for that purpose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I think he knows, with respect to the Ohanak communication that came from the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, that even the members of the British government had not had a cabinet meeting in regard to it. They did not know anything about it and they repudiated the message afterwards. So I fail to see how, even if we had had a representative in London, we should have had a word to say about it.


George Halsey Perley: I accept what the Prime Minister has said. I thought there was some dispute about that subject; it was not very definite whether it happened or not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The late Mr. Bonar Law said-I do not remember the exact words he used-it was taking a big chance with the whole imperial structure for a communication of that kind to be sent without a consultation between the different
members of the government. I think the present Prime Minister of England has also made it quite apparent that one of the reasons he left the Unionist ministry was because of the way in which that despatch was sent out.


George Halsey Perley: Did Mr. Churchill not state that the cabinet had been consulted?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. I think
he claimed the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, had knowledge of it, but I do not think he said for a moment all the cabinet had.


George Halsey Perley: Whether that is correct history or not has really nothing to do with the argument I am trying to make. If it did not happen in that case, it happened in some others. Perhaps Lausanne would be s. better example. At any rate I simply want to make that argument. I am firmly convinced that if the government really want to find a way of making independent nations within the British commonwealth work together, they must help provide some system of consultation which will be continuous. Backing that up, I read another extract from the Times article:
If the Dominions and Great Britain then find themselves unable to work together we shall at least know that the empire has perished because there is a real and unbridgeable gulf between the opinions of its parts. But it is at least permissible to believe that, despite all changes in status, they will succeed, in the future as in the past, in working together, if only they are provided with means for understanding the international problems with which they have to deal.
In conclusion, I may say that I have spoken many times in London on themes similar to this. I have tried to put before the people there our feelings and desires in Canada and the fact that some way must be found by which Canadians shall have something to say about the foreign affairs of the commonwealth of nations. Never have I found anybody who did not acquiesce and agree with that. As for the method, may I say to the Prime Minister that I am sure the statesmen of Great Britain would welcome any plan put forward by the government of this country to bring about this consultation? It was suggested at one time during the war that there might be a representative of the Dominion government in England, either a minister or some official who would have access to the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and a resolution of the war cabinet was passed in 1918 which provided that, in order to secure continuity in the work of the Imperial War Cabinet and a permanent means of consultation during the war on the more important
Easter Adjournment

questions of common interest, the prime minister of each dominion should have the right to nominate a cabinet minister, either as a resident or as a visitor in London, to represent him at meetings of the Imperial War Cabinet, to be held regularly between plenary sessions. That authority was never taken advantage of, and I urge as strongly as I can on the government of the day that they give this matter their consideration and that, instead of the inaction which has characterized them during the last four years, they undertake in earnest to find some way by which the different parts of the empire, so far as Canada can bring about that result, may consult continuously with a view to obviating any possibility of friction or of serious difference of opinion.


Mr. PARENT:: When representations were made in this matter by the hon. member, was he a member of the cabinet?


George Halsey Perley: It was when I was about to resign my position as High Commissioner in 1922; I came back to Canada and consulted with the Prime Minister before actually putting in my resignation. Now, I submit that this is too serious a question to be brought up in the form of a private member's resolution, and I take exception to the method that has been adopted. It seems to me that if we are to discuss the matter we should do so on a motion by the government, with a statement of their policy. For these reasons I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.37 p.m.
Tuesday, March 23, 1926