1927-03-29

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: [DOT]
That on Wednesday, April 6, prox., and subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, the sittings of the House shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other days.
He said:	The government will take
Wednesday nights after to-morrow.


Mr. SPENCER:: After to-morrow?


Mr. SPEAKER :: After to-morrow. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. COOTE:: Oil division.
Motion agreed to on division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might take
this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to refer to what appears to be an error in the Votes and Proceedings of March 24. I think it was understood by the House that beginning tomorrow, we would take Wednesday for government business. I notice, however, in the Votes and Proceedings the date is given as Wednesday, April 6. I therefore move:
That on and after Wednesday, March 30 instant, and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all business except questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to say that to-morrow I may move that the House take Monday as a government day also. I am giving notice now in order that hon. members may have an opportunity to think it over in the meantime.


Mr. MANION:: Carried.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS COMMITTEE


Mr. D. F. KELLNER (Athabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy):
That the quorum of the committee on privileges and elections be reduced to nine.
Notice of this motion was given by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis).
1640	. COMMONS
Privileges and Elections Committee


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, do I understand that
this is a recommendation by the committee?


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: No, Mr. Speaker, this is
a motion that was submitted by the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Joliette, about two weeks ago. At that time some objection was taken to it and the motion was allowed] to stand. Now we are making the motion again.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I do not
know whether it is in order to reduce the quorum of a committee without any report from that committee asking for the change.


Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I might explain to the Minister of Justice that this motion is being made because we have not yet been alble in four attempts to get a quorum of the committee together.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but who is making
the recommendation?


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The chairman.


Ernest Lapointe: The chairman has no
power to recommend anything.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker,
may I be allowed to put the facts before the House? The committee on privileges and elections, of which I have the honour to be the chairman, has been called together on four different occasions, but we were unable to proceed for lack of a quorum. Without a quorum the committee could not sit and consequently could not report to the House. At the instance of some members of the committee I moved in the House to have the quorum reduced to eight or nine members, and objection was taken by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) on the ground that as this was a very important committee the quorum should not be reduced. I must admit that I had not up to that time given much thought to the matter, but it struck me that probably it might be just as well not to reduce the quorum. Moreover, as I had no authority from the committee itself-because, as I have just stated, the committee did not sit regularly,-I decided to let the matter stand until such time as other members might move to have the reduction made. Now the question is before the House, and as I have stated the facts it is for the House to decide.	-


Henry Elvins Spencer: In supporting the motion I would point out that the quorum of this committee is much larger

in proportion to its membership than that of any other committee of the House. With so many committees meeting at the same time it is often quite difficult to secure a quorum in a committee of this sort. There are some very important matters to come before the committee and I think it would be in the best interests of the House if the quorum were reduced.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: I remember when the question was raised in the House on a former occasion by way of a motion moved by the chairman of the committee. I had had no notice of that motion and" therefore had not had time to consider it, and I did ask that it be allowed to stand over until the following day. The motion, however, was not brought up again, and nothing has been done until to-day. I conclude, therefore, that there is no objection to the motion and that under the circumstances it would be well to reduce the quorum of the committee to nine as requested. There are one or two important measures before that committee. It is, I think, the desire of all hon. members to conclude the business of the session as expeditiously as possible, and it is just likely that our proceedings may be delayed if we are not able in the meantime to get the business of that committee done. I think the quorum should be reduced to allow the committee to function.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I suggest that the chairman of the
committee ascertain the hours at which other committees are sitting and if possible fix, for the assembling of the committee on privileges and elections, an hour which does not coincide with the time of meeting of other committees. I am a member of the committee in question and I think that in every case I have received a notice, another committee has been sitting at the same time in which I happened to be very much interested. It seems to me that a quorum could be obtained if the chairman summoned the committee to meet at ten o'clock in the morning, or at eleven o'clock on days when other committees are not meeting at that hour.	.


Jean-Joseph Denis: In view of the
opinions expressed by hon. members I would not be opposed to allowing the motion to stand.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can see no objection to the motion oarrying. It would help to expedite the business of the House in which we are all interested.

United States Embargo on Milk


Hewitt Bostock: The House can, of course, always suspend the rules. Generally the House acts on the initiative of the committee, on whose report it proceeds. In the present instance, however, I think that, inasmuch as there would be real injury if the committee did not meet at all, it would be advisable to adopt the motion. The House must take its stand on the question, and it was because of the desirability of having the business of the committee proceeded with that I was ready tc accept the motion as being in order. The committee must meet and if it cannot do so a remedy must be provided. However, the motion stands.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
W. T. GOODISON (West Lambton) presented the second report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the government.
Mr. GOODISON moved:: That the second report of the select standing committee on railways and shipping be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 240 (from the Senate), for the relief of Jessie Wright.-Mr. Garland (Car-leton).
Bill No. 241 (from the Senate), for the relief of Audrey Idelle Knowles.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast,).
Bill No. 242 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Edward Couch.

Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 243 (from the Senate), for the relief of Clara Cairney.-Mr. Bowman.
Bill No. 244 (from the Senate), for the relief of Annie Sophia Gordonsmith.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 245 (from the Senate), for the relief of May Elizabeth Chambers.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 246 (from the Senate), for the relief of Violet Gladys Cockerton.-Mr Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 247 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mary Eleanor Kennedy Ledden.- Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 248 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arlee Lillian Helmsley.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 249 (from the Senate), for the relief of Merton Egbert Ellsworth Kittredge. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 250 (from the Senate), for the relief of William Newton Anglin.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 251 (from the Senate), for the relief of Annandale Ramsden.-Mr. Goodison.
Bill No. 252 (from the Senate), for the relief of Willie Rosenberg.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 253, respecting certain patents owned by the Sealright Company, Inc.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution:	.
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to regulate the sale and inspection of poisons represented as a means for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating fungi, weeds, insects, rodents, or other plant or animal pest, collectively or individually affecting agriculture, and to provide for registration, the payment of fees thereon, and penalties for infraction of the act.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.	.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: May
I ask the Prime Minister whether a decision has yet been reached with respect to the civil service salary revision?
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister):	I think I can promise
my hon. friend that the government will make a statement on the matter early next week.



UNITED STATES EMBARGO ON MILK AND CREAM

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House a matter of vital importance to our section of the country and to those border counties in the province of Quebec which ship milk and cream to the United States.
1642	COMMONS
Canadian Minister at Washington
A headline in a local newspaper says: "Milk and cream embargo hits eastern townships farmers." I desire to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question, but before doing so I would like to be permitted to explain that the market for the cream produced in the district surrounding Sherbrooke and to the south of that city is in Boston and the New England states; cream from this section has not been shipped to the city of Montreal. Therefore I think the government should immediately take this question up with Washington through our new minister and see to it that the embargo is lifted at once. This is the season of the year when the milk supply is increasing, and the matter is of vital importance. I ask the Minister of Agriculture if anything is being done in this connection.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I would say to my hon. friend that about noon yesterday we received official information through the Department of External Affairs, and they in turn through Hon. Mr. Massey at Washington, that this embargo had been placed on Canadian milk and cream due to an outbreak of typhoid in Montreal, thought to be caused by an infected milk supply. Immediately the officers of my department got in touch with the Department of Health and with the medical health officer of the city of Montreal, to see exactly what was the situation and what could be done in order to expedite the discovery of the source of contagion. We had a telephone message from the medical health officer of Montreal this morning, but the only information we were able to elicit was that the contagion was pretty general and that the source had not yet been discovered, either in the city through the medium of any dairy or in the country at the source of supply. Mr. Stephens of the National Dairy Council was in communication with the Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Jar-dine, at Washington, in the hope of raising the embargo as it would affect those localities which have not shipped any cream or milk to Montreal for the past six months. Until twelve o'clock to-day, however, no word had been received with respect to that matter, and that is where the matter stands at present. Everything is being done to locate the source of contagion, but until the source is located and the contagion removed I am afraid the general embargo cannot be lifted, although it may be taken off as against those localities which are not now and have not for the past six months shipped milk to Montreal.



CANADIAN MINISTER AT WASHINGTON


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yesterday I asked the leader of the House, in the absence of the Prime Minister, as to whether or not a return might be made which was called for by a resolution of the House passed over a month ago, including the letters of credence issued to Hon. Mr. Massey, as minister plenipotentiary to Washington, the order in council passed by the Canadian Privy Council with respect to his appointment, any correspondence between the Canadian government and the British government with respect to the execution of those letters of credence by His Majesty the King, and a copy of any orders in council passed by the Privy Council of Great Britain with regard to that appointment. Some time has elapsed since that order was passed, and I was hoping that those documents might be laid on the table of the House before the discussion to-day commenced.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I was not
present yesterday when my hon. friend raised the question, because I would then have directed his attention to the fact that the return was made a fortnight ago. I am afraid my hon. friend has overlooked that fact, but if he looks at the votes and proceedings of March 16, at page 292, he will find that the Secretary of State tabled a return of the papers asked for.
I might say that my hon. friend's motion asked for a number of documents which do not exist. It sought instructions from His Majesty the King to the present minister at Washington; there were no such instructions and therefore none could be brought down. The letter of credence from His Majesty the King to the President of the United States was tabled, and I will send to my hon. friend a copy which I have under my hand at the moment. Then my hon. friend asked for a copy of an order in council by the King in Council with reference to this matter; I notice that in some of his writings he has made the statement that an order was passed by the King in Council, or must have been passed, and my hon. friend has been looking for it ever since. As a matter of fact there was no order passed by His Majesty the King in Council in Great Britain; the only order in council recommending the appointment of Mr. Massey to Washington was the order in council of this government, which has been placed on the table. Then my hon. friend asked for any general instructions on behalf

Typhoid in Montreal
of the government to the Canadian minister. There are no general instructions; the minister is instructed specifically from time to time with reference to questions as they come up. There have of course been verbal instructions but no general instructions have been given in the form of a written document.
I will send to my hon. friend the three documents which it is possible to table in answer to his motion, and which were tabled some time ago.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am sorry I overlooked
it. Usually one receives a notice from the department concerned when papers are laid on the table of the House; I suppose I must have overlooked that notice, because I certainly am not accusing the department of negligence in the matter. In order to make it quite clear, however, I would ask how the order in council passed by this government was communicated to His Majesty in order to secure from him the issuance of the letters of credence, if there was no correspondence in the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, acting upon the request of our government in the matter, would communicate the order in council through the proper channel in Great Britain.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: How would it be communicated by this government to the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By cabled
despatch.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: By cabled despatch?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the correspondence be
laid on the table whether it is by cable or by letter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be glad to lay any further correspondence on the table, but I do not think the particular correspondence for which my hon. friend is now asking was covered in his original motion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I may say to
my hon. friend that I was in England at the time, and my recollection is that I had a word with Sir Austen Chamberlain in regard to the matter, and as to the method of having His Majesty approached. I may also say to my hon. friend that I had a personal interview with His Majesty. It was understood with the British government that the order in council of our government would be the one on which His Majesty would act in making the appointment.



TYPHOID OUTBREAK IN MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: I wish to
ask the Minister of Health whether his department is taking any part in the endeavour to cope with the outbreak of typhoid fever in the city of Montreal? May I be permitted to supplement the question with one or two statements?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I wish merely to fortify
my attitude in asking the question. The matter of public health, I am informed by the best judicial authorities in Canada should be in the hands of the Dominion government. According to the British North America Act we have not assigned to the provinces-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The question
should be put without supplementing it by a speech. The hon. member should confine himself strictly to putting a question, otherwise he must give notice of what he intends to ask which, perhaps, would be the better procedure.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: My reason for asking the
question is this:	It should be realized what
this outbreak of typhoid means for Canada. Out of 1,225 cases of typhoid fever-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: -thirty have become carriers of disease and that disease is likely to be spread all over the Dominion. Therefore it is an important matter, and I should like to know what the Department of Health is doing to cope with the outbreak.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health):: In reply to my hon. friend I wish to say that knowing the limitations of the Canadian Health department, I have merely asked the deputy or officers of the department to get in contact with the provincial and municipal authorities in order that we might be advised as to the conditions existing in Montreal.


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, as t'he Ottawa water is contaminated in the spring, would you be so obliging as to issue instructions in order that drinkable waiter be supplied to the House of Commons.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: The 'hon. gentleman is
asking if proper measures have been taken for safeguarding the water supply in the parlia-
Chinese Situation

ment buildings. I may inform him that this morning the usual supply of water from the Ottawa river was replaced by Tally-ho water.
INQUIRY FOR RETURN On the Orders of the Day.


Hon. J. A. MACDONALD (Kings):: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Public Works to a motion passed1 on 23rd February asking for the production of certain papers, and to say that the documents have not yet been tabled.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: I may say to my hon. friend that
I was not aware that the return had not been brought down. I shall be very glad* to look into the matter.
THE CHINESE SITUATION On the Orders of the Day.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yesterday I asked a question but
the Prime Minister was not in his place and it was therefore deferred until to-day. I am not quite sure whether the Canadian government has jurisdiction over Canadian citizens resident in China, but I would ask whether the government has considered urging upon those Canadian citizens the advisability of withdrawing from China until after the civil war is over?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of the civil war existing in China at the present time intimation has been given to foreign residents in that country to move from interior points. It has not, however, been thought necessary to advise their leaving China altogether, and the government of Canada has not given any special directions advising that Canadian residents should leave China.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Supplementing my
question, may I ask whether, on account of the great danger to life in Shanghai, it is intended to leave Canadian citizens behind barricades in China?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend must make some allowance for the intelligence of the citizens of Canada who are in China. They surely are in the best position to judge as to what may be necessary and advisable.



IMPERIAL CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee of supply.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, by agreement between the different parties in the House it was arranged that this afternoon a statement should be made with regard to the proceedings of the recent Imperial conference, and that following the statement hon. members should be free to discuss the conference proceedings before Your Honour leaves the chair. Subsequently in committee on the estimates of the Department of External Affairs any matters of detail on which hon. members may wish to have further information can be elaborated.
It may perhaps answer in advance questions that will arise in the minds of some hon. gentlemen opposite, and help to remove doubts as to the position of the present administration in ithe matter of its representation at the recent conference, if I mention to the House that the first- intimation the former Liberal government had of the intention to hold an Imperial conference in 1926 was last year in the month of January. At that time a communication was received from the British government asking if it was probable that Canada would be able to be represented at a confertence in the month of June, or later in the year. A reply was sent to that communication indicating that political conditions were more or less uncertain in Canada, and that it was doubtful whether anyone would be in a position to leave to attend an - Imperial conference in June. It was suggested that the conference might better be postponed for another year, but if not for a year at least till the fall. As hon. members know, when June came political conditions were very unsettled. During the concluding months of last year's session members of the administration had very little time to give to the problems that were to come up at the conference. Indeed the intention was, had the government remained in office, to take advantage of the period of recess that would follow the session carefully to prepare with respect to the various subjects on the agenda. However, the Liberal administration resigned at the end of June, and the Conservative administration then took office. That administration continued in office until on in September; I doubt if during that period the hon. members of that administration had any time to give to Imperial conference matters. When we resumed office the date set for the conference was upon us.
I mention this simply to bring out the circumstance that when my hon. colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and I left to attend the Imperial conference in September we had had no opportunity whatever of study-

Imperial Conjerence-Mr. Mackenzie King
ing the agenda, and were really scarcely aware of the subjects that were to come up for discussion. There is one point, however, that I would like to make quite clear, and it is this, the moment the government came into office it decided that Canada would be represented at the conference, regardless of how inconvenient that might be to those members of the administration who might represent the Dominion. Upon resuming office in September the first communication I addressed was to the Prime Minister of Great Britain to say that the Minister of Justice and myself would represent Canada at the Imperial conference and that we hoped to be able to be present on the opening day of its proceedings.
The conference opened on October 19 and continued its sittings until November 23. During that time there were twenty-three plenary sessions of the conference. May I make clear at the outset that the conference in character was what by name it is described as having been; namely a conference. I't was a conference of the prime ministers together with other ministers of the dominions and of the British government discussing matters of mutual interest and common concern, but in no sense was it a cabinet council. At a preceding conference great care was taken by my colleagues and myself to make it clear that we had no authority from the parliament of Canada to become members of an Imperial council seeking to lay down policies with regard to imperial affairs; that we were there as representatives of the Dominion of Canada to confer with representatives of other governments of the empire, to reach such conclusions as it might be possible to reach and then to report them to our respective parliaments, but that we had no authority whatever to bind in any particular in advance the parliament of our country. That position was restated at the opening of the recent conference, and I therefore hope that from the outset it will be clear to hon. members that in no particular has this parliament or this country been bound by any conclusions that were reached by members of the conference that met last fall.
An effort was made with respect to the different questions on the agenda to reach a common agreement, and common agreement was arrived at with respect to practically all the matters which appeared on the agenda. That common agreement finds expression in the report of the conference, and in the course of my remarks this afternoon I shall assume that hon. members not only have received copies of this report but that if they are at
all interested in the proceedings of the conference they will have perused the report. There has been laid on the table not only a printed copy of the proceedings of the conference but a supplementary volume in the nature of appendices and a larger summary of the proceedings. These two documents give the main outline of the proceedings of the conference.
Perhaps I should mention to the House the method and order of procedure adopted in conference. The representatives of the several dominions and of the British government met around the council table at No. 10 Downing street. The proceedings opened by a short address delivered by the Prime Minister of Great Britain. Mr. Baldwin reviewed the proceedings of preceding conferences and also gave an outline of recent developments on matters of inter-imperial interest. The address of the Prime Minister of Great Britain was followed by addresses by the prime ministers of the other dominions. They will be found in full in the printed report of the appendices to which I have just referred.
Following the introductory addresses the question of trade within the empire was next dealt with at a plenary conference. Addresses were delivered by the President of the Board of Trade and by the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs outlining the point of view of the British government with respect to inter-imperial trade and questions relating thereto. This general review was followed by similar reviews by representatives of the different dominions.
The next subject to be considered was that of foreign affairs; perhaps I should not say foreign affairs-I should make the statement broader and say inter-imperial as well as foreign relations. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs delivered an address outlining at considerable length Britain's foreign relations in all of the countries of the world, basing his statements upon the latest information gathered from the various embassies and legations of Great Britain in different parts of the globe, and also upon the accumulation of data which has its existence in the Foreign Office. That statement was necessarily highly confidential and it could not be given to the public generally. It was followed by statements on the part of the prime ministers of the different dominions with respect to those external relations of their countries which they felt might be of special interest to those assembled.
It was thought that the constitutional questions were so far-reaching and also appeared in such numbers on the agenda that it would
1616	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
not be advisable to have those questions discussed at a full conference, but that better progress could be made if the constitutional issues were referred to a committee of the conference where there would be greater freedom of discussion than at a large meeting at which shorthand notes were taken of all the proceedings. Accordingly a committee, of which the Right Hon. the Earl of Balfour was chairman, was appointed to deal with the question of constitutional relations as they affected both relations within the empire and the relations of the dominions and Great Britain with foreign countries. When that committee met it was found advisable to appoint from its number a sub-committee to deal with one special phase, namely that which relates to the negotiation, signing and ratification of treaties and matters pertaining to conferences at which different parts of the empire may be represented. My colleague the Minister of Justice was named chairman of that committee. I shall come back a little later on to the conclusions of these various committees. I am at the moment merely seeking to give a review which will indicate the scope of the work of the conference as a whole.
Next in interest to foreign affairs and interimperial relations as a subject of general discussion at the conference was the question of defence. This was dealt with in the first instance by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, then by the senior officer of the chiefs of staff sub-committee. Admiral of the Fleet, Earl Beatty, in a survey of the general strategic situation. Meetings also took place at the Admiralty, the War Office, and the Air Ministry, in which the situation from the standpoint of His Majesty's government in Great Britain was presented in greater detail. These meetings and addresses of the Minister for Gar, First Lord of the Admiralty and the Minister for Air were followed by addresses^ on the part of representatives of the Dominions with respect to the services-army, navy, and air-of the respective dominions. Matters which were thought to be of special interest to the conference as a whole were brought to its attention in that manner.
In addition to the general review which took place at the full conference, and the detailed discussions at the admirality, at the A\ar Office, and at the Air Ministry, at which experts gave an account in a more detailed way of some of the problems of defence that from the British point of view were considered by the British government as important enough to bring before the conference as a whole, there were demonstrations of the various arms of the service in operation at

different centres illustrative of the developments of modern warfare-a naval review off Portland, an army mechanical display at Camberley, and air demonstrations at Croydon and Cardington.
In addition to these main subjects of interest, trade, foreign affairs, inter-imperial relations, and defence, a number of economic questions were brought up for consideration. Hon. members may recall that in 1923 there were two conferences which carried on their proceedings simultaneously; there rvas the Imperial conference so-called, and the Imperial economic conference. At the Economic conference, questions relating to economic matters were discussed. On this occasion there was but one conference, with the result that so far as economic questions were concerned, they for the most part came to be dealt with bj' permanent officials of the different governments accompanying the delegations or resident in London. They took up questions that in part had been, prior to the meeting of the conference, the subject of communication between the different governments. Economic matters that were thought to be of sufficient importance to bring before the conference as a whole were brought before it in its concluding days. After the various committees had met, there was placed before the body as a whole the various conclusions to which the different committees had come.
I should like to bring out this fact, if I may, that throughout the conference, with respect to the different matters placed before the conference, its members seemed to desire not to discover points of difference, but rather to arrive at as many points of agreement as might be possible. May I say with reference to the British ministers whom we met, that I failed to discover from the beginning to the close of the conference the slightest evidence of any desire to treat the matters before the conference from a party point of view. Nothing could have been fairer, nothing oould have been more patriotic in the true sense of the word, than the manner in which, from beginning to close, the British government dealt with the representatives of the other governments present at the conference. I stress that at the moment because I hope that in our own parliament these matters of inter-imperial interests and concern may be viewed from a higher level than that of questions of party politics giving rise to party controversy. I shall sincerely endeavour in presenting this subject this afternoon to present it from what I may say expresses the Canadian point of view rather than from the point of view of the representative of a political party in this House.

Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
Coming to the proceedings of the conference, I will take up first those which are to us, of less immediate concern and reserve for the 'concluding part of my remarks the subjects in which I think the House is more especially interested, at least at the present time.
The economic questions might, I think, be omitted from discussion at the present moment. more particularly as all that I would be in a position to say about them will be found fully covered in the report which the House has before it.
I will just enumerate the subjects that are dealt with in the report: overseas settlement, workmen's compensation, research, forestry, exhibition within the empire of empire films, industrial standardization, Imperial shipping committee and Imperial economic committee, maritime conventions, oil pollution of navigable waters, statistical questions, and taxation questions. So far as these various questions are concerned, I do not think there is anything of a controversial character in the report. The effort of those who were assembled at the conference was with respect to many of these matters to find more effective means of gathering statistical data and of coordinating efforts between different parts of the empire.
Perhaps I might say one word on the subject of overseas settlement, as being of more interest to the House than any of the other topics. One thing that was apparent in the discussion of migration was that in all parts of the world the unsettled conditions had very materially changed the situation in the matter of emigrants. In presenting the Canadian point of view of overseas settlement, attention was drawn to the fact that immigration to Canada through government assistance is not as easy a matter as it was some years ago. There are not available at the present time lands which can be given away as homesteads, and in addition, the cost of transportation by ocean has increased very materially. The social laws of England, providing funds for the unemployed, have made it from the point of view of some persons less desirable to emigrate than formerly. With respect to assistance. I think it is true that the present administration has gone further than any previous administration in assisting migration from Great Britain to this country. Under the British Empire three-thousand family settlement scheme, this government has entered into a generous arrangement with the British government in regard to bringing settlers here. One step that was taken during the conference was to provide for the inspection of immigrants by medical services
established in Great Britain, so that emigrants could leave the shores of Great Britain with the certainty of being admitted here, at least, so far as the test of physical fitness is concerned, and not have to run the risk which has been a deterrent in many cases in the past of being obliged to return after having crossed the ocean. The government's policy has been to assist agricultural labourers, domestic servants and juvenile immigrants, but to confine its assistance in the matter of assisted passages to those classes. The report upon the work being done in Canada made by the British officials who visited this country last year was one of a highly commendatory character.
On the subject of communication, there were taken up methods of improving the steamship services as between different parts of the empire. The question of the Pacific cable came up incidentally, and an agreement was reached between the different governments as to the basis upon which future reserve funds should be expended. Other points that have been in dispute between different parts of the empire were satisfactorily settled and an agreement was arrived at under which a bill was to be introduced in the British parliament. This has since been done.
On imperial air communications, I Should perhaps mention that the discussion helped to make apparent that we are on the eve of a vast development in long distance flights. Possibly no part of the conference was more impressive than that which related to the development of aerial navigation and air services, not only as factors in times of war but as agencies in the pro-motion of peace and progress. Fortunately, so far as Canada is concerned, it was possible to make a statement of the part played by our air services, which was of the highest character. During the period of the war, though this country had no aerial service, it did contribute 10,009 men to the air force, and since the war there has been a very great development, largely on the civil aviation side. With respect to surveys, the patrolling of forests, of coast areas and in other directions, a marked advance has been made by the Canadian service.
The British government intimated that they were anxious to experiment in airship flights, and asked the dominions if they would cooperate toward that end. It appeared to my colleague and myself that the citizens of Canada would wish to have this country cooperate closely with Great Britain in an experimental air service between the British Isles and the Dominion, and we undertook- it was the only undertaking we gave without
1648 .	.	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
the sanction of parliament, with the full expectation however, of receiving such sanction, to say that this country would 'be prepared to establish mooring masts and to provide the necessary meteorological data to enable the experiment to toe made within the next year or two. That undertaking was cordially appreciated by the British administration.
On the question of defence, I have already outlined what took place. Perhaps I need only add that no commitments were made on the part of Canada with respect to defence. Indeed no requisitions were made on the part of the British government for action on the part of the dominions. The resolution of the conference of three years ago was approved. Hon. members will recollect that that resolution sets forth that it is for each dominion, through its government and its parliament, to decide upon its own defence, and upon the character and extent of its cooperation with other parts of the empire. In other words, it is for this parliament to say in all matters pertaining to defence just how far Canada shall go.	.
Among the other subjects dealt with were some that related more particularly to the colonies, protectorates and mandated territories. As this dominion is not interested in an immediate way in any of these questions,
I need not more than mention that they were subjects of consideration by some of the dominions.
I come now to what, from the point of view of this dominion, I assume to be the most important of all the matters discussed at the conference, namely, constitutional issues and questions relating thereto. First of all may I explain how these questions came to play the important part which they did in the conference proceedings? I mentioned the other day that Canada did not put forward concretely any particular matters to be taken up at the conference. I should not like that statement to be construed as meaning that Canada has played no part with respect to many of the questions that were raised. As a matter of fact the position which this country has taken all along of being a selfgoverning dominion with full right to control its own domestic affairs, both internal and external, necessarily brought to the fore many important questions which seemed to suggest a possible conflict with that point of view. Some of these questions we in Canada have long since worked out satisfactorily, but they are assuming an importance in other parts of the empire similar to that which they assumed here many years ago. An outstandi jMr. Mackenzie King.]
ing impression one receives from a conference such as the Imperial conference is the vast difference that exists between the different dominions of the British Empire. To refer to the dominions as a class, as though they were all of a type, is I think a mistake. There is need for the recognition of the individuality within the empire of each separate dominion. There are differences of historical background, of racial composition, of economic development and of political evolution, all of which go far to make the differences between the dominions themselves vastly greater in many particulars, than any differences 'between	this Dominion
and Great Britain. It is largely for that reason that some of the questions which created a good deal of discussion at the conference were brought forward. Questions that we, as I have said, have regarded as settled for many years past, have come to assume an importance in South Africa and in the Irish Free State which they have not assumed here for many years, and naturally those countries were interested in having all such questions determined.
Broadly speaking, the first duty and effort of the committee that dealt with the constitutional questions was to formulate a statement which would clearly define the position that has been attained by the selfgoverning dominions in their relation to Great Britain. That position is set forth in the report as one of equality of status, permitting of free cooperation between the different parts of the empire. It is natural that the constitutional questions should assume a considerable magnitude when we recall the fact that the transition from a relationship within the empire of imperial control and colonial subordination to one of equality of status, with free cooperation between the different parts, is the greatest political transition that possibly the world has witnessed, the most momentous, and the most unprecedented political development of modern times. It was inevitable that this transformation, which has gone on with special rapidity since the war should create new problems that would have to be faced, should make it necessary from time to time to take stock, to consider ways and means of making forms correspond to facts, and of adjusting relations with foreign countries to the new conditions. So far as the dominions were concerned, in their relation to Britain, they started out in a position of colonial subordination. It was recognized that there was an

Imperial control over the dominions. In the course of years, however, by here a little being gained and there a little, in the political evolution that has occurred, a change ha?, come about; and whatever we may say when we come to refining from technical and legal points of view, we no longer think of the dominions as being in a position of colonial subordination nor of the British government as in a position of Imperial control in relation to other parts of the empire.
To solve the constitutional question it was necessary to find some common ground and agreement on the part of all sections of the empire regarding the new status which has been attained. How that status has been attained and to whom the credit is due is another question that can be discussed by itself. Certain it is, however, that to no one group or cause is the change to be attributed: it is part of the evolution of the last half century, an evolution that was tremendously accentuated by the war. The change that has come about is one that can be described as a change from a position of Imperial control and colonial subordination to one, as I have already said, of equality of status and free cooperation as between the dominions and Great Britain. That being set out as the basis of a common agreement, it became necessary to consider in relation thereto many forms which, if not entirely, at any rate to some extent, have become obsolete and which appear to be in conflict with the altered situation. That brought up various constitutional questions which were the subject of considerable discussion. Once having stated clearly that the position attained to-day was one of equality of status, it then became necessary to examine, in the light of that statement, existing legal, judicial or administrative forms which seemed to be in conflict therewith, and to see how far these obsolete forms were a vital consideration. That was how the committee came to give so much time to the consideration of some of the matters to which I shall now refer.
May I be allowed to quote to the House the statement Which was agreed upon as setting forth the present position) of the dominions, on the one hand, and of Great Britain on the other, in their relation to each other. And here let me stress this point: this statement relates not to the strictly legal position but to the constitutional status which has been reached. In a speech recently delivered in Edinburgh Lord Balfour declared that law had always followed a little behind1 constitutional practice and development; and that very sound opinion, I think, may well be kept
29, 1927	1649
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
in mind in considering this large question of the constitutional position of the different parts of the empire at the present time.
I will read the paragraphs of the report which bring out the significant passage:
The committee are of opinion that nothing would be gained by attempting to lay down a constitution for the British Empire. Its widely scattered parts have very different characteristics, very different histories, and are at very different stages of evolution; while, considered as a whole, it defies classification and bears no real resemblance to any other political organization which now exists or has ever yet been tried.
There is, however, one most important element in it which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development-we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
The significant points in that statement are, first, the emphasis it places upon the complete autonomy of the dominions in the matter of their own domestic and external affairs, and secondly, the allegiance to a common sovereign. These two are stressed as being points of agreement among the various parts of the empire as represented at the conference.
Let us now consider this general statement, taking up in turn existing forms or laws that seem in conflict with it. As a first, not in order of consideration but as illustrating the evolution that has taken place, let me begin with the king's title. The conference decided to change the title of His * Majesty the king. That change grew out of the altered position of the Irish Free State, which is one of the self-governing autonomous dominions. The title of His Majesty heretofore has always been "of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland," et cetera, "King". It was pointed out by representatives of the Irish Free State that inasmuch as that state was a self-governing dominion, and an agreement having been reached at the time of its establishment that it should be placed in the same category as the other dominions, it should no longer be linked up with the United Kingdom in. the description of the king's title. By agreement, therefore, between the British government and the Irish Free State it was proposed that the title should read: of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King," et cetera, it being understood that the title
1650	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King .
was of geographical and not of political significance. In order to meet an objection raised on the part of northern Ireland, it was agreed that the parliament at Westminster-this was not done by the conference but by the British government-should hereafter be described as "the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'' and not as "the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." That matter was one which really was the subject of an agreement between the Irish Free State and the British government at fhe time the Irish Free State was created, and the conference was simply asked to acknowledge the situation as being a proper one in the light of the broad principle of equality of status between the dominions-the Irish Free State being one of them-and the British government.
The next subject to be mentioned in this connection relates to the position of the governor general. I have already stated that the change from a position of colonial subordination to one of equality of status as regards the dominions has been a matter of political evolution. When governors general were first appointed to this country-just as governors, are appointed to-day to the colonies- there was an acknowledged position of colonial subordination in the relation of the Dominion to the mother country. That, however, has long since passed away, and the position of Governor General has come to be understood as that Of the representative of His Majesty the King. Speaking in a previous debate the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) said that the position of Governor General had in no particular been changed, that it was set forth in the British North America Act and remained as stated there.
1 agree with my hon. friend as to that; the position has not been changed but what has been changed is this:	It is now perfectly
clear that the Governor General is advised by the ministry of the Dominion to which he comes, and is no longer free to accept advice from His Majesty's government or from any department of that government with reference to the affairs of the Dominion of which he is Governor General.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Has not that been the case
since Mr. Blake was Minister of Justice?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should not
be at all surprised to learn that Mr. Blake emphasized that aspect of the question very strongly.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Instructions to the governors general were changed at his request.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The point I
wish to bring out clearly is that the conference was speaking for all the dominions, and not merely for the Dominion of Canada. IV e have undoubtedly led the way in bringing about the present constitutional position of the Governor General, and I think it can be said that there is no longer any possibility of doubt that the Governor General is the representative of His Majesty the King and in no way the representative of the government of Great Britain or of any department of that government.


Robert James Manion: Might I ask a question
there? Last 3'ear, why did my hon. friend insist that the governor general get advice from the colonial office?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend had waited a moment, he would have heard me speak on that subject, because I intended to refer to it and I shall be glad so to do. Notwithstanding the accepted constitutional position, governors general of Canada up until very recent times have, I think, felt themselves in many particulars largely the agents of the British government. One has only to pick up some recent biographies to see wherein governors general of Canada have been communicating with the Colonial Office very much from the point of view of being the representatives of the Colonial Office and of the British government rather than the representatives of His Majesty the King. That,
I take it, is not likely to occur in the future, and if it ever should occur it will be perfectly apparent that it is a wholly unconstitutional position.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They will be more careful in writing their own biographies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That may be
true. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) has asked me why, I advised the late Governor General, Lord Byng, to confer with the British government at the time I requested dissolution. Had I asked Lord Byng to communicate with the British government with regard to any matter which was a Canadian question pure and simple, and not with reference to a particular course of proceeding on a constitutional matter which might be brought to his attention, I would feel that as Prime Minister I had tendered advice to His Excellency which did not recognize the position I have already stated to be that which the Governor General of this country should maintain. But what was the advice I tendered to His Excellency? It was that he should ask the British government not whether there should be a dissolution in this com-

Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
try, not its decision with respect to any concrete question before the Canadian public, but rather, what in the event of His Excellency being presented by his Prime Minister with an order in council asking for a dissolution would be the proper constitutional course for him to adopt.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But I might remind my hon. friend that the advice of the Prime Minister was then before the Governor General.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is quite
true; I had advised His Excellency that I thought there should be a dissolution of parliament. His Excellency was not disposed to grant a dissolution; I should not say he was in doubt as to whether he had the right of dissolution, because I think His Excellency held the view that he was in a position to decide that question irrespective altogether of his ministry. I did not agree with him in that; I felt that the Governor General, being in the same position as His Majesty the King, should act upon the advice of his ministers, and when I saw that His Excellency was not inclined to act upon the advice of his ministry, in order to save a constitutional question from being raised, I sought to take every step possible .to have His Excellency follow the constitutional course. I suggested that before taking a step which would be unconstitutional and which would be recognized by all parts of the British Empire as such, His Excellency would do well to ascertain from the British government what he should do if confronted with a request for a dissolution.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But might I ask another
question? In doing that was not my right hon. friend asking the Governor General to take advice from the government of Great Britain with regard to an issue raised in respect of Canadian affairs?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made it
perfectly clear to His Excellency at the time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It must have taken a great deal of casuistry to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend may be accustomed to casuistry, but I am not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was doing
the best I could to have His Excellency follow a constitutional course, and I think if my hon. friend will reflect a little he will agree that His Excellency might have done worse than to have accepted my advice.


Robert James Manion: Might I ask another
question, just as a matter of clearing up the
situation? Did not His Excellency take the attitude that he represented the king and not the government of Great Britain?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not sure that, I have caught the significance of my hon. friend's remark.


Robert James Manion: I will repeat it. I am just surmising, but did not His Excellency lake the attitude that he represented the king and not the government of Great Britain?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly, and it was on that basis that I suggested that His Excellency should communicate with the British government, as to the constitutional course of procedure, because only a very few months 'before His Majesty the King had been advised by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald to grant a dissolution, and His Majesty granted dissolution on that advice. I advised His Excellency that as he was representing the king, he should do what His Majesty the King in like circumstances did in Great Britain.


Robert James Manion: Then why ask His Excellency to take advice from the government of England?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was not
advice in the general acceptation of the term.
I was asking His Excellency to find out, as one who had received instructions from the British government, what was the constitutional course if he were asked by his Prime Minister for a dissolution. As I pointed out, the constitutional course in Great Britain has been established beyond all peradventure for over a hundred years; the King acts upon the advice of his ministry with respect to dissolution, and I was asking .that the representative of the king in Canada should do exactly as His Majesty the King would do in Great Britain, especially as if a wrong constitutional course were taken it was very likely that results would follow which might be very far reaching and possibly inimical in some parts of the empire.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Was not that exactly the
same as asking the Governor General to take the advice of the Secretary of State for the Dominions as to his constitutional duties?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will only believe that what I was really seeking was to advise Lord Byng along constitutional lines and trying to prevent a mistake, he will understand my point of view more clearly. May I say in order to make my position quite clear that I added that after
1652 _	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
His Excellency had received an opinion he could do what he liked with it; I did not say he was bound to act upon it. I wanted His Excellency to get as wise counsel as he could ipossibly get, and there were no other sources from which I could see that he could obtain it. May I add this further:	I
said to His Excellency that I would have no objection to his calling in Sir Robert Borden, a former Prime Minister of this Dominion, and asking his advice as to what was the right constitutional course to take in a matter of that kind. I did not urge it, but I made the suggestion. Any student of British constitutional history knows that in certain circumstances, His Majesty the King is entitled to call in elder statesmen no longer in office to confer with him before he finally makes up his mind on a course which involves a great constitutional issue.


Robert James Manion: Is my hon. friend prepared to call in other governments to advise him?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Other privy
councillors.


Robert James Manion: No, but other governments?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend forgets that there is a special relationship between the government of Great Britain and a governor general who is sent out from England.


Robert James Manion: I thought he represented
the king.


An hon. MEMBER:: Now he does, but not last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall now
read what I said to His Excellency in this regard. I take it from my letter of June 28th:
Your Excellency will recall that in our recent conversations relative to dissolution I have on each occasion suggested to Your Excellency, as I have again urged this morning, that having regard to the possible very serious consequences of a refusal of the advice of your first minister to dissolve parliament, you should, before definitely deciding on this step, cable the Secretary of State for the Dominions asking the British government, from whom you have come to Canada under instructions, what, in the opinion of the Secretary of State for the Dominions, your course should be in the event of the Prime Minister presenting you with an order in council having reference to a dissolution.
Now there was only in the absence of a suggestion of the kind one of two possible courses for His Excellency to take: either to decide the matter himself, without advice from any quarter, or to accept the advice of his

Prime Minister; and I think that I was rendering the then Governor General the greatest service possible when I sought to have him fortified from a source that the House will admit is a good one, with respect to the right course of procedure on a constitutional issue that was then a matter of discussion between us. I continue quoting:
As a refusal by a governor general to accept the advice of a prime minister is a serious step at any time, and most serious under existing conditions in all parts of the British Empire to-day, there will be raised, I fear, by the refusal on Your Excellency's part to accept the advice tendered, a grave constitutional question without precedent in the history of Great Britain for a century, and in the history of Canada since confederation.
There were the possibilities of a very serious situation. Fortunately it has been solved satisfactorily by the people of Canada, but if the people had not given the answer they did, that question would have been far from settled up to the present day.


James Dew Chaplin: I suppose there would
have been a revolution.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shut up.


James Dew Chaplin: I will shut up when I like.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I just go a step further and say a word as to my action, which was a chivalrous action, in that particular.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Which was a chivalrous action intended to prevent the Governor General from making the mistake which he did make-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and which action has been grossly misrepresented by hon. gentlemen opposite. They have sought to interpret that act as an effort on my part to throw a certain onus upon the British government, to have it appear that in some way there had been Downing street control. In order to make clear to the House exactly what my own wishes were in the matter, I desire to read one or two communications which passed between certain of the ministers in Great Britain and myself immediately upon my tendering my resignation as Prime Minister. I knew that hon. gentlemen opposite would attempt to have it appear that an issue was being created between Great Britain and Canada, and I sought to take the one step-and the only step that I could take-to make it perfectly clear from the

Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
start that there was no issue between Downing street and the government of this country. The minute I had tendered my resignation as Prime Minister I sent a cable message, to be given to Mr. Baldwin, the Prime Minister of England, and to Mr. Amery, Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, setting forth my relations with the British government during the entire period I was Prime Minister. I could not send that communication myself direct as Prime Minister, because I was no longer in office, but I sent it to Mr. Larkin, the High Commissioner for Canada, to be transmitted to the Prime Minister of England and the .Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Was that after your resignation?	[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My resignation was announced in this chamber shortly after two in the afternoon. This communication was sent at about a quarter to three on the same day.


Mr. McGIBBON:: When you were only a private member.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At that time I was a private member; I had ceased to be . Prime Minister.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What right had you to communicate through Mr. Larkin?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had the same right as my hon. friend has when he has a communication he wishes to make.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not a communication to the British government.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say further that if there had been a prime minister, if there had been a secretary of state for external affairs, if there had been a government, I would have asked the government or some member of it to send that communication. But we had not a prime minister, we had not a secretary of state for external affairs, we had not a government. We had ino one who could officially send a communication, and I was anxious that the British government should understand the situation in its true light just as quickly as possible. This is the cable which I sent to Mr. Larkin immediately on my resignation as Prime Minister of Canada:
I wish to advise you immediately of my resignation to-day as Prime Minister of Canada. Would you kindly so advise the Prime Minister, Mr. Baldwin, and Secretary of State for Dominions, Mr. Amery, giving reasons as set forth in my statement in House of Commons this afternoon which was in following words:
"The public interest demands a dissolution of this House of Commons. As Prime Minister I so advised His Excellency the Governor General shortly after noon to-day. His Excellency having declined to accept my advice to grant a dissolution to which I believed under British practice I was entitled, I immediately tendered my resignation which His Excellency has been graciously pleased to accept. In the circumstances as one of the members of this House I would move that the House do now adjourn."
I wish you would express to both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Dominions my deep appreciation of the very cordial and happy relations which have existed between us throughout my tenure of office as Prime Minister of Canada.
W. L. Mackenzie Kino.
This communication was forwarded to Mr. Amery and Mr. Baldwin by Mr. Larkin, and the following replies were received:
Dominions Office, Downing Street, S.W. 1, 30th June, 1926.
Dear Mr. Larkin,
It was good of you to send me yesterday a copy of Mr. Mackenzie King's telegram announcing his resignation.
I am glad to know that he like myself has appreciated the cordial and happy relations which have existed between us during his tenure of office, and I have to thank him for the unfailing courtesy and consideration with which he has dealt with the various matters which, from time to time, I have personally brought to his notice.
Yours sincerely,
L. S. Amery.
The following communication was received from the Prime Minister:
10 Downing Street, Whitehall, S.W. 1 1st July, 1926
Dear Mr. Larkin,
I write to thank you for your letter of the 29th June, in which you sent me Mr. Mackenzie King's message upon relinquishing his office as Prime Minister of Canada. This event marks the end of a period during which, as Mr. Mackenzie King says, our relations have been consistently most cordial and happy.
I should be grateful if you would be so good as to thank Mr. Mackenzie King for his kindly message which I have very much appreciated.
Your sincerely,
Stanley Baldwin.


Peter McGibbon: May I ask the Prime
Minister a question?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Peter McGibbon: I should like to ask the Prime Minister since when the High Commissioner became the official medium of communication between this government and the government of Great Britain?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Since the High Commissioner's office was created. That is what the High Commissioner's office is for.

1654	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
The High Commissioner is the representative of the government of Canada in England in its relations with the different departments of government in England and with regard to matters relating to Canadians in the old country.


Peter McGibbon: That was not a communication from the government of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon.
member sends a communication to Mr. Larkin I am sure he will treat it with great courtesy. I have stated the reasons why the communication was sent in that way. I thought it was desirable that the British government and the public at large in Canada as well as Great Britain should know immediately that my resignation was in no way due to a difference between the British government and the Canadian government. That was what I was endeavouring to make clear and I hope my hon. friends opposite will be able to appreciate that that was a stand very much in the interests of the old country and of this country, having regard to the issue which had arisen at that particular time.


Peter McGibbon: That does not answer
my question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: While I am on this subject, as indicating 'how it is viewed by constitutional authorities of very high repute, may -1 read to the House a communication which was sent to the Edinburgh Scotsman on the 16th March of this year by Mr. A. Berriedale Keith. I think members of the House know that Mr. Berriedale Keith is the author of Responsible Government in the Dominions, Imperial Unity in the Dominions, Dominion Home Rule in Practice, Constitutional Administration and Laws of the Empire, and other works and that he holds a very distinguished position as a constitutional authority. Mr. A. Berriedale Keith has evidently observed in the press of the old country, through despatches sent from this side, an endeavour to misrepresent certain aspects of this particular situation, and as a constitutional authority he has written to the Scotsman communicating his view which I now wish to read to the House. The first part of it refers to a matter, that came up a short time ago and that I referred to in parliament, of an alleged understanding between the 'former Governor General and myself. I made it quite dear at the time that the whole matter was a fabrication and that I thought it was doing an injustice to the then Governor General to assume that anything of the kind would have been attempted by him, as it would have been quite improper for him to
IMr. Mackenzie King.]
have permitted any understanding with respect to the holding of office. This matter is also referred to by Mr. Berriedale Keith. This is what appears in the Edinburgh Scotsman of Miarch 16, 1927:
Constitutional Issue in Canada The University, Edinburgh,
March 15, 1927.
Sir:
The constitutional issues in Canada, the Conservative view of which is clearly set out in the message from your Ottawa correspondent in your issue of to-day, are so important that a comment based on constitutional practice may be permissible. The alleged "gentlemen's agreement" has been declared by Mr. Mackenzie King a complete fabrication, and it need only be	added	that since the	well-known	case ofSir W. Ellison-Macartney in Tasmania in 1914 it has been clearly unconstitutional for a governor to make any bargain with ministers as	to the	terms on which	they are to	remainin	office,	and it is quite	unfair to attributeto	Lord	Byng a breach	of a clear	rule of
constitutional usage.
The vital question of Mr. King's action in advising Lord Byng to consult Mr. Amery appears to me to have been seriously misunderstood. No one could deny that Lord Byng was an Imperial officer subject to the royal instructions, conveyed through the Secretary of State. The point at issue was-what did these instructions enjoin in the case where a prime minister asked for a dissolution, and presented for approval an order in council for that purpose? Was it Lord Byng's duty to investigate the political situation for himself, and decide on his own responsibility what was best for Canada? Or could lie follow the British practice-recently signally illustrated by the immediate acceptance by His Majesty of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's advice in 1924- and act on the advice of his ministers? The custom of the Australian states supported the use of a personal discretion, but no Canadian Governor General since federation had ever declined advice. Lord Byng was without political experience, and it appears to me that Mr. King acted with much common sense in advising him, before taking a decision which, as he rightly anticipated would have very far-reaching consequences, to ask the Secretary of State what the royal instructions really meant. 1 confess that, while I have always held that Lord Byng erred in his decision, it appears to me that much of the responsibility really rests with a system under which a Governor General is sent out without any clear instructions as to the place which he is to occupy in the structure of government. Happily, the resolution of the Imperial conference of 1926 should effectively prevent any Governor General in future being placed in so uncomfortable a position as was Lord Byng.
I am, et cetera,
A. Berriedale Keith.
I pass to the next subject that came up, and that is the system of communication between the British government and our government. In the old days of colonial subordination all communications came from the

Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
British government to the Canadian government through the Governor General. The practice began when the Governor General was avowedly the agent of the British government. During the war a new practice was adopted of direct communication between the prime minister of a dominion and the Prime Minister of Great Britain. There has been no definitely established practice since then, and in view of the declaration that the Governor General was representing His Majesty the King and was not the representative of the British government, it became important to consider whether the custom of always forwarding communications to a Dominion government through the Governor General should be continued or not. It was felt by the conference that there was no more reason, logically or constitutionally, why communications should be sent from the government of Great Britain to a Canadian minister or Prime Minister through His Excellency the Governor General, than why a communication from the Canadian government to the Prime Minister of England or the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs should be sent through His Majesty the King. It was decided that, having regard to the equality of status, the practice that should be adopted hereafter would be one of direct communication of government with government, thereby eliminating the possibility of a Governor General being drawn into controversy or discussion with respect to despatches that are immediately passing between governments. It will take a little while to have this new arrangement worked out, but it is being worked out at the present time.
The next subject was that of the negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties, and the representation of the dominions along with the British government at conferences and gatherings at which the representation of all or a certain number might be expected. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the Minister of Justice was chairman of the committee which dealt with that subject, and I think I might therefore well leave to him the statement to the House on that phase of the work of the Imperial conference.
I pass now to a reference to the operation of Dominion legislation which appears to be in conflict with the broad principle of equality of status that was laid down. That was another most important subject considered. May I make it quite clear that the conference never assumed that there were not certain laws existing which appeared to conflict or which did conflict with equality of status between the dominions and Great Britain as broadly stated. Indeed it was frankly ad-33P49-105i
mitted that some did conflict and it was because of the conflict (that they were brought up for consideration and discussion. To have a very few individual acts that appear to conflict with a generally established position, and to have that situation admitted and dealt with, with a view of bringing about equality of status to the full, is a very different tiling from having an old order which has passed away understood as still existing, and thereby permitting many people who are only7 too anxious to make difficulties between Great Britain and her Dominions to emphasize the idea of subordination. It was to get free of this kind of question which agitators, if I may use that expression in a general way, delight in bringing up, the apparent exceptions to a general rule, that the conference deliberately undertook the consideration of this matter of the operation of laws that seem in conflict with the general position of equality of status. What was the first apparent exception that was brought up? It was the question of the disallowance of Dominion legislation by the British government.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are we to understand that the only purpose in taking up these particular overriding acts was in order to meet the objections raised by agitators?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend must not take too seriously my reference to agitators.


Edward Joseph Garland: I simply
wish the Prime Minister to make it quite clear, because I think he will agree that it is most important that the House and country should understand exactly what the motive was in taking up these questions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motive
was to get unanimity of understanding and to prevent misunderstanding in any quarter. I will come to what I meant when I spoke a moment ago about agitators, and I think my hon. friend will see clearly that I was justified in using the expression. I was referring to the power of disallowance of a Dominion act. There is a power that has not been exercised so far as Canadian legislation is concerned for fifty years. I doubt if anyone in this country, except a few students of the constitution, is aware that the British parliament has the right to disallow certain legislation which this parliament passes.


Mr. BENNETT:: Not the British parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The British
government; I beg pardon. There is an obso-
1056	[DOT]	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
lete law. It had significance at one time, but its significance has entirely gone. It remains a law; as Sir Robert Borden has said somewhere it is still a matter of legal right, but constitutionally it is dead, and it is from the constitutional point that these matters are being considered at the present time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does the Prime Minister
mean that it would be unconstitutional for the British government to exercise either reservation or veto?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what Sir Robert Borden has stated most emphatically.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would rather have your own statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would say
so also unless His Majesty were requested so to do by a Canadian ministry. Let me make this remark at once to relieve my hon. friend's mind with respect to the point he was going to note down, that this does not apply to any right that is guaranteed by special statute or by the constitution. I think my hon. friend has given himself a lot of unnecessary trouble and pain through overlooking the fact that the conference was careful to state that whatever is guaranteed by the constitution and whatever is laid down in a specific statute on the question of the right of the British government with respect to Dominion matters will not be interfered with in any particular. A committee has been appointed to consider this particular aspect with a view of seeing whether, in the light of the general statement that there is equality of status, there should not be some modification, but the conference has done nothing directly or indirectly to affect .any right COnserv^-J by tj,e constitution or by' jaw cirafted in reference to matters of this kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With reference to disallowance or reservation. That is dealt with on page 15 of the report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. I think the country has been unduly alarmed due to the circumstance that this particular fact was apparently not in the minds of those who were commenting on this question. My hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is right! He says the country has not been alarmed, that only some individuals have.


Mr. HOCKEN:: .John S. Ewart.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask my hon. friends to look at page 15 of the report of the conference, where they will find the following:
(Mr. Mackenzie King. ]
On this point we propose that it should be placed on record that, apart from provisions embodied in constitutions or in specific statutes expressly providing for reservation, it is recognized that it is the right of the government of each Dominion to advise the crown in all matters relating to its own affairs. Conse-qently, it would not be in accordance with constitutional practice for advice to be tendered to His Majesty by His Majesty's government in Great Britain in any matter appertaining to the affairs of a dominion against the views of the government of that dominion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Might I ask a question, with the utmost good faith? Does that mean in reference to Canada that sections 55, 56 and 57 of the British North America Act, dealing with the reservation and veto of Canadian statutes by the Imperial government, remain in full force and are recognized by the terms of the paragraph which the Prime Minister has just quoted?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The British
North America Act remains exactly as it is in all particulars.


Mr. HANSON:: That is what Taschereau
says.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And in that he is quite right. It remains exactly as it was in the beginning, and it cannot be changed except in the manner which the British North America Act itself expressly provides.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then what becomes of the
power of reservation and veto which is provided in the British North America Act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have just explained that the power is just what it has always been. It has not been exercised for fifty years: it is impotent in practice, and is not likely to be exercised at any time with respect to Canadian legislation.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But is not that due to the
restraint of the parliament of Canada in passing legislation, rather than to the power of disallowance or veto, which is here recognized, having become obsolete?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Undoubtedly
the parliament of Canada has exercised judgment in the legislation it has passed, but I submit to my hon. friend that if he really wishes to raise an issue between Great Britain and this Dominion he need only have the British government begin to disallow legislation which this parliament may enact. For fifty years that power has not been exercised, and to all intents and purposes it does not exist as a constitutional right to-day.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is affirmed in this very
report as a constitutional right.

Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No British
sovereign to-day would think of disallowing an act of this parliament on the advice of the British ministry. He would wish to have the advice of His Majesty's advisers in this country. Unless the subject were one which is set forth in the constitution of the country or relating to something which the constitution was intended to safeguard-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Or set forth in imperial
acts.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: May I ask the Prime
Minister-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I do not think
it is fair to the Prime Minister to be interrupting him all the time. This is a very important debate, and it seems to me the Prime Minister should toe allowed to continue.	,


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I beg pardon. I was deeply interested in the discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend will allow me, I think I can explain to him wherein this has a significance. So far as the question of disallowance is concerned, it is not a matter of any great concern to this parliament or to this country because it has not been exercised for fifty years, and we have no fears of its being exercised. But take the position of Ireland, and then you begin to see why this question was brought up at the Imperial conference, and why the interpretation which the British ministry has placed upon it is a wise one. The Irish Free State came into existence in 1921, and one of the clauses of the act bringing it into existence provided with respect to constitutional questions, that matters affecting the Irish Free State would be carried out in accordance with the practice and custom of Canada. That is what made it important to have an interpretation, so far as Canada was concerned, of the significance of disallowance.
Now may I draw this to the attention of the House? In the Irish Free State you have a body of members who have separated from those in the north of Ireland. They have withdrawn the representation which they formerly had in the British House of Commons, having now their own parliament dealing with their own affairs. If you grant that the power of disallowance lies in the hands of the British government, then, so far as the Irish Free State is concerned, the situation is this: that the men who within the last three or four years have been given the right of self-government are obliged to have all their legislation subject to disallowance by a government that politically may be hostile to them. Does not my hon. friend agree with me that I am entitled to- say that that is the kind of a situation which agitators delight in? All that is needed to create trouble in southern Ireland with respect to the power of disallowance is to point out that gentlemen sitting at Westminster, who politically are the sworn enemies of the right of self-government in the Irish Free State, have the right to disallow any act of the parliament of that state. The British government took the broad view that such a situation should not be allowed to develop in that way, and they have given in clear terms their own interpretation of what their course of action with respect to disallowance will be. The British government themselves have done this. They have said with relation to legislation passed by the parliament of the Irish Free State that they would not disallow such legislation except upon the advice of the ministers of the Free State parliament, not the ministers of the British parliament. Is not that the sort of thing that makes for unity and harmony within the empire? And the same thing is true in its application to South Africa. South Africa has grave racial problems. An agitator there can make capital of the fact that legislation passed by the South African parliament may be disallowed by the British parliament. But the minute that the British government come forward with a broad liberal principle and say we will so far as this power of disallowance is concerned exercise it in a constitutional way, namely, where there is a selfgoverning dominion we will recognize equality of status and we will have that power of disallowance exercised only on the advice of the ministry of the dominion concerned, there all possibility of agitation is at an end. That was the principle laid down with respect to disallowance. And so I might go on and say with regard to sucih matters as the right of appeal to the Privy Council that there again the position was clearly stated, that it was fertile dominion itself, possessing self-government to the fullest extent, to say whether or not it wished that right of appeal limited, cancelled or continued. In other words, what the British government, along with the other dominions sought to do wias to make it clear that when we speak of self-government- autonomy-in relation to domestic and external affairs, the words mean exactly what we say they do. I shall leave this part, because it gets into the realm of legal controversy, to my friend the Minister of Justice to deal with.
The same class of argument or objection as has been raised in this House came up in t Ve House of Lords and was answered by the Right
1658	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
Hon. Bar] Balfour himself, speaking for the conference and the point of view which it presented. I will ask the House to bear with me while I read one or two of the criticisms that were made in the House of Lords on the points I have just been mentioning. They resembled closely the criticisms which hon. gentlemen opposite have been making. Then I will ask my hon. friends to listen to how Lord Balfour replied to those criticisms. Lord Balfour's reply is the answer that I would make to similar criticisms here.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is most unconvincing in view of the facts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will not be convinced by Lord Balfour, a former Tory prime minister of England, nothing under heaven will convince him.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: He is the keenest dialectician and casuist in the House of Lords.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Lord Balfour
was dealing more particularly with lawyers, and I would address his reply especially to my hon. friend, because Lord Balfour was confronted with just the kind of objections that my hon. friend has been making-objections based on some legal technicality which has really little or no force so far as the constitutional position is concerned.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And he was meeting it with the same casuistry which the right hon. gentleman is now displaying.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Lett us listen to the statements. Lord Parmoor, taking part in the debate in the House of Lords on December 8, spoke as follows regarding restrictions:
First of all, their own powers are circumscribed and restricted under their own constitutions granted by this country, under the operation of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1805, and under the well-known principle, which is not only true in theory but has been acted upon frequently, that as regards matters essentially affecting the mother country the British parliament at Westminster has a supreme authority over all dominions and colonial possessions.
Further on he said:
No one can say that the dominions, for instance, are in no way subordinate to the British parliament in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs. They are subordinate, not only in theory but in practice, in constitutional practice, in many directions both as regards their domestic and their external affairs.
And a little further on he added:
It has been authoritatively laid down that the obvious purpose and meaning of the Colonial Laws Validity Act are to reserve the

right of the imperial legislature to legislate for the colonies to which a local legislature has been given, and to make it impossible for the colonial legislatures to enact anything repugnant to the imperial legislature, but not otherwise to derogate from its general legislative authority. As a matter of fact, under the Colonial Law's Validity Act and what is known as the principle of reservation, a series of matters has been reserved or kept under the jurisdiction of the British parliament at Westminster. For this reason: although you may lay down a principle of this kind in very wide language, yet when you come to its operation you will find that in a considerable number of cases what may appear to be a mere act of a local legislature of a dominion is of a character that may substantially-I use that word purposely because it is a word that has been applied in legal language-affect the interests of the mother country.
Mr. -CAHAN:	That was Lord Parmoor.
The right hon. gentleman said he was quoting Lord Balfour.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, Lord Parmoor is putting forward the views that my hon. friend would wish to put forward.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Possibly I can present my
own views.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly. Then may I read what Lord Balfour said in reply? What I have just read is the argument presented from the point of view-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Of the agitator.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of the lawyer who is looking to the technical, legal interpretation rather than to the constitutional position as it is to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was president of the council in the Ramsay MacDonald government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The answer
made by Lord Balfour is this:
I must honestly say that to this part of the speech I have the most fundamental objection. He seems to me to have approached the subject entirely in the wrong spirit. He does not deny that he sympathizes with those declarations; he does not deny that that is the sort of idea that he himself cherishes; but he says: "What folly to lay down the general principles on which this empire is now constructed. I think you should first settle all the preliminary details, and smooth away all the technical difficulties which have their origin in the long history of our overseas dominions."
I cannot imagine any policy from which I more profoundly differ. You are to set yourself every kind of problem, every sort of difficulty which may conceivably arise in the course of applying the broad principles of equality of status before you dare to announce that equality of status exists.
Can anything be more legal or less statesmanlike? I cannot even put myself in the

Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
frame of mind of the noble Lord on that subject. He asks, for instance, if the Dominions want to separate from us what exactly would happen then, what sort of notice" ought to be given, by what procedure would it be done? You might as well consider all the causes of divorce before you decide upon the problems of matrimony.
Does not the noble Lord see that it would be impracticable for the conference of the Dominions and the Mother Country to meet at Westminster to say: "Well, on the whole we are inclined to think the idea of empire is one to which we may all look forward and which will embody equality of status, but just think of how many questions we must decide before we get to that point. Here is this difficulty and there is another difficulty arising out of the act of 1865. There are all these problems with regard to the Merchant Shipping Act. We must settle all those before we decide on what principle this collection of self-governing states is to work together." I boldly say to your Lordships' House that that is from beginning to end the wrong way of going to work. We have gone on exactly the opposite way.
Then, referring to a speech he himself had made before, Lord Balfour continued:
I said in reference to the relations between the mother country and the dominions:
"My own personal view' is that the relations are those necessarily of equality. None of us conceive that of this conglomeration of free states one is above the other. One may have more responsibility than another, one may be in more dangers than another, one may be closer to the centre of international complications than another, but all are on an equality. That is the very essence, as I understand it, of the British Empire. As to exactly what that equality involves, as to exactly w'hat degree of responsibility each has for the other, on that I personally think very little is gained by refining, discussing or defining."
Then he concludes:
Remember exactly what the position is. In this country we are all familiar v'itk the idea of equality between the self-governing portions of the empire. I will not give the quotations, but it has been stated by various high authorities for the last quarter of a century and has never, I think, been formally contradicted within these shores. But that is not the position in all the Dominions. In many of the Dominions there is a minority-in most cases, I dare say, a very small minority-u'ho are alw-ays following the train of thought which recommends itself so much to the noble Lord. They are always looking at these survivals of an earlier past and saying: "how can you consider that we in this or that Dominion are on an equality with the mother country w'hen we find still unrepealed this or that statute? If you are to allow that kind of statement to go uncontradicted, unqualified by the broad considerations of equality w'ith v'liich you ought to begin, of course you can get in an audience mixed up in local controversy a certain amount of opinion in favour of the assertion that, whatever talk may go on in England, in this or that Dominion things are far otherwise and the boasted equality between the various selfgoverning parts of our empire does not, in fact, exist. It does, in fact, exist.
What is contrary to the fact are these survivals of a previous condition of things, survivals which have no practical effect, W'hich have no practical interference with that equality w'hich each part of the self-governing parts of the empire may justly claim for itself, but which no doubt can be set out in a formal document which, if you choose to treat the w'hole thing as purely a question of law, might have an effect, and as I believe has had an effect, in local controversies overseas. There is but one way of getting rid of that difficulty, and getting rid of it forever, and that is to take advantage of the presence within our shores of the Prime Ministers, who are representative each of his own Dominion, meeting round a table discussing this question in all its aspects and coming unanimously to the conclusion which I have ventured to say represents British opinion, and to agree that it may be desirable to consider this or that difficulty in the future, but that the broad principle-never interfered with on any important point-stands, that no control is exercised by any single one of the self-governing parts of the empire over any other part of the empire.
That is as conclusive a statement of the position that the conference sought to lay down as it would be possible to present.
When my hon. friend at this moment asserts that it is all nonsense to talk about equality of status he runs completely counter to his hon. leader, who made a statement in this House in the course of the speech on the Address. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) outlined what had taken place at the different imperial conferences that have been held. He declared that the idea of equality of status was not a new one and that for many years past we had been claiming that equality. But he made one statement which was very emphatic and positive as to the time at which that equality had been recognized. Let me read to the House what the hon. member said. He is reported in Hansard at page 27, December 13, 1926, as follows:
The next conference was that of 1921. There had been a good deal of change in the position of the overseas dominions since the 1917 conference; not only had we been recognized as free and equal nations, but we had actually signed the treaty of Peace, I suppose the most memorable treaty of modern or of ancient times. There we stood in Paris shoulder to shoulder with the other nations of the W'orld and recognized as being on an equality w'ith Great Britain and the other nations.
Could there be a more positive statement than that or one more comprehensive? That is what the leader of the opposition said, and I wonder whether my hon. friend will differ from him. If he does, then there is considerable difference in the ranks of hon. gentlemen opposite. The hon. member went on to say:
1660	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Mackenzie King
Therefore when the conference met in London in 1921 a question immediately arose as to whether it was now necessary to call a constitutional conference pursuant to the resolution of 1917. The constitutional situation had greatly changed; our position had become definite and accepted.
That is the view of the leader of the opposition. Let me again point out that the question of equality of status is not a matter that has been determined by this last conference; it is one of political evolution. What this last conference has done has been to give to the world an authoritative statement of an agreement on the part of all parts of the empire to that broad principle of equality of status.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: How was that agreement evidenced?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By a report unanimously adopted 'by the conference, which report was approved by the British government as well as by the representatives of other governments present.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does approval of the Prime Minister constitute approval on the part of Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid we shall have to wait forever before my hon. friend will approve it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is not a fair answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there is to be any approval at any time I doubt whether a more authoritative one could be found than that which the last Imperial conference gave.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Which the Prime Minister
of this country gave on behalf of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Which I agreed to, yes, on behalf of Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Could no more authoritative approval be given by Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend thinks that in giving that approval I went contrary to the views of this parliament, I ask him to move a resolution to that effect and let us debate it in this House. If he does we shall get an expression of opinion on the part of parliament, and I venture to say that parliament will endorse the position taken by the Imperial conference on the question of equality of status.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There are other things.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has taken a long time to secure this authoritative statement regarding the relationship between the dominions and the mother country. May 1
[Mr. Mackenzie King.J
remind the House that the first person to declare, in a manner which served to attract general attention that Canada was a nation, with an equality of status with other parts of the empire, owing a common allegiance to the king, was the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. This was at the time of Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee in 1S97. In that year, speaking on July 7 at the Constitutional Club, as reported in The Times on the following day, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
The British Empire is a galaxy of free nations. The bond of the British Empire is allegiance to the king, without distinction of race or colour.
I ask my hon. friend to compare that declaration made in 1897 with the declaration of the Imperial conference of 1927 and he will find that both essentials are identical. Each lays emphasis on the national character of the Dominions, each lays emphasis on the common bond of allegiance to the Sovereign. Sir -Wilfrid Laurier was decried by the friends of my hon. friend as being a separatist because he sought to give this country the status of a nation and equality in status with other parts of the British Empire, but the position Sir Wilfrid Laurier took at that time has at last not only been vindicated but come to be recognized throughout the British empire and throughout the world.
I would be very wide of the mark if I omitted as the most important of all the factors which have hastened this recognition the great part taken by this country and by the dominions as a whole throughout the period of the great war. The declaration we have here is virtually the declaration of the position of our Dominion as it would be expressed by the men who fought in the war, and who, through the general who led them at the close, gave expression to their views in the heart of London. I have in my hand a copy of an address which I had the privilege of listening to in London in 1919, delivered by Sir Arthur Ourrie who was, if I recollect aright, receiving the freedom of the city of London. The hon. member for Argenteui! (Sir George Perley) was at the time Canadian High Commissioner 'in London, and through his courtesy I had the privilege of going with him to the Mansion House and listening to this address. I desire to read a part of it to the House, because it seems to me to express exactly what the Imperial conference has expressed with respect to the status and position which should be recognized throughout the empire as existing between its different parts. On May 27, 1919, at the Mansion House, Sir Arthur Currie spoke as follows:

Imperial Conference-Mr. Guthrie
At this time and in this place all we can say now is that the war has brought about many rapid and drastic changes in the viewpoint of the dominions concerning their relations with the Motherland. They now believe that it is urgent that a new basis shall be found which will strengthen the British system and which will recognize that certain component parts of the empire have earned for themselves the status of nations, and they are anxious, among other things, that every suggestion of political inferiority shall be removed. In the many branches of war activities, either in the field or at home, as soldiers or as manufacturers, or in the sweeter realm of mercy, the dominions have proved themselves second to none, and have earned for themselves a proud place amongst the civilized nations of the world alongside Great Britain.
The national spirit of the dominions has been matured by the war, but the ties which bind the empire together have in no way been weakened. On the contrary, I believe there is now a strong feeling that machinery should be erected that would make out of the British Empire a constellation of nations free, equal, united by good will, common ideals, reciprocal confidence, all under one flag and one King. These nations, although enjoying absolute freedom in the working of their particular destinies, should have a voice commensurate with their_ singular interests in the empire as a whole. Under equal rights, equal privileges, they should, through the medium of the machinery provided, share equal duties one toward the other in the broadest spirit of cooperation, and in the councils of the world should speak definitely under the authority accruing to the combination of power, broad wisdom, and high ideals which it would represent. There is no reason why Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand, should not be to England in relation to the empire what Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester are to London in relation to the United Kingdom, and I believe that a political system that would bring about the realization of this ideal would prove an everlasting benefit, not only to the empire s constituent parts, but to the world at large.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that this statement by Sir Arthur Currie, voicing as I believe it does the views of the men who fought overseas in the Great war, constitutes a statement of the position which exists at the present time throughout the empire, a position of equality of status between Great Britain and the selfgoverning dominions, and I believe it is a position which instead of challenging in any particular we should be proud to assert on every possible occasion.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
House has been very glad to hear the exhaustive statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in regard to the proceedings of the Imperial conference held in London during October and November, 1926, which for the first time have been up for discussion in the parliament of Canada as a definite question. In introducing the subject this afternoon the right hon. Prime Minister stated that by agreement it was arranged that the discussion should come up in this way. By that language the Prime Minister could only have meant that by agreement this afternoon was fixed as the time for the discussion, because I never for one moment considered that a question of this kind would be brought up on a motion made by the government itself that you, Mr. Speaker, do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me say
to my hon. friend at once, that I meant we would take it up at this time; it was a matter of arrangement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An arrangement of time
but not method.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree that the time was arranged but not the method, and when the suggestion was made to me there was nothing further from my mind than that such a method should be selected for this important discussion.
This matter was discussed to some extent at an earlier date this session, Mr. Speaker. On December 13 last', when the House was occupied in discussing the address in reply to the speech from the throne, the subject received some considerable attention, and reference was made this afternoon by the right hon. the Prime Minister to that debate. No objection was taken to his so doing and I presume the same courtesy will be accorded me, because it is my desire to make reference to the remarks of my right hon. friend on that occasion to show the idea I had with regard to the method to be adopted by the government in bringing this question to the attention of parliament. During the discussion in December last my right hon. friend made it abundantly clear that the report of the conference would be submitted to parliament in due course; he did so in precise and emphatic language which will be found at page 43 of Hansard:	.
It was a conference of representatives of the different governments, and everything that conference did, before it begins to bind a single part of the empire, is subject to the approval of not only the governments but also the parliaments of the different parts of the empire.
A little further down on the same page he used these words:
I may say to my hon. friend that the government intends to put the report before this House just as it appears, and to recommend its adoption.
1062	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Guthrie
There can. be little surprise, therefore, that I was misled by the positive statements made by the Prime Minister on December 13 last. I assumed that my right hon. friend would bring this report forward to-day in the form of a motion expressing the approval of this House of the report and the proceedings of the conference of 1926. When he spoke in this chamber on the 13th of December last he declared that he would do so: he meant to bring the report here and ask this House to confirm and approve it. But in the interval he has changed his mind for some mysterious reason best known to himself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I give
my hon. friend the reason?


Hugh Guthrie: Not just now. I do not
want to be interrupted and I do not want to be discourteous either; but I myself do not interrupt and I do not like to be interrupted. For some mysterious reason best known to himself, which he did not give the House to-day, the Prime Minister has changed his method of procedure. He does not now ask parliament to approve this report. As I listened with the greatest respect and with the greatest attention to his remarks this afternoon I gathered that in his view all the consent, or assent, or approval, which this parliament need give had already been given by the Prime Minister when he supported the motion in the Imperial conference which carried the report. I must dissent entirely from that position. I submit to my right hon. friend and to the Minister of Justice that they never were authorized by this country or this parliament to go to the conference for any other purpose than to confer, to advise, and to consult, and the Prime Minister had not the power, nor had his Minister of Justice, nor had either or both of them, to commit this parliament or this country to a single proposal, and it cannot be done to-day save through the action of this House. It has always been laid down in this House, and I think in the conferee re itself, that all proceedings at these conferences are purely advisory.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: And my hon. friend the
Minister of Justice interjects the remark "hear, hear".


Ernest Lapointe: It is a truism surely.


Hugh Guthrie: Does he agree with me
in that?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely.


Hugh Guthrie: Does he agree that this
parliament has not in any way, shape or form been committed upon the report of the conference?


Ernest Lapointe: Surely.


Hugh Guthrie: Then why the discussion this afternoon? Why take up the time of parliament further if approval of parliament is not asked by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, and will not be asked by the Minister of Justice?


Ernest Lapointe: It was not taken up in the British parliament.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not discussing the
action of the British parliament. I am talking of the action of this government, and of the statement made by the Prime Minister in this House on the 13th December last that this matter would be brought up, a report laid before parliament, and the approval of parliament sought. That has not been done. It should have been done; and I entirely dissent from the proposal that we in this country or in this parliament can be committed in any degree whatever by the action of the Prime Minister and his cabinet in a matter of this kind. I mention this particularly now in view of what took place at the conference of 1923. The danger of the situation is that unless we do take some definite action in regard to these proposals, as time goes on we may be taken to have acquiesced in them whether we have done so or not. That is precisely the difficulty in which we find ourselves in regard to the conference of 1923. In the conference of 1923 certain recommendations were made in regard to the negotiation and the ratification of treaties and carried unanimously. That conference was attended by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and by the then Minister of Justice, Sir Lomer Gouin. They heard the resolution in regard to treaties read and discussed at the conference; they both voted for it, at least they did not dissent, because the report says it was carried unanimously; but it has never been laid before this House for approval or adoption. What are the words of the resolution itself? It says:
The conference recommends for the acceptance of the governments of the empire represented, that the following procedure should be observed in the negotiation, signature and ratification of international agreements.
It recommends "for the acceptance of the governments concerned." Parliament has never approved that resolution. Is it possible that the government has approved it? Because "government" is the word used in the

Imperial Conference-Mr. Guthrie
resolution. Is it possible that an order in council has been passed by this government, of which parliament knows nothing, approving the resolution in respect of treaties passed in 1923? I do not think that any order in council has been passed. I do not think the government has ever approved the resolution of 1923. I am sure the House has never approved it. Now the difficulty is this: We have acted upon that resolution without approval. It may be said we have adopted it, and I think we should be very careful that we are not involved in the same manner in the present instance. In the year 1924, and again I think in the year 1925, treaties have been ratified and signed in accordance with that resolution passed at the conference of 1923, which was not to come into force until it was accepted by the governments of the selfgoverning dominions. This government has never accepted it so far as I know, but we have acted upon it and consequently we will be held to have ratified it.
Now I think my right hon. friend realizes that if we simply discuss the present resolution, if parliament takes no action upon it, if we allow it to lie upon the table without dissenting, we will be held, as the years go on, to have acquiesced in it and to be bound by it. I propose then to offer formal dissent, to make clear that this parliament has not approved of it and is not bound by it. I submit that the principle that ministers are entitled to go to these conferences and in any way commit this country is absolutely untenable.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: No man could have made it plainer than the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier did in the conference of 1902, again in 1907, and again in 1911, when he even objected to the change of the name from "Imperial conference" to "Imperial council." He said the words "Imperial council" might imply a body which has some power to enact or to legislate. He dissented from that idea altogether, and made his dissent very marked and very plain. No one has ever considered, from his day down to the present time, that the mere reports of these conferences, although unanimously passed, committed anybody until they had been expressly approved by parliament.
My right hon. friend has brought this matter up in such a way that it is difficult to express ourselves without being charged with partisanship in so doing. No one knows better than my right hon. friend that any motion we may make, by way of amendment to the motion now before the chair, is a motion of want of confidence in this government; and nobody knows better than my right hon. friend that he can successfully stifle free discussion and the expression of free opinion on this question by simply saying to his followers behind him, "This is a want of confidence amendment and must be voted down." He has taken a strangely inappropriate opportunity to consider this question in an absolutely unpartisan manner.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend wishes to bring in a motion, I will undertake to say on behalf of the government that we shall not regard it as a want of confidence motion?


Hugh Guthrie: Whether he so regards it or not, it is, and it would be an amendment to a motion to go into supply. I think, however, my right'right hon. friend in his speech in the House to-day has discussed this question upon fairly broad principles and has so far as he possibly could, avoided that taint of partisanship which he is always inclined to impute to this side of the House in our discussions and as he did impute to me when I discussed this matter in December last. I will discuss this question upon just as high a plane and upon a plane just as nonpartisan as has my right hon. friend, and in the remarks which I propose to offer upon this matter I shall have no regard whatever to party politics. I shall have regard only for the well-being, present and future, as I see it, of the Dominion of Canada. It may be that many will be in absolute disagreement with the propositions which I propose to lay before this chamber before I conclude my remarks; but I am convinced that I am right in the view which I hold, and I discern in this proposal elements of the gravest danger to this country, although not perhaps in the immediate future. I do not say that serious dangers exists to-day; but what I fear in this report is that it opens the door to future possibilities which may end in serious consequences to this country and the time to avoid and to check the possibilities of future trouble is now.
The difficulty could have been avoided very easily by the insertion of a few words in this report. Had the Prime Minister and his colleague the Minister of Justice fully appreciated the whole matter involved in this report, a slight limitation or reservation in respect of Canada might have saved the situation. I do not for one moment say that the whole report is open to objection, far from it. In regard to most of it, I heartily agree with the Prime Minister. I could go over many of the statements which he has made to the House this afternoon, and in

Imperial Conjerence-Mr. Guthrie
regard to them I would have to express my full accord. Nor do I take issue with his remarks in regard to equality of status; I agree with him on that point. To my mind he laboured the question of equal status far too much in his speech this afternoon. We have always asserted an equality of status for this country; whether our assertion has at all times been well founded or not is another question. We have at all times during iny public life proclaimed it; we rejoice in it and we desire to maintain it. But any proposal which by any possibility may interfere in the future with the special conditions and circumstances which exist between peoples and provinces in this country we must avoid.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, before the six o'clock adjournment, while discussing the report of the Imperial conference of 1923, I had stated that that report had never been adopted by this House. I must express my thanks to my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) for having drawn to my attention that during the closing days of the last session of parliament a resolution was submitted to this House, which was adopted, approving of the resolution of the conference of 1923. I had looked through the records for 1924 and 1925, but I had not looked through those for the year 1926. I find, however, that during the last week of the last session the report of the conference of 1923 was formally adopted by a resolution of this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend? I think he is mistaken. What was adopted was that particular part of the report which related to the signature, negotiation and ratification of treaties, but the report itself as a whole was not submitted to parliament.


Hugh Guthrie: It is the resolution I was discussing this afternoon, which was made subject to the ratification of the governments of the various dominions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That one resolution.


Hugh Guthrie: My point was that it had never -been adopted, although we had acted upon it in regard to one or two treaties. For same reason or other, at the close of last session it was thought necessary to bring in a resolution to adopt that particular resolution of the Imperial conference of 1923. If it was

necessary to do so on that occasion, is it not far more necessary on the present occasion that a similar course should be taken by this House to adopt the much more important report which is now before us for consideration? Why, Sir, as I read the reports of the former Imperial conferences they fade into insignificance in contrast with the report of the last conference. The former reports deal with matters of minor interest as compared with the pronouncements made by the conference of 1926. In none of the former reports was there any recommendation which one might consider a recommendation for any constitutional change. But in this instance by the language of the report itself constitutional principles are discussed and recommendations are made involving what one must pronounce to be grave constitutional changes in this country.
Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a time when definite action should be taken by parliament in regard to an Imperial conference report that time is now. Indeed, so various have been the statements made and the opinions expressed in regard to this report by ministers who actually took part in the conference as representatives of this country and by others who represented other parts of the British Empire, so various and so diversified have been the expressions of opinion in regard to what the conference actually did, that the public of this country has no clear idea of what actually took place from wdiat has been actually reported. I place side by side the statements made by three of the prime ministers who attended the conference of 1926. First, I take the statement made by the Prime Minister of Australia when he was in Canada in January last as reported in the press at the time. He said:
There is nothing really new in the status or relations of the British dominions as a result of the recent conference. The rights now enjoyed have existed ever since the termination of the war.
That is clear and distinct language which we all understand. Then I compare with that the statement of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister made in this House on December 13 last, when he said:
I believe the work of this conference will take its place in history by the side of those great charters which have stood in one form or another for a larger freedom.
Next I place side by side with that the statement attributed to the Prime Minister of South Africa, who said:
The British Empire now exists as a name only.
When three of the participants in conference make statements so irreconcilable as

Imperial Conference-Mr. Guthrie
those which I have just read, it is little wonder that the public in this country and perhaps in other parts of the British world are at a loss to know what actually did take place.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure my hon. friend does not wish to mislead the House as to what I said or the significance of it. He has read a part only of what I said. I stated that the resemblance to the charters of a larger freedom lay in the fact that none of . them purported to set forth anything that was new, but rather to register the point that had been attained-exactly the same meaning and intent as that conveyed by the reference of the hon. Prime Minister of Australia, which my hon. friend has read.


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is a very different statement, Mr. Speaker.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is not.


Hugh Guthrie: The language can mean
only one thing, that this larger freedom of which the Prime Minister speaks is a new acquisition to the self-governing powers of this country, or something to this effect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would my hon. friend do me the justice of reading the remainder of that statement, and not take a part of one sentence and separate it from its context?


Hugh Guthrie: I will inform my right
hon. friend through you, Mr. Speaker, that the statement is to be found in full in Hansard of December 13 last, and that the quotation which I have read is accurate. I think, Sir, with such a diversity of opinion as I have described it becomes necessary to examine somewhat critically the actual report of the conference, .and in doing so I assume that one may attach the ordinary meaning to plain English words. There is one thing to be said about this report, the preliminary part of it at all events, that it uses very plain and very precise language, and from the language of the introduction one can gather that the report deals not only with fundamental principles affecting the relations of the various parts of the British Empire inter se, but also the relations of each part to foreign countries. It is an inclusive report. It deals not only with inter-imperial relations, but also with the the relations of this Dominion and of the other dominions with foreign countries.
Now, what are the definite pronouncements of the report? The first is that the dominions are autonomous communities. I assume that means that we enjoy full and complete rights of self-government. I do not know that I could amplify that statement better than by
a quotation from a speech made on December 13 last by my right hon. friend, which will be found at page 43 of Hansard. He said:
With regard to the domestic and external affairs of this Dominion, the Imperial conference has said that in the opinion of its members those rights of control are just as full and complete with respect .to Canadian affairs as are the rights of the British government in respect of the domestic or external affairs of Great Britain.
We know that the rights of Great Britain with regard to external and internal affairs are absolute, full and complete. So we may assume from the clear statement in the report that we are autonomous communities and that our rights in regard to both external and internal affairs are full, absolute and complete.
Next there is a definite pronouncement of equal status. My right hon. friend and I are agreed upon that point. I think we all understand the meaning of the expression, "We have equal status."
Next we have a declaration that we are in no W'ay subordinate to one another. That is, this Dominion is not subordinate to any of our sister dominions, neither are we in any way subordinate to the parliament or government of Great Britain.
A little lower down we find another very precise declaration:
Every self-governing member of the empire is now the master of its destiny. In fact, if not always in form, it is subject to no compulsion whatever.
I doubt if more inclusive and more conclusive language could be used to express the meaning intended to be conveyed than is employed in these declarations. Autonomous communities-of equal status-'Subject to no subordination-masters of our own destiny- subject to no power of compulsion. These are the main declarations of the conference in regard to the constitutional position of this country. The language is clear, definite and precise, and it refers both to our internal and to our external rights and authority.
Keeping that language prominently in view, let us pass to the next question which was discussed by my right hon. friend this afternoon, and upon which he and I are, I think, again in. pretty close agreement. He next referred to the right of disallowance of Canadian Acts on the part of the government of Great Britain as enacted in section 56 of the British North America Act, and also the right of reservation of a bill for the signification of the royal pleasure as enacted in section 57 of the British North America Act. My right hon. friend has expressed an opinion to-day in respect to both these sections in which I concur. I regard both of these sections to-day

Imperial Conference-Mr. Guthrie
as inoperative. I think only on a single occasion in the last sixty years has an act of the parliament of Canada been disallowed by the British government. I believe also that only some fifteen bills have ever 'been reserved for the signification of the royal pleasure, and of these only one has failed to obtain the royal assent. But sections 56 and 57 still exist unrepealed in the British North America Act, they still constitute the letter of the law. Around them, however, has grown up constitutional practice and constitutional custom -which have actually superseded them in practice. I make this statement on pretty strong constitutional authority, and among other authorities, may I cite Sir Robert Borden, an outstanding constitutional lawyer in this country. He has stated in his brief work, Constitutional Government in Canada, that these sections of the British North Amei'ica Apt are practically inoperative to-day and that no government of Great Britain would dare-I do not think he used the word "dare"-that no government of Great Britain would at this late day advise His Majesty to disallow an act of the Canadian parliament in regard to our own affairs, nor would such an act of this parliament ever be reserved for consideration before receiving the royal assent. The letter of the law is still in the act; the strict legal right still exists, but the constitutional right has overridden it, and, as expressed in much better language by Earl Balfour in the House of Lords, quoted in this House this afternoon, "the constitutional right [DOT] is the right which prevails." Consequently I am in agreement with my right hon. friend when I say that we are not greatly concerned with these particular sections in regard to disallowance or reservation of acts of this parliament in regard to our own affairs. Those sections are inoperative and will never be called into operation again in regard to any measures pertaining to the domestic or internal affairs of this country. No British government would ever advise the disallowance of a Canadian Act and, if it did, a very, serious situation would prevail, as stated by my right hon friend this afternoon, in which view I entirely concur. Consequently I am not much concerned with this aspect of the matter. The report makes direct mention of it, and I agree that the reason for alluding to this question in this report was due to the peculiar situation that exists in the Irish Free State and possibly, as well, the situation that obtains in South Africa. Now the right of reservation has been distinctly retained in the report where that right occurs in constitutional acts; not

so with regard to the right of disallowance. That has not been retained. The section in question in the report refers only to the right of reservation. There has been referred to a committee of experts, to be set up hereafter, both the question in regard to disallowance and the question concerning the right of reservation. These experts will, I have no doubt, meet at some time in the future and report upon these questions, but we in this country need have little concern with any report they may make. I submit that so' far as this parliament and this country are concerned, these rights of disallowance and reservation are gone; they are fallen into desuetude. On that point I think we are all agreed.
Let me go a step further. The next question touched upon bj' my right hon. friend was that of appeals to the Judicial committee of the Privy Council, and in that connection he at once enters upon a discussion of constitutional principles involving constitutional alterations-modifications in the constitution of the country of very far reaching consequence. It is, I submit, now and always has been, the inherent right of a British subject in any part of the world to bring his complaint or grievance to the foot of the throne. Such is the popular language in which this special right is always expressed. Some seventy or eighty years ago an act was passed by the parliament of Great Britain constituting the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the final tribunal for the settlement of claims and disputes within the empire, and the bringing of petitions for the redress of grievances to the foot of the throne in practice now means an appeal to that tribunal, the court of final resort in the British Empire. We as British subjects have always enjoyed the privilege of bringing our complaints to the foot of the throne, for, as I say, that is our inherent right. It applies to British citizens throughout the world. According to this report, however, this parliament is -now authorized, if we see fit, to prohibit appeals by the citizens of Canada to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the future. Let me read the exact paragraph in the report touching upon this question. It is to be found at page 16:
Another matter which we discussed, in which a general constitutional principle was raised,-
Note the language; a general constitutional principle was raised.
-concerned the conditions governing appeals from judgments in the dominions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. From these discussions it became clear that it was no part of the policy of His Majesty's government in

Imperial Conference-Mr. Guthrie
Great Britain that questions affecting judicial appeals should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the wishes of the part of the empire primarily affected.
I think, from the statement made by my right hon. friend this afternoon, that he and I are in perfect agreement in our views on this point, and if I understand the meaning of the language I have just read it is simply this, that if it be the will of the parliament of Canada that appeals to the Judicial Com-mitee of the Privy Council be abolished our will shall prevail. If we pass an act through this House and the Senate to abolish such appeals, such appeals shall no longer be permitted.


Ernest Lapointe: In federal matters, yes.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no limitation here concerning federal matters.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend knows that is what it means.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it does mean appeals in federal matters. It applies to the appeal of any subject on any question. If we abolish appeals we abolish them in toto. We are given the power if we choose to exercise it. I do not wish to be misunderstood in regard to this matter; personally I am not in favour of the abolition of these appeals, but there is no doubt that this parliament now has power under this report to abolish them if it so desires. I agree that in a dominion which has full powers of' self government, with absolute and complete control over its internal and external affairs, there is something anomalous in the fact that our own courts have not the final determination of our own cases. I do not know that I can do better than to use the language of Professor Berriedale Keith, a high authority upon constitutional questions, and one who was quoted with great approval by my right hon. friend this afternoon. In writing to The Outlook as recently as February 5 of this year, he says in regard to these appeals:
Of the questions at issue, that of Privy Council appeals is theoretically simple. It is obviously absurd to declare that Canada is autonomous and an equal member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and at the same time to. hold that the courts of the Dominion are unfit to do justice to an unfortunate lady who has an accident while seeking to enter a Canadian railway station, to take one of the issues recently decided by the Privy Council, overruling the Dominion courts.
And although I admit the position is anomalous, I still maintain that the right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be continued. I think
in this parliament undoubtedly we will maintain the right of appeal; but in years to come we may have parliaments in this country where a different opinion may prevail. We should preserve this right of appeal to the judicial committee because I believe it constitutes our greatest constitutional safeguard. The only real difficulty which arose at the conference in connection with appeals to the judicial committee was in the case of the Irish Free State, which case my right hon. friend elaborated this afternoon. In regard to appeals from the Irish Free State the whole question was postponed until the next Imperial conference, because there were special difficulties in regard to the Irish Free State which did not exist in connection with the other dominions. In this article Professor Keith goes on to show why the question of Privy Council appeals is of vital interest to the Dominion of Canada. He says:
Secondly, if power were given to each dominion to limit or abolish appeals at pleasure, Canada would be placed in an invidious position. If she decided to permit appeals to go on, she might be held to be deliberately accepting a status of subordination derogatory to her dignity as the premier dominion in status, resources, and population; if she felt bound to stop appeals, Quebec would be deeply resentful, for Quebec sees in the Privy Council the final bulwark of her provincial autonomy and her control of her language and religion.
This is the opinion of Professor Keith, who was quoted with such approval this afternoon by my right hon. friend.


Ernest Lapointe: What authority has he to speak for Quebec?


Hugh Guthrie: He has pointed out in the quotation I have just read the importance of these appeals in regard to the constitution of this country. First I point out that in the language of the report itself, the proposed change involves a change of constitutional principle, and I am one of those who believe that there should be no constitutional changes in this country until the proper parties assent thereto.
What may this proposal ultimately involve? I cited an instance last December in my speech which I might give again. If we remove the right of appeal to the Privy Council, in regard to domestic matters this parliament will certainly be all-powerful. Five years hence, ten years, or a generation hence, when the personnel of this House will perhaps have entirely changed, when new men with new ideas occupy these seats, what is to hinder a constitutional change of a very radical kind, if there be no appeal to the Privy Council? If the right of appeal to the Privy Council were
1668	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Guthrie
abolished to-day I see no reason why this parliament could not pass a law to abolish the use of the French language in this chamber, and I will tell you how it might be done. We would simply have to pass a motion to change the rules-as a few days ago we passed a motion to change other rules for this parliament-to provide that the French language should not be used in the debates in this chamber. It will be immediately said that the question would at once be taken to the courts but with a favourable House of Commons and -Senate we might pass an act prohibiting any action being taken in the courts. This has been done before; it was done under the War Measures Act and it has been done on two occasions in the province of Ontario. We have the undoubted right to do so. I do not say that we could do so with great propriety, but we would have the right to do it; there would be no appeal to the Privy Council to check us; there would be no power to disallow our motion or our rule, so that we could act without hindrance. I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to ihe House, that the outstanding safeguard of the constitutional rights of the people of this country in many respects is to be found in the appeal which lies to the Judicial Com-mitee of the Privy Council, and this report enables this parliament to abolish these appeals should it ever see fit to do so. Should we have such power? Should we be able in this parliament to change the constitution of the country in this manner? We have never possessed such a right up to the present time. Australia is expressly given power to change its constitution; so are South Africa, the Irish Free State, New Zealand and even the provinces of the Dominion of Canada. The first enactment of section 93, subsection 1, gives each province of Canada the right to, change its constitution save in one respect, that pertaining to the office of lieutenant governor. We possess no such power in this parliament: Why was that power withheld? We know the reason; we know that confederation in this country was brought about by agreement and through a spirit of compromise; we know, and the fathers of confederation well knew, that there existed two great predominant races, in Canada, the English race and the French race, with different ideals, different languages and to a large extent different religious views. These two great races had to be brought together and harmonized to make a united Canada. It was the spirit of compromise which brought about confederation. The fathers of confederation saw to it that there should be no power in the constitutional 
act of this country which might enable those coming generations or centuries later to alter the basic terms of the confederation agreement. That is the reason why this parliament was not given power to amend the act of confederation.
But my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have brought back a report, involving important changes in constitutional principles, particularly in respect of appeals to the judicial committee, a report which would enable this House to destroy the greatest constitutional safeguard enjoyed by minorities in this country. Have the provinces wrho originally formed confederation been consulted in regard to this proposal? Should any serious change in our constitution be permitted without the approval of the parties who originally executed the agreement which formed the basis of confederation? To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most serious proposals brought before this parliament in a generation. It is a most dangerous power. Not perhaps to-day-I am not afraid of the situation in Canada to-day-but a time will come when we will be gone from the scene. The opportunity may then be at hand for some succeeding parliament to undo by a single act much of the good work which has been accomplished during the past sixty years. Why then permit this important proposal of this report to go unchallenged in this House? Why not submit it directly to the parties most interested, to the provinces of the Dominion of Canada who made the original agreement? Is this entirely a dominion affair, think you, Mr. Speaker? Is it not well known that appeals nowadays are very often taken directly from provincial courts to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that they never approach the Supreme Court of Canada at all? Does this proposal not interfere to some extent with the rights of our citizens in the various provinces of Canada who do not desire to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, but who prefer to appeal directly from the courts in the provinces to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? The provinces have never been consulted in regard to this proposal. The provinces were not represented at the Imperial conference. Yet this report, brought back to us by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and his colleague, the Minister of Justice, might enable us by act of this parliament, without consultation with the provinces, to destroy this great safeguard of constitutional right in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is one aspect of this report which most deeply impresses me. I feel gravely concerned about it. I know

Imperial Conference-Mr. Guthrie
that in many sections of this country there is great concern about it. If we may alter special provisions in our constitution in one regard we may do so in other regards. There are many anomalous conditions in our constitution to-day. The country has developed upon somewhat different lines than was anticipated at first. It is alleged that in some respects there is over-representation in one of the chambers of this parliament in regard to certain provinces of the Dominion. If we are able of our own motion to abolish appeals to the Privy Council, and if there be no power of disallowance of our acts, what is to hinder this parliament from changing the constitution of this parliament in regard to representation in the upper house-a domestic matter, an internal matter, something that does not interfere with a single interest outside the Dominion of Canada? Who can say us nay? Are we not masters in our own house? Are we subordinate to any power whatever? Have we not full autonomous powers of government in this country? Then who shall say us nay? The Minister of Justice will of course argue that the British North America Act still stands, that it has not been repealed. But what authority is there to enforce it? I ask him that question. If there be no appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, what super-authority exists over our legislation? Trouble would at once arise if the government of Great Britain sought to interfere. It would never attempt to do so. The British government acts upon constitutional principle. It would never interfere with the exercise of a constitutional right of^ this country, and the British government itself has joined in sending this report forward to us.	_	.	.
There are other elements in connection with this report that will require some consideration. W'e have already gone pretty far in regard to the question of treaties during the last sixty years in this country. I do not object to it, but the difficulty I see is this: where is it going to land us? I am and have always been a strong supporter of the proposal that Canada should have the right to negotiate her own commercial treaties; but when we reached the time of the war we went far beyond the negotiation of commercial treaties. We engaged as a nation in the negotiation of the treaty of Versailles, one of the greatest peace treaties ever known in the history of the world. The question is, have we gone too far? Does the House realize that we have no authority to make treaties under the British North America Act? Section 132 of that act enables us to perform all treaty 32649-106
obligations entered into by Great Britain. That 'is the last enactment on the subject. We have no statutory power to make treaties, but we have gone ahead making them. How much further are we to go in this respect without consulting the provinces? The making of treaties may some day involve us in very, very serious consequences. I do not mean trade treaties, I mean other treaties. We may seriously involve provinces by our treaty making propensities. Let me cite a case which has occurred to my mind. Suppose this government should undertake to negotiate a treaty with Japan, a foreign nation. Suppose we were to grant to Japan lands which are owned by Canada in the railway belt in British Columbia, for settlement or otherwise, and that a protest should come from British Columbia to the effect that we have no power under the British North America Act or under any other act-to make such a treaty. Well, our only power is that given in the report of the conference of 1923 and the conference of 1926, and we might act to the detriment of the rights of British Columbia.. We might do likewise in regard to the inland fisheries of Ontario if we so desired; we might make a treaty with United -States. Ontario might protest, but we could go on and make the treaty. All this involves a very serious change in the constitutional development of this country. I do not say it is a wrong, I uphold it; but at the same time do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that we should have the approval of the provinces in regard to these matters before we proceed much further?
There is a demand in this country which has arisen very largely on account of the report of the conference of 1926, a demand founded in my mind on a misapprehension, but a demand voiced very largely by some of the newspapers which give very strong support to the present government, that Canada take power to amend our constitution, I take the instance of the Manitoba Free Press, I quote one or two of the very dlever and well considered editorials which have appeared in that well known Liberal journal in regard to the question of the amendment of the Canadian constitution, and I say that if these views here expressed are prevalent in this country it is time something was done to check them. Such views are bound in the end to lead this country into difficulties. In the Manitoba Free Press of the 23rd of November last I find an editorial headed "The Charter of Dominion Independence", which reads as follows:

1670	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Guthrie
The declaration by the Imperial conference as to the true relationship between the British nations appears to meet the situation created by the necessity of meeting the demands of the dominions, at least of some of them, that there be a formal and explicit recognition by definition of their complete equality with Great Britain in powers of self-government both with respect to external and internal affairs. The conference is not a legislative body; but, representative as it is of all the governments of the empire, its expression of opinion as to the powers of the dominions means that any dominion which cares to do so can now go forward in the exercise of full powers with the certainty that all legal checks will be removed.
All legal checks removed!
It imposes upon the British parliament an obligation to cooperate with the dominions in the removal of all anomalies which prevent the full functioning of dominion powers.
This point can be illustrated by a reference to Privy Council appeals. The resolution affirms that appeals should only be allowed where the dominion is a consenting party; this is not legally the case now. The judicial committee of the Privy Council has held that Canada has no power in law to prohibit appeals in criminal cases as she sought to do by legislation passed nearly forty years ago. Similarly in the Admiralty courts the Canadian laws with regard to shipping are found to be subordinate to the Merchant Shipping Act of Great Britain. On these and similar points it will be necessary for the British parliament to remove the legal bar against free action by the dominions. We assume that the appointment of the committee by the conference to consider this needed legislation is preparatory to this being done. Once this is done the situation as between the dominions and Britain will be this:	That
while in its technical terms the British parliament will retain its overlordship, no legislation by the British parliament, past, present or future, will apply in any dominion without its formal consent. The division in authority is so complete in fact that the formal enfranchisement of the dominion parliaments would go no further; and presumably this final step can be taken by each dominion at will. But before this can be done by Canada, we must settle some domestic questions, notably, by what means we are to amend our constitution?
I quote also from the same paper under date of December 8, 1926:
The question of how the constitution of Canada is hereafter to be amended, which has not been given the consideration which its importance calls for, will now require attention in view of the situation which arises as the result of the constitutional declaration by the Imperial conference.	[DOT]
I quote another extract taken again from the Manitoba Free Press under date of January 5, 1927. It is headed "Amending our Constitution", and it reads:
Decent articles in the Free Press urging the necessity for obtaining machinery whereby Canada can amend her own constitution, have drawn angry comments from a number of Quebec papers, including the Patrie and Action Catholique. The anger does not matter; the 
important thing is that there is recognition, even though unwilling, of the facts of the situation. The Free Press has pointed out the desirability, from the viewpoint of the interests of the provinces and of the racial and religious minority, that Canada should take over the power of amending her constitution upon conditions which would supply reasonable safeguards for these interests. We can see in these suggestions nothing to support the fears, to which the Patrie and other Quebec journals give expression, that with the amending power vested in Canada the privileges, linguistic and religious, of the minority will be in danger from the majority. It is, in fact, just the other way about. As matters now stand the protection which the minority thinks it enjoys is non-existent; and in suggesting that it be restored by a reasonable agreement between the Dominion and the provinces, to be determined by conference, the Free Press is certainly not conspiring against the rights of the minority.
It will be seen at, a glance from the extracts which I have just read that the theory of a good many people in this country is that under this conference report we now have power to amend our constitution. I submit that we have no such power; but if we are to proceed to abolish appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the thin end of the wedge will certainly enter into the body politic. I cannot agree to the proposal that Canada be given that power; I distinctly dissent from it. I notice an article copied in the Winnipeg Free Press from La Presse of Montreal and I am going to put it on Hansard. It reads:
Think this over: What will become of the guarantees we enjoy under confederation when the Canadian parliament becomes absolutely supreme in the country, and when, as a result, the British parliament will have no control over the Dominion?
The Canadian parliament, if it so wishes, will have the absolute implicit right to change, prune and amend our constitution. Defenceless, and with no means of redress, we will be obliged to give way before the will of the majority.
In the light of past experiences, is it not right to ask whether the objective sought by some, at least, of the more vehement supporters of this theory is to wield the supreme control, exercised without right of appeal, in order to bring into effect certain aims which they have cherished for many years?
This must give us to think and must also convince us that we should not sacrifice too much for the sake of this fashionable recklessness.
Mere words are sometimes an extremely dangerous form of payment. They provide no funds with which to pay back what has been taken.
The view of La Presse is to a large extent re-echoed in the language used not long ago by the premier of Quebec in the legislature of that province. I quote from the speech of Premier Taschereau as reported in the volume of the Hound Table for March current where he says:	: ;j fi- i

Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa
What does the future hold for us? I do not know, but I pray the men who direct our affairs at Ottawa, and I am sure that it is their view also, to remember that the constitution which rules us must never be changed without the consent of the province of Quebec and of each province, expressed by its legislation.
We entered into confederation on certain conditions which we believed necessary for the safeguarding of all that is dear to us, such as language, schools, laws, belief, and provincial autonomy. One of the clauses of the federal pact is that the Canadian constitution cannot be changed in its essential parts without the assent of the British government. I believe that this very necessary condition may be even more necessary to-day than it was in 1867.
I am endeavouring to impress upon hon. members as best I can the seriousness of the protest which I make. I protest in the first place that this parliament should in no sense ratify this report without amendment. I protest in the second place that no constitutional changes should be permitted under this report or otherwise unless they have first been approved by the provinces of the Dominion of Canada. Let me repeat what I said at the outset. So far as the larger part of this report goes, I entirely agree; I do not express an adverse opinion in regard to any df it, more than to say that I fear it will leave the door open in the future for complications which we little estimate to-day.
I fear that a time may come when opinion in this country may change and another generation may seek to pass through this parlia-* ment legislation which may ultimately disrupt this dominion. We cannot judge of the future by the present. We will soon all pass from this scene. Our children or our children's children may be here. My most earnest desire is to preserve in this country a united Canada. We have now lived for sixty years under our present constitutional charter; we have had our little squabbles, it is true, but they have never amounted to very much. We have had no real difficulty in working out our destiny. Why then introduce changes? Why introduce the possibility of trouble in the future? Why not stamp with our disapproval that portion of this report which opens the door to constitutional change? Why not place in the report a saving clause in reference to this Dominion? The situation in this country is not like the situation in Australia. In Australia they have nothing to fear from this report. Australia can accept it in full. Premier Bruce, when he was in this country, emphasized the fact that in Australia 98 per cent of the people were of Anglo-Saxon extraction. He and his people have nothing to fear from this report.
We in this country have a different situation to face. We realize our peculiar situation
32649-106J
in this chamber and throughout Canada. Let us have strict regard to the original contract which brought this confederation into being. Let us stand by those principles. I am not one of those who say that there shall be no change. Changes are bound to come, but let them come in the proper way. Let them come with the approval and consent of the people who made the original bargain and the people who in the final determination should be consulted in regard to a measure of this kind. I therefore beg to move, seconded by Sir George Perley;
That all the words after "that' in the motion be struck out and the following inserted in lieu thereof:
That it is not desirable that this House should be deemed tacitly to have acquiesced in the declarations and recommendations contained in the report of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference, 1926.
That in the opinion of this House the proceedings of the recent Imperial conference and the declarations and recommendations contained in the report of the Imperial Conference Committee on Inter-Imperial Relations should not be binding upon the parliament of Canada until approved by a formal resolution of this House; and that until such approval is obtained this government shall not be deemed to be authorized to take any steps to carry intp effect the recommendations contained in said report;
That it is also the opinion of this House that no amendments should be procured to the British North America Act to give effect to said report or otherwise, which would affect the rights, powers or privileges of all or any of the provinces of Canada, as they now exist under the terms of said act, unless the same are first approved by the legislature of each of the provinces of Canada.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I may be allowed, I hope, to compliment the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) upon the high tone that he has given to the debate on this 'important question. Once more I find myself in the somewhat difficult position, though I rather like it, of agreeing partly with the Prime Minister and partly with the leader of the opposition, but largely disagreeing with both.
On one point, first, I entirely agree1 with the Prime Minister, in his repentant attitude with regard to the position which the government has taken, or might have taken, on this report. The leader of the opposition blames the government for not having brought in a forma! resolution of approval of the report; but I think he has furnished much argument to justify the government in not asking the House to approve the report. As far as I am concerned I thank the government for having left me in the happy position of not having to vote either in approval or dis-

Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa
approval of this report; because, although it contains much that appeals to all of us and a good deal that will appeal to some of us, it also contains a good deal that should be condemned by most.	*
A learned foreign observer of things British and Canadian, Mr. Lawrence Lowell, has recently expressed the view that one of the interesting features of this conference and of its report is that it at once satisfies those who advocate a distention of the bonds of empire as between Great Britain and her self-governing dominions, and also those who wish to see those bonds strengthened. He might equally well have said that it dissatisfies both those who look to complete independence as the desirable future of the dominions, and those who look to a closer and permanent cooperation. In fact, a careful reading of the report shows that the one concentrating thought upon which all the members of the conference agreed was to put therein something to satisfy everybody, and if possible nothing to dissatisfy anybody-a pretty heavy task even for a body like the Imperial conference, and headed by such a master of casuistry as Lord Balfour as he was :aptly described this afternoon by my friend from St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan).
Another reason for w'hieh I think it would not have been proper to propose to this House a formal motion of approval of this conference is that, unlike most similar documents, it contains very few concrete propositions. It is more of a dissertation' upon the various subjects submitted to the conference; it is an expression of collective opinion, the supposed consensus of thought of the representatives of Great Britain and of the various self-governing dominions who conversed together behind closed doors during five weeks. But in the absence of any concrete resolution on the basic principles at issue, in the absence also of the expression of opinions given by the various representatives, I do not see how we can be expected to pass judgment upon the findings of the conference.
At the previous conference the present Prime Minister of Canada advocated the necessity of, or at all events the great advantage to be derived from, more publicity being given to the deliberations of the conference. I fail to find, either in this summary of proceedings or in the big volume of appendices which was published afterwards, that the same request was made this year by any member of the conference. The result is that we do not know the personal views expressed either by the representatives of Great Britain, or those of Australia or Canada, and so forth. I

quite understand, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, that with regard to foreign affairs, with regard to those intricate and delicate matters forming the subject of negotiation between the British government and foreign governments the world over, it would not have been proper to publish at once ail that was given out before the conference either by Mr. Chamberlain or the other representatives of the Foreign Office who attended the conference. But with regard to those questions concerning the relations between Great Britain and the various dominions, with regard to principles of policy, with regard to the negotiation of treaties, and so forth, I fail to see why we should not be informed of the views that were expressed there by the representatives of Great Britain, of Australia, of Canada, of South Africa and of Ireland. Nobody can believe that they all expressed the same views on all of these principles, on all aspects of all the various questions at issue, and on the solutions proposed for these problems. It is therefore impossible for the various parliaments of the empire to pass judgment on the attitude of their representatives at that conference without knowing the particular attitude that was taken by each of them in those deliberations.
Let us take first the passage which has been mostly commented upon, not only in the various countries immediately concerned- Great Britain and the self-governing doming ions-but all over the world. I mean the passage in reference to the constitutional relations between Great Britain and those dominions. I happened to be on the ocean coming back from Italy to America when this report was issued; and in the short summary of despatches given out on the ship every day a paragraph was wired from London or Paris or Berlin-I am not quite sure which, but evidently from an international news agency -giving out a summary of this report. It was all centred upon the declaration of equality of status; and it was mentioned in a couple of lines that it signified a deep change in the internal organization of the British Empire, and therefore in its relations with the outside world. Naturally it interested me very much; but knowing something of what had been going on in previous conferences, and also something of the work which preceded this conference, I remained rather skeptical and landed in New York with the idea that probably a publication of the whole report would demonstrate that there had not been such a radical revolution. I knew enough of British traditions to feel cer-

Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa
tain that matters of great concern to the British Empire are not dealt with in this manner.
So I began studying the report. The Prime Minister has spared me the task and the House the annoyance of having it read once more.
I will content myself with repeating the main paragraph dealing with the present relations of Great Britain and the dominions:
Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations.
Then it goes on:
A foreigner endeavouring to understand the true character of the British Empire by the aid of this formula alone would be tempted to think that it was devised rather to make mutual interference impossible than to make mutual cooperation easy.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I venture to express the view that not only a foreigner, but even a Britisher, even a close student of British history and the British constitution, if he stops at studying closely this formula, may feel somewhat puzzled as to its real meaning.
Let us deal first with the nucleus of the formula-the declaration of "equality of status," which [DOT] has been mostly talked of, either favourably or unfavourably. I need not tell the House that, as stated by the leader of the opposition, in his excellent and interesting speech, there is nothing new in this declaration, although I understood at first that he took exception to it. May I point out, however, that far from being a new principle introduced in the internal relations of the self-governing countries of the empire, it is the logical and unavoidable outcome of the principle of self-government acknowledged to every community of free British subjects, at least as far back as the report of Lord Durham, and the natural development which that principle has taken in practice in its various applications ever since. May I quote to the House an opinion expressed in the early sixties by one of the most thoughtful and clear sighted English jurists of the last century, Sir Erskine May? In the first edition of his Constitutional History of England, which I think was published in the year 1861, after an enumeration of the facts connected with the evolution of self government in the various dominions he wrote:
To conclude this rapid summary of colonial liberties, it must be added that the colonies have further enjoyed municipal institutions, a free press, and religious freedom and equality. No liberty or franchise prized by Englishmen
at home has been withheld from their fellow-countrymen in distant lands. Thus, by rapid strides, have the most considerable dependencies of the British crown advanced, through successive stages of political liberty, until an ancient monarchy has become the parent of democratic republics in all parts of the globe.
I at once call attention to the distinction drawn by May between the characteristic of the English nation and the characteristic of the daughters throughout the world-an "ancient monarchy" and new "democratic republics".
But such a transition, more or less rapid, was the inevitable consequence of responsible government, coupled with the power given to colonial assemblies, of reforming their- own constitutions. The principle of self-government once recognized, has been carried out without reserve or hesitation. Hitherto there have been many failures and discouragements in the experiment of colonial democracy; yet the political future of these thriving communities affords far more ground for hope than for despondency.
England ventured to tax her colonies, and lost them: she endeavoured to rule them from Downing street, and provoked disaffection and revolt. At last, she gave freedom, and found national sympathy and contentment. But in the meantime, her colonial dependencies have grown into affiliated states. The tie which binds them to her is one of sentiment rather than authority. Commercial privileges, on either side, have been abandoned: transportation,-*
Not in the sense that we understand it- the transportation of -Wheat, for example- but the transportation of convicts-
-for which some of the colonies were founded, has been given up: patronage has been surrendered, the disposal of public^ lands waived by the crown, and political dominion virtually renounced. In short, their dependence has become little more than nominal, except for purposes of military defence.
That was before confederation.
But parliament has recently,-
I think it was in the session of 1861

Parliament has recently pronounced it to be just that the colonies which enjoy self-government should undertake the responsibility and cost of their own military defence. To carry this policy into effect must be the work of time. But whenever it may be effected, the last material bond of connection with the colonies will have been severed; and colonial states, acknowledging the honorary sovereignty of England, and fully armed for self-defence-as well against herself as others-will have grown out of the dependencies of the British Empire. They will still look to her, in time of war, for at least naval protection; and, in peace, they will continue to imitate her laws and institutions, and to glory in the proud distinction of British citizenship. On her part, England may well be prouder of the vigorous freedom of her prosperous sons, than of a hundred provinces subject to the iron rule of British pro-consuls. And. should the sole remaining ties of kindred,
1674	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa
affection, and honour be severed, she will reflect, with just exultation, that her dominion ceased, not in oppression and bloodshed, but in the expansive energies of freedom, and the hereditary capacity of her manly offspring for the privileges of self-government.
I do not think I exaggerate when I say that these were then the prevailing sentiments among the governing classes of England, and confederation was made possible as between French and English, as stated by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie), and possible, as well, as between the daughter state and the motherland, just because that spirit prevailed. There was no fear expressed on the part of Great Britain because Canada would one day reach her full-fledged independence; and instead of opposing that spirit there was a feeling of pride in seeing the daughter look forward to a future just as glorious as the past of the mother country had been.
Two or three years afterwards the government of the province of United Canada undertook that very task which was considered by May, and by the English government, as the last step to be taken by a colony to become absolutely independent of the mother land: I mean the organization of its land defence. England reserved to herself the control of foreign affairs-the root cause of all wars and difficulties with foreign nations-and also the full and exclusive responsibility for the external defence of Canada by sea, the colony undertaking the defence of her land. That was the basis upon which confederation was consummated. Twenty years later, at the first Imperial conference, when for the first time this new policy of imperial cooperation was raised, Sir Alexander Campbell, the representative of the Canadian government, reminded the British ministers and the representatives of Australia, New Zealand and Cape Colony, as it then was, that the agreement which had been concluded between Canada and Great Britain was that Great Britain, by reason of her position as a world power, was bound to defend Canada on the seas at her own expense, while all that Canada had pledged herself to, as a consequence of her full internal independence, was the organization of the defence of her territory. And he repeated there and then that upon that basis confederation was entered into. If the leader of the opposition is so much concerned, as he evidenced this afternoon, about the preservation of confederation in its entirety, if he wants to preserve untouched the principles of the federal pact as between the various elements of Canada, he should also be in favour of the resurrection of that policy under which Canada would have no responsibility for any 
of the imperial enterprises of Great Britain as a consequence of her situation as d world power.
I took the trouble to collect some authorities to prove that throughout the course of our history since confederation until the last war, there has never been expressed in England any doubt as to the potential independence of the self-governing dominions nor as to their right to assert that independence completely at any time they may see fit. Let me quote at random an opinion of Sir Frederick Pollock, who surely was not a revolutionary radical. I have not the date, but I know that it was a good many years after May-because I remember having met Sir Frederick Pollock-that be said:
Leave the conventions alone and look at the facts, and yon find that the self-governing colonies are, in fact, separate kingdoms, having the same king as the parent group, but choosing to abrogate that part of their full autonomy which relates to foreign affairs. . . . The Sovereignty is a figment; the states of the empire stand on an equal footing.
Take next the opinion of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, whom nobody has ever charged with a tendency to disrupt the empire. In the year of the queen's jubilee, at a time when so many opinions of varying shades were 'being promulgated, he declared most positively in a speech delivered at Birmingham on June 21, 1S97:
The throne is the only constitutional connecting link between the colonies and ourselves. In all else these great self-governing communities are as independent as we are.
A good many years later a statesman whose name has been frequently mentioned in this debate, Lord Balfour, or, as he was at that time, Mr. Arthur Balfour, leader of the Conservative party in Great Britain, writing to The Times on February 1, 1911, said:
I believe, from a legal point of view, the British parliament is supreme over the parliaments of Canada or Australia, or the Cape or South Africa, but in fact they are independent parliaments, absolutely independent.
Another Conservative statesman in England, Mr. Bonar Law, at that time Colonial Secretary, speaking in London on September 13, 1916, advanced precisely the same view: "These great dominions are in fact independent states".
It seems to me, therefore, there was nothing to excite public opinion one way or the other when the report came out that this conference had asserted what as a matter of fact has been the unequivocal opinion of all legal and political authorities in Great Britain during the past sixty years. Such surprise as was evinced in the Dominions was due rather to

Imperial Conjeren.ee-Mr. Bourassa
that state of mind to which Lord Balfour alluded in what I may call the conversation between himself and Lord Parmoor in the House of Lords. Truly, in the dominions, strange to say, people are less prepared for assertions of independence than they are in Great Britain. Just what the cause is I do not know. No doubt it is due in large part to that long state of subjection, shall I say, or protection, at any rate that condition of incomplete nationhood in which Canada and the other dominions have existed for so many years. The most apt comparison I can suggest is the mentality that characterized certain classes among the black population of the southern states during the war of secession. An admirable American writer, the late Thomas Nelson Page, who died as United States Ambassador to Rome, has depicted that spirit in some of his delightful novels portraying life in the southern states during and after the war of secession. Among the slaves attached to the estates of the great landowners of Virginia, who constituted the true aristocracy, the landed gentry of that country, there was a class of slaves who lived permanently with families from generation to generation. The women were the nurses-the mammies, as they were called- to the children of the family, while the men served as butlers, coachmen, and so on. They were splendidly treated, the attitude of their owners to them being in striking contrast with the conduct of the slave owners described by Harriet Beecher Stowe in Uncle Tom's Cabin; and when the war of secession came, although these slaves were not obliged to do so, they were eager to fight for their masters because of the love they bore them. That perhaps was a natural sentiment, but the peculiarity of that psychology was apparent when Lincoln launched his proclamation of freedom. It was most indignantly received by these blacks. They were loath to exercise the responsibilities of freedom. They did not want to earn their living by their own initiative; they wanted to be possessed, to be protected. They wanted to live in that happy state of semi-animal, semi-celestial irresponsibility in which they had dwelt for generations. They were therefore described by the rest of the freed negroes as "quality niggers" with whom they had nothing in common, and both classes detested each other cordially. The modem colonial imperialist who claims that he is free, and that he likes this kind of freedom, but who refuses to exercise more of that freedom, who is afraid of the responsibility which will accrue to him if he has to deal with the constitution and the laws of
his country, if he has to discuss racial problems with his fellow citizens, would seem to have some of this "quality nigger" spirit. It is the only parallel I can find in history. To be frank, I must say that that spirit exists in the province of Quebec as elsewhere, and without being personal I can say that of recent days it has received its most vivid expression in the language of the premier of that province who, by the way, has been styled by the Montreal Gazette, knowing something of the matter and of the man, as a Tory of the Tories.
The evolution which is the natural and inevitable outcome of the principle of selfgovernment, was anticipated at the time of confederation not by the radicals and not by the Liberals who opposed confederation, but by the very founders of that confederation. Take the views expressed by Sir John A. Macdonald with regard to the authority of parliament and the relations between parliament and the crown or the representative of the crown, in presenting to the House the Quebec Conference resolutions upon which the Confederation Act was founded. He then said:
With us the sovereign, or in this country the representative of the sovereign, can act only on the advice of his ministers, those ministers being responsible to the people through parliament.
Without drawing too many red herrings across the trail, I modestly expressed the view last summer that if the late leader of the Conservative party had reminded the late governor of this short passage in our constitutional history, perhaps a good deal of misunderstanding could have been avoided. In a later speech on the same resolution, and in answer to a very able Liberal or Grit representative from Ontario, Mr. J. H. Cameron, Sir John A. Macdonald said:
My honourable friend refers us to the language of the Constitutional Act to show how limited our constitution is; but by that act we are empowered, in the widest language that could be employed, to make laws for the peace, tvelfare and good government of the people of Canada. There could be no larger powers conferred upon us, and although it is quite true that our political existence is only statutory-
Mind you, those were only the dawning days of full autonomy
-that constitutionally our judges have no right to commit for contempt, and that we have no prescriptive rights such as those which the imperial parliament possesses, yet this is equally true-that we stand, with regard to the people of Canada, precisely in the same position as the House of Commons in England stands with regard to the people of England. And no man who values representative government would consent to sit here under a less extensive commission-no man will get up and disclaim the possession of such powers.
!676	COMMONS
Imperial Conjeren.ee-Mr. Bourassa
Now with regard to foreign relations, although in those days not much thought was given to foreign relations outside of purely commercial treaties, Sir John A. Macdonald, with his broad vision, his keen common sense and his true British spirit, with the smallest dose of quality niggership existing then in the minds of our statesmen, wias not afraid of thinking of the establishment of foreign relations. He said:
I am strongly of opinion that year by year, as we grow in population and strength, England will more see the advantages of maintaining the alliance between British North America and herself.
As you see, he termed the new relation between Great Britain and Canada as one of "alliance;" and to show that by that he did not mean an exclusive alliance, he added immediately:
Does any one imagine that, when our population instead of three and a half, will be seven millions, as it will be ere many years pass, we would be one whit more willing than now to sever the connection with England? .... And, when, by means of this rapid increase, we become a nation of eight or nine millions of inhabitants, our alliance will be worthy of being sought by the great nations of the earth. I am proud to believe that our desire for a permanent alliance will be reciprocated in England. . . . The colonies are now in a transition state. _ Gradually a different colonial system is being developed-and it will become, year by year, less a case of dependence on our part, and of overruling protection on the part of the mother country, and more a case of a healthy and cordial alliance. Instead of looking upon us as a merely dependent colony, England will have in us a friendly nation-a subordinate but still a powerful people-to stand by her in North America in peace or in war.
That was sixty years ago. The objects which the founders of confederation had in view were first to estaiblish between the new confederacy and the motherland terms of alliance on a footing of equality; then to reserve to the new confederacy the right to have terms of alliance with foreign nations; and finally to confine the military duties of Canada to the defence of her own territory as a portion of the empire, and to come to the rescue of Great Britain in North America, and nowhere else.
Undoubtedly, as was said this afternoon and as has been said very frequently in the last ten years, the participation of the dominions in the last war has hastened that evolution and has brought us nearer the goal which Sir John A. Macdonald had in view together with the other founders of confederation. We were brought nearer in a sense; but there is another point which I wish to make clear and upon which I differ just as much with one leader 
as with the other. The war has also distracted us from the safe path in which the founders of confederation had directed the course of Canada. While advancing the principle of equality, it also beclouded the issue of our relations with Great Britain and the other portions of the empire. That very sensible English statesman of Canadian birth, not a genius but a man of much common sense, Mr. Bonar Law, pointed out during the war how deeply changed was the basis of relationship between the motherland and the dominions. In the course of the same speech from which I quoted a sentence a moment ago 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. We could 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 treasures 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.
That was in September, 1916. A year previous he expressed the view that "after this war the relations between t'he dominions and the mother country could never be the same." Every thoughtful man was convinced of that. But what were to be the relations after the war?
Was it possible to combine the spirit of autonomy in a gradual evolution to the point of full independence, as was conceived at the time of confederation, and the new system of so called free cooperation which had developed first during the South African war and had come to its full amplitude in the last war? This has ewer since been a directing thought of all British statesmen, whether Tories, Liberals or Labour. Their thought has been: how can we preserve- the cooperation of the dominions in time of war, and get rid of them in time of peace? Because after all that is their thought, and a most natural one. In periods of peace, when the British have to deal in their diplomatic relations with all the situations on earth which you can imagine, to negotiate with all governments, they do mot care to have the Canadians, the Australians, the South Africans and the Irish accompany them everywhere. In analyzing this report,
I thought of the feeling which the British diplomats must have when they see the repre-

Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa
sentatives of all sister nations-or as they still say between themselves, "those bloated colonials,"-coming and butting in. They have that kind of feeling whidh the directors of the British museum would have should half a dozen cattle drovers of the west come with their broncos to inspect their precious collections. I cannot altogether blame them. There is much robustness in the assertion of colonial thought, but there is not always in it that fine appreciation of things and it has not yet developed that scientific way of lying in a gentlemanly fashion so necessary to successful diplomacy. On the other hand, the British wish to preserve the means and the ties by which, in days of strife, they will get the men and the treasure from the dominions to help them in all their imperial enterprises. At the same time, they are prepared not only to grant us but to urge us to take all we can of our self-governing powers. In order to keep us occupied at home, they want to get rid of those political relations which may have been necessary some years ago; they are in just as much if not a greater hurry to get rid of them than we are. So if you take into account that feeling, if you take also into account the circumstances-the peculiar and very different circumstances-under which the representatives of the various dominions have to carry on their internal government and their external policies, you will readily understand that in this conference, as in every other conference, a formula had to be found without any regard to logic, without any regard to harmony of thought and purpose, but in. which something had to be inserted to please everybody.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Without any regard to facts.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, to a large degree. I go further. I think I am .justified by my knowledge of history in saying that there will never be an Imperial conference, or any political body in which the representatives of Great Britain and the various self-governing dominions meet to discuss various propositions of internal economy or external policy upon which they can agree. If they are bound to agree in formulas they must lie to each other in the expression of their thought, and also lie to the respective peoples; or if they want to tell the whole truth, if they want to express the thoughts and the aspirations of their respective peoples, they must express differences of opinion, because the conflicting interests cannot agree, because the aspirations are not the same, because differences are caused by geographical, historical and economic conditions. And so, if there is an agreement it must be a very loose agreement; it
cannot cover the whole field or even a very small portion of the field of the relations which can be established between those various countries.
Let us examine the extraordinary formula contained in this report and compare it with what precedes and what follows it. We are told:
They are autonomous communities. .	.	.
equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs-
At the same time we are declared to be "within the empire." I never heard of an empire constituted in that manner. The idea of empire, the essence of empire, carries with it the necessity of hegemony of one nation over several other nations. That hegemony may be exercised by force, after conquest, as it was in the old classic example of the Roman Empire; as it is now in the British Empire composed of Great Britain, India, and her other subordinate colonies. Or you may have a federated empire such as the Holy Roman Germanic Empire which lasted from the ninth to the seventeenth century, or again in its new form as founded in bloodshed in 1871 by Bismarck. That was the ideal of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. That was the ideal he proposed to the free people of Canada and the various dominions, but they would not have it, and here we have the avowal that that process of a federated empire has been found impossible. But then I repeat:	If Canada,
Ireland, Australia and New Zealand are equal in status to Great Britain and in no way subordinate to Great Britain in any matter of war and peace, how can we form part of the empire? Where is the head of that empire? It cannot be said that it is the Imperial conference. We have had again the statesmen! this afternoon of the Prime Minister, endorsed by that of the leader of the opposition, that that conference has no power of legislation, no power of government. It cannot define, it cannot direct, it cannot accomplish anything, except express opinions one way or the other, very often one way and the other together, then report to the various parliaments, and never ask for any approval; and that is what I like best in the attitude of the government. And yet you tell me this is one empire! Well, no. Of course there still exists a British Empire, the one I mentioned a moment ago, that one composed of England, of India, of all the subordinate colonies, of all the protectorates, of all the "mandated" countries, according to the vocabulary which diplomatic hypocrisy has adopted to define the works of plunder. But of that empire we form no part.
1G7S	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Or the "quality niggers,"
you are leaving them out.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise to a question of
privilege. In my opinion, attacks on living members of the court of last resort in the British Empire are out of order in this parliament.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
have done with that question. But I wanted to bring forward some arguments to prove that after all opinions must be formed not only on great formulas and declarations but also on facts; and I desired to show to this House that, in the province of Quebec as elsewhere, there are reasons for desiring the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. There are people who, not being barristers, have no interest to go yearly to London at the expense of their clients, people who, not being members or directors of great companies, have no interest in discouraging the small pleader, the labourer who seeks compensation, the widow who claims some small amount in damages, from taking the opportunity of having their rights vindicated. Because there are clever lawyers who can advance constitutional arguments or questions of future rights and all the rest of it, the small pleader is dragged from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I happen to know of a case which occurred in Hull, a poor individual having been killed by a railway engine. The company was sued by his dependents and judgment was given in their favour by the superior court, by a majority of the court of review, by a majority of the court of appeal, and finally by a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada. Appeal was taken, however, to the Privy Council and the claim was disallowed. Judgment was rendered against the plaintiff, the astute lawyers of this great company having found that there was a constitutional issue, which resulted in this poor devil having to pass through five jurisdictions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I recall the case against
the Hull Electric and I may say the decision
was precisely the opposite. The judgment of the Privy Council went finally in favour of the plaintiff.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Possibly; nevertheless
there is no sense in dragging a poor pleader in a small case of that nature before a tribunal outside of this country, a tribunal which cannot conceivably be as well versed in our municipal and civil laws generally as our own Supreme court and which can know much less of the facts than our own judges.
There was another case the details of which I know perhaps more intimately than my hon. friend. This was the case of a disagreement between a farmer in the province of Quebec and the Canadian Pacific Railway. This farmer was represented by the law firm of the then premier of the province. Compensation was claimed under the civil law, while the company claimed powers derived from the parliament of Canada on the ground that it was engaged in a work for the general advantage of Canada. There was a constitutional issue at stake. In order to make sure that they would get judgment in their favour the company paid the claimant the full amount of his damages upon receipt of a signed agreement that he would not appear in the appeal. The case was taken to the Privy Council-this time I am sure of the facts-and there adjudicated upon, and judgment was given in favour of the company in what was practically an ex parte case. This is the situation. Surely then, in face of such facts, it will not be contended that appeals should be taken to the Privy Council, merely for the protection of minorities, especially when one thinks that in such cases there is no sanction.
I repeat, I do not blame the Privy Council for not seeing to it that on constitutional questions their judgments are not enforced. Does the leader of the opposition or any other defender of minority rights, beginning with the hon. member for Frontenac-Adding-ton (Mr. Edwards), claim that the King of England should send a regiment to force Catholic schools upon the province of Manitoba, for example, in consequence of the judgment rendered in 1894? The leader of the opposition has spoken of the possibility of the French language being abolished in this House. The French language is guaranteed by the Manitoba Act just as firmly as it is guaranteed in the British North America Act; but it has been abolished by the legislature of that province in violation of the constitution; separate schools have been abolished in Manitoba in violation of the most solemn
1684	' COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa
promises given to the minority. One judgment has been rendered by the Privy Council; it has not changed the position, and I repeat that the reason is because there is no sanction. We of the province of Quebec, the living men of to-day and of to-morrow, do not want to rely indefinitely upon a so-called protection of this nature. We are manly enough to be prepared to discuss in the future with our fellow citizens of Canada, whether Protestant or Catholic, whether French or English, whether from the west or from the east, every one of those rights which we claim to be ours, not because they are contained in a few articles of law in a printed book, but because we know that in the hearts of all right thinking Canadians there is a desire to see that justice is done. And if we are to maintain that unity of which the leader of the opposition has spoken, it is not to be done by declarations of law or the adjudications of a tribunal either in Ottawa or in London, but by the desire of all thinking Canadians to maintain the spirit of confederation and the constitution of Canada.
So, Mr. Speaker, I for one do not think we need be afraid that our constitution is going to be affected because of this involved and very obscure report of the last Imperial conference. Everyone is agreed upon one point; it did not pass laws and could not pass them; it did not amend our constitution and could not do so. Therefore the fact that we discuss the report to-day does not mean that we agree to it; on the contrary, it would have been impossible for the Prime Minister or the leader of the opposition or any member of this House to bring forth a concrete resolution either to adopt this report or to set it aside by a formal declaration. You could not do that without disallowing some things in which you believe or approving some things to which you do not agree. It has been framed in such a way that every one can take something out of it but no one can take the whole of it, and I think that is what Lord Balfour meant. I do not want to be too hard; I do not want to leave the impression that there is nothing in the former part of the report to satisfy those who aspire to freedom, who look upon full-fledged independence in time to come as the only outcome for a self-respecting people of various origins but united upon the basic principles of British liberty; I admit that in these declarations there is a slight advance towards that goal. But no one need be afraid; for my part I am prepared to be patient. I am not in a hurry to sever relations with Great Britain, but I think we should take out of that report those

ideas which are encouraging to that fastgrowing number of Canadians who aspire to be Canadians first and last; who aspire to stand by Canada in its relations with foreign countries and also in its relations with other British countries, as Liberals and Conservatives did some sixty years ago. The Canadian spirit has not yet been destroyed by the new imperialistic doctrine borrowed from Prussia by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain. I think those who have kept that ideal, both Canadian and British, will find some consolation in this report because, as the Prime Minister said, for once at least all the representatives of the self-governing portions of the empire have agreed upon certain principles which will be the landmarks of our advance towards the goal which we have in view.
But with regard to foreign relations and matters of war, not only has there been no progress but there is a marked retrogression even from the conference of 1923, and it is there that I find the triumph of British diplomacy; or rather I should say of Tory imperialist diplomacy, because it must not be forgotten that at present England is governed by a Tory imperialist government. I felt somewhat scandalized this afternoon when I heard the Prime Minister shelter himself under the maternal wing of good old Lord Balfour. I would not have thought that the grandson of William Lyon Mackenzie, fresh from his victory over the combined forces of imperialism, Toryism and colonialism, would have looked upon Lord Balfour as his angel guardian in these matters. I think, however, the right hon. gentleman did not do it so much to express his own thoughts as to perhaps throw a little confusion into the consciences of' hon. gentlemen opposite; but he would be better to not do so. I think he has not, I have not and no one has found the way into the conscience of some at least of these hon. gentlemen; and he would do [DOT]better to appeal to the feelings of his own friends, to the growing spirit of Canadianism in this country. That is the advice of a disinterested friend.
In that report, let us see how Lord Balfour prepared that scientific combination of the principle of equality of status with the exercise of sovereign powers in foreign affaire:
Equality of status, so far as Britain and the dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our inter-imperial relation. But the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function.
Now we begin to have the fine distinction:
Here we require something more than immutable dogmas. For example, to deal with

Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa
questions of diplomacy and questions of defence, we require also flexible machinery- machinery which can, from time to time, be adapted to the changing circumstances of the world. This subject also has occupied our attention. The rest of this report will show how we have endeavoured not only to state political theory but to apply it to our common needs.
In the House of Lords, when questioned by Lord Parmoor,

whose authority I would rather accept, not as a Liberal but as a Canadian with Liberal tendencies, than that of Lord Balfour,

Lord Balfour defined the situation in the words quoted by the Prime Minister this afternoon, practically the same words as used in this report, but a little clearer. There were no colonials there, so he thought he could speak a little more openly, I suppose. He said:
There cannot be, of course, equality of function in this empire. That must depend on the circumstances of the moment. At the moment and for many years to come-many, many years to come-
Let the leader of the opposition think of that when he foretells the revolution that is coming so soon.
-the main burden of defence must necessarily fall upon this country. For many years to come-perhaps for an indefinite period-owing to our geographical position, the leading part, and at present by far the most important part, of the conduct of our foreign affairs must also fall on this country.
Now in explanation of this, in the same passage a part of which the right hon. gentleman read this afternoon, he added a quotation from his previous declaration before the conference, in the month of July:
Personally I think the duties of all the other members of the empire to us are not less than our duties to them, l>ut as to the particular conditions under which that great duty is to be exercised, I do not believe anything is gained by inventing hard cases beforehand.
Now, Sir, let us reduce that to common human language as used in the colonies, and in the light of past experience. What does it mean? It means that while acknowledging in right and in fact to the self-governing dominions all the powers of internal government they wish to exercise, while acknowledging to them the right to exercise their independence in external affairs when they wish to do so, Great Britain claims, in a delicate and careful manner, on account of her geographical position, the right to conduct the foreign affairs of the empire, and counts upon the dominions to give her their free cooperation when she has need of it in diplomatic affairs but mainly in war operations that may follow a rupture of diplomatic relations. That has been the whole history of the relations between Great Britain and the dominions ever 32649-107
since the South African war. Now the question is: Are we going to go back to the basic principle of the policy enunciated at confederation time? That is, are the duties and responsibilities in regard to war matters to correspond with the duties and responsibilities with regard to the conduct of world's policies? The leader of the opposition was told during the debate on the address that he had confused equality of status and equality of stature. But that is not the distinction that is made by Lord Balfour, that is not the distinction that is made by leading imperialists in England. It is a difference between status and function. And what do they mean by " function "? They mean the right, and quite properly so from their point of view, to initiate and conduct all foreign relations; they mean the full liberty to deal with those relations according to the situation which England occupies in the world, not only as a European power in her dealings with continental nations- with France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Greece, Poland or other countries-but also her dealings with the great powers of the world on account of her position as the vastest empire that has ever existed, an empire which brings England in constant difficulty with one nation or the other. Now I ask every true Canadian in this House: are we responsible as a people for that situation? What responsibility have we for the conquest of India by England in the eighteenth century? What responsibility have we for the adoption by modern England of the policy propounded by Cecil Rhodes of painting Africa in red from the Cape to Cairo? What responsibility have we for the fact that England at the present time believes she is bound to remain mistress of the seven seas? It is said at times: Oh, but Great Britain with her mighty power protects us. How, and why, and from what danger? In that partnership of free cooperation, of coordination of forces, that has been laid down in this last conference, and upon which we are told all the representatives of the empire have agreed, what are the relative positions of the partners? There you have Great Britain, the mightiest power on sea, and in some respects on land, that exists to-day- the power that was to a certain degree the cause of the last war, not because she wished it, but because her situation in the world forced her in this instance as she has been forced, or believes she was forced, in every instance during the last three centuries, to curb the power of any nation that threatened her supremacy on the seas as well as her commercial supremacy. Are we responsible for that? England has carried out wars, and has

1686	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa
won them to a large extent, to maintain her supremacy on the seas. We are told that that supremacy is our protection. I ask again: Ever since the one hundred and sixty years that Canada has been a British possession, when has a gun been fired by England for the defence of Canada because of a Canadian cause? When has a British vessel set to sea to go and meet some enemy of Canada aroused to anger by some action of this country?


Mr. LADNER:: What about the events of the war of 1812?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. gentleman is simply anticipating my argument. It is said that England in her dealing with foreign affairs, in her war preparations has to take into account her geographical position, her supremacy-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise to a point of order. It is not competent under our rules to attack in this House a friendly power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What is the point of order?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point of order is this. We have a rule that it is not competent in this House to attack a friendly power. If England a friendly power, is to be attacked in this way and made responsible for war I ask the chair for its ruling.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: On the point of order I wish to say that I am simply arguing-


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a point of order raised.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have a right to speak on the point of order. The hon. gentleman is not yet the kaiser of this House. He may become the kaiser of the Tory party next fall but even when he occupies that position there will still be some freedom of speech in this House; I can tell him that. I was simply developing the circumstances-historical, geographical and political-in which Great Britain finds herself to-day, and if the hon. gentleman had been patient enough he would have seen that I was preparing to render to the British government and the British nation a much more thoughtful and reflective homage than he has ever thought of doing by simply worshipping, in words at least, English power while dealing with American financiers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
gentleman has made what he says is an observation on the point of order. He says the point of order is raised upon his "homage"

to England. I rise to direct the attention of the presiding officer in this chamber, namely Your Honour, to the fact that an attack has been made upon a friendly power. If we have equal status-and we assume we have-then an attack in this House on a friendly power is out of order and has been out of order from time immemorial. Observations with respect to the member of the House who raises the point of order hardly answer the point of order although they may bring deafening cheers from those who agree with them. The point is: how far shall we in this House permit any hon. member to attack a friendly power?


Ernest Lapointe: What did the hon.
member for Labelle say which was an attack on a friendly power?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did my hon. friend not
hear him? It is not the first time this session that this has been said in this House by the same hon. gentleman, and I made up my mind that I would direct the attention of the chair to it the next time it was said. England was held to be responsible for the Great war; English statesmen were being attacked for their attitude and policies towards this country, and reference was made to what we had suffered by reason of the imperial, grasping attitude of English statesmen. The attack was very definitely delivered, but it certainly was an attack that we would not permit to be delivered against a friendly power as, for instance, the one to the south of us.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry I was not
listening to the particular remarks of the hon. member for Labelle. If imperial questions and policies are to be discussed in this House, surely members have the right to criticize as well as approve them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To attack measures has
always been legitimate, but to attack, in the terms used by the hon. gentleman, a friendly power such as Great Britain, is, in my judgment, wholly without the rules and I have heard Your Honour so rule with respect to individuals. Judges have been attacked in this House to-night. The Lord Chancellor who has to sit in judgment upon our cases has been attacked in this House. He never visited this country while he was Lord Chancellor. He has been held up to ridicule. When I raised the point of order then, Your Honour was not in the chair. I think the point has now been reached when we should call a halt. I am quite content with whatever Your Honour may decide.

Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa


Hewitt Bostock: Rule 19 reads:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, nor of any of the royal family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof; nor speak beside the question in debate. No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
Then some cases are cited under that rude in Beauchesne and Bourinot. I find nothing in the rules and in the proceedings, customs, and usages of the House of Commons whereby a member is prevented from discussing from an historical or even from an appreciative point of view the policy of a friendly power. I do not know that by his remarks the hon. member for Labelle has insulted or libelled the nation which was said by the hon. member to be a friendly power. I am quite sure that it would be out of my power to prevent an hon. member from criticizing or discussing or appreciating the policies of Great Britain or the policies of the government of Canada. Surely if a member was speaking of or criticizing even severely the government of Canada, he would be much nearer home, and yet the freedom of speech which we enjoy in this parliament must go so far as to allow criticism of His Majesty's government in Canada provided that such criticism is made in the proper terms.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As regards one observation which Your Honour has'made, I think you were not in your place presiding at the moment the statement was made which came directly within the rule. It was not merely slander; it was of a type that I shall not describe, in saying that Lord Cave came to Canada and. inquired whether a judgment in a given sense-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: His Honour was not in
the chair at the time.


Mr. PARENT:: The decision has been given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that is the sense of the government I am content. Let the slander continue.


Hewitt Bostock: I have been in the chair for an unusually long period this evening. I took the chair at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Deputy Speaker was in the chair at the time.


Hewitt Bostock: In any case the chair is not supposed to be vacated. I was away for about twenty minutes in order to take a little relaxation, but I heard from behind the chair
32649-107i
the remark made by the hon. member for La-belle. It has nothing to do with the present point of order. Even then I did not find that the hon. member had exceeded the rules of parliament. This is what Bourinot says at page 358:
All references to judges and courts of justice and to personages of high official station, of the nature of personal attacks and censure have always been considered unparliamentary and the Speakers of the British and Canadian Houses have always treated them as breaches of order.
I heard the remark. It is true I was not in the chair, but I do not know, if I gathered well what the hon. member for Labelle said, that I would have declared the remark out of order.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Permit me, sir, to
express my sincere thanks to the hon. member for West Calgary for the opportunity he gave me of taking a little rest. That will also enable me to pursue and to conclude upon the subject with perhaps a little less heat than my young man's temperament has caused me to speak. I was just referring to the position in which England finds herself all the world over on account of her geographical position and as the head of that enormous empire of which we form no part, as regards which we have no responsibility. That geographical position, as I said, puts her into the most difficult .position in which any nation has been placed within the memory of man or the records of history. When the hon. member, in his righteousness and zeal for the empire, interrupted me, I was going to say, although in a milder form, things that have been said frequently in the House of Commons of England where everybody is free to appreciate the policies of Great Britain or of Canada or of any other country. There it was pointed out that although by temperament, by desire, the English people are probably to be counted amongst the most peaceful of European peoples; that although they had a wish and a spirit for peace which perhaps no other country, especially among those continental countries which have lived alongside of other nations armed to the teeth for centuries, possesses-and there is undoubtedly a more peaceful spirit in England than there is in every one of the other countries of Europe, excepting of course small countries like Switzerland or	Holland,-nevertheless	on
account of those conditions to which Lord Balfour appealed, in order to preserve to England a predominant and privileged position in the direction of foreign affairs, England during the last century has been brought into more wars of attack or defence, of resistance
1688	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa
or conquest, than any other country on earth. This is the result, not of the policy of one man, not of the thoughtful or wilful direction [DOT] given to English policy by one party or one government, but of the historical development of the empire.
Every empire is by force based on armament. Every empire is bound to remain armed in order to maintain itself and to resist the aggression of other nations who aspire either to some of its possessions or to rival some of its activities. I have said time and again that, in the governing of that empire, in the direction of the foreign policies directed therewith, the English have shown more disposition to peace, especially after a period of war, than any other great conquering and imperial power. I have testified to that fact time and again speaking in the French language in my own province. During all the years which preceded the war I opposed this false principle of imperial cooperation, because I anticipated what it would lead us to. But ever since the war I have supported the English policy of peace;, because England at the present time, and for some years to come, is and will be more interested in maintaining peace in Europe than any other country. She has more at stake. First of all, in her disinterestedness she was loaded with a larger amount of plunder from the last war than all the other countries. She has enlarged her empire by thousands and thousands of square miles in Africa. She has taught Australia, South Africa and New Zealand to found little empires of their own, to grab all the German colonies in their neighbourhood, whether in German West Africa, Samoa, the New Hebrides, or the other German colonies in the Pacific ocean. England consequently finds herself in this position, that in the matter of foreign relations, she has the most difficult part to play. She wants to put Germany on her feet again. She wants to remain friendly with France, and also to curb France's growing military power. She wants to make use of Italy on the side of France against Germany, or on the side of Germany against France, as the case may be. She has endeavoured to play the game between Turkey and Greece, and now between Jugo-Slavia and Italy. She has a hand in every diplomatic situation in Europe and the world over. Therefore, it is not surprising that the British diplomats do not want to see associated with them in every diplomatic step they take, the representatives from Canada, from Australia, from South Africa and from Ireland, who have no direct interest there, and who therefore might be either a useless appendage to British 
diplomacy, or might become very obnoxious should they offer opinions different from those of the English diplomats engaged in those delicate negotiations. It is therefore not surprising that since the Lausanne affair there has been no tendency on the part of Great Britain to encourage dominion representation in imperial affairs. It is no surprise, then, that in this report everything was done to becloud the issues as they were raised in 1923, and to attenuate the operation of those resolutions adopted in 1923 and ratified by this House last year.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask the hon.
gentleman, with respect to Britain's interest in the diplomatic affairs of the continent, would it not be fair for him to add that Britain, in addition to paying her own obligations, has also paid the accounts of the continent of Europe, and is to-day taxing her people more heavily than any other country in the world?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not see any
relevancy in the question. I have never accused England of not paying her debts. If the hon. gentleman will allow me, his interruption has nothing to do with the argument I was making. However, I will not imitate his leader and say I will take no interruptions, although his interruption is absolutely irrelevant.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. gentleman may
not see the relevancy, but that is no reflection on the question I am raising. The hon. gentleman has commented in a most critical way on the part Britain is taking to-day in the diplomatic affairs in Europe, and my questions was-	.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to stand a question, but not interruptions of this nature. The hon. gentleman is free to make a speech after I have spoken. I will imitate his leader to that extent.. If the hon. gentleman's ears are too full of Tory cotton to hear my words, then let him clear his ears and he will understand me. I was, on the contrary, rendering testimony to the genius of British diplomacy, saying that it is ahead of every other diplomatic service in the world. I was saying that on the whole, in spite of the enormous empire that England possesses and rules, she has done more perhaps than any other nation could have done to avoid war, and after war has come, to establish peace. I have just been stating that I have rendered that testimony to British diplomacy, to British policy and British statesmanship, not only in speaking in this

Imperial Conjerence-Mr. Bourassa
House, not only speaking before Englishspeaking Canadians, but in my own province, and sometimes to the Scandal of some of the Tory associates of my hon. friend in the province of Quebec, who accused me of being a traitor to France because I supported the tenets of English policy as against French policy after the war. I endeavour' to view these things, first, from a Canadian point of view because I am a Canadian, and then I endeavour to make use of the little knowledge I have of history and contemporaneous affairs to try and find some principle of justice and equality in these matters, and to endeavour to create in my province and in my country a current in favour of peace and against all war alliances either with Great Britain or any other country.
To come back to the point where the hon gentleman interrupted me, I was saying that in the conduct of these delicate diplomatic negotiations by which England is endeavouring to establish peace in Europe and be an essential instrument in the establishment of peace between the other countries, she remains the arbiter of Europe. I was saying, and I think the whole trend of diplomacy in the last three years has shown, that British diplomats do not care to have us associated with them. I do not blame them for that; we have no business to be there, but I draw from that the conclusion!, as Sir Campbell Bannerman stated twenty years ago, as Mr. Chamberlain stated previously, and as Mr. Asquith stated later on, that responsibility in war hangs together with responsibility in diplomacy. Then England finding that she must conduct her diplomatic service in her own way, I do not see why we should in advance promise her in vague terms armed cooperation in case those diplomatic negotiations should again lead her into war. I simply ask that the principle of justice, of equality of duties and responsibility in function as well as in status, be laid down as the basic principle; and this principle should run, not only in formulae, but in reality as between Great Britain and her daughter states who take pride in the fact that they are just as capable of maintaining the principles of British government as are the people of Great Britain.
To show you how in this last conference the main preoccupation was to modify those resolutions of 1923, first let me refer to the general principles which the sub-committee on foreign affairs discussed. The report says:
We went on to examine the possibility of applying the principles underlying the treaty resolution of the 1923 conference to matters arising in the conduct of foreign affairs generally. It was frankly recognized that in this sphere
as in the sphere of defence, the major share of responsibility rests now, and must for some time continue to rest, with His Majesty's government in Great Britain.
Therefore, there is no equality of status there. This is the passage that was read by the Prime Minister this afternoon, or at least I think he made allusion to it. Then, in another part of the report, reference is made bo the power of initiating negotiations:
When a government has received information of the intention of any other government to conduct negotiations, it is incumbent upon it to indicate its attitude with reasonable promptitude. So long as the initiating government-
I think this means the British government -receives no adverse comments and so long as its policy involves no active obligations on the part of the other governments, it may proceed on the assumption that its policy is generally acceptable.
Where by the nature of the treaty it is desirable that it should be ratified on behalf of all the governments of the empire, the initiating government may assume that a government which has had full opportunity of indicating its attitude and has made no adverse comments will concur in the ratification of the treaty.
Further on it is stated that:
The making of the treaty in the name of the king as the symbol of the special relationship between the different parts of the empire will render superfluous 'the inclusion of any provision that its terms must not be regarded as regulating inter se the rights and obligations of the various territories on behalf of which it has been signed in the name of the king.
Now, Sir, what is to be deduced from this statement? That every time the British government initiates negotiations it is suppposed to inform the various dominion governments; if those governments do not immediately enter protest with the British government, or do not disclaim any responsibility in the negotiations, and if the arrangements which may be entered into by the British government are signed toy the king as the symbol of the relationship defined in this paragraph, then all the dominions that have not protested are supposed to acquiesce in the result. In other words, in every treaty or diplomatic arrangement made by Great Britain from which we are not specially excluded, as we were from the Lausanne treaty, and from the Cannes arrangement between Mr. Briand and Mr. Lloyd George, we are included by tacit consent, if this language means anything at all. Well now, this is contrary not only to the spirit of the resolutions adopted in 1923, but it is in direct contradiction to the resolution that was voted here last summer. Because after we had ratified those resolutions of 1923 defining the conditions under which treaties were to be negotiated either by one
1690	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa
.part of the empire, or by the whole empire, or by one portion of the empire in the name of the rest, we had this added:
This House approves of the procedure proposed for the negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties and conventions, and considers further that before His Majesty's Canadian ministers advise ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada, or signify acceptance of any treaty, convention or agreement involving military or economic sanctions, the approval of the parliament of Canada should be secured.
I hope the Minister of Justice will tell us if in the sub-committee of which he was the chairman, and in the discussions either of the general committee or of the conference at large, reference was made to this resolution as adopted by the parliament of Canada on June 21 last. It is certainly very important for us to know whether or not the British government and the other dominion governments have been informed of the unanimous decision rendered last summer by the parliament of Canada on this important question. Otherwise if we let the report go in its present form, it means that we acquiesce in the new interpretation placed upon the responsibilities of the dominions for the diplomatic relations entered into by the British government as worded in this last report. This, I think, would be very dangerous, and I find an example of it in the manner in which the Locarno treaty was brought in.
What mandate had our representatives or the representatives of any of the dominion governments to give their moral approval to the Locarno policy? It was brought up last year in this House. I did my best to explain the Locarno treaty as I understood it and as it is understood by many people who have followed all the negotiations that preceded and accompanied those famous agreements. I have no doubt that they were made with the intention of helping the cause of peace; but there is no question that they contain provisions for war

for war either against France or against Germany in certain cases. It may be said that approval given by the conference to the Locarno treaty does not carry with it active cooperation; but it certainly carries with it certain things. Certainly not for nothing was the approbation of the conference asked. Attention was called in the British House of Commons to the exclusion of' the dominions from the treaty of Locarno. Mr. Amery, the Very able and very clever Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, was aSked whether any of the dominions were now associated with Great Britain in her responsibilities under the treaty, to which he replied that they were excluded by article 9; but he called attention

to the resolution submitted to the imperial relations committee, unanimously approved by the conference, whereupon Captain Garro-Jones interjected:
Is the right hon. gentleman aware that the resolution submitted by the inter-imperial relations committee has no solid foundation whatever, and. has he made any representations to the foreign secretary that no further obligations should be entered into which will leave Great Britain isolated in this way?
To which Mr. Amery replied:
I do not think that the resolution passed by the conference expressing their satisfaction at the policy of His Majesty's government is not a solid contribution.
I do not know what Mr. Amery had in his mind, but I should like to know what the Canadian government have in their minds. If their adherence to the Locarno treaty means that they approve of the policy which necessarily must grow out of that treaty, then it is about time we should know, because many people in Europe are of the opinion that the Locarno treaty is but a makeshift and that from that treaty new wars may arise just as well as that peace may be established. It may be said that we are not responsible for any war that may arise out of the Locarno treaty; but surely the British government has no need of five or six polite words on paper of approval of their policy unless it means something tangible for them when the day of test come3 to put that policy into execution.
The question is being frequently put to Great Britain-I know enough of European affairs to be able to state that it is being put practically every day-"In the name of whom are you speaking; are you speaking in the name only of the British kingdom or in the name of the six nations who waged war with you last time?" That was the position at the London conference. The French government and the Italian government refused to have the various dominions represented there alongside of Great Britain because, as they said to the British government: "We want to deal with one nation, not with six." Well now, if we are six nations with equality of status, free to direct without any subordination our foreign affairs, then it means that in these foreign relations Canada should be allowed one opinion, Great Britain another, Ireland another, South Africa another. But if in every instance to support the principle of cooperation means that we must be one, then our equality of status remains purely on paper and as a matter of fact we fall into line with the rest of the empire and simply become dummies. In that case we merely endorse a policy prepared in London at the dictates of British

Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa
diplomatists, a policy put into action through our cooperation when the time comes for paying the fiddler.
I do not say that imperial partnership is not a fair proposition, but I claim that the time has come when we should impress upon the people the importance of making an intelligent choice in the light of full reflection. We must decide one way or the other, not now, not perhaps five or ten years 'hence, but at some time or other. We cannot remain within the empire and at the same time be a full fledged independent nation. We might as well attempt to square the circle as try to carry on a permanent 'policy at once imperial and national along these lines. This has been tried and it has failed in every instance. I admit that British genius fotr government is perhaps superior to the genius of any other nation that has ruled any large portion of the world in the past. Nevertheless, even British genius cannot run counter to- the laws of human nature, the laws of geography, the laws of economics and the laws of nationality as evidenced in one country after another as they attain the position of fullgrown nations.
It seems to me that the ideal conceived and announced to the world by those great men who initiated in the sixties the negotiations which resulted in confederation was at once a much higher and a much more practical ideal than the present policy of squaring the circle. In this so-called cooperation, the British claim for themselves, and properly so, the right to determine their policy in accordance with their geographical conditions, and others, as the report declares. Well, have we not the same right? If we have equality of status surely we have the same right to take out own position into consideration. And what is our position past, present and future as we may conceive it? It is this: Canada is so situated that it has never been, probably will never be, the cause of Great Britain or any other portion of the empire running the risk of war on our account.
I was interrupted a moment ago with a question regarding the war of 1812. Will anyone who has the slightest knowledge of history, as taught even in the Ontario schoolbooks, seriously entertain any doubt as to the cause of that war? The British government claimed the right to visit neutral ships. And what had we to do therewith? No more than we had to do with the quarrel between the British government an'd the thirteen American colonies at the time of the revolution in 1775. Yet Canadian territory was invaded and occupied by American armies merely because Canada was associated with Great Britain and the empire.	' f


Leon Johnson Ladner: My hon. friend is not dealing with the point of my question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Leon Johnson Ladner: This ridiculous laughter
does n.ot facilitate the proceedings. My question did not relate to the cause of the war of 1812. My hon. friend stated that Britain at no time had ever assisted Canada by men or by ships, and my question was whether or not she did not assist us both by men and by ships in the war of 1812. I know she did.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Let the hon. member
open his ears. I said at the outset, I stated it a second time, and I repeat it now for the third time, that Britain has never spent a dollar, never armed a soldier, never manned a ship in any war caused by Canada. Does the hon. gentleman understand that now? On the other hand, Canada has been brought into two wars from a cause arising from British policy-a quarrel between Great Britain and the United States. I dio not say that the British were wrong in these wars.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The hon. member must not twist what I said.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I have been three times as courteous to the hon. gentleman as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) was to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I want to imitate statesmen as far as I can. If the hon. member wants to ask a question he may do so, but I am not going to be distracted from an already too long argument by discussions on the side.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I want to correct a misstatement of the hon. member with respect to what I said. I referred to his words, that Britain had not come to the assistance of Canada, and I refuted that statement. What the hon. member said as to Canada having been the cause of any wars was something he interjected later on.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not think the hon. gentleman wants me to repeat my words. He will see them in Hansard to-morrow. Let me once more tell him what I said. Canada has never been, because of its own policy or because of its situation, the cause of any war engaged in by Great Britain or any other portions of the empire. That is my assertion and if the hon. gentleman is not satisfied, if he considers it the utterance of a French Canadian nationalist and rebel, let him refer to the numerous declarations of that past respected leader of the Conservative party, Sir Charles Tupper, in this regard. I myself
1692	COMMONS
Imperial Conjerence-Mr. Bourassa
heard Sir Charles Tupper, in the old House which was destroyed by fire, make the statement that, after his experience as leader of the government and as Canada's representative in Great Britain, he had1 come to the conclusion that for no consideration whatever would England run the risk of war with the United States on account of Canada. Furthermore, when the agitation began to make itself felt for contributions on the part of the dominions to imperial armaments, when the argument was advanced, that we should not shirk our responsibilities having regard to the protection we enjoy from the British fleet and the fact that Great Britain had fought to protect our territory, Sir Charles Tupper met this argument, not once or twice but ten times in speeches and in letters to the English press, which I could quote if time allowed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Very well, then, I am prepared to give it. For once hon. gentlemen opposite will hear true national Conservative doctrine which will show them what evolution has taken place in the Tory party in the last thirty years. Let me quote Sir Charles Tupper, speaking at Winnipeg in 1893; he said:
I deny that we are a burden to the empire. I say that if to-morrow Canada was dissevered from the crown of England, if to-morrow Canada became a portion of that great republic which lies to the south of us, England could not reduce her army by a man, nor her navy by a ship. She would want more soldiers and sailors and ironclads than she has to-day in order to maintain her prestige. I say, if this great continent was closed, as closed it would be to the ships of England, under the circumstances I have named, if they had no harbour in which to run or a place where they can obtain a ton of coal or a spar, instead of England being strengthened, she would be enormously weakened.
He goes on to describe that weakening process. Then,
I deny that we are a burden. There is not a pound of British money spent in the Dominion of Canada, from end to end, for any Canadian purpose.
He further demonstrated that the only contribution Canada could make to imperial defence, compatible with her own dignity and the principles of government, was to organize her own territory, to make stronger that portion of the empire for which she is responsible, and to refrain from meddling in the policy of Great Britain or to contribute in any manner to the imperial navy or the imperial army.
That view was upheld not only in theory but in practice as well by the Conservative

party until the new days of imperial gospel came. In 1885, for the first time, an appeal was made to the spirit of imperial cooperation; appeals were made to that false sense of colonial vanity which we call national dignity. "Oh, we must go to the rescue of England, because she is prepared to fight for us." That was at the time of the Soudan war; but the leader of the Conservative government at that time, - Sir John A. Macdonald, refused point blank, both to the English government and to the Canadian jingoes and quality niggers, to spend one cent of Canadian money in that war. He said, "This is not the understanding we have had with the British government; we have no understanding but to defend our own country."
Now, Sir, if it is a crime in our day to stand by the doctrines of the founders of confederation, I stand committed, because I stood for that principle before the South Airican war, during the South African war, before the great European and during that war, and I stand by it to-day. I am not expressing only the personal opinion of a few Quebec idealists; but I know from a correspondence covering the country from one end to the other and extending over the last five years that I am now openly expressing, and because I am accustomed to stand all the risks of the position I take, the growing feelings of a large number of Canadians of all races and origins in all the provinces of Canada, who are beginning to realize that if Canada is to remain worthy of her origin and is to be a dignified and worthy scion of British civilization, she must develop those principles of self-government and self-concem which have made Great Britain an example to all nations in the world in our day.
Sir, do we want to render a real service to the empire? Let us take the advice given to us by the present representative of Great Britain in Washington, Sir Esme Howard, who said last year, "The duty of Canada or rather the best service Canada can render to the empire is to interpret Britain to the United States and to interpret United States to Great Britain." Well and good, because on the one hand we are an American nation and always will be such, and on the other we are associated with Britain. Whatever the future of the empire, whatever the future of the other countries of the world, there can be no doubt that Canada will always be a nation in America. Therefore we have in common with the great nation to the south permanent interests stronger and more binding than any political bonds we can have outside of America. On the other hand, due to our dual

Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa
origin and to the maintenance in Canada of a French population speaking the French language and maintaining the foundation of the French civilization while absolutely and exclusively Canadian in feeling and British in political tendencies, along with a large population originating in the British Isles and new comers from the continent of Europe, we have here elements of civilization at once- European and American which must be the link between the great commonwealth to our south and the more retarded but perhaps more idealistic nations of Europe. But if we want to interpret Britain to the United States and the United States to Britain, we must speak in terms of peace; we must make it clear, either through the League of Nations or the Pan-American Union, to which we should have belonged for many years, that Canada, constituted as she is, is in a better position to advance the cause of peace than perhaps any other nation on earth One of the reasons is that any preparation for war we would make would be absolutely useless to us. Just a few weeks before Lord Fisher resumed command' of the Admiralty, he said to me, "It is foolish on the part of Canada to spend money in naval armaments or imperial armaments. It is foolish and useless, because you may rest assured that England will never fight for Canada against the United States, the only country which can successfully attack Canada-not because we are not willing to do so but because we cannot. Therefore why should you spend your money in participating in a defence which is useless to your country? If you want to make Canada safe from outside attacks, do not come here to London and talk with our shipbuilders, but go to Washington and make a working arrangement for the defence of your country in common with the United States." But I said, "Oh, Lord Fisher, we have such great patriots in Canada that they would never admit of such a shameful thing as having an understanding with a foreign country to defend us." He said, "Are you so foolish in Canada? Don't you realize that the world is made up of such dependency? Do you consider that we in England are humbling ourselves because we rely on the French army to fight for us on the continent, and because France relies on the British navy to protect her northern coast, as for years Germany relied on England to protect her, and as we relied on Germany to occupy France while we took her colonies? Do you think it is humiliation for Belgium to count on Germany to defend her against France, or on France to defend her against Germany? No country on earth can get along
without an understanding with some other country, and the most natural understandings are made between people who are neighbours and who have common interests." Therefore I say that if we are in need of defence we will not find it in Europe; we would do better to have a cordial and worthy understanding with the United States in time of peace and in view of war, and to rely on the United States for the succor which Great Britain will be unable to give us.
Mr. McGI'BBON: Why not have annexation?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The only way by which we can prevent the absorption of Canada by the United States is precisely by having the best possible understanding with that country. If we continue to do as we have done in the past and build upon dreams, delusions and alliances against nature, upon reliance on racial sentiments legitimate in themselves but insufficient; if we disregard the economic and social conditions which will determine our future policy just as economic and social conditions have determined the policies of European countries, in the last century particularly, one of these days we will wake up in a fool's paradise. It would be far better to maintain a spirit of Canadianism and to prevent the social, economic, mental and moral penetration of Americans into the souls of our young people, and then have an understanding as between government and government such as all countries have.
In doing that, Sir, we would simply be continuing what has been the British policy ever since the days when George Canning concluded with President Monroe an alliance or an understanding under which the United States made good for England on the remainder of her possessions in America, providing England took care that neither France nor Spain would endeavour to possess any portion of America again. That was not quite idealistic, but it was a very sensible and practical policy, which has held good ever since. It is one of the strangest things I have ever experienced in my lifetime: whenever I go to England I meet Tories, Liberals, statesmen, diplomats and journalists, disagreeing on all points of policy, except on the Monroe doctrine. They consider and have considered for a century that the Monroe doctrine is the permanent basis of British politics in America; but this great Canadian nation, ready to swallow up the whole of the empire and to fight with, nations in Africa or elsewhere to make the Union [DOT] Jack float everywhere; oh no, we are too big,
1694	COMMONS
Imperial Conference-Mr. Bourassa
too proud and too dignified to do what these little English statesmen have been doing for centuries.
I think, Sir, if we do that and raise the voice of Canada in favour of peace and disarmament, not only would it be the best service we could render to the empire, but it would be the best protection Canada could have. Provided, of course, we couple it with a declaration, an unequivocal declaration, that Canada means to stand neutral in wars declared by England to which this country is not a party.
That again may scandalize some people; but the idea was propounded by one of the leaders of the Tory party before confederation, one of the founders of confederation, one of the men whose statues adorn the grounds which surround these buildings. D'Arcy McGee was elected as a minister of the crown, then entered the government which made confederation possible, by declaring in Montreal West, represented in part by my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Bell), that Canada should look in the near future to a declaration of neutrality acknowledged in international law, not only by Great Britain and the United States, but by the rest of the world. Nobody was scandalized at that. The leader of the Labour party in Ireland, Mr. Johnson, took exactly the same position at the Interparliamentary congress held at Washington two years ago. That is my ow7n view, and I think it will be the policy of the British Empire before long. It will be a consequential development of the declaration made in London last summer along the lines of self-government. Are we going to wait until after the dominions that are less favourably situated than we are take the lead in these matters? In the past it was the pride of all Canadians that Canada had taken the lead in the development of self-government, that Canada had been the pioneer in the assertion of the rights of all self-governing British communities to rule themselves according to their own ideas. It was the pride of Canada to be the eldest daughter in the galaxy of nations that were born out of British liberty. Are we now going to step backward and wait until the South Africanders, until the Irish, lead us on the path of liberty? Surely that is not the ideal we are going to give to the next generation, to the new generation of Canadians-either French, or English or foreign born-who have come to this country because they thought they would find here the principles and policies

which exemplified their ideas of progress and advancement. Therefore in the name of British tradition, in the name of what is best in our French-Canadian traditions-but in the name especially of our Canadian homes, in the name of the generations yet to come-I would ask, if something had to be asked from this government, that there be ratified in this pronouncement of the conference of the empire everything which makes for progress, which makes for more liberty, which makes for peace-peace in the empire and peace outside of it. But I would stand decidedly opposed to every retrogressive measure, to every equivocation which has been put into that report in order to becloud the issue and satisfy at the same time those who want to go forward and those who want to step backward. My hair is white but I am still young enough I think to look to the future and to speak to my fellow citizens in the spirit of the future. It is from that youthfulness of heart that I speak as I do in all sincerity as a Canadian, as one who admires and loves British institutions-not blindly, not for what they cover of the sins which England has committed just as any other nation, but for what they contain of nobleness of purpose and of breadth of aspiration, for what they contain of hope, of peace, and of liberty for the world at large and Canada in particular. I stand upon that ground to-night as I did in all the years of peace and war, at the expense of my political advancement but because I thought I owed that duty to the country I love, to the country in which I was born and in which I expect to die.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the debate was adjourned.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 216, for the relief of Queenie Isobel Parks.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 217, for the relief of Charles Shedrick Phillips.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 218, for the relief of Lavina Harrison.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 219, for the relief of Marretta Isobelle Grose Leach.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 220, for the relief of Mabelle Amelia Bulmer.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 221, for the relief of John Lauron Garfield Evans.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Ernest Arthur Kingston.-Mr. Young (Toronto).

Questions
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Norah Louise Patricia Campbell Chauvin.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 237, to incorporate The Red River Driving Club.-Mr. Beaubien.
Bill No. 238, respecting The Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the (House adjourned at 11.48 p.m.
Wednesday, March 30, 1927.