1928-05-28

REPORT OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Young (Saskatoon).


[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Saguenay) moved the first reading of Bill No. 340, to incorporate the People's Thrift Corporation.
Mr. STEVENS:: Explain.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: This bill was introduced in the Senate and passed by that body. It is similar to the bill introduced in this house some time ago by the hon. member for South Timiskaming (Mr. Lang), to incorporate the Central Finance Corporation; this bill carries the same privileges and asks for the same rights. When the Central Finance Corporation bill was discussed in the Senate this bill was also considered, and they were both passed by that body. Special clauses were embodied in both these bills at the instance of the superintendent of insurance, Mr. Finlayson;

Private Bills
those clauses were submitted to the law clerks of the Senate and were approved by the committee and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and referred to the select Standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. STANISLAS BLANCHARD (Resti-gouche-Madawaska, for Mr. Foster) moved the first reading of Bill No. 341, to incorporate the Eastern Bank of Canada.
Henry Herbert Stevens: The hon. member has not moved for leave to introduce the bill.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: This is a Senate bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I would ask the bon. member to explain it.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: in the absence of the hon. member in whose name the bill appears I might tell the house that representatives of financial men in New Brunswick have expressed their desire to incorporate a bank. The bill was presented in the upper house and comes to us from there. I understand it is in accordance with all the terms provided by the Bank Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and referred to the select standing committee on standing orders.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: The banking and
commerce committee.


John Frederick Johnston: I might explain (hat the name of this bill was changed in the Senate, and therefore it must go to the committee on standing orders.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. McQUARRIE:: ]. What were the reasons for the dismissal of Lt-Col. H. W. Cooper, late warden of British Columbia penitentiary at New Westminster?
2.	What charges were made against said Cooper?
3.	Was said Cooper informed of said charges, or were particulars thereof withheld from said Cooper even after he had requested same?
4.	Was an investigation conducted by Inspector Jackson?
5.	If so, who recommended to the minister the holding of said investigation, and the choice of Inspector Jackson as investigator?
6.	Had there previously been differences between said Jackson and said Cooper, and were they on unfriendly terms?
7.	Did said Inspector Jackson refuse to permit said Cooper to be present during the taking
of any evidence (except his own) and also refuse to permit said Cooper to examine or crossexamine any of the witnesses or to be informed of the nature of their evidence?
8.	Did said Inspector Jackson also refuse to permit said Cooper to be represented by counsel during the investigation?
9.	Did said Jackson recommend the dismissal of said Cooper, and if so, on what grounds?
10.	Was said dismissal recommended by the superintendent of penitentiaries, and if so, on what grounds?
11.	Was said Cooper ordered by telegraph to turn over the control of said penitentiary to Trollope, the late deputy warden thereof, and if so, what urgent necessity prompted such action ?
12.	Was said Cooper, after dismissal, granted an allowance which is strictly contingent upon a finding of good conduct?
13.	Had any adverse reports on said Cooper been previously received? If so, when and what was the purport of same?
14.	Had said Cooper been highly commended by the Superintendent of Penitentiaries in all his annual reports since said Cooper's appointment?
15.	Were there any escapes from the said penitentiary during the tenure of office of said Cooper?
16.	Has there been any such escape since dismissal of said Cooper, and if so, who -was in charge of the said penitentiary at the time, and under what circumstances did the escape take place?
17.	Did any personal difference between the Supermtendant of Penitentiaries and the said Cooper with reference to persons and incidents outside the penitentiary service immediately precede the request for an investigation of said Cooper's administration?
18.	Has the resignation of Trollope, late deputy warden of said penitentiary, been received ?
19.	What reasons were given for such resignation?	5


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Colonel Cooper was not dismissed.
2.	No charges were made against Colonel Cooper.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Yes, into matters of administration generally.
5.	Superintendent of penitentiaries.
6.	There were no_ personal differences. They were not on unfriendly terms.
7.	Yes. The investigation was held in connection with general administration and not on charges against said Cooper. Colonel Cooper was refused permission to examine or cross-examine witnesses. He was informed of and questioned regarding any evidence taken that affected himself or his administration.
8.	Yes.
9.	Inspector Jackson did not recommend the dismissal of Colonel Cooper. He recommended his retirement immediately, to promote efficiency and harmony in the penitentiary service, because of maladministration.

Questions

10.	Superintendent of penitentiaries did not recommend dismissal but recommended that be be retired to promote efficiency and harmony. This because of his inability to properly administer the affairs of a penitentiary, proven by his admissions and the information adduced.
11.	Yes, Because it was considered unwise and unsafe to leave (him longer in control.
12.	Warden Cooper was not dismissed. He was granted an allowance which may be paid to officers retired to promote efficiency. See section 32, subsection B, chapter 154, revised statutes of Canada.
13.	Superintendent repeatedly complained about unsatisfactory correspondence. Also had repeatedly drawn warden's attention to lack of work accomplished at his institution.
14.	No.
15.	Three inmates escaped from custody and were missing from Saturday until Monday. They were afterwards recaptured by Deputy Warden Trollope secreted in the roof of the administration building.
16.	Warden Cooper was not dismissed. Since his retirement a Chinese inmate did escape from British Columbia penitentiary. Inspector E. R. Jackson was in charge of the penitentiary. Said Chinese inmate was under control of a guard and was employed in renovating the residence vacated by Warden Cooper. This residence was not occupied.
17.	No.
18.	Yes.
19.	He resigned because of ill-health.


RADIO-BROADCASTING STATION CFCA
Mr. GEARY:: 1. What air channel is used by broadcasting station CFCA?
2.	Is this channel reserved for the exclusive use of CFCA?
3.	Does any station other than CFCA use this channel ?
4.	Has any station other than CFCA used this channel in the past, and if so, when did it discontinue such use, and why?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	(840 kilocycles)-356.9 metres.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. 840 kilocycles is also used by CKLC (Red- Deer, Alta.) and by phantom stations CNRT (Canadian National Railways Toronto), and C'KOW (Nestle's Food Co. Toronto); the latter are licensed to broadcast over CFCA's plant.
4.	Yes. CKCL (Dominion Battery Co., Toronto) and CKNC (Canadian National Carbon Co., Toronto). Discontinued 31st March, 1928. CKCL and CKNC were transferred from the 840 kilocycle channel to the 580 kilocycle channel, in order to give each station more time on the air. These stations now enjoy the equivalent of 3i days each per week as against 2| days per week each when they shared time on 840 kilocycles.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ROCK BALLASTING
Mr. PRICE:: 1.	Was there any rock ballasting done between Toronto and Montreal during 1925 and 1926, and 1926 and 1927?
2.	If so, how many miles, between what points, and at what cost per mile?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes; a total of 83.59 miles of double track was ballasted with crushed rock and crushed, washed and screened gravel.
			Cost per
		Double	double
Year	Location	track	track
		miles	mile
1925	Dominion to Vaudreuil	..	
17.33	$ 14,337Port Hope to Newcastle	
13.00	9,9091926	Vaudreuil to River Beaudette	
19.58	10,3451927	River Beaudette to Cornwall	
28.33	10,698Grafton to Port Hope	
10.35	9,774


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE- BASIS OP PAY
Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	What is the basis of pay for the officers
and men of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine?	_
2.	Do the officers receive permanent appointment? If so, -are they allowed any leave of absence at the end of voyages when in the home port?
3.	Are the sailors paid off each voyage?
IMr. Lapointe.]
4.	Is any standard of ration fixed for the men and officers? If so, what standard has been adopted?
5.	Has the government received any complaints of the treatment of sailors manning the Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1. The rates of pay for British mercantile marine steamers, similar in type and tonnage to the ships of the Canadian national steam-

Application of Dumping Duty
ships, were taken as a guide, but increases were added thereto when fixing the wage scales of the Canadian national steamships.
2.	Officers whose services are satisfactory are assured of continuous employment, except when steamers are laid up. Officers are given leave, which is mutually arranged and taken either wholly or in parts, to suit the convenience of the company and ship.
3.	Sailors are paid off at the end of each voyage, and if they do not care to remain in port until the ship's next date of departure, they are given the privilege of joining another ship, if one is available.
4.	The ship's articles contain a victualling scale similar to that of the British Board of Trade, but in practice the officers and crew are victualled on a better scale, which has given general satisfaction.
5.	A few complaints have been received from some members of the crews sailing from Vancouver, but after investigation it was found that such complaints had no foundation and were the result of some petty grievance of the men with the officers. No complaints of any kind have been received from members of the crews sailing from Atlantic coast ports.


PELAGIC SEALING TREATY
Mr. NEILL:: 1. What amounts have been received year by year from the United States Government under the Pelagic Sealing treaty of 1911, up to the end of 1927?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1. Statement of amounts received year by year from the United States government under the Pelagic Sealing treaty of 1911, up to the end of 1927-28 (March 31):
1912-	13	$200,000	001913-	14	
10,000	001914-	15	
10,000	001915-	16	
10,000	001916-	17	
10,000	001917- 18	
nil1918-	19	
10,000	001919- 20	
nil1920-	21	
185,748	071921-	22	
83,901	981922-	23	
58,540	761923-	24	
35,580	701924-	25	
28,274	891925-	26	
74,765	641926-	27	
34,376	831927-	28	
95,014	07


$846,202 94 56103-218J DEVELOPMENT OP SEA FISHERIES
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	Has the sum of $160,000 provided by section 2, chapter 74, revised statutes of Canada, 1927, to aid in the development of the sea fisheries of Canada, been entirely expended on the Atlantic coast?
2.	Will the government take steps to see that the fishing industry on the Pacific coast receives its due share of this payment?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As the bounty is based on the interest on Canada's share of the award made under the fishery articles of the treaty'of Washington, 1871, and as the said articles apply to the Atlantic coast only, the payment is restricted to that coast.


IMPORTATION OF CATTLE FROM UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if it is the intention of the government toj cancel the order in council passed last March providing for the importation in bond of American cattle for grazing?
Hon. W. R. MOTHERW'ELL (Minister of Agriculture):	If my hon. friend will ask
that question again to-morrow I think I will be able to report progress.


APPLICATION OF DUMPING DUTY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: On Saturday last the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolrnie) asked a rather long question, to which I intimated I would, after reading the question over, give an answer to-day. The first part has reference to an answer of my own; I was asked the question:
Are you going to put into effect another order m council to-morrow as you state you have power to do?
To that question I replied:
Yes, the very minute the minister comes to council and gives us reasonable grounds for putting that order into effect the governor in council will act on the advice of the minister.
On looking at the text of my reply, it is quite clear that it has special reference to the length of time it would take to put an order in council through, once reasonable grounds were given the governor in council for so' doing. My hon. friend continues:
In view of these statements will the government relieve the anxiety of the fruit, vege-

Federal District Commission
table and egg producers in the province of British Columbia and elsewhere by stating why action has not been taken as promised?
The promised action has not been taken because an order has not been presented giving reasonable ground why it should be put into effect.


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I
would like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister to a matter which is of some importance, but perhaps I may be too late to be of very much use. In view of the millions which this parliament has voted for the beautification of Ottawa, in view of the desire on the part of the Prime Minister and all of us that that beautification shall be continued and in view of the beauty of the square in front of this building, I would ask if the attention of the Prime Minister has been called to this ghastly architectural monstrosity being erected opposite the west block, and which will ruin the beauty of this whole square when it is completed?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say
that it has not been drawn to my attention exactly in the terms the hon. gentleman has used.


Robert James Manion: I have tried to make it
emphatic.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There has been no formal communication to the government on the matter.


Robert James Manion: Everyone will agree that
the building is going to ruin the beauty of this most attractive square out in front of the parliament building. Does the Prime Minister not think it advisable that this government should ask the city of Obtawa to put on some building restrictions, so that this general plan of beautification, which is being paid for by the people of Canada, shall not be ruined by such architectural monstrosities as that? I would not say this about the building if it were down in some business section of the city. But this whole square is very uniformly beautiful; on the north side we have this building, and on the east and west sides we have the east and west blocks; and Wellington street, while not particularly beautiful, is in keeping with the rest of this square. That building is going to ruin the whole beautification of the square. I draw this matter to the attention of the Prime

Minister because I think the city Should be given some notification of what I suggest.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with
my hon. friend that there should be control over the class of buildings to be erected in the vicinity of buildings which are the property of the people of Canada. The Federal District Commission did ask the city council to secure to it that power with respect to Elgin street, Where the new park is to be developed, and I believe the city council applied to the Ontario government for that power. I cannot say positively, but I am inclined to -believe that a bill was passed for that purpose. I have directed the attention of the cam-mission to the advisability of seeking to get that power extended with a view to effecting exactly what my hon. friend has in mind: some control over the style of buildings that are erected in important public parts of this city.


Robert James Manion: Cities have the right,_ in
fact the duty, to pass upon permits for buildings to be erected within their boundaries, so that even if the -city has not passed to the commission that right, the city itself has the power to act.


INTERNATIONAL PEACE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
would like to ask the Prime Minister if the Canadian government has made any reply to the invitation of the United States government in the matter of a peace treaty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I expect to
be able to lay -on the table within a day or two the correspondence that has taken place in this matter. Up to the presenttime a reply -has not been sent forward, and I am therefore not in position to give the reply to the -house to-day.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. I. D. MACDOUGALL (Inverness):: I would like to ask the Minister of Railways why it is that the province of Nova Scotia has no representative on the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways, and why they have not been represented for the last three years. Is it the intention to appoint representatives in the near future?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Nova Scotia in

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bourassa
that regard is in no position different from that of my own province of Saskatchewan or the province of Alberta. .The constitution of the Canadian National board is not a matter of provincial representation, although some regard must be given to considerations of that nature.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: That is the reason the druggist is there from Prince Rupert.


Mr. DUNNING:: If my hon. friend has
any remarks to make in regard to that there will be a proper time to make them. The matter of adding to the present representation on the Canadian National Railways board has been receiving the consideration of the government during the past few months, and I will not forget the representations made by my hon. friend, which have been made, I can say, even more strongly by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston).


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is politics.
TRADE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA On the orders of the day:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The other day the hon. member for La.belle (Mr. Bourassa) asked for some correspondence respecting the severance of relations with Russia, and in particular for the exchange of letters and notes on the subject between the British government and our government. Since coming into the house I have received a communication from His Majesty's government in Great Britain agreeing to the papers being tabled, and, with the permission of the house, I will now table the correspondence.
PRIYILEGE-MR. COOTE On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. C. COOTE (Macleod):: In my remarks made in this house some time ago, appearing on page 1077 of Hansard, I quoted the price of an Erskine six coach as 'being $735 in the United States and $995 in Canada, or an increase of 35.4 per cent. The American price was quoted from page 6-8 of the February issue of Motor, a magazine published in New York. I now find that there was an error in the printing of this page, and that the price quoted referred to an Essex coach. The correct price for an Erskine coach in the United States appears to be $795, which would make the price in Canada approximately 25 per cent higher than the United States price. I am making this statement to correct as far as possible any injustice that may have been done to this company, and I regret that the error did not come to my attention sooner.



SUPPLY-IMPERIAL AND FOREIGN RELATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: I am sorry to delay ithe proceedings, but it seems to me that before we prorogue we should have a statement from the government with regard to our foreign relations, and also an explanation of what has been done since the last Imperial conference to implement its decisions. I am still more sorry to have to bring this matter up in the form of a motion of want of confidence. There is just a sufficient degree of diffidence or disquietude regarding the course of the government to make it sincere on my part; but if I resort to this procedure, iit is rather because the regulations of the house prevent any individual member bringing an important subject before the 'house unless it is in this form. Thus I will have to conclude these remarks with a motion of regret at the course followed, or rather the lack of action on the part of this government and other governments represented at the Imperial conference, in not giving full sanction to the decisions arrived at in London.
In the report of the conference, the following statement appears:
Every self-governing dominion of the empire is now' the master of its destiny. In fact, if not always in form, it is subject to no compulsion whatever.
Further on:
Equality of status, so far as Great Britain and the dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our inter-imperial relations.
Is it not important for all concerned that " forms " should be made to coincide as exactly as possible with " facts," but still more so with the " root principle " thus stated emphatically by the conference to be now the basis of inter-imperial relations, and therefore the basis of external relations of each individual member of the so-called British commonwealth of nations with foreign countries? Of " compulsion " it was rather useless to speak. For many years past, the British government can be absolved from any attempt at exercising compulsion on any of the dominion governments in any matter political, whether in internal or in external affairs. But there are oertainly still in existence limitations over the exercise of our full sovereign powers, either in internal or external matters;
3446	COMMONS
Foreign Relations-Mr. Bourassa
and, what is perhaps worse still, there are loopholes and equivocations that were not dispelled at the last Imperial conference, and which, I think, should be clarified as soon as possible. If full and individual freedom of action is now the constitutional basis of government in each of the self governing nations acknowledging King George as their sovereign, then all obstacles preventing the full and unhampered exercise of that freedom should be removed, and points which are still obscure should be clarified in order to dispel in the present and to avoid in the future all possible misunderstanding between Great Britain, Canada and the other self-governing dominions or sister nations, call them by whatever name you like, or between each of those countries and any foreign country with which it may have to deal.
As regards the head of our government it was stipulated at the last Imperial conference :
It is an essential consequence of the equality of status existing among the members of the British commonwealth of nations that the governor general of a dominion is the representative of the crown holding in all essential respects the same position in relation to the administration of public affairs in the dominion as is held by His Majesty the King in Great Britain, and that he is not the representative or agent of His Majesty's government in Great Britain or of any department of that government.
Further:
It seemed to us to follow that the practice whereby the governor general of a dominion is the formal official channel of communication between His Majesty's government in Great Britain and his governments in the dominions might be regarded as no longer wholly in accordance with the constitutional position of the governor general. It was thought that the recognized official channel of communication should be, in future, between government and government direct.
This was adopted in the month of October, 1926, and to my great surprise, in taking cognizance of the papers deposited on the table during this session, relating to the rupture between Canada and Russia which took place in May, 1927, seven months afterwards, I noticed that all the correspondence exchanged between the Canadian government and the British government was exchanged through His Excellency the Governor General. Therefore, I hope the Prime Minister will explain to the house why, seven months after the adoption of this resolution, it was not put into effect in a matter of this importance. May I suggest, just in passing, in order to make the position clear both to the people of Canada and to the people in the other British communities as well as to the foreign world, that the Governor General being no more a governor should
Mr. Bourassa.]
receive the title and dignity of Viceroy, bo that it would be made quite clear that the Governor General occupies, as was stated in London a year ago last fall, the same position, enjoys the same privileges, and is limited to the same extent in the exercise of his functions, as His Majesty the King is in Great Britain.
A matter that was considered at the conference was the reservation of dominion legislation for the assent of His Majesty, or for the disallowance of such legislation. This is now a pure matter of form. Another question was the jurisdiction of the dominions outside of their own territory, what is known generally as extra-Territorial jurisdiction. This is an important matter. Another was the revision of the Colonial Laws Validity Act This act was invoked not long ago by the Privy Council in London to annul a statute of Canada which had been in force for years and years and respected by all Canadian tribunals. It was wiped off by a stroke of the pen, not because of the situation of Canada, but because of the possible application of the precedent to Ireland. This is, I think, a very important matter. These three subjects were to be submitted to the study of a committee. I should like to know, and I think the house will be interested in learning from the Prime Minister, who is at the same time Minister of External Affairs, whethei that committee has been appointed, of whom it will be composed, what questions will be referred to it, what directions will be given to the representatives of Canada upon it and when we may expect to have a report therefrom. That committee was supposed to enlighten itself, with the help of experts on various matters of legislation, and therefore to be in a position to report to the various governments in a very informed way.
Then the important matter of merchant shipping laws was to be submitted to a subconference which was to sit at the same time as this committee, with its array of experts, so, I suppose, that both bodies could help each other. I would respectfully ask the Prime Minister to tell us when the sub-conference is going to convene, how it will be composed, what will be the various matters submitted to it and when we may expect or hope for a report.
The matter of appeals to the Privy Council has been practically left in the hands of each parliament of the various dominions. It is not so stated in so many words, but it is easy to read between the lines of the paragraph of the report relating thereto, that all the members of that conference acknowledged or asserted the right of each so-called sister nation

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bourassa
composing the British commonwealth to deal with this matter as it thought fit. I aim not going to touch upon this point at all, because in itself it would require very wide consideration. I simply beg the government, when they take it up, to read carefully the debate which took place not very long ago in the House of Lords relating to the decision of that semi-judicial, semi-political body with regard to the payment of pensions to civil servants in Ireland. This may dispel the delusion that the Privy Council is altogether infallible either in judicial or political matters. I refer to the case of Wigg and Cochrane versus the Irish Free State.
But what I desire to bring more especially to the attention of the government- and the house is all that concerns our foreign relations. The conference has acknowledged broadly, in a spirit of true British statesmanship, the right of Canada, as well as of any other British dominion, to open and maintain direct relations with any foreign country, and to place itself in its relations with those foreign countries on the footing of a free nation. The government, quite properly, I think, has given effect to that decision, first by the appointment of a representative of Canada in Washington, an act now reciprocated by the appointment of an American minister in Ottawa; and very soon the house will be called upon to approve of similar action being taken with regard to France and Japan. I may say that the policy of the government in this connection has, though it does not amount to very much, my full approval, but it has also the full approval of all itrue-thinking Canadians. I simply give the friendly advice that in everything which relates to the material organization of the various legations, the government should not lose sight of the fact that Canada is still a small country, in importance and in population. The government should not undertake to put these foreign legations on the material footing of embassies from large countries. If we want to multiply those relations for the good of Canada, for the extension of our foreign relations, we must be in a position to establish such agencies or legations in every country with which we may have relations, and therefore I think it would be at once wise, prudent, modest and proper to be a little more economical in the display of material installation, and look for the multiplication of those agencies rather than make a few of them very costly and, may I say, parvenu-like.
What is extremely important is that before we go on multiplying our relations with foreign countries by establishing legations, we should have a clear and above-board understanding
with Great Britain on the one hand, and with foreign countries on the other, as to what will be the exact situation of those representatives of Canada in foreign capitals where the British government is equally represented by an ambassador or a minister plenipotentiary; and likewise, .as to what will be the situation of the representatives of .those foreign countries with us in regard, on the one hand, to our relations with Great Britain as a member of the so-called British commonwealth of nations, and on the other, in regard to the relation of those countries with the government of Great Britain. In order to make my point clear, I wish to bring before the house a sketch or short history of the establishment and rupture of our relations with Russia; and second, to take up the standing of foreign consuls representing in Canada countries which have not yet established direct relations with us.
The history of our relations with Russia makes very interesting reading indeed. It took birth first in the form of a trade agreement concluded on the 16th of March, 1921, between His Britannic Majesty's government and the government of the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet republic. That trade agreement, it is easy to see by reading it, was preliminary to the conclusion of a complete international treaty. In fact, in the very preamble it is said:
Whereas it is desirable in the interest both of Russia and the United Kingdom that peaceful trade and commerce should be resumed forthwith between those countries, and whereas it is necessary, pending the conclusion of a formal general peace treaty between the governments of these countries, etc.,
May I say, to soothe some disquieted consciences, that this trade agreement was not concluded between the Soviet republic and a Radical government in England, but by the coalition government of which Mr. Lloyd George was then prime minister, and signed by Sir Robert Home, a good, thorough, proven Tory of England. Canada, under an equally good Tory government, headed by Mr. Arthur Meighen. decided to adhere to that arrangement. Their first order in council was passed on August 22, 1921, upon the recommendation of no less a statesman than Sir George Foster, then Minister of Trade and Commence, and with the full approval of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Arthur Meighen. lit did not materialize at once. A general election came on in the fall of that year; but the then Conservative government attached such importance to the establishment of those trade relations that before quitting office, they passed a second order in council, dated December 26, 1921, ; incorporating a formula prepared for them in London by the
3448	COMMONS
Foreign Relations-Mr. Bourassa
Department of Foreign Affairs, under which Canada declared that it adhered .to the arrangement concluded between the British and the Russian governments on March 16, 1921.
Now that created quite a queer situation. There was no reservation whatever on the part of Canada. It was not an adhesion to one section or the other of the treaty; it was not a mere acceptance of those clauses of the treaty which established trade relations alone. No, it was an adhesion to the whole treaty. It is, of course, too long to read, but I would advise every member of parliament who thinks of the general interests of the country once in a while, to read it through. They will find out that there were mutual undertakings on the part of Russia and England to clear the seas surrounding Europe of what mines would still be floating around after the war; it made very long and precise stipulations for the sojourning of their respective nationals in each country; it stipulated in what manner the official agents of each country should reside-the. Russians in England and the English in Russia; it stipulated also in what manner the property as well as the persons of the nationals of each country would be protected by their respective governments, and so forth. So that by accepting the formula written in London and sent to Ottawa, and accepted here, with eyes closed or opened-I am not quite sure which -by the Canadian ministers, we adhered to all those stipulations. I mention this merely en passant, to show how wise the Imperial conference of 1923 was when it stipulated that each government thereafter should negotiate for itself and according to its own needs the nature and extent of its relations with other countries.
The adhesion of Canada was communicated internationally by the exchange of those notes, which have been produced to-day by the Prime Minister after permission received from London. May I say in passing that there is something ludicrous in the idea that it should take fifteen days to get permission from either the Dominion Secretary or the Foreign Secretary in London to enable Canadians to take cognizance of a paper which concerns them alone. I quite realize, as the Prime Minister said the other day, that if we entertain relations with various governments, then when there is in the correspondence or the records matters of concern to those governments, it is an elementary rule of diplomacy and international etiquette than none of the governments concerned should make the documents

public without the consent of the other governments. But in this instance the British government acted, as Lord Haldane defined it many years ago, merely as a trustee, so to speak, for the Dominion of Canada; and therefore this document should have been a Canadian document, not to be made public without the consent of the Russian government so long as our friendly relations continued; but since they were broken we should be as absolute masters of this as of our own orders in council.
Matters went along more or less smoothly between the British and Russian governments for a couple of years. In 1924 Mr. Ramsay MacDonald gave a warning to the commissar for foreign affairs in Leningrad that his agents in London should be a little more careful about the manner in which they were carrying on their trade and other activities.
Mr. A'DSHEAD:	Did you say Mr. Ramsay MacDonald gave the warning?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, in 1924. In 1926,
pressure was brought to bear upon the then Conservative government, of which Lord Balfour was the foreign minister, but he refused to break relations with Russia. He admitted that certain activities were carried on by the Russian agents; he questioned the wisdom of having concluded arrangements with the Russian government, but he thought it would be unwise and imprudent on the part of the British government to break off all relations because of the actions of this or that man. But, as the story goes in London, during all that time in Leningrad there was a tug of war between the Standard Oil Company and the Royal Dutch Oil Company -which, in spite of its Dutch name, is a British company headed by Sir Henri Deterding. There had been what is called a "gentleman's agreement" between those companies. As a rule these gentlemen's agreements cover many things which, for the sake of the parties concerned, are better not uncovered. But it came out that the Russian government had, on the side, granted to the Standard Oil Company certain advantages. Thereupon Sir Henri Deterding beseeched Sir William Joynson-Hicks, the Home Secretary -who in London is known among friendis and foes by the familiar name of "Jix"-to take action, upon which the Home Secretary decided to raid the Arcos building in London, against the wise advice of Sir Austen Chamberlain, Foreign Secretary. But the thing being done, and the documents sought not being found, Sir Austen, thanks to the sanctimonious principle of cabinet solidarity,

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bourassa
was obliged to cover the indiscreet but very radical action of his colleague in favour of Sir Henri Deterding; and therefore he had to announce that the British government could no longer continue relations with the Russian government, because the Russian agents in London had been carrying on frightful acts of international dishonesty and discourtesy, organizing spying on the British government, and so forth.
Following this the very clever and active gentleman who heads the Department for Dominion Affairs, Mr. Amery-who, by the way, if the policy recommended on the other side of the house was carried out would be obliged to step out of the British Empire, because he who rules the dominions is not of English blood; he is a Hungarian Jew, but a very clever man-Mr. Amery wrote to Ottawa to inquire what Canada would do in the matter. His despatch dated May 23, 1927, is very interesting reading:
In connection with my telegrams-
Of course, various telegrams had already been sent to keep us au courant.
-as to Anglo-Soviet relations, we are advised that the termination of the Russian trade agreement of 1921 in relation to this country-
England-

would not-[DOT]
I call the attention of the Prime Minister and the house to this point:
-would not, in the absence of intimation that the notes exchanged on July 3, 1922-
That is, the notes which made us a party to the agreement-
-are no longer regarded as governing the relations between Canada and Soviet, necessarily terminate the operation of the agreement as between the Soviet government and the Canadian government.
In other words, the British government was then advised, and it was its opinion, that Canada stood as a separate party in its relations to Russia. Then, further down:
Especially as the Soviet action which has led to the present situation is directed against the institutions of all parts of the British Empire, we should like to suggest for consideration that as regards the retention of Soviet representatives that this is a matter on which uniformity of action by the various members of the commonwealth concerned would present great advantages.
Upon which the Canadian government- speaking through its improper channel of communication, His Excellency-wired back quite properly:
The despatches received-from Mr. Amery- do not indicate that any documents have been found in . the Arcos raid which establish that the official agency in Canada has been a centre of espionage and subversive propaganda. If
any evidence to this effect has been discovered, it is desired to be informed as early as nossible.
Further down, and quite properly again, His Excellency reminds the British minister that under the very agreement to which Canada was a party, if one government had cause to complain, it had to call the attention of the other government to the fact and ask for an explanation. He asked whether any special steps had been taken towards giving the other party an opportunity of furnishing an explanation; upon which Mr. Amery replied:
Such information as was obtained from Arcos raid directly relating to Canada consisted of addresses found in possession of Anton Miller.
We shall see in a moment what these are.
Second question: It is under third paragraph of article XIII of 1921 agreement that action is being taken by His Majesty's government.
In other words, the British government broke relations with Russia on the strength of this provision:
In the event of the infringement by either party at any time of any of the provisions of this agreement or of the conditions referred to in the preamble, the other party shall immediately be free from the obligations of the agreement.
But the same paragraph contained these words:
Nevertheless it is agreed that before taking any action inconsistent with the agreement the aggrieved party

In this case Great Britain-
-shall give the other party-*
In this case Russia-
-a reasonable opportunity of furnishing an explanation or remedying the default.
Now, by agreeing unreservedly to this provision we were bound to pursue a course which Sir William Joynson-Hicks did not think fit to adopt. Strange to say, without waiting for the documents to be submitted-either those that related to Britain or those obscure but famous addresses found in the possession of Anton Miller-and without having in their possession any of the evidence gathered by the police of London-without waiting for any of these documents or for the documents deposited on the table of the British Commons, the Canadian government decided to break the agreement. The reason I do not know, but we have tihis admission dated May 26. I may say that Mr. Amery's letter was dated iMay 23, to which we replied on the 26th:
So far as Canada is concerned there has been a steady and substantial growth of trade under the agreement, and there has not been any substantial ground of complaint as to espionage or propaganda against the present official agent in Canada.
3450	COMMONS
Foreign Relations-Mr. Bourassa
This is an official declaration signed by the Governor General on Canada's behalf. Nevertheless,
My ministers have concluded that the evidences of espionage and subversive propaganda set forth by your prime minister (Mr. Baldwin) make it clear that an essential condition of the agreement as entered into by Canada as well as by Great Britain, namely, that each party should refrain from hostile action, etc., . . . has not been fulfilled. In order to remove any doubt as to whether the agreement lapses automatically and having regard to all the circumstances they have accordingly decided to terminate the agreement.
It appears therefore, that without haying in the'ir possession the whole or any part of the evidence in the matter, and while admitting that they had no ground of complaint against the Russian representative in Canada, the Canadian government broke that agreement upon a mere despatch from Mr. Amery stating that tlhe prime minister had deposited some papers on the table in the British House of Commons.


John Frederick Johnston: Does the hon. member intend to .move an amendment?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Frederick Johnston: It would be advisable for the hon. member to move the amendment now; his forty minutes will soon be up.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Very well, Mr. Speaker. This is the amendment:
This house regrets that proper steps have not yet been taken to give full effect, both in domestic and external affairs, to the "equality of status" acknowledged by the Imperial conference, 1926, to be the "root-principle" of the relationship between the self-governing Britannic communities.
The papers came, but they came late. After we had followed suit, upon Mr. Amery's prompt invitation, we find that Mr. Amery wias not in a. hurry to dispatch the papers. The rupture occurred on May 26 and the papers left London by mail on June 10. They arrived here, and all that was found relating to Canada was this:
List of addresses found in possession of Anton Miller.
Canada: (No. 1) Communist Party, Canada, Room 301, 95 King St. E., Toronto, Canada,
Private address:	(No. 2) Miss Skene, 54
Victor Ave., Toronto, Canada.
(Inside envelope: I. Macdonald).
Then there is a very long list covering all the countries on earth. It ends with the following:
Canada, confidential matter:
1.	Mr. Charles Gray, 167 Lisgar Street, Toronto, Ont.. Canada.
fMr. Bourassa.3
2.	Mr. E. Pirttinen, 56 Wroxeter Ave., Toronto, Ont., Canada.
3.	Mrs. Mary M. Sutcliffe, 34 Tyndall Ave., Toronto, Ont., Canada.
(Inside envelope Macdonald or other).
Miss Alice Ayres, 54 Delaney Crescent, Toronto, Ont., Canada.
I do not know whether it is due to the influence of Toronto, but strange to say all these bolshevists are to be found in that holy, sanctimonious centre, the Queen City. Now, that is all that concerns Canada in all that record; there is nothing else. With regard to those evidences of which His Excellency the Governor General, speaking in our name, felt quite satisfied that they justified us in breaking the agreement, without reference to the procedure which we had undertaken to follow in such a situation, they also came later on. I will not read them. May I venture to say that before the government had acted without reading them, they should at leas* have read the expressions of opinion giver in the parliament at Westminster? If they were obliged to draw their inspiration from London, it seems to me that a Liberal gov emment might perhaps have borrowed something from the leaders of liberalism in England rather than to take their cue exclusively from Mr. Amery. What did Mr. Lloyd George think of the matter, as leader of the Liberal party in England? I have the British debates here and any hon. member may consult them if he cares to do so. Mr. Lloyd George said in effect:	"Of course you have evidence of espionage; you have evidence of intrigue. But that is exactly what we are doing ourselves in every country; that is what every government has been engaged in, not only during the war, but before and after. Every government employs spies in every other country. We knew that when we entered into relations with Russia. Lord Balfour knew it; and notwithstanding the same propaganda and espionage, or worse, he refused to break relations in 1926." Mr. Pon-sonby, one of the most distinguished members of the Labour party, and, as everyone knows, the scion of a very aristocratic family, related how, in a previous incident, the head of the criminal investigation department in London, Sir Basil Thomson, to make a case against Russia, had forged a document, which Mr. Ponsonby read to the House of Commons. And this was not contradicted. Mr. Arthur Henderson, who had been a member of the coalition government during the war and who was also in the Labour government in 1924-25, related how he himself, a member of His Majesty's government, sitting

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bourassa
in Berne as a delegate of the British government in an international conference, was spied upon by a paid agent of the same British government; and that spy, not receiving his fee quickly enough from the minister of the crown who employed him to spy on one of his colleagues, went to the Swiss government and sold the documents. It was the Bernese police who put into the hands of Mr. Henderson, a minister of the crown, the papers and reports of an English spy employed by the English; government to spy upon another member of that government in a foreign capital.
After these expressions of opinion and statements of the policy pursued by all governments in every country, perhaps we might have waited at least to read the papers and the judgment passed upon them by such distinguished members of the Labour party and the Liberal party before we agreed, on a simple command from Mr. Amery, to break relations with Russia. I do not say that we had no cause to do so; I do not know. However, I find in the record before us that we have broken relations with Russia simply and solely because the British government did so; and that break in London was condemned by some of the most representative men of public Liberal opinion in England as contrary to the interests of England. Now the story is out, although I do not know whether or not it is true, that this was done at the command of a large financial institution in London, quarrelling with a rival American institution for the favour of the Leningrad government.
I have not brought up this matter for the mere pleasure of unearthing disputable proceedings on the part of the British or any other government; in this regard the British government is no worse than any other gov- [DOT] ernment in the world. As Mr. Henderson and Mr. Lloyd George pointed out, in the present state of things, all governments follow these practices; but I have brought this matter up to indicate how important it is, now that we are beginning to establish relations with foreign countries, to be very prudent in concluding those relations, in order to make sure that they are designed to serve those interests which are confided to us. We should confine our engagements to what is commanded by our own position, and should not rely blindly upon statesmen responsible to the people of the United Kingdom, on the other side of the ocean, to prepare and to conclude our relations, and then break them, for reasons which may be good or bad but have no application to Canada.
There is one feature which it is perhaps still more important to keep in mind. In this instance, we broke our relations with a foreign country because of some difficulty arising in London between the British government and the representatives of that foreign country. There is now a representative of the United States of America in Ottawa, and we have a representative of Canada at Washington. Supposing trouble arose to-morrow; supposing the American government found fault with Mr. Massey or whoever might succeed him, and asked us to recall our representative, as once the American government requested the recall of Sir Lionel Sackville-West for some indiscretion in political matters. Are we going to write to London and, for the sake of "unity of action," ask that the American ambassador be expelled from London? The Irish Free State is also represented in Washington, and the United States is represented in Dublin. Supposing trouble arises, as it may, since modern Irishmen take an equal interest in politics to that which they took in the olden days; supposing the representative of the Irish Free State in AVashing-ton should commit some indiscretion such as the representative of the English government committed forty years ago, and the American government asked Dublin to recall their indiscreet representative. Would Mr. Cosgrave, or his successor, write to the Prime Minister here and ask us to expel the American representative from Ottawa, or recall our minister from AVashington, for the sake of "unity of action?" This is an aspect of the situation which should be studied immediately. We should consider seriously whether we are to maintain our relations with these foreign countries regardless of what action is taken in London, or whether we are to break our relations every time there is trouble between London and any of these other countries. I think this is a very important point. It is a source from which may emanate more trouble than we anticipate, if we do not make our position quite clear in the beginning. If our relations are not to stand by themselves; if we are obliged to break relations every time there is trouble between London and Washington, or Tokyo, or Paris, what becomes of our "equality of status?" If it works only one way and never the other I do not see where the equality lies. As I have already said, this is a very important point, and I am quite sure the Prime Minister will take it in the spirit I am bringing it forward, that is, in order to find a happy solution for all concerned.

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bourassa
In contrast to this, let me point out the absurd situation which we had to face, as a nation and as a government, through an unhappy incident which preceded the present session. I refer to the action of the Mexican consul, Mr. Barron. I need not tell the house that I am not going to discuss the religious or any other policy of the Mexican government. I am not concerned with that to-day, although I have my own views about it. It has been said that we should have broken relations with Mexico in a tragic fashion. I do not agree with that, first because as a matter of fact we have no official relations with Mexico. Then again, I am not quite sure that our standard of Christianity as a nation gives us any moral authority to teach lessons to all nations on earth. Again, it must be admitted, gladly or sadly, that for many centuries past religion and morality have ceased to have any connection with international relations, and it would have been ludicrous for the Canadian government to break relations with Mexico on account of its religious policy when, at about the same time, we were establishing official relations with the government of France. The Mexican policy is more brutal; but if it is a question of Christianity, I think if any modern government on earth has worked effectively for half a century to destroy Christianity, it is the government of the French republic. But there is a further reason. When we see that the Holy See itself is entering into relations, when the opportunity affords, with all governments, Catholic, Protestant, pagan or unfaithful, I do not think it behooves us to be more Catholic than the Pope and to establish or break relations in international affairs on the basis of religion.
But when it comes to the personal attitude of Mr. Barron, that is a different question. This gentleman chose to make use of the Canadian press to insult a bishop of Canada, a Canadian citizen, and then to insult a member of this house, another Canadian citizen. In every other country on earth, including the Black republic of Liberia, that gentleman would have been invited to leave within twenty-four hours. Sir Lionel Sack-ville-West, the ambassador of the great British nation, was asked to leave the United States for an indiscretion of much less magnitude than that committed by Mr. Barron, and this without any protest on the part of the British government.
It has 'been suggested that the Canadian government could do nothing because Mr. Barron was not accredited to the Canadian

government, but to the British government. A certain Mr. Aiken, consul ad bonorem of the republic of Venezuela, gave his opinion on this great question to the Montreal Gazette. He said that the Canadian government couiki take no action because Mr. Barron, as well as himself and other consuls, was not accredited to the Canadian government but to the British government. He was then asked this question, "But what about the last Imperial conference?" and he replied, "The last Imperial conference had nothing to do with that. In that respect Canada is still a .cottony." I Should like to know from the Prime Minister, who has in such glowing terms and eloquent language extolled the glorious position which this country occupies since the last Imperial conference, whether or not it is the Canadian government that is right, or whether it is Mr. Barron or Mr. Aiken. I should like to know whether or not foreign consuls in this country are to be allowed to commit indiscretions, breaches of etiquette and of international rules, which they would not be allowed to commit in Hayti or in the republic of Liberia. Not that I have any poor opinion of the niggers; but, to come back to the comparison I used once, I am afraid that the quality niggers of Canada have a little less pride than the less sophisticated negroes of these republics.
H we want to give full force to what was decided at the last Imperial conference, means should be taken to have all foreign consuls accredited to the Dominion government, and they should receive their approval from this government and not from London. If we want to avoid such misunderstandings, if we want to avoid the ridiculous position we were placed in in this instance, I think we should insist-it would be a very easy matter to settle-that these foreign consuls should be accredited to us, just as they are accredited to the Irish government in the Irish Free State, and to South Africa and so forth.
iMr. GARLAND (Bow River):	Will the
hon. gentleman permit a question on this point before he leaves it? Was it not agreed at the Imperial conference that in future a consul should receive his exequatur-I think that is the term-from His Majesty's government in Great Britain, and then be referred to this government for the countersignature of this Dominion?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: 3458	COMMONS
Foreign Relations-Mr. Woodsworth


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: After the thoughtful, comprehensive and convincing speech to which we have listened, I fancy very little remains to be said. However, I should like to associate myself with the motion that has been proposed, as I regard it as of very far-reaching importance. The form of the motion has been explained by the mover. I am frank to say that although I wish the government to travel a bit faster and to take a more courageous course along this line I have no more confidence-perhaps I might say, a little less confidence-in the Conservative party in regard to international affairs.
It is rather remarkable that these questions of our foreign relations should create so little interest in Canada. We are interested in post offices in the maritimes or in harbours in Quebec; we become tremendously excited about the tariff. But in these questions, which are of importance to every Canadian, it seems as if comparatively few members take any vital interest. I need only remind the house that approximately one-half of our total revenue goes to pay the interest on the last war. That in itself should indicate the necessity of placing our international relations on some better footing than has been the case in the past. I know that not merely in Canada, but even in the old land, it has not been very customary to have foreign affaire freely discussed by the rank and file in parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did my hon. friend say that one-half of our revenues went to pay the interest on the war?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Practically one-half.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman had Said one-third he would have been nearer the fact.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the hon. gentleman would take the trouble to consult a speech I made a little earlier in the session, in which I took >as the basis the statement of the Minister of Finance!, and added certain other figures which properly should be charged-increased cost of collection of debts, and so forth-he would find that I am well within the mark. As I was saying, it has not been very customary for the rank and file to discuss foreign affairs; but now that we in Canada are brought so closely in touch with various other countries it is important that we should form the habit in this parliament of discussing, more fully than we have done heretofore, those questions which relate to our external affairs.

Several years .ago we set up a committee on industrial and international relations. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) himself suggested that international relations should come under the supervision of that committee, but so far not one question of international relationships has been referred to it. I would urge upon the Prime Minister that next year some of these questions be brought before this committee in order that we may discuss them in greater detail than can be done in the house.
I wish to state in a very brief form my own opinion with regard to the question before the house. First of all Canada's views on imperial policy or international affairs are not necessarily those of Great Britain. That,
I think, has been well illustrated by the last speaker. Secondly, opinions on these matters differ widely in Great Britain. We all' know thlat there is a Conservative policy, there is a Liberal policy and there is a Labour policy in Great Britain. Why should we always take the point of view of the Baldwin government? I hope within a very dhort time to see the Labour party in power in Great Britain. When that takes place I trust I shall have the great satisfaction of urging my friends in this house to follow the lead of the motherland.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why any more than any other?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not more than any of the others, of course. But since my Conservative friends are continually telling us when the Baldwin government is in power, that we ought to follow the motherland, they would be only consistent in following the motherland even when the Labour party is in power. As for me, I would say that we ought to choose our own policy whether the Baldwin government or a Labour government be in power in Great Britain.
In this country we so rarely read anything in regard to the policies of the opposition parties in Great Britain that I venture to quote from The Spectator, a quite respectable English paper which I think ought to appeal to the present government. This paper, in the issue of January 28, 1928, gives a summary of certain observations of His Majesty's government in Great Britain on the suggested program of work of the subcommittee on security of the Preparatory Commission on Disarmament which, states this journal:
-constitutes a document of considerable importance, for it embodies a full statement of the considered views of the British government on the questions, first of arbitration, and secondly of security agreements.

Foreign Relations-Mr. Woodsworth
I will not stop to read the summary but I wish to quote the Spectator's comment:
_ This statement of policy must be read in its relation to disarmament on the one hand and security on the other. The doctrine gaining increasing ground on the continent of Europe is that for disarmament to become a practical proposition it is necessary to arrange for the peaceful settlement of all international disputes, not merely of some. That means submitting all such disputes to some form of pacific settlement, legal or justiciable cases normally going to the Permanent Court and non-justici-abJe cases being settled by arbitration, if conciliation fails. The British memorandum, it will be observed, assents to neither part of this proposition, and Great Britain still declines to undertake to have legal disputes settled by the co]rrt or non-legal disputes by arbitration.
With regard to legal cases, Lord Pbillimore has recently stated convincingly in the Spectator the case for sending all such questions as a matter of course to the Permanent Court. Twenty-eight nations have so far signed the optional clause, whereby they undertake to do this, and, though ratification is still required m some cases, the clause at present binds twenty states. Germany and France both have bills providing for ratification before their respective parliaments.
If twenty-eight states are willing to sign the optional clause why should not Canada sign it? The trouble is, we have bound ourselves at the Imperial conference to take no action without first consulting the motherland. I think we should at once represent to the motherland the advisability of our signing the optional clause. However, let me proceed with this statement:
With regard to non-justiciable disputes, it is to be observed that Great Britain appears to have gone back on the policy she supported at Locarno, for she there applauded France and Germany in their decision "to settle by peaceful means all questions of every kind which may arise between them," whereas the British note declares that there are some political questions, even of a justiciable nature, which a state cannot agree unreservedly in advance to submit to arbitration. Elsewhere it is stated that nonjusticiable disputes are unsuitable for submission to a tribunal capable of giving a binding decision. These objections, which appear-if they have any meaning at all-to leave the door open for war in the last resort, are equally difficult to reconcile with the resolution unanimously carried with the specific approval of Great Britain at the last League assembly, declaring "that every pacific means must be employed to settle disputes of every description which may arise between states."
It would seem, Mr. Speaker, that the real trouble with regard to the optional clause lies in Great Britain's traditional policy of sea power in time of war, and I fancy that in Canada, sooner or later, we will have to face the question of whether or not we propose to stand by Great Britain's position in this regard. I think very few people realize
56103-219J
that Great Britain has not receded from the position of one hundred years ago. I would like to quote a few passages with regard to the Stigstad case, which was before the Privy Council, and which I think well illustrates what I would regard as the perfectly indefensible position of Great Britain in this regard. This was an appeal from the prize court of England. A neutral ship on her way to Rotterdam with goods destined for Germany was required to discharge at a British port; no unreasonable delay or expense in carrying out the provision of the order was incurred. It was held, that the order in council did not entail unreasonable inconvenience on neutrals and was valid, and that the neutral shipowner was not entitled to damages for the detention of the ship or to expenses.
I quote from the argument on which this decision was based, page 285 of the English law reports, appeal cases, 1919:
What is here in question is not the right of the belligerent to retaliate upon his enemy the same measure as has been meted out to him, or the propriety of justifiing in one belligerent some departure from the regular rules of war on the ground of necessity arising from prior departures on the part of the other, but it is the claim of neutrals to be saved harmless under such circumstances from inconvenience or damage thereout arising.
And again:
-the only question open to the neutral claimant for the purpose of invalidating the order is whether or not it subjects neutrals to more inconvenience or prejudice than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances.
And again:
_ In considering whether more inconvenience is inflicted upon neutrals than the circumstances involve, the frequency and the enormity of the original wrongs are alike material, for the more gross and universal those wrongs are, the more are all nations concerned in their repression, and bound for their part to submit to such sacrifices as that repression involves. It is right to recall that, as neutral commerce suffered and was doomed to suffer gross prejudice from the illegal policy proclaimed and acted on by the German government, so it profited by, and obtained relief from, retaliatory measures, if effective to restrain, to punish and to bring to an end such injurious conduct. Neutrals, whose principles or policy lead them to refrain from punitory or repressive action of their own, may well be called on to bear a passive part in the necessary suppression of courses which are fatal to the freedom of all who use the seas.
And a little later on:
The assumption was that a neutral, too pacific or too impotent to resent the aggressions and lawlessness of one belligerent, can require the other to refrain from his most effective, or his only, defence against it, by the assertion of an
3460	COMMONS
Foreign Relations-Mr. Woodworth.
absolute inviolability for his own neutral trade, which would thereby become _ engaged in a passive complicity with the original offender. For this contention no authority at all was forthcoming.
I ask whether any member of this house would subscribe to this doctrine:
The seas are the highway of all, and it is incidental to the very nature of maritime war that neutrals, in using that highway, may suffer inconvenience from the exercise of their concurrent rights by those who have to wage war upon it.
Surely it is an altogether new doctrine that the warring people have the rights while the neutral people have no rights, or only partial rights. I proceed:
.... to say that retaliation is invalid as against neutrals, except within the old limits of blockade, contraband, and unneutral service, is to reduce retaliation to a mere simulacrum, the title of an admitted right without practical application or effect.
That is still the position of Great Britain. Let me contrast that with the attitude of the United States, our great neighbour to the south, who will not and need not tolerate very much longer the unwarrantable position taken by Great Britain. I would like to quote a few passages from a recent article appearing in the Contemporary Review for April, 1928. by Colonel Edward M. House, who says:
The failure of the Geneva naval conference has emphasized the difficulties of reaching an understanding regarding the relative strength of armaments. A simple and far more effective way out vrould be for the sea powers to agree to a code of sea laws making battleships of all kinds useless except for defensive purposes. The only adequate means by which this may be accomplished is through an agreement to accept the principle of the freedonr of the seas in so far as it means the abolition of contraband and immunity of private property at sea.
He refers to the second Hague conference of 1907, when an American proposal was presented urging the immunity of private property, of neutral and belligerent alike, from seizure at sea, and also a British proposal urging the abondonment of the principle of contraband altogether. Lord Reay, stating the case for the British proposal, said:
Recent experience, gentlemen, has therefore confirmed my government in its opinion. It remains firmly convinced that in the present condition of world commerce and of human knowledge the exercise of the right of seizure results only in hampering neutral commerce without giving belligerents compensating advantages and in bringing the former eventually into the war. It is, therefore, with the firm conviction that the time has come to remove the dangers which I have pointed out, that the British delegation has the honour to propose that contraband be abolished and that neutral commerce be restored to the freedom which it requires.
[Mr. Woodsworth.l
Then Mr. House comments on that statement, and says:
The British were absolutely right in abandoning the principle of contraband. No halfway measure will suffice. There can be no longer a distinction between articles destined for military purposes and those intended for the civilian population. On the other hand, until private property on the high seas is made immune, the troublesome and dangerous differences of opinion that arose in 1812 and 1915 are bound to return in the ease of another war. What is suggested, then, is simply the acceptance of the British proposal of 1907 for the abolition of contraband and of the American proposal of the same year for the sanctity of private property at sea.
He quotes Commander Kenworthy as having stated in an article in the London Review of Reviews:
The one nation that can be successful^ blockaded is Britain, and yet we cling to the weapon which may possibly bring about our destruction.
And he concludes:
With the freedom of the seas guaranteed by covenant between nations, there would be no incentive for the United States, I ranee, Germany or Russia or other powers to maintain navies larger than sufficient for ponce purposes.
And again:
The benefits which would accrue to Great Britain through the freedom of the seas would be free communication with her dominions, and the certainty that her food supply and raw materials could never be interrupted, buch a policy would eliminate the terrors of submarine warfare, for submarine could be used only against battleships and craft of war.
I do not think I could better summarize the position of some of the most thoughtful English Liberals and Labour leaders with regard to this question of the blockade than by quoting from a recent speech by Mr. W. Arnold-Forster. He says:
(a)	The blockade weapon is no longer divisible. It is impossible to distinguish between civil, medical, and military stores.
(b)	It is more generally detested than ever. Europe remembers that 760,000 died in consequence of England's blockade before the armistice and 100,000 during its continuance afterwards; that the Russian famine resulted largely in consequence of the stoppage of farming machinery; that supplies were refused to Greek islands which favoured Constantine; and that for the year 1917-18 even the neutral nation Sweden received no supplies. And America remembers our interference with her shipping, and the 12,000 tons of her copper which were piled up on the mole at Gibraltar.
(e) It is now much more impracticable. In 1914 there were only two cables between Germany and America, one of which we cut, and the other we diverted and tapped. And the prize courts showed the value of the information which came from that source. Now there are many means of communicating the movements of ships, both under the sea and above it.

Foreign Relations-Mr. Woodsworth
(d) It follows that it is now less defensible as a weapon, from all points of view. We must, of course, remember that the United States is outside the League of Nations, and might decide to help a nation which had disobeyed the league. But if we renounce the blockade we shall be in a position to ask that the United States of America on her part will not assist a proven aggressor.
I am quoting at length to-day for a set purpose. If on my own authority I made these Statements they might be challenged by members of this house as being merely my own personal opinion, or as representing the opinion of one small group in this house. I would point out that these are the views of very large and influential groups of people in Great Britain. I will quote the position of the Liberals in Great Britain, and I wonder if the Canadian government will go as far as the Liberals in Great Britain are willing to go. They demand that the British government should at once take the following measures:
1.	To sign the undertaking framed by the League of Nations, to refer all international disputes of a legal character to the league's court of justice at The Hague.
2.	To enter into general or particular treaties of arbitration providing for the peaceful settlement of other disputes.
3.	To reduce our own existing armaments, which are beyond the needs of the present situation, and specifically to repudiate any policy of entering into a competition in naval construction with the United States of America.
4.	To press forward the action which is contemplated for codifying and defining more closely the principles of international law.
The Liberal memorial states:
In our judgment the failure of Great Britain to retain the foremost place in the world movement towards a more rational and a more moral civilization is due in material part to the hesitating action and divided counsels of the government.
This is not a statement made by some irresponsible group, but is the formal statement of the Liberal party of Great Britain.
I would also appeal to my Conservative friends to be as broadminded and as far-seeing as some of the leading Conservatives in Great Britain. About the time the Liberals were taking the position they did, the general council of the League of Nation's Union, upon motion of Lord Robert Cecil, put out a declaration urging upon the government a programme of co-operation with the league under five heads, the second being in these terms:
2. To promote the peaceful settlement of all international disputes by every means in its power, and with this object immediately,

(a)	To sign the optional clause with any reservations that may be necessary to provide for the special position of this country.
(b)	To announce its willingness to negotiate all-inclusive arbitration agreements with any civilized nation, on a model to be established by the League of Nations.
I would ask the Prime Minister why we should not proceed immediately to negotiate with the British government with a view to securing our release from our present obligations and enabling us to sign at once the optional clause.
Further since the Root treaty of 1908 has now expired, I would ask why a treaty cannot be made between Canada and the United States which will be much more inclusive in its character than that which is now being proposed by Mr. Kellogg. If I understand the situation aright, Great Britain is putting in so many reservations that the treaty will be comparatively useless, or at least will stop very far short of what we in this country want. Why should we not proceed at once to renew our treaty with the United States, renew it in the name of His Majesty on behalf of Canada, and make it without any reservations-an all-inclusive arbitration treaty?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does my hon. friend suggest that the treaty forwarded to Canada by the United States is not the treaty without any reservations or without the reservations put in by Sir Austen Chamberlain?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I will leave that
to the Prime Minister to answer. I would hope that it was the original treaty as put forward by Mr. Kellogg and not the treaty as emasculated by the interpretations of the present administration in Great Britain.
I want to follow the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) for a few minutes in his references to Russia. It may be comparatively safe for the member for Labelle to refer to Russia, but I suppose it is much more dangerous for me to do so because of the general popular conception that the Labour movement is seriously affected with sympathy for Russia. We are sympathetic with Russia; I do not deny it. I regard the experiment in Russia as one of the greatest that has been made in any part of the world, or in any age in history. We can look back to-day with something like a dispassionate view to the achievements of the French revolution, and I believe the time is coming when we will look back to the Russian revolu-
3462	COMMONS
Foreign Relations-Mr. Woodsworth
tion of ten years ago as marking one of the greatest epochs in the history of the world. I am not suggesting that we in Canada should proceed along Russian lines-that is another question.
The trouble is that we have been prejudiced by our newspapers against Russia. Instead of quoting some socialist or labour authority, I would like to quote, in opening up this discussion, a few words from our good friend Colonel H. J. Mackie. Colonel Mackie has spent a good many years in Russia; he was head of the Canadian section of the movement which attempted to relieve the children of Russia some years ago. Colonel Mackie, who I believe is regarded as a good Conservative, was quoted by the Toronto Daily Star of February 2, 1927 as follows:
''The chief obstacle in the way of friendly relations between Great Britain and Russia is the wilful, stupid hostility and misrepresentation of British politicians, particularly Churchill, Birkenhead and Joynson-Hicks", declared Col. Herbert J. Mackie, former M.P. for North Renfrew, who, since 1920, has been in Russia ten different times. He has just recently returned from his latest visit.
Colonel Mackie continues:
The situation in Russia to-day is simply unbelievable to anyone who has the picture of the Russia of 1920 in his mind.
To the external view the people one sees on '*the streets of Moscow and Leningrad are well [DOT]dressed, happy, contented and prosperous.
Wonderful strides are being made in education. The commissar of education told me that he was much interested in the Canadian rural school system and that he hoped to send a commission of five educationists to Canada next spring to study our methods.
Again:
I have been greatly impressed with the absolute sincerity of the men at the top of Russian affairs.
"Stalin is the great man of Russia to-day," said Col. Mackie.
He is a quiet, reserved man, but he is very able, and the people trust him.
Trotsky's power is on the wane.
One thing that has impressed me greatly in Russia is that the leaders there are willing to admit their mistakes and to change their plans if they find they will not work.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What happened to
Trotsky?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we all know that Trotsky was banished. For the few minutes that remain to me I should like to speak of our relationship with this Soviet Russia, which is apparently not nearly so black a country as many have painted it. I would refer hon. members to a very interesting article on Russia in Toronto Saturday

Night on March 24 of this year. An hon. member suggests that this is a socialist paper. I think I am comparatively safe in quoting Toronto Saturday Night.


William Irvine: No, the hon. member is
not. It is not a safe paper.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members who wish to take part in this debate have spoken, because I would have preferred to wait before replying until all the members who have any intention of speak-
3464	COMMONS
Foreign Relations-Mr. Mackenzie King
ing have spoken, as I would like in my remarks to cover whatever points may be raised by the different speakers.
May I remind the house that the motion before it at the moment is that the house go into committee of supply, the supply being that of the Department of External Affairs. I refer particularly to this because my hon. friend from Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), who has moved an amendment, has mentioned that one of his reasons for his so doing was that in that manner only was it possible for him to address the house on the various subjects to which he has referred. I might say to my hon. friend that I think he would have had that opportunity the minute we got into supply, with respect to the different items that would come before the committee. However, I recognize he might not have had it in a manner which would1 have afforded him the opportunity of reviewing in the comprehensive and logical way he has done the different subjects referred to in the course of his remarks.
I should like to read the amendment anew. It is as follows:
This house regrets that proper steps have not yet been taken to give full effect, both in domestic and external affairs, to the "equality of status" asknowledged by the Imperial conference, 1926, to be the "root-principle" of the relationship between the self-governing Britannic communities.
That amendment has this merit in particular, that it approves in no uncertain tone the formula which was laid down at the Imperial conference with respect to the position of Canada and the other self-governing dominions and the British government. The equality of status which is there set forth is the root principle of the relationship.
I may say that on the whole, my hon. friend's remarks in relation to the government were quite as appreciative as they were critical of its attitude in dealing with matters pertaining to Canada's external affairs, and I am sure that I am not far off the mark when I say that I do not think my hon. friend desires his amendment to be considered as a motion of want of confidence in the administration. I hope that when I have endeavoured to reply to what he has said, he will feel that his purpose has been served in bringing before the house and the country the various matters he has, and that it will not be necessary to press the amendment to a division; for certainly were that to be done, the government would be obliged to ask the house to vote against the amendment. With the exception of the one word "regrets," which appears in it, and the delay alleged, I for my part would

be rather prepared, under other circumstances, to accept a resolution along the lines of the purport and purpose my hon. friend has in mind. The purport and purpose of the resolution is simply that, as opportunity arises, the government should do what lies in its power, to carry out the principles laid down at the last Imperial conference, establishing Canada's position as one of the British dominions, on an equality so far as status is concerned, with that of Great Britain. With respect therefore to the real purport of the resolution there is no exception to be taken on the part of the administration, and as I have already said, I hope that my hon. friend will later on feel in regard to the matters he has brought up that perhaps he has seen them from an angle which has not afforded him the full light which he should have had in moving a resolution critical of the administration.
The first point that my hon. friend dealt with was the manner in which communications were being carried on between the government of Canada and the British government. He drew attention to the fact that at the Imperial conference of 1926 it was decided that thereafter communications passing between His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's government in Great Britain should be direct as from government to government, and not through the channel existing at the time, namely, the office of His Excellency the Governor General. My hon. friend said that he was somewhat surprised in looking at the correspondence relating to the severance of relations with Russia to discover that though that correspondence took place in May, His Excellency the Governor General was still the medium of communication, and that the Canadian government was not communicating direct with the government of Great Britain. May I say to my hon. friend that in all these matters of changed relations, if they are to be described as such, the line of evolution, rather than of revolution, is in the long run almost certain to be the most effective one and the most enduring, and a change, even when it is a desirable one, is sometimes carried out to the better satisfaction of all concerned where time is taken to see that all interested parties are fully apprised of the significance of the change, and that all the necessities in relation thereto are properly met. My hon. friend will realize that for the Department of External Affairs to take over the work of conducting the direct communication with England, as it was being done through the

Foreign Relations-Mr. Mackenzie King
office of His Excellency the Governor General, there was need, for that purpose, of an appropriation by this parliament to the Department of External Affairs. The conference met in London in November; the estimates which were brought to parliament for the current year contained an appropriation which would enable the Department of External Affairs to take over the communications. It was necessary to add to the staff of the department for purposes of coding and transcribing despatches, and to have therefor, as well as for the cost of transmission, extra appropriations. Parliament had only voted the appropriation at the time the correspondence took place with regard to our relations with Russia. That of itself, as I think my hon. friend will recognize, was a sufficient reason why the change should not have been made abruptly or immediately after the conference had registered its decision with respect to it. On the other hand, there was the further circumstance that the British government's wishes had also to be considered. It was to some extent a matter as between the British government and all the dominions with respect to the form this particular change would take and the time when it would be made. We were led to believe that it was desirable to give the foreign office and the dominions office time to perfect the necessary changes in their departments, and that was another reason why there was no immediate action taken in changing the channel of communication.
However, I might say to my hon. friends that there was still a further reason. When the estimates were introduced it would be the beginning of the fiscal year, and the change, I presume, might have been made then on the assumption that parliament would support the administration. But, all things considered, it seemed to us that the first of July last year, being Dominion Day and of particular significance in that it marked the diamond jubilee of confederation, would be an appropriate date on which to bring this change into effect. Therefore early in the year we suggested to His Majesty is government in Great Britain that we hoped, so far as they were concerned, matters would not be delayed beyond the first of July. That date was regarded as quite acceptable to the British government, and on the first of July the communications between His Majesty's government in Canada and His Majesty's government in Great Britain began to be exchanged direct, and have continued from that moment to be so exchanged. My hon. friend may now fee1! assured that the change about which he was so anxious was made nearly a year ago. Many of the communications which now for nearly a year
have been exchanged direct between the two governments are between prime minister and prime minister; some of them are sent direct to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in London; but for convenience sake, and also for it-he sake of record, all communications in the first instance come to our government through the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and communications to the British government go through the office of the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in London. Let me say that from the moment the arrangement was introduced up to the present it has worked admirably and I think to the distinct advantage of both governments. I do not wish to make comparisons with the length of time previously taken, but certainly there has been to some extent a lessening of the time required through the elimination of the roundabout process which formerly was in vogue.
My hon. friend spoke next of the particular paragraph in the report of the Imperial conference which sets forth that matters relating to the operation of dominion legislation should be referred to a special committee, and he took exception to the fact that up to the present time that committee has apparently not been formed.
Mr. BOURASS0A: If ,the right hon. gentleman will allow me? I put it in the form of a question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to accept my hon. friend's correction. I apologize to him for having used the term "book exception." My hon. friend asked: Has the committee been formed; if not, when is it to be formed? When the Secretary of State for the Dominions, the Right Hon. Mr. Amery, was in Ottawa at the beginning of this session, I spoke to him concerning the convening of the committee. Mr. Amery had been in touch with the other dominions in the course of his tour, and he told me that they had all to some extent 'brought up the subject with him, or he had brought it up with them, and after his return home he expected to be in a position formally to communicate with all the dominions as to the formation of tne committee. In other words,
I gathered that he had ascertained from the several dominions their wishes, and was intending to have a communication sent out which would enable the committee to be formed forthwith. Up tO' the present time we have not received a formal communication.
I might say that as a result of this discussion to-day I shall have pleasure in drawing the attention of the Secretary of State for the Dominions to the fact that hon. members think there should not be any further delay
3466	COMMONS
Foreign Relatione-Mr. Mackenzie King
in the establishment of the committee. But may I say this? I do not think there has been any intentional delay on the part of the Secretary of State for the Dominions. I have no doubt that -what has been happening here has been happening aJlso in Great Britain and the other dominions, namely, that the departmental officials have been engaged on what might be considered the statement of the case from the point of view of their respective governments with respect to the several matters to be considered so as to be in a position the minute the committee is called together to make a presentation of the case. As to Canada, some of the officers of the Department of External Affairs and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) with the officers of his department have been conferring together and studying certain aspects of the question. Similarly, in the Department of Marine and Fisheries there have been- experts at work on different phases of the question relating to merchant shipping, which is also to be dealt with by means of a committee. I think my hon. friend may feel assured that the committee will be called very shortly, and that the position of Canada or of any other part of the empire will not be prejudiced by the delay.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend knows, whatever work these committees perform will likely come before the next Imperial conference, and I presume their report will be made to that conference. Just when the conference will be 'held I cannot say at the moment, but in the natural order of things it would not be before the fall of next year. I think, therefore, there is plenty of time for the committee to meet and make its report.
I was pleased to see that my hon. friend approved so whole-heartedly of the intention of the government to establish legations in Paris and Tokyo, and also of the step already taken in establishing a legation at Washington. With respect to the word of counsel and advice he gave to the administration to proceed in a modest way, may I assure him that we are entirely in accord with him in that particular. There is an old saying which comes to one's mind with respect to these legations, it is that in Rome one must do more or less as the Romans do; and no doubt my hon. friend had in his thoughts the expenses of the legation at Washington. Quite frankly I may say that they are on a scale which the government does not contemplate with regard either to Paris or to Tokyo. But, as he knows, Washington is generally conceded to
[Mr Mackenzie King.]
be the most expensive capital in the world. Even the legation which Canada has is small compared to some of the legations of other countries of very much less importance than our Dominion. What we have done at Washington has been done appropriately, having regard to Canada's relationship to the United States; and I think my hon. friend will be pleased when he sees how Canada's action at Washington will be reciprocated by the United States in its legation here at Ottawa. It is an open secret that the United States government contemplates erecting very shortly in this capital an important and, I may say, an imposing building for the purposes of its legation. As Canadians we shall, I believe, feel proud of what will be done in that regard by the country to the south.
As to the importance of the representation being clearly defined, I agree absolutely with my hon. friend that- it is essential that the position of Canada's minister at any of the capitals in -which there may be legations should be perfectly clear, both as respects his relations with the British minister at that capital and as well, in regard to his relations with the country to which both are accredited.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the house rose at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I had been touching upon the representation of Canada in legations abroad and the position of ^ our representatives in relation to the other British representatives and also in relation to the representatives of the countries to which they are accredited. The hon. member who moved the amendment stressed the importance of these relations being Clearly defined. Naturally I entirely agree with him in that; personally I see very little difficulty in the definition. The representatives of Canada to other countries are appointed in reference to the domestic and external affairs of Canada, and they 'have to deal only with matters in respect of which we are primarily concerned. At these legations they meet, in the same capitals, the representatives of the British government who are similarly charged with the responsibility of representing the British government in regard to its domestic and foreign affairs, wherever those domestic and foreign affairs come to be a matter of international interest and concern. It is conceivable that in some cases the foreign affairs of one part of the empire will intersect the arc which relates to the foreign affairs of

Foreign Relations-Mr. Mackenzie King
another part of the empire. In that event one would assume that the obligation with reference to what is held in common would be a joint obligation and that the two represents atives, or more if there are such, would carry out their trusteeship in eo-operation with each other after consultation. Possibly there may be some who will object that there is always the possibility of difference arising. That possibility exists everywhere and if it is to come up between representatives of different parts of the empire perhaps it is fortunate that it should arise first of all between two individuals, and subsequently be referred to their respective governments, by whom any difference could be smoothed out, as differences have been dealt with in the course of years where they have arisen between different governments of the same empire, I believe that is all I need to say with reference to the position of our representatives abroad.
The next subject mentioned by the hon, member for Labelle was the action of the Dominion government in severing relations with Russia. That action was taken just a year ago this month, about the time or rather at the time the British government severed its relations with Russia. As the hon. member said, the agreement which we had with Russia was one which originated between His Majesty's government of Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialistic republics in Russia. That agreement came into being under a (previous administration; Canada's adherence to that agreement was given under that former administration. When we came into office we found that agreement in existence; both governments were parties to it. and naturally we accepted the obligations which arose under it. I think there was an exchange of notes, six months after we came into office, accepting or rather confirming a formula which had been agreed to prior to the time we assumed office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask a question? Is not the right hon. gentleman in error in stating that the agreement had been confirmed before Mr. Meighen's government was defeated? My memory is that there was no formal agreement until after my right hon. friend came into power, although I speak subject to correction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I am
now saying is that an .order in council had been passed, first of all, asking the British government if they would ascertain from Russia whether Canada might not become a party to the agreement. Then, after having taken that action, a formula was drafted which
was submitted to or by the British government, and they or our government were asked whether that formula would be acceptable and also if it would be acceptable to the Russian government in order to make Canada a party to the agreement. That formula was approved by an order in council passed by a previous administration, and the British and Russian governments were both advised that Canada would adhere to the treaty under that particular formula. Then, as I recall it, in the following August our administration received a communication from Lord Balfour, who was acting Foreign Minister at the time, stating that the formula had been formally signed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was in August of 1922.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct, but that was merely carrying out the obligation, in the matter of signature, to which the previous administration had committed the government of Canada. However, that is a mere detail; the facts are that we continued to be bound by the terms of the treaty with Russia, and we received in Canada in 1923 what was known as the Russian trade mission or agency. Russia sent to this country a trade agent, who opened an office in Montreal with a small staff of employees and undertook obligations or duties relating in part to trade and duties in part of a consular character.
I might say to the house that that particular office did not have a very happy beginning as far as the government of Canada was concerned. At the time the Russian agent came to Canada he brought with him what seemed to members of our administration an unnecessary amount of literature of the character of propaganda of communist ideas. So much of this material was brought in that the government found it necessary to question the head of the agency as to its character. Some of the material was brought to Ottawa and ' examined, and I personally saw a good deal of it. It was not the kind of literature which I think should have been brought into this country ,and I very frankly told the Russian agent that that was my opinion of it. I sought to obtain from him reasons as to Why this literature was being brought into Canada, and I obtained answers which were far from satisfactory, so far as my own feelings were concerned, and I think I was inclined to be generous in the attitude I took toward him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In what language was
this material printed?
_ Mr. MACKENZIE KING: It was printed in different languages. Some of it was tran-
Foreign

Relations-Mr. Mackenzie King
slated and the government went to particular pains to ascertain the nature of the propaganda. Some of it was in the nature of posters which children of any age, whether or not they could read or write, could understand. They were of a character which I do not think any hon. member of tins house would wish to see exhibited about this country.


Mr. SPENCER:: May I ask if any of the literature was in English?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I drew the
attention of the agent to these posters and asked him whether he thought they were the kind of thing that should be brought into this country, and he admitted quite frankly that if they had not been brought in for the purpose of wrapping he did not think they would have been brought in at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My right hon. friend is referring to pictorial posters, not printed ones?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Mr. HEAPS:: Will the Prime Minister
give us an idea of horv much of this literature was brought in at that time?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say how much, but I know sixteen boxes were brought in when the agent arrived.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What was the size of the boxes?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were so large tha-t the only explanation that could be given of them was that their contents were intended as a library or to be used as exchanges with other libraries of this country. Some of the literature attacked religion; some was an attack upon organized economic society, and generally speaking, the literature that I saw was not of the character that I believe my hon. friend would have wished to see circulating in this country. The extraordinary thing about it was that this particular material should have been brought in by an organization whose purpose was the friendly one of the development of trade between this country and Russia.
There were other matters, which I think I may be excused from mentioning at the moment, which gave rise to considerable suspicion in the minds of the administration, so much so that the government contemplated at one time making a search of the quarters in Montreal where this mission was located. This was some time previous to the announcement in the British house that relations had been broken off with Russia, on the part of the
[Mr Mackenzie King.]
British government. Then one day we were advised that the British government had broken off relations, for reasons already mentioned. We had in our possession a statement made by the Prime Minister of Great Britain to the British House of Commons. In addition to that we had the information concerning which there was no question about the circulation of communist propaganda in China by one of the agents of the Russian government. This was contrary to the obligations entered into by Russia in the treaty, and we felt that everything considered we had more than sufficient ground at the time for severing relations with the Russian government. We took prompt action in the matter; we did not wait until the British government had communicated its view of the situation to parliament, we acted before that.
The criticism that has been directed against the government has been that we merely followed the British government. The hon. member for Labelle drew attention to what was in the communication from the Secretary of State for the Dominions, to the effect that unified action on the part of the British Empire would be helpful at that stage. He argued that it was because of that communication and request from the British government that our action was taken. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), who seconded the amendment, also stressed the point that w.a should have waited to see what was said by Liberal and Labour members in the British parliament. It was precisely because we wished our action to be understood as independent action that we did not wait until discussion had taken place in the British parliament. The criticism of my hon. friend is directed towards us for following the British government, and then he says we should have waited to follow the British parliament. We were not following anyone, we were acting on our own initiative and taking action towards this particular trade mission which we felt was justified in the light of circumstances as we knew them to exist. We did not hesitate to make it known to the officers of the original mission that we were not satisfied with its personnel, and these officers were changed some little time prior to the breaking off of the relations with Russia under the treaty. The agent who was here at that time appeared to me to be a thoroughly honest and honourable man. I had no reason to mistrust him in any particular, and I said so at the time we broke off relations. I am sorry that I can not say the same with respect to his predecessors in office.

Foreign Relations-Mr. Mackenzie King
I would point out to the house the position in which this country would have been placed had the government's action at the time not been wha't it was. Up to the present time the United States has never made a treaty with the Union of Soviet Socialistic republics in Russia. At that time Great Britain had severed connections with Russia in the matter of trade, and this country would have been left as the one part of 'the English speaking world whidh had maintained relations. It seems to me that we would have been put in a position where the rest of the world might well have demanded what exceptional reasons we found to continue a relationship which was likely to prove embarrassing to the rest of the British Empire.
While our action was taken independently of Great Britain and all other parts of the empire, I am perfectly frank in saying that if it was helpful to any one part of the British Empire in a difficult situation, I am all the more pleased on that account. What I want to make clear is this; the taking of similar action to that of another part of the British Empire does not mean .that our action is necessarily obsequious, a mere imitation, or, above all, that it is in any shape or form yielding to dictation.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Would the Canadian government have broken off relations if the British government had not done so?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If we had had
occasion to go carefully into the evidence that we obtained at that time, I think it is quite possible we would have severed relations. In fact, it was very much against our will that we continued relations as long as we did. We continued them simply because we were anxious to avoid embarrassment to other parts of the empire as well as to ourselves. When the situation became such that to have continued longer would have been taking a course Which would have been very doubtful, as far as Canada was concerned, and embarrassing to other parts of the empire, we had no hesitancy in taking the course we did.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the statement that the
Prime Minister is at present giving to the house not rather at variance with the statement he issued after relations were broken off?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I made it quite clear at the time of breaking off the relations that as regards the then Russian agent, we had no exception to take to any action on his part. I confess to my hon. friend that I did not go into the detail into which I have gone to-night with respect to the grounds which we had prior to that time
for suspecting the work of this particular trade mission. The government did not do so at the time because we were anxious not to say any more than was necessary, and I would not have said as much as I have tonight had it not been that, in view of what has been said in the course of the debate, I have felt it was only fair to hon. members to bring before the house these other factors. We were particularly careful to make it clear that we in no way wished to prejudice dealings in trade between Canada and Russia, rather that we were anxious in every way to have those relations furthered. There is no reason why trade relations should not be developed between Canada and Russia just as speedily, happily and effectively as are trade relations between the United States and Russia at the present time, particularly in view of the circumstances that while Russia has no diplomatic relations with the United States, nevertheless she is trading there. She is free to trade in this country. We will welcome the representatives of Russian firms or any representatives who come to trade with the people of Canada. We are anxious that normal trade relations in all particulars shall be restored between Russia and Canada in any particular in which they have been impeded.
May I add this further fact which perhaps I should have mentioned before? The particular agency which had its office in Montreal was claiming, under the treaty it is quite true, immunities and rights of a character which went much beyond those conceded to any consular agencies of other countries. For example, the right was claimed by means of couriers to bring into the country in sealed bags whatever they wished to bring in of their correspondence; in other words, that the mails of Canada were not to be trusted for communications passing between Russia and its office in Montreal. That was a kind of immunity that we could not see was either desirable or necessary for the purpose of promoting legitimate trade, and the importance that was attached to that kind of thing by the office in Monreal aroused a suspicion which the absence of it might have prevented altogether. That, I think, covers all that I need say at the moment with respect to the severance by Canada of its relations under the trade agreement with the union of soviet socialistic republics.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does the Prime Minister know of any other diplomatic consulate that brings in political propaganda from the country from which it comes?
3470	COMMONS
Foreign Relations-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Mr. CAHAN:: Will the Prime Minister state what were the words of the other form?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under the procedure laid down at the Imperial conference, a treaty that was to bind only one part of the British Empire was to be made in the name
of His Majesty's government for that part, and that part was to be specifically named, but if the treaty was intended to bind the whole empire, not just one part, it would still be in the name of His Majesty, but the reference would not be specifically to any particular part. It was the latter form in which the treaty was submitted to us. Then elsewhere Lord Parmoor says:
I have on former occasions asked that papers might be laid showing what were the reasons given. I will not press that to-day, because it is not the particular point with which I am dealing. All I can say is that Mr. Mackenzie King's statement is anything but obscure. It is perfectly straightforward. What he originally stated in the Canadian parliament is correct, that the Anglo-Egyptian treaty was first submitted to the Canadian government in a form which made Canada a party to that treaty.
That statement was made by Lord Parmoor in the House of Lords, and to that the Marquess of Salisbury replied a little later on in the course of the debate. I might read the reference which Lord Salisbury makes in that regard (House of Lords reports, page 894):
In regard to Canada, we have this advantage which we did not possess on the last occasion, that by reason of the lapse of time we are now in possession of the full report of what was said by Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister of Canada, in the debate to which the noble and learned lord had made reference.
Here may I pause to say a word with respect to these misunderstandings that sometimes have arisen between the British government and our own government. The hon. member for Labelle said this afternoon it was unfortunate that any misunderstanding should arise. I agree wholly with him in that regard, and I think that every effort should be made to prevent such a possibility. But devise what plans we may for communication between governments, we are still subject to the possible misrepresentation that may come from press reports between this country and the old country, and I wish to say, after looking at the press reports which passed from this country with respect to a certain debate which took place here, and which gave rise to this discussion in the House of Lords, that I am convinced that particular discussion would never have taken place in the Lords had a correct report of the debate which took place here been sent to the paper I have in mind by its correspondent in this country.
Lord Salisbury goes on to say:
I have read the report of that speech with the greatest care, and I may say at once that His Majesty's government have no reason to complain in the least of anything which the right hon. gentleman, Mr. Mackenzie King, said on that occasion. On the contrary, I should like to bear testimony to the great courtesy
3472	COMMONS
Foreign Relations-Mr. Mackenzie King
and consideration with which he discharged the very responsible task which was thrown upon him. I have the honour of Mr. Mackenzie King's acquaintance, and I am not surprised to read that he entered into this subject with a full regard to the responsibility under which he stands and with the circumspection which the subject demands.
Elsewhere he goes on to repeat that there was this difference in the two drafts, and that I was entitled, indeed, that it was my duty, to point out the difference between them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the Prime Minister permit a question? In submitting the original draft of the treaty, the British government, I presume, observed all the courtesies and requirements under the Imperial conference agreement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Entirely so,
yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And furthermore, that
treaty was not executed in any respect before it came into the hands of the Canadian government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, and as a
matter of fact it is not executed yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Egypt refused it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My point was this:
There was no suggestion that the British government was seeking to commit Canada without giving the Dominion government full opportunity of considering the matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I have said, the original draft we received admitted, to my mind, of only one interpretation, which was that we were being asked to become a party to the treaty. Apparently there were members of the British government who had no such intention in their minds. Lord Salisbury I am perfectly certain had not, from what he said. I am quite certain that Lord Salisbury would never have said in the House of Lords that that was not the intention if there had been in his mind any such intention. But what may have been in the minds of others I cannot say.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But whatever the form
was, it was submitted to us first.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, certainly, and the first form that was submitted was the form which led us to believe that we were being invited to become a party to the treaty. We made it perfectly clear that we could not accept the treaty in that form, and here may I say that I am happy to be able to inform my hon. friend the leader of the oppo-
[Mr>
Mackenzie King.]
sition, who asked earlier in the session for the correspondence, that I have received word from His Majesty's government in Great Britain which will enable me to table what is essential in the correspondence to disclose the difference, and I shall table that correspondence to-morrow.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to Egypt I have covered the point which my hon. friend the mover of the amendment had in mind. In the concluding part of his remarks he spoke more particularly of Egypt as an illustration of what might be regarded as the incurring of a moral obligation on the part of Canada through any expression on the part of our government in the nature of approval or concurrence in a matter which was submitted to us. My hon. friend referred also, I think, to Locarno, or if he did not, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who seconded the amendment, did, and intimated that the expression of approval which was given at the Imperial conference in London of the action of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in having succeeded in having the Locarno agreements drafted and signed was equivalent to a moral obligation on the part of Canada towards the matters referred to in those treaties, which moral obligation might grow into an act of responsibility. May I say first of all in regard to the conferences which have to be attended by members of different governments, and also in respect to communications which are submitted for the purpose of giving information, and perhaps for the purpose of receiving approval, that I cannot see how it is going to be possible to conduct conferences or correspondence between different parts of the empire if we are not to be permitted in these matters of great intematdoruatl concern the same kind of courtesies and amenities we are accustomed to use in our daily social intercourse with our neighbours. The mere fact that one gentleman expresses satisfaction at another having succeeded in doing something that is meritorious, does not to my mind involve the one who has the courtesy to convey that expression in any moral or other kind of obligation with respect to subsequent happenings. When a representative of one of the dominions moves a resolution at an Imperial conference expressing pleasure at the action of the British government or of some other government in regard to a matter that is obviously something to be pleased about, the representative of another part of the empire is put in a most invidious position indeed if he has to refrain absolutely from

, Foreign Relations-Mr. Mackenzie King
joining with his colleagues from the other dominions in that expression of good will simply because his action may be construed as involving moral obligations and obligations of a more serious character by the mere fact that he has yielded in his actions to what I would describe as a natural courtesy. Now, anything that has been done by representatives of our government at the Imperial conference which has been of the nature of a general expression of good will or appreciation of some course of conduct that has been carried' on or some achievement that has been realized by a member of the British administration, is intended to be only what on its face it purports to be, a genuine expression of good will and appreciation-nothing more; and it cannot be held to involve us in a moral or any other obligation. Similarly, if the British government or any other government of the British Empire submits to us a treaty with respect to which they think we will desire to be informed, and we give our approval or concurrence, or say that we have no objection, I hope it will be understood in all parts of the empire that what we are doing is just what we are saying and nothing more, and that any expression of good will of this character carries with it no obligation unless the obligation is specifically stated. Indeed, that is a feature of the report of the Imperial conference on treaty-making which is all-important. My hon. friend will find that the report sets out quite distinctly and deliberately that where there is an intention to bind another government by anything that is said or signed, that particular obligation must be specifically stated, and must be specifically agreed to by the government that is a consequence is to be obligated. I think tvith that understood and with that safeguard, consultation and conference and co-operation and co-ordination-all these various steps which are so essential to unity and good will between all parts of the empire-can be carried on with security and to the advantage of all concerned; but Without them even the most elemenetary discussion would, I submit, be next to impossible.
Now, my hon. friend from 'Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodtsworth) spoke of the Permanent- Court of International Justice and made special reference to the optional clause, so called. The particular paragraph of the Imperial conference report dealing with this matter is headed': Compulsory Arbitration in International Disputes. It appears at page 23 of the report, and is as follows:
One question which we studied was that of arbitration in international disputes, with special reference to the question of accentance 56103-220
of article 36 of the statute of the permanent court of international justice, providing for the compulsory submission of certain classes of eases to the court. On this matter we decided to submit no resolution to the conference, but, whilst the members of the committee were unanimous in favouring the widest possible extension of the method of arbitration for the settlement of international disputes, the feeling was that it was at present premature to accept the obligations under the article in question. A general understanding was reached that none of /the governments represented at the Imperial conference would take any action in the direction of the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the permanent court, without bringing up the matter for further discussion.
My hon. friend said that in his opinion our government ought to notify the British government that the time has come when that matter should be brought up for discussion, and that Canada should state specifically her position thereon. Earlier in the session the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Ahshead) asked a question relating to the same matter which was answered by the Minister of Justlice (Mr. Lapointe). The question was:
I do not know whether I would be right in asking the government to make a declaration on this point. The time is getting late, and I should like the government to say something upon this point.
That is, the point referred to in the paragraph which I have just read. The Minister of Justice in reply said:
I am sorry that the hour is so late, but it is early enough for me to say simply that I am in sympathy with the subject matter of the resolution. I have some more reasons to give in support of my amendment.
The resolution moved by the hon. member for East Calgary was as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the time is opportune that according to agreement, the government of Canada should discuss with the government of Great Britain, the desirability of Canada accepting article 36 of the statutes of the Permanent Court of International Justice providing for compulsory arbitration in international disputes.
The Minister of Justice, as I have shown, was inclined to approve of the resolution and was prepared to give his reasons. In making that statement he was giving the views of the administration.
I think, Mr. Speaker, I have covered all the points that were brought up in the course of the debate. There may be others that 1 have omitted, but if so I have not done so intentionally. May I repeat to my hon. friend from Labelle what I said at the outset? I hope this reply will be sufficient to cause him not to press his motion as one of want of confidence in the administration, but rather

3474	COMMONS
Foreign Relations-Mr. Mackenzie, King
that having expressed his views, he will ask the house to permit him to withdraw the motion and that the house will give its consent.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Do I understand the Prime Minister to say definitely that on that occasion the Minister of Justice in giving his approval of the particular resolution was speaking for the government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. He always does at any time that he speaks in this house, and I think we may all rely on getting very sound opinions from him.
May I say just this word in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because it arises out of the amendment of my hon. friend? All the matters which we have been discussing this afternoon relate more particularly to the procedure laid down at the last Imperial conference arising out of relations between the government of this dominion and the other governments of the British Empire. We have had a little over a year under the new procedure, and, so far as it is new, I should like to say that the year's experience only serves, so far as we are concerned, to confirm the wisdom of the course which at that time was taken by the Imperial conference. Particularly with respect to communications between governments I think a real advance was made when it was decided not only that communications should be direct as between the governments, but also when it was agreed that communication might be more effectively carried on if on the part of the governments concerned the personal facter were introduced. I am sure we have all been delighted at the selection which has been made by His Majesty's government in Great Britain of a high commissioner to represent that government in Canada. Sir William Clark, who will be coming to Canada in the course of the next few weeks- possibly early in September-has, as the house knows, been appointed High Commissioner in Canada for His Majesty's government in Great Britain. I believe that the opportunity for personal conference with a representative of the British government, on many matters that arise between that government and our own, will prove an effective means of avoiding possibilities of misunderstanding that occur so frequently when communications are conducted in writing. That is true with respect to communications generally as between different countries. I believe that dispatches are often written with as much regard for what is being left unsaid as for what is being said, and attention is paid to clauses and pharses and words which sometimes 6erve to make the true meaning obscure IMr_ Mackenzie King.]
indeed. Personal conference gives opportunity for all sides of a question being reviewed with care, and permits of the final drafting of a record of conversations which record is approved on both sides and admits of no misinterpretation or misunderstanding. I believe that the appointment of a high commissioner to Canada by the British government is going to be one more link which will help to ensure the continuance of the happy relations which we enjoy at the present time.
I am convinced that at no time in British history have the relations between this country and the government of Great Britain been happier or more secure than they are at this moment. And may I say further that, in my opinion, nothing in British history has done more to put the British Empire on a firm and enduring foundation than has the statement of relative position between the several governments of the empire as set forth at the Imperial conference of 1926 and as approved by all the governments there assembled.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not propose to trespass
long upon the time of the house. I was rather amazed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) should have suggested that those who desired to participate in the debate should do so before he replied; for the right of reply rests with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) and not with the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before I spoke, I said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The subject matter of
the debate has been fully canvassed in this house on previous occasions.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I think my hon. friend
is wrong; I do not think the hon. member for Labelle has any right of reply on an amendment to go into supply.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Pardon me, that is quite right; I was under the impression that he had moved a substantive motion. My hon. friend is right; I was treating it as a substantive motion. At any rate, the right of reply did not rest with the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say
"reply". I said I wished to refer to the remarks of hon. members which included those of my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister's
duty was to reply to the speech of the hon. member for Labelle, who moved the amendment. His primary duty would be to do that, because the amendment is a motion of want

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bennett
of confidence in the administration and it should be spoken to either by the Prime Minister or by some other member of the administration it matters not whom.
As I have said, this matter has been fully canvassed previously in this session; much of the discussion that has taken place has already been fully covered in previous debates. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) dealt at length with the difficulties that must be experienced in giving effect to the resolutions passed at the Imperial conference of 1926. May I merely observe this: "Equality of status" is a high-sounding term, but unfortunately it cannot be said to properly represent the present position between Great Britain and the overseas dominions comprising the British Empire. Not only does it not adequately or properly represent that position, but a very great deal of work must be done before that postion is attained. As I have said on previous occasions, I regard it as a somewhat serious matter that we should be thus falsely and improperly using words-words that can have no appropriate use when applied to the present relations between Great Britain on the one hand and Canada, Australia and New Zealand on the other. How long is it desirable to continue using the wrong nomenclature? How long is it desirable to use improper terms to describe a condition? The resolution introduced by the hon. member for Labelle as an amendment to the motion to go into supply contemplates that certain action should be taken speedily; that is that speedy action should be taken to give effect to those changes that are necessary before equality of status is achieved. The resolution means that or it means nothing. It is regretted that this government has not taken those very necessary steps that must be taken if this equality is to result. That is what the resolution in terms declares. Now, I cannot think that any member on this side of the house who listened to the statements made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George in a previous debate, referring to the various statutes that must be amended and the various changes that must take place, can fail to realize that this end cannot be attained in a single day, nor in a year nor in many years; because the consents that must be secured before there is equality of status are consents that touch not only the parliament of the motherland but the parliament of every overseas self-governing dominion within the empire. That is clear; it cannot admit of doubt. The best illustration that can be used is that in connection with Egypt. Egypt was asked to sign a treaty of peace with Great Britain. The treaty was drafted and Egypt declined to execute it. Whereupon, in view 56103-2204
of the action taken by the Egyptian parliament, Great Britain made a demonstration in force for the purpose of protecting her com stitutionai rights there. Now, I put this question to every member in this house-it is a very simple question: Had war unfortunately resulted by reason of the differences of opinion between Great Britain and Egypt and a Canadian citizen'-a resident normally of Canada-had been in Cairo on that day, what would have been his position? Would he have been an alien enemy or a neutral? That is the test. There is no hon. member in this house who for a moment will say that in the eyes of international law suoh a person would be other than an alien enemy to the Egyptians. And so long as this country is not a sovereign state, it follows that it will never have equality of status with Great Britain, Whether or not this country shall be a sovereign state-which means that it must become an independent state-is a matter that must be settled by the people of Canada and not by any government in 'Canada. That is clear. For my own part I will never lift my hand to bring about that condition. I go further: for my own part I shall to the utmost of my endeavour oppose any such action, in my lifetime, that affects this Dominion. For I cannot but think that we are1 better discharging the great responsibilities that rest upon a free people, as a member of the commonwealth of nations called the British Empire, than by living a life of independence, dependent for our very existence nationally, upon the high seas and elsewhere, upon the grace and favour of powerful neighbours. That is the position I fake with respect t-o that.
But let us go a step further. Equality of status, as discussed this afternoon and this evening is, I say, a misnomer, and the case of Egypt best indicates exactly what is meant by it, but let us apply another test. There can be no equality of status as between Canada and Great Britain until both communities have the right to declare war and make peace. That is the test imposed by great writers on international law, and it does seem that without having reference to those authorities it is quite a simple one. Can Canada declare war to-day against any nation in the world? The answer must be in the negative, and so long as we may not declare war we have no equality of status with Great Britain. But if Great Britain declares war against Egypt it follows, of course, that war is thereby declared against Canada, although we may mot have been a party to any treaty made between those two countries. Our commerce would be the prize of any opposing fleet by which it might be captured; our cities might be bombarded

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bennett
and we might be driven from the world so far
as commerce and trade are concerned. That, I think, is so obvious as not to require any observations on my part other than merely to state the fact. Under these circumstances I leave it to the judgment of this house, and indeed I have stated this to others than members of this house, including imperial ministers, whether it is not very wrong and very improper to use this high sounding term with all the implications which are involved, because I know it cannot bult do harm. I agree with the Prime Minister that it is always desirable to be frank 'and open in these matters and to use words which will express one's meaning without any desire to place limitations upon them, but the words "equality of status" connote and denote a condition in this country which has not yet been reached, and a condition which may not be reached until we take a solemn step which I hope and believe we never will take and which I know we will not take in my lifetime, a step which will give Canada that right of sovereignty which it does not possess, that right to amend, aye and to make its constitution, which right we do not possess at the moment. All these changes must first be brought about, as well as changes with respect to our merchant shipping acts, with respect to the Colonial Laws Validity Acts and with respect to those innumerable statutes which have force and vigour in this Dominion, although the casual observer has no reason for believing that to be the case. These are facts which we must face, whether we like it or not, and the use of words to express a position which is not true in law and which is false in its very inception cannot do any good to these self-governing dominions.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: May I ask a question?
At page 12 of the Imperial conference report there is a paragraph which covers the point to which my hon. friend is referring, as follows:
Equality of status, so far as Britain and the dominions are concerned, is thus the root principle governing our inter-imperial relations. But the principles of equality and similarity, appropriate to status, do not universally extend to function.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
East Calgary has made an observation which has been made before in this house. There is a frank recognition by the Imperial conference that there is no equality of status. The amendment of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is to the effect that steps should be taken to bring about that condition and that the necessary legislative enactments should be passed by the parliament at Westminster as well ias by the parliaments of the overseas self-governing dominions. That is all that is involved in the matter at the

moment, as I see it. If I may.say so, the hon. member for Labelle was more moderate to-day in his expressions than is usually the case. I followed him with very great interest and I can only make the observation that he must not for a single moment forget that to give effect to his resolution to-day, to-morrow or next year, involves an amendment to the British North America Act so far-reaching in its consequences that I do not think many members of this house have really considered it in all its implications. If we ajre to obtain that equality of status which the hon. member apparently desires, this parliament, or shall I say the Canadian people, will have the right to create for themselves a new constitution; they will have the right to make such amendments to the present constitution as they think desirable and the struggle for confederation, which was a compromise brought about by , the far-sighted statesmanship and vision of the great men of 1867, once more will have to be thrown into the melting pot for solution. These questions are not easy of solution, and this British North America Act, which is a compromise between the views of majorities and minorities, between different races and different religions, once more will have to be proceeded' with, with everything involved thereby, before we can arrive at that happy stage to which be refers, equality of status. I cannot think that the Canadian people are disposed at this moment to forego what we have for the purpose of obtaining that of which we know not, for it involves a situation so serious, so fraught with possible disaster and so very far-reaching in its consequence and implications that I do not believe there is any body of public opinion in Canada which desires that that end should be brought about in the way I have indicated.
Therefore I venture to suggest to the hon. member in all sincerity that before he asks us to proceed immediately to bring about these constitutional changes which,- will give us that equality of status, he should seriously contemplate all that is involved in it and what the implications are; he should consider the far-reaching consequences which must follow from such action. For my own part I very much prefer this constitution in its present condition, weak though it is in many particulars, defective though it is in many instances; I prefer that rather than that we should have this straggle all over again, with its possibilities for animosities and prejudices to be aroused in this country. As I say, I prefer that constitution to this possible equality of status which would once more throw these matters into the melting pot for solution. I will not further dwell upon that

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bennett
matter, because it seems to me that it is abundantly clear to even the casual student of our constitution that the condition which we desire to bring about, some say immediately and others by slow growth and evolution, is one which has about it possibilities for evil as well as possibilities for good.
Let me go a step further. I am not seriously at variance with what has been said by the right hon. Prime Minister with respect to the severing of our relations with Russia. I heard my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) make his observations in that regard, and I cannot but think that after mature consideration and after listening to what has been said by the Prime Minister he will agree that the action taken by the head of the Canadian government was the proper action to be taken under the circumstances, and that the Prime Minister is entitled to congratulations from all rightthinking Canadians for having taken that action. After all, there can be no comity between nations when the representatives of one nation are concerned with the destruction of the government to which they are accredited. About that there can be no doubt; it is as old as the establishment of embassies; it is as old as the journeyings of ambassadors, and when the Prime Minister tells us that he was confronted by a condition such as he has alluded to to-night, I do not believe there is in any part of this country a citizen who will not be disposed to congratulate him upon the speedy action which he took and the result which was attained.
But there was one word used by my hon. friend from Labelle, or one expression, that I would wish he had not used; he spoke of our "imperial masters". I cannot but think that that was a rhetorical use of the words; I cannot think he seriously meant to imply that the people of this country were in any sense being mastered by, shall I say, our remote ancestors overseas. I am certain that is not so; I am certain there is no disposition on the part of British statesmen to indicate by thought, by word or by deed how this country should govern itself,. The Prime ministers made that abundantly clear in the discussion which took place in connection with the Egyptian treaty. It will be recalled that one who was a great prime minister of Great Britain indicated publicly that if the time should ever come when Canada let it be known that it was her desire to sever those relations light as silk and strong as steel, England would be prepared to let us go our way. I think that my hon. friend
upon reconsideration will agree that the words "his imperial masters" are not an apt designation of the relationship which now obtains between Great Britain and Canada.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I made no reference
like that in my speech this afternoon. The other day I asked in a jocose way whether the Prime Minister had received permission to deposit these documents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the reasons why
I alluded to this expression was to afford my hon. friend the opportunity he has availed himself of. While the public in reading the remarks might conclude that it was a serious statement by the hon. member for Labelle, I realized that in his own consciousness he meant it in the sense in which he has now used it. I am very glad that he has taken this opportunity to give that explanation, that he had no serious thought in his mind that the people or the government of Great Britain were our imperial masters. I am sure the country will read that statement with satisfaction, and will be glad to know that it was made in a jocose sense and not in any serious sense at all.
I trust my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre will understand me when I say that it is a very dangerous thing to read a magazine article referring to the oil barons of England, France or America, and conclude that there is official sanction or authority for the conclusions or inferences which he draws from such magazine articles. The official documents referred to this afternoon by the right hon. the Prime Minister in no sense warrant the conclusion that oil barons or any other kind of barons had to do with this particular difficulty. As we all know, British capital and the capital of other nations developed the oil fields in Russia. The production of these oil wells was taken over by the Soviet government and sold without regard to the costs of development. They were enabled to obtain money for this oil, regardless of prior ownership. If you have a property to sell that cost you nothing, that you have taken from somebody else who owned it and paid for it, it is a very simple thing to compete in the markets of the world and destroy legitimate trade connections. That is the reason difficulties were experienced in Russia with respect to not only Great Britain and America, but other countries as well. To say that that had anything to do with the raid that was made upon Aroos, in London; that the literature that was found there, or the literature that was brought into this country, as mentioned by the right

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bennett
hon. the Prime Minister; that the negotiations that transpired with respect to propaganda, not only in China but in other parts of the world, had anything to do with it, is to leave a wrong impression upon the minds of those who look to members of parliament for information with respect to matters of this kind. I am satisfied that my hon. friend, steeped as his mind sometimes is in what I conceive to be unfair prejudices against capital and against those who engage in the use of money for development, has concluded that what he has read in this magazine article was the motive behind the action of the Imperial government. Having done this, I believe it is possible, but I hope not, that he has thought fit to make that the basis of the excuse for the raid that was made upon the Russian ministry in London, and for the discontinuance of official relations between Soviet Russia and this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the hon.
member not admit that the Labour party in Great Britain definitely charged that that action was taken because of matters of this character, and publicly asked for an investigation which was denied them by the Baldwin government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is quite correct that there are irresponsible men in England as there are even in this country, who make charges which are not warranted by facts. It is true there is a tendency to make charges against governments as the Prime Minister would say, to make a charge of lack of attention to administration, and to find excuses, if possible, which would vindicate the friendship of the Labour government with the Russian Soviet government.
The Labour government as such did not make the charges; a Labour member made the charges.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said the Labour party, not the Labour government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A member of the Labour party made the charges.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The leader of the Labour party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr, Ramsay MacDonald is a very careful Scotchman, and while he left die impression to be drawn inferentially from his observations that the real reason for the raids upon the Russian Soviet headquarters was not the reason given by Mir. Baldwin's government, but some other reason, he was very careful not to make such a charge as would force him to stake his seat upon the authenticity or correctness of the charge. I

am sure my hon. friend will not attach too much importance to that. He is one who has sometimes said that in moments of hysteria wrong charges have been made in connection with what took place in Winnipeg some years ago, and that false inferences have been drawn and wrong conclusions have been arrived at. I am sure he did not mean to leave the impression upon this house this afternoon that it was his honest belief that anyone who had access to official sources of information would come to the conclusion that the raid made upon the Soviet headquarters by the British government was made at the behest of the oil interests of America, Great Britain and other countries. I am sure he had no such idea in his mind.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quoted from what I regarded as a well informed article by an authority in Great Britain who definitely made those charges. I have no independent knowledge with regard to these things, and I would not expect, to find them-I think the leader of the opposition will agree with me- in official documents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Once more I am in accord with the Prime Minister. I have no reason to believe that official documents are falsified, but I have reason to believe that the British statesmen are men of as high honour, integrity and patriotism as the man who wrote the article for the purpose of obtaining a fee from the magazine. I cannot but think that the hon. member for Labelle, who is at times rather unfortunate in attributing motives to British statesmen which I am sure were never in their minds, will agree that we must get back to the old thought that after all language is not used to disguise the thought, but rather to express the meaning which the statesmen had in their minds. As the Prime Minister has said, the ordinary amenities should be observed in these matters. I am sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre believes that I have sufficient confidence in his integrity and righteousness to think that he uses language to express his meaning and not to disguise it. I have every confidence that the great statesmen of Great Britain, the men who have built up this vast empire for centuries, are not men who use language to disguise their thoughts. If there were oil interests or other interests which brought about the breaking off of relations with Russia, I am sure there would be some record of it somewhere. If the British statesmen desired to say that they wanted to protect property interests of Great Britain, they would say so. They have never been reluctant to protect property interests

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bennett
of Great Britain, and they have never been reluctant to express their views in that respect. They have never been slow to protect the lives of British citizens, or the property of British citizens. I accept official documents and official dispatches just as I find them, as indicating what the action was taken for and the causes given; and there is not in this house an hon. gentleman who does not believe that the causes were adequate that induced my right hon. friend's government to act in this country and that the same causes operated in Great Britain with the same result. Although we were first in point of time to complete the action that we took by dismissing the Soviet ministry from this country, although we did not raid their premises, though, as the Prime Minister said, he had that in contemplation, yet in Great Britain, acting with foresight, with knowledge, with wisdom, with a sincere and patriotic desire to serve best the interests of their country, these statesmen in their official despatches and statements represented, I believe, only the true condition of affairs and they acted in accordance with the conditions they found as indicated by those despatches and not because any oil baironis or anybody else suggested that such action should be taken.
Further, the hon. member for Labelle referred to the fact that the Secretary of State for the Dominions was of foreign birth and that he had not a drop of British blood in him. He referred to him as a Hungarian Jew. I greatly deprecate that observation . in this house and I am sure on mature deliberation the hon. member for Labelle will admit that it slipped from his tongue without his intending to give offence. One of the greatest of British Prime Ministers was a Jew and proud of the fact; but he was a British citizen and the Right Hon. Leopold Amery was bom in India, the son of a father of Devonshire, and Devonshire is a county in England. It may be that in his veins there runs some blood that may not be Anglo-Saxon; but my hon. friend should be the last to refer to that, because it is the proud boast of our country that a man is a British citizen and a British subject although, indeed, his blood may not be Anglo-Saxon, and there is no better illustration in the world of that fact than in the Dominion of Canada. That is the position with regard to that.
May I make one further observation with respect to the Egyptian treaty and I shall have concluded? I think it was very unfortunate that the Prime Minister used the words he did in the debate of the 26th
March. I think those words were construed just as I would construe them had I not heard an explanation. At page 1716 of Hansard the Prime Minister is reported as having used these words:
I may say to my hon. friend that within the last few months the government was asked, with respect to a treaty that was being negotiated between Great Britain and Egypt, whether we would become a party .to that treaty. The terms of that treaty are known, they have been published. They involved military sanctions, and they contemplated military alliances. What was the reply of the government to that question? It was that we did not believe that so far as Canada was concerned the parliament of Canada would approve such a course; that if Britain and Egypt could work out a treaty as between themselves along the lines proposed, well and good; but that so far as Canada was concerned, we did not feel that it was in the interests of the British Empire itself or in the interests of the larger peace which it was hoped the treaty would serve, that this country should be asked to become a party to it; and the British government immediately accepted our view in reference thereto.
I direct the attention of the right hon. gentleman and the house to the language that is used:
The government was asked .... whether we would become a party to that treaty.
Later he said:
We were asked to become a party.
There is a vast difference between asking any person whether he will .become a party to anything and asking him to become a party. In the one instance you have the right of election and you have to say whether you will become a party or not and you consider the matter. In the other case you are asked to become a party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The greater
implies the less, and it was the greater that we assumed, namely, that we were being asked to become a party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the moment I am
referring to the language used by the Prime Minister. If you read that language just as it is, I am sure that the inference that was drawn from it would not be wholly unwarranted. I do not know to what journal the right hon. gentleman referred, but the Ottawa correspondent of the Times, published on Wednesday, March 28, 1928, reported the matter in this way:
Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister, in his reply, while declaring his sympathy with the idea-
That is the motion of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail).
-deprecated the creation of a new department which would overlap the work of the Depart-
34S0

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bennett
ment of External Affairs. His government, he contended, was wholeheartedly committed to a pacific policy, and he cited, in proof of this, its efforts in different directions for the promotion of world peace. He claimed the credit for averting a serious European war by his stand over the Chanak affair in 1922.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Which by the
way is completely untrue. He made no such claim.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister is
forgetting.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the certainty with which the Prime Minister speaks, he will pardon me if I take a moment to look up the debate and see what he did say on that occasion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be
obliged if the hon. member will do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Commencing at page
1715 of Hansard the Prime Minister refers to the Chanak affair, quoting from Mr. Bonar Law and from the words of the late Lord Oxford and Asquith. Then he goes on at the top of the page to read the report of the latter's speech. Then the Prime Minister says:
May I remind the house that at the time that statement was made, Australia and New Zealand had each signified their intention of sending forces to join with the British forces in the event of war, and that Canada stood out alone in seeking information and asking that her parliament be advised before the people of this country were committed to participation in another war. I quote further from the report as follows:
Then follows the quotation from the report. He continues:
Then may I give to my hon. friends opposite the opinion of one who I think was well informed at the time, but who no one for a moment will say is an advocate of the present administration, much less of myself. I refer to Lieut-Colonel John Bayne Maclean, of MacLean's Magazine.
After this follows the exitract from that magazine.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend read it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The extract?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not intend to read the extract because I do not think it is necessary to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
precise point; it was the extract I was referring to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then I will read it, but I cannot see where the relevancy wifah respect to the question actually conies in. The Prime Minister continues:
What did that paper have to say with reference to this matter? Colonel Maclean, the editor, under his own name, in the issue of MacLean's Magazine of November 15, 1922, published an article headed:
"Did Canada Stop Near East War? Refusal to Take Precipitous Action Saving Factor Sane Thinking Essential to Peace".
The second paragraph of this article reads:
We were recently asked by cable to answer at once by cable that we were ready to embark on another and greater war.
Some men, not Canadians, who have unusually good sources of world-wide information, whose judgment is generally sound and whose views are held in high esteem, are positive that had our Premier succumbed to the Lloyd George-Churchill demands, preceded as they were by propaganda and scheming for Canadian participation, the British Empire would undoubtedly have been at war now with Turkey, Russia and perhaps India, Afghanistan, Persia, and God knows who else or what the end would have been.
That was the opinion at that time of Colonel MacLe&n, and he had sources of information which I do not hestitate to say from what I have since learned were pretty reliable. The view which he there expressed I have been told m Great Britain on very high authority was not very far from the mark as to what might ".ave followed had Canada not taken the position which she then did.
I wish to say to my hon. friend that if this incident proved anything, it proves above all else that the spirit and the purpose and the attitude of an administration on this great question of peace and international understanding is more important than any of the lesser matters of departmental administration or departmental propaganda. The Chanak incident is only one of a number of incidents which have come up in the course of recent years, and all ot which have served to disclose the essential importance of the attitude of an administration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Now my hon. friend has read .through the quotation and he has been unable to put his 'hand on any word of mine which makes the claim to which he refers, that is, what the London Times said was a claim on my part to have averted a war involving Great Britain, which statement was the occasion of the debate in the House of Lords.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the Times Despatch reads:
He claimed the credit for averting a serious European war by his stand over the Chanak affair in 1922.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Which I say is untrue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one who reads that
observation will say that when my right hon.

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bennett
friend used the word "administration" rather than his own name, he did not desire that credit should be taken to the head of the government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It does not
even refer to the administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a statement of Colonel Maclean, a friend of my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely my hon. friend
has overlooked this point: I am not quoting from Colonel Maclean. I am quoting the words my right hon. friend used himself in this house, as reported at page 1716 Of Hansard, as follows:
_ I wish to say to my hon. friend that if this incident proved anything, it proves above all else that the spirit and the purpose and the attitude of an administration on this great question of peace and international understandinginternational, mark you:
-is more important than any of the lesser matters of departmental administration or departmental propaganda. The Chanak incident is only one of a number of incidents which have come up in the course of recent years, and all of which have served to disclose the essential importance of the attitude of an administration.
Modesty forbade my right hon. friend from saying, "to disclose the essential importance of the attitude of the right hon. the Prime Minister." He contents himself with saying, "the administration," but that in this case means himself, for he is the Minister of External Affairs, and certainly no one would contend, after reading that observation, that there was any over-statement of the case in the report of the London Times.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say that the observation of the Times was completely untrue, and is responsible for all the misunderstanding that has arisen between the British government and ourselves in respect to this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us see what the
Times does say:
Within the last few months, Mr. King continued, his government had been asked whether it would be a party to the treaty which was being negotiated between Great Britain and Egypt. Having examined the terms, and discovered that the treaty involved both military sanctions and a military alliance, the ministry felt that Canada's adhesion would not promote either the interests of the British Empire or larger world peace, and when it
expressed the opinion that the Canadian parliament would not endorse the treaty, the British government accepted the decision without cavil.
I have just read from the speech which the Prime Minister made in this house, and what the London Times says is almost word for word what he said. Will he here and now point out anything said in the House of Lords by Lord Parmoor or anybody else about the Chanak affair? Was not Lord Parmoor dealing with the Egyptian crisis exclusively, and with the attitude of the British government upon it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have in my hand Lord Parmoor's speech.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, read it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend wishes, I will give it to him. The matter was brought up in the House of Lords on the 29th of March and Lord Parmoor spoke as follows-it is headed "Canada and the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations." I am quoting from the House of Lords reports, March 29, page 733:
Lord Parmoor had given notice to ask His Majesty's government whether their attention has been called to the statements recently made by the Prime Minister of Canada on the subject of Chanak and the proposed treaty with Egypt; and to move for papers. The noble lord said: My Lords, on more than one occasion I have attempted to draw your Lordships' attention to opinion in our dominions, and particularly in our great Dominion of Canada, on general questions of foreign or peace policy. More than once I have asked that documents might be produced, and particularly on one occasion when, in the Canadian parliament, the same request was made, and the answer was given that the Canadian government would have been perfectly ready to produce the documents, but that the Home government had raised an objection. Now, only such a short time ago as March 26 a very remarkable speech was made in the Dominion House of Commons in Canada on questions such as we have been already dealing with to a certain extent to-night-namely, on questions of world policy in connection with peace. I am one of those who think that what has been called the spirit of a peace policy is essential if you are to meet with success in the promotion of a real world settlement in the future, and it is upon that particular point that I want to call the attention of the noble Marquess.
On March 26 Miss Macphail, who is a member of the Dominion House of Commons, brought in what one would call in this country a pacifist resolution. That pacifist resolution was talked out, and therefore I do not put any particular weight upon what she said, because I want to

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bennett
point out what was said on this occasion by Mr. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister. I have a resume of what he said here:
"His government", he continued "was wholeheartedly committed to a pacific policy."
It may be said that many governments have said that. But Mr. Mackenzie King went beyond that point, and said that he would give two illustrations which would show the reality of the facts on which he made the statement. The Prime Minister of Canada said this first of all in regard to the Chanak affair, which of course was in 1922, though I had no idea that his statement would go so far. It is stated that -"he claimed"-
Just the words of the Tames correspondent which my hon. friend has read. The report goes on:
It is stated that-"he claimed"-this is one of the reasons he gave for the reality of his pacific policy-"credit for averting a serious European war by the stand over the Chanak affair in 1922."
The very words which my hon. friend has read from the Times correspondent, and which was the cause of the debate in ithe House of Lords.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not the debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh yes, the debate. The report goes on:
In other words, what he says is that had the Canadians been prepared at that time to send their forces in connection with the Chanak affair, in his view there would have been another European war. We know, of course, that they would not do that, and that they stood out against it. But the claim he makes requires very deep consideraton-that because they stood out, and in consequence of the attitude of Canada, the danger of what he calls a European war was prevented.
Then he goes on to say-and this seems to me to be extremely important, and I ask the noble Marquess whether he can lay papers -that "within the last few months his government had been asked whether it wrould be a party to the treaty which was being negotiated between Great Britain and Egypt. Having examined the terms and discovered that the treaty involved both military sanctions and a military alliance, the ministry felt that Canada's adhesion would not promote either the interests of the British Empire or large world peace."
And Lord Parmoor goes on to say, in expressing this opinion, that the Canadian parliament would not endorse the treaty.
So I say the whole occasion, of the debate in the House of Lords was the reference of the Times correspondent to what he said was my claim that I had averted a war-I think that was the way he put it-which, as my hon. friend well knows, was completely untrue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The debate in the House of Lords in which Lord Salisbury was speaking for the government was concerned with

the Egyption treaty and none other. Read Lord Salisbury's speech and you will find no reference to Chanak; he dealt with the Egyptian treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must correct my hon. friend again. I have the speech here in which he made the reference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just a passing reference.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No passing
reference; it is a long reference. Does the hon. gentleman wish me to read it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am going to let the
right hon. gentleman do it if he so desires, because the debate took place on the Egyptian treaty. The 29th of March was the date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Marquess of Salisbury says:
My Lords, with regard to the closing words of the noble and learned Lord's speech, he will recognize, or I hope he recognizes, that the object of the policy of His Majesty's government in Great Britain is precisely the same as the policy which he has ascribed to His Majesty s government in Canada-namely, to preserve peace. There is no difference between us on that great issue. Of course, we are intent upon preserving peace. But, undoubtedly, the relations between the various component parts of the empire in respect of these high matters are of some difficulty. The noble and learned Lord went back a great many years-right back to the incidents of 1922. He quoted an observation by Mr. Mackenzie King on the subject of what is known as the Chanak incident. The facts are agreed, up to a certain point at any rate. Undoubtedly the Canadian government were asked to associate themselves with the British government at that time, and were asked whether they would be represented by a military contingent in case military action was required in those regions. I have personally no responsibility at all for the action of the then government. It is true that subsequently to that question and that answer there were no military operations, but I would not like to lay it down that the result was entirely due to' the action of the Candian government. My recollection, for what it is worth, is that there was a very strong feeling in this country against military operations on that occasion, and I think it would not be rash to say that the strong opinion expressed in this country had at any rate a partial effect, just as much as the opinion in Canada had, in bringing that question to the end which it reached.
I turn to the more recent case of Egypt.
So, as I have said, it was the Chanak incident that directed attention to the whole discussion, and was dealt with by both hon. gentlemen in the Bouse of Lords.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I again repeat that the
subject matter of the debate was the Egyptian treaty, as the right hon. the Prime Minister in the first instance mentioned. I just

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bennett
put this question to the right hon. gentleman and to the members of this house:	If
he did not desire to obtain credit for himself with respect to the matter, why did he quote with approval Colonel Maclean? Let us face the thing frankly. The right hon. gentleman quoted Colonel Maclean with approval and said:
Then may I give to my hon. friends opposite the opinion of one who I think was well informed at the time but who no one for a moment will say is an advocate of the present administration, much less of myself, I refer to . Lieut.-Colonel John Bayne Maclean of MacLean's Magazine. What did that paper have to say with reference to this matter?
And he quotes an article published in that magazine headed:
Did Canada Stop Near East War? Refusal to Take Precipitous Action Saving Factor Sane Thinking Essential to Peace.
Then Colonel Maclean approves of the stand taken by the government of this country led by the right hon. Prime Minister. And again I put this question to him: Why did he quote John Bayne Maclean if he did not want his certificate of approval as the man who had saved this country from war? If a man reads a certificate of approval of himself from a magazine, obviously he does not do it to throw discredit on himself. When he said that this gentleman was not an advocate of the present administration, and no friend of his, he did so to strengthen the certificate of approval.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: May I ask the
hon. gentleman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The paragraph that I
quoted dealing with the Egyptian affair is almost word for word from Hansard. I do not think it is quite in keeping with the traditions of the great office which he now occupies that the right hon. gentleman should vent his personal spleen against the Times correspondent by making the observations he made this evening. I do not think it adds either to the dignity of the office or the greatness of the right hon. gentleman himself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am venting no personal spleen. I never had any.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those of us who know
have a clear understanding of that. So far as the right hon. the Prime Minister is concerned, that gentleman would not be the correspondent of the London Times if he could help it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I suppose he
was appointed at the instance of my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was not. I am happy to say that I knew nothing of the appointment until it was made. The right hon. gentleman must not conclude because he does not always have his way that necessarily I have my way in a matter of this kind. I am rather surprised he should pay me the compliment. I have great responsibilities without powe<h


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the hon. gentlemen who so receive that statement may some day realize what it means to occupy the same position.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have nearly concluded all that I desire to say. The motion of the hon. member for Labelle at least clarified the situation by enabling this house once more to consider-and, I trust, to consider with some degree of care-the enormous responsibilities involved in the use of the words, "equality of status," because by implication they involve powers far-reaching and consequences that we cannot foresee. For my part I congratulate British statesmen in that they have been able during this long term of years to develop a system of communication between the various outlying sections of the empire-between the governments of the selfgoverning dominions and the motherland that have made for ease, certainty and facility in the transaction of Business. But one observation was made by the Prime Minister to-night in that regard that we cannot allow to go unchallenged. He spoke of Sir William Clark as the British High Commissioner in this country, and said that his appointment might facilitate the transaction of business between this country and Great Britain. It must not be forgotten that whatever difficulties there may be with regard to notes and despatches passing between the government of the motherland and the government of Canada, in the ultimate analysis, either by cable or by written communication, the High Commissioner of Great Britain must send his messages to the government that accredits him. And so it always has been. The written word sometimes is much more reliable and avoids misunderstandings to which conversations sometimes give rise. I recall reading not long since an account of what took place in 1891 at Washington, when a misunderstanding arose between Mr. Blaine and two of His

Foreign Relations-Mr. Bennett
Majesty's commissioners from Canada as to what had been said, and it brought about considerable difficulty. Conversations in diplomacy have caused difficulties, and any member of this house who has read what transpired in connection with the great war will realize the different views given by German statesmen and British statesmen as to certain conversations that had taken place, and volumes have been written about such misunderstandings. So recourse is had to despatches, to written communications, as the ultimate authority upon which nations rely to govern and guide their policies. While the introduction to Canada of a British High Commissioner may serve a useful purpose for parole communications, yet in the end written communications must govern.
We on this side of the house have already indicated that the very appointment of a Canadian minister at. Tokyo will be wholly misunderstood by the oriental mind, for it predicates to the world that we are a sovereign state. As I read in the previous debate from great authorities on international law, that means, if it means anything, that we are a sovereign state; which we are not. The very appointment of such a minister, with the possibility of difficulties and differences in respect to foreign policy, involves implications, as I said before, most serious in their consequences. I do not think the people of this country are desirous of having ministers in foreign countries unless they are certain that those ministers on grave matters of foreign policy, whjch may mean life or death to the great empire of which we are proud to be a member, will co-ordinate their views with the views of the British ambassador. To have a representative working with the ambassador of Great Britain is one thing; but to have a minister who at any time may differ with the views expressed by the British ambassador may bring about an impossible situation in the life of the empire. If hon. gentlemen have in mind the ultimate thing which is involved by implication in what is being put forward, that is, that we shall assert our mind and carry it to its ultimate conclusion, regardless of the expressions of opinion by His Majesty's ambassador who may be present in the very same capital, well and good; but let us face it frankly and not use words to disguise our thoughts and endeavour to skate around the position which we are to take. That is the stand which we on this side of the house take in this matter.
I shall not discuss the proposed Tokyo embassy because an opportunity will be presented during the presentation of the estimates

for the Department of External Affairs to deal with it fully, except in a few words to express our attitude with respect to it. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that while it well may be that some useful purpose has been served by the horn, member for LabeOJe bringing this matter once more to the attention of the house, its greatest purpose will be served if it causes hon. members to think carefully of what is involved in the words, "equality of status", and to see to it that those words have , attributed to them the meaning which they are entitled to receive from every man, however limited may be his knowledge of constitutional law, who knows the true significance which	attaches	to	the English
language. Beyond that I have nothing further to observe.


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the speeches which have been delivered on this very interesting question. The hon.	member for	Laibelie	(Mr. BouraSsa) has moved an amendment to the motion to go into supply and has expressed regret that the Canadian government has not taken adequate	steps to	implement	the
declaration of equality of status pronounced at the Imperial conference of 1926.
Last session I spoke at some length on the status of Canada, confining myself to a discussion of the autonomy of Canada in her domestic affairs.	To-night	I	welcome	the
opportunity of discussing her status in so far as external affairs and international relations are concerned. I am of the opinion that whatever may be the status of Canada in so far as her domestic affairs are concerned, there has been a fundamental change in her international status. Her separate status in that sphere has been recognized not only by Great Britain but by other great world powers. This international! recognition, of our separate status is the strongest possible evidence of its existence. I think it would be wise to review the constitutional developments that have taken place in recent years, particularly during the last decade. It might well be called a decade of constitutional development; indeed, it might well be described as one of the most important decades in the history of Canada. Each year has its events of outstanding importance. I propose therefore to review these events very briefly so that we may have before us a panorama of the progress that has taken place. This will enable us to see Clearly what has happened and to appreciate fully what the present situation really is.

Foreign Relations-Mr. Thorson
In 1949 the peace treaty of Versailles was signed. Sir Robert Borden, then Prime Minister of Canada, insisted that Canada should sign that treaty, and he finally prevailed upon Great Britain to endorse the propriety of that step. There was great opposition from the American delegation led by President Wilson and Mr. Lansing. To them this suggestion was an unheard of departure from international usage and practice. But Cle-menceau, in his blunt way, pointed out that there were as many Canadian soldiers lying in the fields of France as there were Americans; that Canada had taken her part in the war and should have the right to take part in the negotiations leading to peace. This view eventually prevailed. This was Canada's first international recognition. It is true that this international recognition of Canada was a mark of courtesy rather than a fact of any juridical importance; for the British Empire signed that treaty and, in so signing it, bound all of the self-governing dominions. Sir Robert Borden also in that year obtained for Canada separate representation in the assembly of the League of Nations, and the right to have the Canadian representative eventually elected to the council of the league. This was Canada's first adventure in the arena of international politics, and it had for its primary object the promotion of world peace. The senate of the United States objected very strongly to the separate voting power of the dominions in the assembly of the league.
Then in 1920 the proposal that Canada should have a minister plenipotentiary at Washington was announced. On May 10, 1920, Sir George Foster, who was Acting Prime Minister, made the following announcement to the House of Commons:
It has been agreed that His Majesty, on idvice of his Canadian ministers, shall appoint 1 minister plenipotentiary who will have charge of Canadian affairs and will at all times be the ordinary channel of communication with the United States government in all matters of purely Canadian concern, acting upon instructions from and reporting direct to the Canadian government. In the absence of the ambassador the Canadian minister will take charge of the whole embassy and of the representation of imperial as well as Canadian interests. He will be accredited by His Majesty to the president -with the necessary powers for the purpose.
Sir George Foster added the following to this announcement:
This new arrangement will not denote any departure either on the part of the British government or of the Canadian government from the principle of the diplomatic unity of the British Empire.
There may be a very great difference of opinion as to the correctness of this conclusion. It has been suggested by many students of constitutional law that this proposal, together with the signature of Canada to the peace treaty, and Canada's separate representation in the assembly of the League of Nations, marked the beginning of the disintegration of the diplomatic unity of the empire. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who were then members of the opposition, objected to the proposal that the Canadian minister should take charge of imperial affairs, and suggested that he should be independent of the British embassy and concern himself solely with Canadian affaire. For over six years no action was taken to implement the arrangement that was proposed to this parliament in 1920.
In 1921 the question of Canadian representation at the Washington disarmament conference came up. President Harding had summoned a conference between the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan to discuss disarmament. 'General Smuts of South Africa had objected to the action of the American government in addressing its invitation to the British government alone, ignoring the dominions, and had cabled to the Canadian Prime Minister protesting that, in view of the agitation in the American senate against the independent voting power of the dominions in the League of Nations, it was a direct challenge to the new dominion status and it would be a bad precedent for the dominions to attend without having been properly invited, but if a stand were made the battle for their international recognition and international status would be finally won. Mr. Meighen, who was then Prime Minister of Canada, thereupon communicated with the British Prime Minister, and it was finally agreed that the status of the Dominion representatives at the Washington conference should be exactly the same as it had been at the peace conference at Versailles. Canada was represented at the Washington peace conference by Sir Robert Borden. His powers to represent the Dominion were issued by the crown on an order in council of the Canadian cabinet.
In 1922 the Washington conference was held, in the month of January. At that conference the British delegation spoke with one voice, as it had done at Versailles, after consultation amongst its own members. Subsequently the Italian government extended an invitation to an international conference at Genoa, this invitation being addressed by the
34S6

Foreign Relations-Mr. Thorson
Italian ambassador direct to the Dominion Prime Minister. In September of that year there occurred the famous Chanak incident, of which we have heard so much this evening. The Turks had driven the Greeks out of Asia. Minor and a crisis appeared imminent. The British government sent a communication to the dominions stating that a situation of the utmost gravity had arisen in Turkey, requiring prompt action, and asking the government of each dominion whether it desired to associate itself with the measures that Great Britain would take and to be represented by a contingent of troops, whose presence would have an excellent moral effect, possibly even preventing actual 'hostilities. To this communication Australia and New Zealand answered in the affirmative. The present Prime Minister took the view- and I suggest that it was a very sound view to take-that the question of sending a Canadian contingent was for the Canadian parliament alone to decide. He intimated that he would be very glad to receive the fullest information in order to decide upon the advisability of summoning parliament. If the Prime Minister was too modest to claim that his action had a great deal to do with averting war, I have no hesitation in expressing my personal opinion that it had that effect. On February 2, 1923, the Prime Minister made a statement in the House of Commons, and I challenge any hon. member of this house to deny the propriety of the sentiments he then expressed. He said:
-if the relations between the different parts of the British empire are to he made of an enduring character, this will only be through a full recognition of the supremacy of parliament, and this particularly with regard to matters which may involve participation in war.
This was an assertion in forcible language of Canadian autonomy in so far as active participation in war is concerned. In my opinion it was also, in a sense, a repudiation of a central foreign policy, in which Canada did not concur.
The year 1923 was one of great importance so far as our constitutional development was concerned. I shall deal very briefly with three events which took place in that year, the Lausanne conference, the Halibut treaty and the Imperial conference. Canada refused to accept the special responsibilities of the Lausanne treaty because Canada was not a party to the negotiations. In the course of a statement made to the House of Commons on April 2, 1924, the Prime Minister explained the attitude of Canada in these words:
We take the position that, not having been invited to the Lausanne conference, not having

been represented there, not having for the reasons that I have mentioned, signed the treaty, the treaty does not impose obligations on Canada, and that the parts of the empire on which it does impose obligations are the only parts that should be expected to sign and ratify it. As we did not regard the treaty as imposing obligations on Canada, we did not feel that it was necessary to submit the treaty to parliament for its approval, or in its name to signify concurrence in its ratification.
This was a fresh declaration of autonomy in external affairs, and a restatement of the right of parliament to determine Canada's policy, going even a step further than was taken in the previous year. If I were to interject a personal note, I think I might accurately say that the sentiments expressed with regard to the Chanak incident and the Lausanne conference found some echo in the famous speech delivered by Mr. Meighen at Hamilton prior to the Bagot by-election.
The Halibut treaty was signed at Washington on March 2, 1923, by Mr. Lapointe, then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on behalf of Canada. That was the first time a treaty had been made with a foreign country, having to do with Canadian affairs, which was signed by a Canadian minister without the intervention of the British ambassador. In my opinion it marked a great advance in Canadian treaty making powers. Later on I shall refer again to this treaty. The United States senate took exception to some of the terms of that treaty, suggesting that they should be made applicable to all British subjects rather than confined to Canadian nationals, but eventually these objections were withdrawn and the treaty was ratified by the senate of the United States early in 1924.
The Imperial conference of 1923 was another event of outstanding importance, particularly with regard to the resolutions passed by it relating to the negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties. The conference of that year ratified and approved the precedent established by Canada in connection with the halibut treaty and asserted the right of the dominions to negotiate and sign treaties involving themselves only without the intervention of the British ambassador. This marked a further breach in the doctrine of diplomatic unity, and a great advance was made in the direction of complete autonomy over external affairs and in international relations. A greater advance was to take place in 1926. After the Imperial conference of 1923 I think I am safe in saying that the theory of a joint foreign policy for all the constituent parts of the British. empire suffered a very marked modification.

Foreign Relations-Mr. Thorson
In 1924 the Canadian government objected to the manner of representation at the international conference called to devise means of carrying out the Dawes plan of reparations, and suggested that the representation at that conference should follow the precedent set at Versailles and Washington, under which our Dominion would be separately represented by its delegate bearing full powers from His Majesty the King to act in the name of His Majesty in respect of the Dominion. Senator Belcourt was sent to that conference as the Canadian representative.
In 1925 there were two events of considerable importance. The International Boundary Treaty was made in that year with the United States in the name of His Majesty the King in respect of the Dominion of Canada. It was negotiated and signed by the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) without the intervention of the British ambassador and without any objection being made by the United States. Then came the famous Locarno treaty of that year, which contained an important clause which had not been included in all previous treaties. That clause was to the effect that the treaty should impose no obligation upon any of the British dominions or upon India unless the government of such dominion or of India should signify its acceptance. Great Britain refused to sign that treaty, as did Canada, but our refusal to sign was based upon very different grounds from those taken by Great Britain. Once again Canada refused to accept any commitments resulting from a treaty which had been made without any co-operation on her part. There was this difference between the Locarno treaty and the Lausanne treaty: the latter, having been made in the name of the British empire, notwithstanding the protests raised by the present Prime Minister bound all the dominions, while the Locarno treaty specifically exempted those portions of the empire which did not accept the treaty.
The year 1926 was perhaps the most important year since confederation in respect to the constitutional development of Canada. It saw a new status conferred upon Canada in so far as external affairs are concerned, and oomplete international recognition of that new status. In that year the Canadian minister to Washington was appointed. The proposal of 1920 was ultimately carried into effect, with this very important difference, that the Canadian minister to Washington is not a member of the British embassy but is there as the representative of Canada concerned only with Canadian affairs. All negotiations 'between the United States government and the Canadian government pass through him as our Canadian representative there.
I propose to discuss only one feature of the report brought down by the Imperial conference, that portion of the report which deals with the making of treaties. Prior to 1926 treaties were made between His Majesty and foreign powers in the - name of the British Empire, or by His Majesty the King without stating for whom the treaty was made. Therefore, such treaties bound the whole empire including all of the dominions, unless the dominions were expressly excepted from their terms, as would have been the case had the Locarno treaty been adopted. In that sense, of course, the Lausanne treaty was binding upon Canada, notwithstanding the refusal of the Canadian parliament to accept its responsbilities or to admit its active obligations. In the same way, the Halibut treaty was binding upon Great Britain and the other dominions, in the sense that it was a treaty between His Majesty, to whom all the dominions owe allegiance, and the United States, and was not made in respect of any particular dominion.
The old practice of making treaties underwent a very important change. Treaties to which His Majesty the King is a party are all made by His Majesty the King, but they are now made only in respect of those portions of the British Empire that are to be bound by them. The Imperial conference recognized the right of each dominicfn to make separate independent treaties which would not be binding upon any other member of the British family of nations. Treaties will now be made by His Majesty the King only in respect of those portions of the empire which wish to be parties to them. In each case the king will issue full powers to his plenipotentiaries to negotiate and sign treaties, and these full powers will be issued upon the advice of the government concerned, indicating the part of the empire for which they are to sign.
For example, if a treaty is not to be binding upon any of the dominions, it will be made by His Majesty the King and it will state on the face of it that it is made "for the United Kingdom, of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and all parts of the empire which are not separate members of the League of Nations." Such a treaty will, on the face of it, be a very different treaty from the Lausanne treaty and other treaties that have been made, for not even in international law will such a treaty bind the dominions.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But is she not?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: The decision on this important question will rest with the Canadian parliament. No one should seek to minimize the importance of our international status.

Foreign Relations-Mr. Church


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I have asked a question
of my hon. friend.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I have only forty minutes. Fears have been expressed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) as to the future of Canada. My faith and confidence in the future of Canada are greater than his. I have no such fears for her future, for we in Canada are developing according to our needs as we see them in our self development; we are simply following the example that has been set for us by Great Britain. Our development is not entirely a matter of volition:	I
doubt whether it is a matter of volition at all; rather is it a process of evolution. Nor need we have any fears that Canada, in the future will shirk her responsibilities: she has not shirked them in the past, but has discharged them in a manner that commanded the admiration of the world. In all things that pertain to Canada's policy, it should be the right of this parliament to decide. I for one am prepared to take the attitude that as matters arise for our determination, we should determine them in accordance with the best interests of Canada. If we look well to the present, the future is in no danger.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, if the resolution of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), is adopted by the house, Canada had better get out of the British Empire altogether. It takes more than such separatists as the hon. member for Labelle, the Vincent Masseys, the IF. C. Larkins, the Ewarts, the Dafoes and the Atkinsons of Toronto to make a nation. A nation does not consist of pink teas and ten o'clock dinners at Washington; a nation consists of something nobler and greater than that. If the young gentleman, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thor-son), who just sat down would think less of such academic questions as the status of this country and would devote his ability and attention towards solving some of the great practical economic questions of the British empire, such as trade, defence, and migration, he would do more for Canada than by whining about our status as his illustrious leader did at the last so-called Imperial conference. I hope it is the last Imperial conference that will ever be held because if there are many more held of the same kind the British Empire might as well disband.
Talk about Canada's status! Canada has such a fine status in domestic and external affairs that you have not a fleet to protect j'our shores when war occurs except a lot of stone hooker boats to which I
referred the other night when the estimates of the Department of National Defence were under consideration and in peace not a life saving station on lake Superior to save our sailors. Where were the Atkinsons, and Dafoes, the Ewarts, the Separatists and Nationalists like the hon. member for Labelle when there was a great disaster on the great lakes last December when many of those brave men after unshaken endurance gave up their lives? Where was Canada's mock nationality then? And also on lake Erie a .month ago what became of Canada's nationality then? Where were we on the great lakes last fall in the darkest hour of a December might? When those brave .men were out on great lake's in their doomed vessels, what did Canada's sham nationality do for them? They had' to wait until they were pulled off by an American life saving crew, after hours .and days of suffering. That is the kind of mock status and sham nationality the people of this country are putting up with in time of peace and time of war as well, England in war and the United States on the great lakes paid the bills. There was a debate in this house on June 21, 1926, before the Imperial conference was held, and the Prime Minister was asked to lay on the table the agenda of the conference so that we might have a debate in this house. New Zealand and Australia had a debate upon the subject, and I asked at the time that the agenda be laid on the table, because Sir Wilfrid Laurier before he attended the conference had taken parliament 'into his confidence, laid the agenda on the table, and let parliament decide what its attitude should be on certain of those questions. But what did the present Prime Minister say? There was a debate of about one hour, in which I took part, and in which I said:
We are not an independent nation, or a nation at all; we are a link in a chain of free commonwealths within and making up the British Empire. We never were a nation. Talk about annexation with the United States! There is no feeling at all in Canada in favour of it, nor for independence either. Talk about Canada being independent, a country of nine million souls, competing with or withstanding a nation of 110,000,000 people! Why if we were independent a foreign fleet might sail up the St. Lawrence and we would not have as much as a rowboat to oppose it with because our toy navy is locked up in a garage at Halifax.
I invite consideration of the question of what our duty is as a member of the empire. We are shortly to have an Imperial conference. Where is the agenda; what will Canada bring up, and what is the government's policy? The late Sir Wilfrid Laurier used to sit down at such a conference with the representatives of the sister dominions, Australia, New Zealand and others, with the object of seeing what



Foreign Relations-Mr. Church
could be done to better the conditions of the component parts of the empire and foster interimperial trade and relations.
I invited consideration at that time of the question of what our duty as a member of the empire should be. Sir John A. Macdonald's motto was, "A British subject was I born, and a British subject shall I die.' We are one of the links in the chain of free commonwealths making up the British Empire, but those links to-day are scattered to the four winds of heaven, except for our common allegiance to the same king. There are some in this country who would abolish appeals to the Privy Council and abolish the office of governor general. Treaties formerly had to have the sanction of the mother of parliaments but now apparently we are a sovereign power and can make our own treaties. Just the other day a note came to Canada from Secretary Kellogg of the United States, came to us as a separate country, due to the reign of the separatists in Canada, asking us to join in a pact to end all war. While Secretary Kellogg was sending us that note, another secretary in the United States cabinet, Secretary Wilbur, in the same capitol as Secretary of State Kellogg, came down to congress with a war vote of $274,000,000. Secretary of State Kellogg is inviting us to join in denouncing war for all time, now that an election for president is coming on in the United States within a short while, as it does every four or five years. For the first three years they were too proud to fight in the great war; they sat on the fence. They propose a peace pact every time a presidential election comes on. Harding did it in the Washington conference. Now Kellogg and Coolidge follow in his footsteps. But this Canada is now a separate country. Instead of Secretary Kellogg sending his note to the Imperial government, he sends us a note of our own. We must 'be a separate nation, with sovereign power to make peace or war. As I said, while Secretary Kellogg was proposing peace, his colleague in the same building, Secretary Wilbur was having voted the sum of $274,000,000 for the building during the next three years of fifteen cruisers at a cost of $17,000,000 each, and an aeroplane carrier at $19,000,000. While Secretary Kellogg is shouting peace, Secretary Wilbur is for war. Peace and war all in the same capitol building and a presidential election as the real issue; a vote hunting peace pact is all it is by gentlemen who are both in the same cabinet of President Coolidge. And what does President Coolidge do? He supports the vote for $274,000,000. That is the

way they are trying to help peace along the same way they did in the so-called Washington conference. The Washington conference was called by President Harding just before an election, and France, the United States and England were to stop building capital ships for a definite period of 40 years. Did the United States keep the terms of that conference? No. No sooner was the ink dry on that agreement than they brought down larger votes than ever before for the building of ships, and here we have an example of the same thing by Secretary Wilbur and President Coolidge. Did they keep the Washington conference? No. England and France proposed to keep the conference, but the United States did not keep it. Travel down the Atlantic seaboard to-day, and at New Haven, Portland, New York City, Baltimore, Savannah, and all along that coast you will find war plants that have been turned into peace plants, and which to-day are building merchant marine ships for the United States merchant marine, hoping that some day soon they will catch up to Great Britain, and they are almost at that point now, and become mistress of the seas in battleships and merchant marine, a title to which England has held for hundreds of years. That is the way they keep their treaties, treaties of peace and war as well; they are just or will be scraps of paper like the Monroe doctrine of old and the Harding Washington navy conference of five years ago.
We had a discussion on status in this house, and on June 21, 1926, I asked the Prime Minister to lay on the table the agenda for the Imperial conference that we might have a debate on the subject, as they had had in Australia and New Zealand. The high commissioners for Australia and New Zealand prepared an economic brief of the problems confronting our sister commonwealths, but did Canada have any brief? No. We had a high commissioner in London, the Hon. P. C. Larkin, but nothing similar in an economic brief about Canada was presented with a view to finding a solution for the three great problems of the British Empire, upon the right solution of which rests the future of the British Empire. I have always heard that the three great problems of the British Empire are trade, defence, and migration within the empire. Did 'Canada have anything to say along these lines? Not one word. But New Zealand and Australia did. We had nothing to say at all. All we did was to whine about our status. You would think it was a mock parliament and a mock conference so faT as we were concerned.

Foreign Relations-Mr. Church
The people of this country, Mr. Speaker, are far from being interested in this question of our status. The Winnipeg Free Press and a few other papers, Mr. Ewart and a few other gentlemen who are interested in literature and speak at after dinner meetings, may be interested in it. These fiddlers and after dinner speakers are separatists. The subject may interest a lot of ipeople who are dry at these (banquets, but so far as the people of this country are concerned, they are not interested in our academic status. The men who went from this country to the front do not oare a hoot about our status, nor do the 600,000 of our people who have had to go to the United States to look for work. Canada's status is just what it was a hundred years ago. We are part and parcel of the British Empire, and what Canada has done in the last forty years for the mother country she has done of her own volition and will do again to-morrow if war oomes, because when Britain is at war Canada is at war. Whatever Canada has done in the past she has done voluntarily, freely and gladly, and she has done it well, and if trouble ever comes again, she will do the same thing again, and go to the help of the mother country on sea and land, and mobilize alii her forces of men and money for the defence of the empire.
What did Canada do at the Imperial conference? It did nothing. There is a great empire problem which tihe empire marketing board is taking up, and .that is one of the finest boards they have in Great Britain. It is trying to solve trade and economic problems. That is what it is for, and that is what it is doing. That board found that only twenty-five per cent of the fruit consumed by Great Britain comes from the overseas dominions, and they are trying to change that. At the Toronto exhibition this year the Empire Marketing Board is going to have an exhibition of what Canada can do for the empire, and what the board have and are doing for Canada, and I hope that everyone will attend and learn what the Empire Marketing Board can do for the agriculture of this country, and in helping to solve many other of our economic problems.
Now we are not interested in the resolution of the hon. gentleman from Labelle. He has the happy faculty three or four times each session of raising this question. If he belonged to a mock parliament it would be all right, but in this serious parliament, spending four hundred million dollars of the people's money, surely we can find enough economic problems concerning the health, welfare and prosperity of every man, woman and child in 56103-2211
this Dominion to keep us busy. Let us try to solve these economic difficulties, rather than employ our time discussing the academic question of our status. The Prime Minister had no mandate to change the status of Canada. Take the office of governor general; that has all been changed. Our Ewarts and Atkinsons and Dafoes want to have a Canadian governor general. We have enough Ewarts and Atkin-sons and Dafoes without wishing to have any of them as governor general. What is the office of governor general to-day? That used to be one of the few links that bound Canada to the motherland. The old office has practically been abolished. We became a nation overnight, in the twinkling of an eye. Under our new status the governor general is now only a viceroy. What has the governor general to do to-day? If he were to appeal to Downing street for advice he would be told he possesses in the Canadian cabinet the only authority who can advise him. It will not be long before the change of status will abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council. As a lawyer, I can say that the Privy Council is one of the finest courts we have in this empire. I hope it will be a long day before that right of appeal will ever be abolished, for it is one real court where a Canadian can get justice.
If this resolution carries Canada might just as well get out of the British Empire. If we are a sovereign power-if we have the right to appoint the governor general and make our treaties, that is what it means in practice- we shall do everything over the head of the British government. If we have the power to make treaties with every nation in Europe, Asia and South America, we might just as well get out of the British Empire and stay out. If this equality of status goes much further, the British Empire will be well rid of us. Canada does not want anything like this. This is the second time this session we have had preached from the housetops this new dream of status by the hon. gentleman from Labelle, while we sponge on the British Empire for maritime freedom, and in time of war wire for the British fleet. New Zealand and Australia before the great war contributed dreadnaughts. New Zealand is contributing five million dollars over five years to the Singapore naval base, so is Australia-the only naval base that will preserve British liberty on the Pacific. Canada has done nothing for maritime freedom; we are content to sponge on the mother country. The people of this country do not believe in this resolution; they believe in one king, one flag, one

Foreign Relations-Mr. Church
empire, one national anthem. The people of this country do not believe in any change of status in domestic or in external affairs. We are not fit to handle our external affairs. Some of the commercial treaties which this government has made with foreign countries are so many gold bricks to Canada. You have made treaties with every country bordering on the seven seas. Now you are going to send ambassadors to every country in the seven seas.
Americans to-day find Canada nothing but a happy hunting ground as they grab our natural resources; they are taking away our fisheries, our water-powers, our pulpwood, our mines, our forests. Canada is the happy hunting ground of these American millionaires. Economically Canada has been annexed to the United States.
The other day the hon. member for Labelle on the orders of the day asked the Prime Minister something about our "imperial masters." I do not know how he got away with it. Whom does he mean? What has this nation to fear from imperial masters? I think Canada has far more to fear from the fifteen gentlemen on the front benches than from Downing street, with this nonsense of so-called "imperial masters." The hon. gentleman from Labelle goes over to England and makes separatist and status speeches. I think it would be a good thing for the British Empire if he got out of it altogether. I think that is the best thing he can do, and it will be the best thing for Canada to do if it adopts a resolution like this. What has all this change of status ever done for Canada but provide a nice lot of fat jobs in the seven seas for ambassadors to hold pink teas and ten o'clock dinners, and go to the League of Nations and misrepresent Canada. At present those tea functions are held exclusively in Washington, but now they will be having them in Tokio, if you please; and in China, if you please-"washee, washee." I was out at the Pacific coast last March during the trouble in China, and one of the papers had in big, striking headlines, "War with China." What would happen to this Dominion if the teeming millions in China and Japan ever crossed that Pacific ocean? It was enough to make the people of British Columbia wake up from this new dream, this nice high-sounding phrase of change of status in external and domestic affairs and demand maritime protection. Canada has had enough of this kind of talk; the country is sick of it. The government would be better employed to sit down and solve some of the economic
LMr. Church.]
problems that confront Canada to-day and stop all this status fad. Let the government do something about the empire marketing report. Let them put on the statute books a safeguarding-of-industries act to conserve the resources of this country and stop their being drained away to the United States. Let the government do something in a practical economic way and solve our own domestic problems and leave our status alone.
If this thing goes much further we will be able to get along without the Prime Minister. We will be electing the Prime Minister of this country king of Canada. He will assume kingly powers if this so-called dream of status goes much further. A month or two ago I referred to this particular matter. I want to say a word about the status of Canada. When Canada is in trouble or war threatens we always 'phone for the British fleet. When Canada was in trouble on the great lakes, our mariners had to sound their sirens morning, noon and night for American life-saving boats to come to their rescue. I am a good Canadian nationalist because I am a true British imperialist. The sense of Canada's nationalism increases and multiplies through our love of British unity. The true Canadian nationalist will not want to see this country a dead beat on the taxpayers of the British Isles for the upkeep of battle cruiseTS and a navy to maintain the safety of Canadian shores and for the protection of Canada's commerce on the high seas. The true Canadian nationalist will not want to see Canada a nation only in the advertising pages of American journals. As a nation we are a pauper so far as the actual reality goes.
The closing days and nights of navigation on the great lakes in the season of 1927 recorded a great story of unbroken fortitude and of unshaken endurance which proved that our countrymen, the sailors on the decks of those doomed vessels, were blood brothers of the soldiers who brought glory to Canada at St. Julien, the soldiers who could not be blown off the ground they gained at Passchendaele, who climbed the, heights of Yimy Ridge, who gained the victory at Amiens and many another field of glory, men whose names will forever thrill every true Canadian. These sailors struggled or waited hour after hour; help came to them it was help organized by the valiant hearts and strong bodies of their own country, or if help came it was help bought and paid for by the taxes of the people of the United States. That is Canadian nationality for you. The struggle was a story of glory for Canada's sailors. The struggle was a story of Shame for Canada's politicians. The

Foreign Relations-Mr. Church
tragedies of the Great lakes in the closing hours of navigation last season showed in its 'true colours the stuff that Canadian nationalism is made of. The Winnipeg Free Press, Toronto Star, John S. Ewart liberal variety of nationality is the nationality that writes and talks and chatters at banquets and refuses to pay under the terms of that nationality.
Canada is a proud and haughty nation. It sends its merchant ships into the winter storms with nothing to do but whistle for a United States service tug when the ship is in danger and to fill the air with the distress signals of a siren with the hope that a United States life saving vessel will put to sea and save the lives of Canadian sailors. Canada, a nation, and in trouble, has a navy maintained at the expense of the old country taxpayer to guard the safety of Canada's shores in war.
These people who move equality of status resolutions of this sort are nothing but separatists; that is the best term by which to describe them. They are trying to change the status of Canada. But Canada cannot remain a member of the British Empire and do all the talking and determine all the foreign policies and pay nothing. The other day trouble came up in Egypt and Great Britain was responsible; but Canada wanted to poke her nose into the thing and give advice. We should pay or keep quiet. We are appointing ambassadors to every country under the sun-ambassadors in South America and elsewhere. Canada, in the opinion of some of these separatists has become a nation. I do not know who the next ambassador is going to be or whither he is to go. Some countries are left yet. Obviously all those who desire appointments cannot get into the Senate, because there are not enough vacancies; nor can they all get on the bench. There are fifty-five applications a paper says for junior county court judgeships in Winnipeg alone. If anybody wants any of these jobs he has to pay his dollar and join the ward association. I suppose these ambassadors have paid their dollar and joined the Liberal ward associations also. Why, in my riding there are gentlemen who have canvassed me, one looking for a judgeship and another for an ambassadorship. I saw one of them here in the halls the other day. Evidently they fancy I have some influence with this government. One gentleman who ran against me lost his deposit; he lost the election only by about 10,000 or 12,000 votes. And I did not have even one ambassador to vote for me. The only ambassador I have ever had the honour of representing used to live in a former constituency of mine, North Toronto, but he
is now in England. I refer to Mr. P. C. Larkin. No doubt under the new status regime

this magnificent new regime that has been ushered in-ambassadorships will be found for all those who want them, but they must pay a dollar and join the ward association. The hon. member for LaJbelle might be made ambassador extraordinary to France, and he is certainly extraordinary; there is no doubt about that-to France or Italy or some place like that. That is the place for him. He is not satisfied with the way they do things in New France. He is a nationalist. But I want to say that it takes more than gentlemen like the hon. member for Labelle -it takes more than men of his nationalist stripe-to make a nation. No doubt in a few days when parliament closes, if this resolution goes through, we shall see the hon. gentleman from Labelle on the high seas taking Cook's tour as our new ambassador to France. One of these gentlemen, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan), has already gone to the League of Nations to bring about peace over there. He could not pacify a few steelworkers who were on strike in the city I come from; yet he has gone abroad to pacify Europe. I understand that a good many of them are going to take this Cook's tour. One or two of them go by way of Halifax and Quebec, but the rest of these gentlemen always sail from New York on American liners, that is the new status way of patronizing Canadian ports. That is the way they do things under this magnificient new status regime. I do not know who will be the new ambassador to Tokyo or to China; nor have I any idea as to whether the proposed ambassador to China can talk Chinese, status or not. I do not know whether he can say in Chinese "I want my laundry", or "Is my laundry ready?" I suppose, though, when he goes over there, under this very splendid new status regime that has been introduced, and in the magnificent style that now obtains, he will hold five o'clock teas and ten o'clock dinners for the Chinamen. No doubt our ambassador to China will hold pink teas and invite all the Chinese aristocracy. He will invite these Chinese to his social functions: "Will you have pink tea with me this afternoon?" "Thanks; I will Mr. Ambassador. I believe in equality of status; so do you."
The Prime Minister of Australia came to Canada after the last Imperial conference and he gave certain addresses in this country, speaking before the Canadian clubs. And by the way, may I observe here that some of our Canadian clubs are no more Canadian than some of the Empire clubs are imperial. However, as I say, that gentleman gave addresses

Foreign Relations-Mr. Church
in Canada on the results of the Imperial conference to the oversea dominions, and he was severely called down by the Prime Minister of this country who in effect practically told him to mind his own business. This was in reference to what Australia and New Zealand had done at the Imperial conference. Those two dominions at the Imperial conference, instead of whining from the housetops about their status, instead of complaining about this, that and the other, went prepared with an economic brief, and were willing to sit at the round table and discuss things, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier did when he represented the people of this country at similar conferences. Canada cannot expect to do all the talking in the empire, to suggest all the imperial policies for the motherland, and have the British taxpayer shoulder the cost of defending the empire. Why should Canada do all the talking and shouting from the housetops and the mother country-the British taxpayer-foot the bill? Yet that is what it amounts to under this magnificent new equality of status regime we have to-day.
The pacifist and the nationalist are much alike; the pacifists are for the new status, and so are the nationalists. I am a good Canadian nationalist, Mr. Speaker, because I am a true British imperialist. I do not want this country to enjoy the fruits of freedom and have the British taxpayers pay for the protection which our commerce is given on the high seas. A true Canadian nationalist will not want Canada to appear before the rest of the world as a pauper in this regard. But that is the position that Canada will occupy if this changed status is brought about. Canada is not a nation and never was a nation; we are part and parcel of the British Empire and shall continue to be, though we had a carload of gentlemen like the hon. member for Labelle prepared to state otherwise. There are many problems which should have been taken up at the Imperial conference and which were not there discussed.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Has the hon. member concluded?


Thomas Langton Church: No, Mr. Speaker.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the hon. member merely wishes to conclude his speech I think the house will give unanimous consent, so that we may take the motion.


Thomas Langton Church: It is eleven o'clock and I wish to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Tuesday, May 29, 1928