1930-04-08

BANKING AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce-Mr. Hay.

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of the Canadian National Railways for the year ending December 31, 1929-Mr. Crerar.


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Young (Weyburn), for the concurrence in the first report of the select standing committee appointed to supervise the official report of the debates of the House of Commons.
I3n6	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. McGibbon
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would
move that the report be referred back to the committee for further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
RUSSIAN ANTHRACITE COAL On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT K. SMITH (Cumberland): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) what steps, if any, is the government taking, or does it propose to take, to prevent the entry into Canada of anthracite coal produced in Russia under conditions of sweated labour at a cost of a rouble a day, equivalent to eighteen cents, as mentioned in the House of Commons in London yesterday by Sir Newton Moore?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was good
enough to give me notice of this question. I might say the government had read the statement of Sir Newton Moore and we are talcing steps to ascertain the facts. When we have the facts before us the matter will be given careful consideration.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Might I ask the Prime Minister if steps will be taken to establish a trade commissioner in Russia in order that the government may ascertain the facts?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That also will have to receive consideration.
RADIO BROADCASTING On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) if it is his intention to bring down before the Easter recess legislation in connection with the radio report.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: The matter is going to be referred to a special committee, which will be appointed in a day or two.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Do I understand from the statement of the minister that there will be no bill introduced into the house?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not at present. The report itself will be referred to the committee.



SUPPLY-UNEMPLOYMENT AMENDMENT OF MB. HEAPS TO MOTION FOR COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie

King for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Heaps.
['Regarding this\nparticular item, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for Mel-fort (Mr. McLean) suggested there should be\na wider distribution of literature with respect to the league. I know of no way in which it can be done more effectively than by the League of Nations Society. Ordinary membership of the society costs only a dollar a year, but that does not pay the expenses incident to distributing the bulletins and other papers sent out to the ordinary members. The more help the government gives to the society the more they will be able to distribute this literature to their ordinary members. That is the cheapest and simplest way of securing that distribution.']
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-On-tario):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution of the member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) now before the house is that some immediate action be taken by this parliament to solve the question of unemployment in Canada. That there is unemployment in Canada I think probably no one will deny. That there are many causes for this unemployment I think we all admit, and some of the causes I hope to discuss this afternoon.
Chief among these causes, sir, and the one that I want to emphasize first, is that responsibility for the grave condition of unemployment in Canada to-day can be laid mainly at the door of this government. This government has lost its vision; it has lacked courage and it has had no definite policy. There has been no unity in the fiscal system sponsored by the present government. Under these conditions how can we expect to have an aggressive government, one that would shape its policy so as to give industry a chance and make employment plentiful. We might oast our eyes backwards for the short period of ten years and recall the time when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) went up and down the country seeking election. At that time he painted a new heaven and a new earth for the people of this country, if they would only put him in power. After having been there ten years we find that the picture has faded and the vision has disappeared. To-day we have a condition of affairs which is probably worse than it has been for the last ten or fifteen years. Not only the Prime Minister, but his cabinet as well is involved.
Sitting near the right hon. gentleman I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). We are told that he is weighing in his left hand a protectionist budget and in his right hand a free trade budget. He has been unable to decide which to give the country in order best to meet the political expediency of his party. As a result of this, interest in business is lagging and unemployment in Canada is on the increase. Then, there is the great protectionist the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). I think everyone in the house will remember when he stood in his place about a year ago and gave that patriotic Canadian speech for which he received the applause of nearly every hon. member. But alas to-dav we find that the idol has fallen and that his feet were clay. Next we have the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar), and at this time I pause to offer him

Unemployment-Mr. McGibbon
my personal congratulations upon his return to the House of Commons and to the government. In addition to that I extend congratulations to my leader (Mr. Bennett) the member for West Calgary, that the Minister of Railways has joined the present government. I have watched the career of the hon. gentleman for thirteen years. I have seen him partially destroy at least two parties, and now he has joined the funeral march which will help to bury the present government. I remember when in 1919 he left the Union government, because its policy of protection was too high; I remember when he was in the old museum as leader of the Progressive party. I remember how he led that party for a few months or a year and then let it drift to the tender mercies of the present leader of that party. After wandering for a time through the wilderness he has returned to his first love; he has joined the present Liberal party and he has taken the portfolio of Minister of Railways and Canals.
Then, sir, we have the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). We all know how he has gone up to the attic and brought down the old bundle of hay called free trade. We know how the hon. gentleman has clasped it to his heart and sounded the death knell of a protective policy for this country. That is not all, Mr. Speaker. Following that we have the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) who has assumed the portfolio which ought to be one of the most important offices in this government. The machinery under the control of the hon. gentleman is in a dilapidated condition; the cylinders are missing, the gears are stripped and the tires are deflated. He has attempted the military tactics which we used in the army of knowing nothing, hearing nothing, seeing nothing and doing nothing. Consequently when we consider the aggregation of men who call themselves a cabinet, when we consider the diversified ideas they have as to the fiscal policy of this country, and the fact that they have been in office for the last eight or ten years, can we wonder that to-day business is stagnant, unemployment is increasing and hard times again exist in the Dominion of Canada.
While I was considering the cause of the present conditions I turned up the book which was written by the Prime Minister, and on page 518 I read the following words, which are very significant when we consider the present situation in this house and in the Dominion of Canada:
There is a crafty opportunism which would prefer that principles and rules should not be too definitely stated, an unprincipled strategy that is continually shifting its position in order
to avoid impending responsibilities, or repudiating principles that some immediate temporary advantage may be gained. Such practices are destructive of the very foundations of industrial justice. Law and order cannot exist without stability; and stability cannot endure where opportunism prevails.
I wondered as I read that paragraph if the Prime Minister was speaking as a prophet because certainly to-day the voice of history has recorded the accuracy of that prophecy, as it applies to the present government. They have been opportunists from the day they came into office, and we know that one thing they have always lacked has been stability in their policy of government.
1 have said that there is unemployment in this country to-day. I would like to ask this house if it is not the duty of every country to furnish employment for its people. Every' man and woman in Canada who is not a para-site and who wishes work should be given the-opportunity. When we consider that this country is not able to supply work for at least one hundred thousand people, to say nothing of the 700,000 that the policy of the government has driven out of Canada, I ask, what have been the results of such a policy? What policy have they at the present time?
The late John Bright in speaking in the British House of Commons charged the government of the day with the duties which he thought belonged to the government of the country. In effect, he said that the life of every nation rested in the cottage and unless the light of their legislation and the beauty of their statesmanship could shine there they had not learned the lesson of government, and their people could not be a happy people or their nation a great nation.
Applying that test to the government of the day, assuming it to be a fair measure by which we can judge the results of the last ten years, I ask the Prime Minister and his government, what are the conditions in this country to-day? A few days ago the Prime Minister made a statement in this house similar to one that he made before the representatives of the cities of western Canada when they attended before him in connection with unemployment. He stated on those occasions that there was no unemployment in Canada at the present time-or at least no unusual unemployment. I have in my hands a statement prepared by the Department of Labour covering the province of Ontario. It deals with such cities as Belleville, Brantford, Chatham, Cobalt, Fort William, Guelph, Hamilton, Kingston, Kitchener, London, Niagara Falls, North Bay, Oshawa, Pembroke, Peterborough, Port Arthur, St. Catharines, St. Thomas, Toronto and Windsor, a cross sec-
1358	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. McGibbon
tion of the entire province, and it indicates that to-day there are some 43,000 people unemployed, which is about 100 per cent more than were unemployed at this time last year. In view of these facts, Mr. Speaker, I ask you whether the Prime Minister has taken the proper attitude towards this question ir refusing assistance in order to relieve this emergency which exists throughout Canada.
Just for a moment, sir, I should like to refer to what was done in the United States by President Hoover. This is not new to most hon. members, but probably they have not realized the magnitude of the result. You will remember that when the stock market crash occurred last fall President Hoover called together all the heads of industry from the different states of the union and encouraged them to do everything they could to tide over the unemployment situation and the business depression that was then in view. It may be news to hon. gentlemen to learn that as a result of that conference no less than six billion dollars is being spent in the United States at present which would1 not have been spent, had it not been for the leadership given by President Hoover.
We on this side of the house have not been backward in giving advice and indicating remedies to this government. We have brought to their notice the question of the construction of a transcontinental highway which, if it had been undertaken, would have absorbed a great deal of the unemployed; we have brought up the question of technical education which, though it would not bring *any immediate relief, would at least indicate the path industry might take in the future which eventually would have a marked effect upon the employment situation. We have brought up the matter of the New Zealand treaty under which the importations of butter this year probably will amount to some fifty million pounds. That much labour has been taken away from the farms of Canada, and it must be remembered that this treaty affects not only butter but the allied beef and pork industries. It has been stated that there are 500,000 less hogs on the farms to-day than was the case a few years ago. If the government had) taken steps to remedy these conditions, sir, we might not be in such a deplorable condition at the present time.
In my riding there is a small town, sir, where we have an industry which has been shut down for the first time in fifty years. The other day I asked the proprietor how many people he employed, and he said he usually had 70 or 80 people working for him. I have looked up the importations of woollens, and I find that the millions of dollars' worth

which have been imported would keep 200 mills of that capacity going the year round. With a proper application of the policy which we should have in this country could we not increase employment to a very considerable extent? I also have in my hand a despatch which states that maple flooring has been dumped in the city of Windsor at $58 per thousand feet, duty paid, which is the equivalent to a price of about $43 per thousand in the United States. I desire particularly to bring this to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue. I am told that this flooring is sold in the United States at present for S69 per thousand, but it is dumped into this country at a total cost of $58 and the result is that many of our mills are idle or working only half time. That is another way in which this government could take some action to provide work in this country for our own labourers. Why must we hand over these benefits to the United States? I say it is too great a price to pay, even as a gesture to that country. We want this work done in our own country; we want it kept for our own people, and if we had a proper policy we would' not have the unemployment which is so prevalent to-day.
While going to the city of Toronto from my own town two weeks ago I was talking to a gentleman who is in the manufacturing business. He manufactures small show cases such as you see in cigar shops filled with flash lights, Tuckett cigars, and so on, and he had been manufacturing those show cases in this country for a great many years. A few months ago he received an order from the United States for 125,000 of these cases, and when he sent over his first shipment he was met with a duty of 27i per cent. By the time he got to the border with his second shipment, however, he found that the duty had gone up to 00 per cent, which made it prohibitive. In effect they said, "These goods can be made in this country, and they must be made here by United States workmen." I submit, sir, that that is a sound policy for the United States and it would be a good policy for Canada as well, because it would keep work in this country for our own men and women.
I was very much surprised this morning, when I picked up the newspaper, to see that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) had, in a very mild manner it is true, repudiated the statement of his leader the other day that he would not give five cents to the unemployed in any province which had a Tory government.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: He did not say that.

Unemployment-Mr. St. Pere


Peter McGibbon: I wonder if we have
now a third leader in the Liberal party. I was wondering whether the Minister of the Interior or the Prime Minister was speaking for the party, but apparently the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) has taken that task upon himself. I have referred to the lack of a policy and to the lack of unity in the cabinet; the other night we heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour flatly contradict each other on the matter of unemployment insurance, so I am beginning to wonder if the leadership of the Liberal party is at the head or at the tail, or whether it is back in the constituency of Weyburn. I was also impressed, in reading the paper the other night, with the speech delivered by the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) in Brampton, in the course of which he had to apolozize for his leader. Was he authorized to tell the people that the Prime Minister had made that statement in a moment of anger? Was he authorized to say that he made it after being provoked by the members on this side of the house, when Hansard will show that there were no interruptions up to that time? The Prime Minister asked this house not to interrupt him, and Hansard of that day will show that there were practically no interruptions up to the time the Prime Minister made what I think was a very deliberate and intended statement, that the unemployed of any province under a Tory administration would not receive five cents from this government. After hearing that statement I wondered whether or not there was any humanity in the heart of a prime minister who would refuse the men, women and children of this country any assistance because for the time 'being they happen to be living under the rule of a Conservative government. I could not help but think of those days in past history when the Christians were slaughtered to make a Roman holiday, and wondered if that state of affairs were to be repeated in Canada under the rule of the right hon. the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister intend to prevent the unemployed of this country from offering their prayers to the Divine Being, and to ask them to cast their eyes towards him and towards his government and say: Give us this day our daily bread. Does he want the unemployed of this country to bow down and worship at the altar of Liberalism in order that they may receive some sustenance for their starving wives and children.
Who pays the taxes of this country? The returns for the income and customs taxes, as well as for the Post Office Department, will show that the province of Ontario pays a considerable proportion into the treasury of the hon. Prime Minister. Who authorized him to say to the people of this country in general, and to the people of the province of Ontario in particular that although they have contributed heavily to the treasury of this country this government will not give their unemployed a dollar for bread? If we had not been here in the house and heard that statement, or had not received a confirmation from those who were present, it would be hard to believe that a prime minister could stand in his place in the House of Commons and issue such a message to the people of Canada. However, there is an election appearing on the political horizon, and the people of Canada will remember that when they were hungry they were refused bread, and they will mark their disapproval towards this government in no uncertain way.
Mr. E. C. ST-PERE (Hochelaga) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, from the very outset of this debate, I have repeatedly heard that unemployment, instead of being, properly speaking, an international problem, is a national one for Canada. I do not deny- and one must yield to evidence-that there exists unemployment in our midst; however, I also believe, and this on very conclusive statistics, that unemployment is to-day an international problem.
When an interesting question crops up in the house, unfailingly the poor worker is dragged into the discussion. The worker, so to speak, is nothing else to-day than a political football which is tossed to and fro by the contending factions for power, in this country.


Mr. BOURASSA (Translation):: Hear, hear.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): Perusing the statistics of the world press, I find in the London Daily Herald, the official organ of the English Labour party, that the United States have 6,000,000 unemployed; Germany, 4,500,000; Russia, 2,000,000; Great Britain, 1,500,000; Japan, 800,000; Italy, 500,000; and that about 18,000,000 unemployed are scattered among the nations of the world.
It is, sir, but reasonable to use in a discussion of this kind, some common sense, to step out, so to speak, from the political arena in order to help more efficiently this very worker which we so much desire to protect.
To bring some order to a debate of this kind, since unemployment is regarded as an important question of the hour-it is always a question of the hour since we must love one another-it is well to investigate first what are the causes of unemployment.
The primary cause met with is the system in practice since a number of years of

Unemployment-Mr. St. Pere
"rationalizing" industry. What is this new system which inevitably casts on the street a great number of city workers? It is the merger taking place, to-day, under the wing of large commercial and financial trusts, the merger of badly equipped industries with those posesffling up to date machinery. I represent the largest labour division of the city of Montreal and I know what is happening to those various industries. The economic reorganization of Europe which took place during the after-war period, prevents to-day certain countries manufacturing articles, sold previously in large quantities, from selling their overproduction on those same markets which they controlled in the past. If we examine the primary cause, so to speak, of unemployment in England, what do we find? In Wales especially we find a succession of strikes taking place. We note that it is the lack of coal markets abroad which brought on those numerous strikes and consequently, as a logical sequence, caused the decrease of work in the large English dock-yards. The celebrated economist, Keynes, of England, recently stated that the cause of unemployment in that country, was the result of the English money system reverting to the gold standard. Following the period of inflation the English money market went through a period of depression which, after depriving the small industries of the necessary capital, inevitably led to the unemployment of a large number of people who previously were employed in those small English factories.
What is Canada's position to-day? Canada, owing to the sale on the English market of foreign wheat shipped from the Argentine Republic, France, Transylvania, etc., finds it, at present, impossible to ship abroad the surplus of her crop. What was the result in my own riding of this state of things which, I hope, will only be temporary? Two of the largest wheat elevators in the city of Montreal are in the Hochelaga division. During last summer many labourers found themselves without work owing to the impossibility of selling our wheat abroad. We cannot force Europe, after all, to consume our wheat if she does not. need it. These people found themselves on the street because we could not ship abroad the surplus of our crop. The dockers were obliged to go without work, as well as the employees of our large railway companies. The Angus shops are located in my riding and so are the employees of the various departments of these shops; the employees of the repair shop complain that they work only part of the time because the cars are not in use and need no repairs.

For instance, take the employees of our great railway systems. Let us be honest enough to admit openly the facts: it is well known, to-day, that our large railway companies are endeavouring to improve and centralize more and more their system, to utilize as means of traction the most powerful locomotives which, to-daj', draw as many as eighty to one hundred cars, thus replacing three ordinary locomotives and thereby depriving of work about twelve persons daily, as we must remember that these persons work in two shifts.
This moreover does away with brakesmen, freight train conductors, etc. The enumeration would be endless and I have but forty minutes at my disposal.
Let us now turn to the people who have a trade. I have in my riding large mills known as the Dominion Textile. It has the reputation of paying small wages to its employees, notwithstanding that it enjoys a good protective tariff. A girl weaver who, a few years ago, had charge of five looms, can to-day take charge of about twenty. Thus four persons are dispensed with in each group of workers. One can therefore figure out from a given number of people employed, who previously had work in the weaving department, how many have been dispensed with owing to the improvement on machinery.
Let us now consider construction activities It is well known that in our large cities, with the exception of certain big companies who own up to date equipment, there exist no small carpentry or general construction contractors who own the necessary equipment to undertake during the winter months concrete foundation works, etc. so that at the end ol the autumn, owing to uncontrollable circumstances, there are still a large number of trade workers who are deprived of work. No one is without knowing that.
I could enumerate a number of industries where similar conditions exist. For instance, in the boot and shoe industry, the perfection of machinery with regard to quantity production, eliminates a great number of workers.
There seems, in this house, a preference shown for United States statistics in supporting an argument and laying down a principle in a positive manner. Let me quote from a report of the Bureau of Labour statistics in the United States so as to show in what way modern machinery has increased production. The increases range from 24 per cent in the boot and shoe industry to 178 per cent in aut mobiles and 292 per cent in the manufacture of automobile tires. From 1904 to 1927, the automobile workers have increased

Unemployment-Mr. St. Pere
their output by 600 per cent. Four industries averaged 170 per cent increase from 1899 to 1927. Blast furnace workers contributed 360 per cent; steel mill hands, 230 per cent; petroleum refiners 200 per cent; and the leather tanners 50 per cent. And, what might be of interest to a great number in this House who are interested in the paper industry, is that from 1925 to 1927, the increase in the output of our pulp and paper mills has been 10 per cent.
Secretary Davies of the Labour Department of the United States states that the American industries produce to-day 25 per cent more than two years ago and employ 3,000,000 workers less. Let those who take such an interest in the great labour movement and those who simulate such a deep love for the workman, preaching to him the sermon on the mount, put into practice the good advices that the sermon contains, let them all listen to what the Executive Committee of the American Federation of Labour declared a short time ago; their report states: that in the first half of the year 1929, there were in the United States about 500,000 fewer wage earners engaged in industry than in 1919, and about 1,000,000 less than in 1920.
There is another cause which has greatly contributed to unemployment in this country, and though I may shock many, I shall certainly not let the opportunity slip by of pointing it out, because many of my constituents have been the victims. Unlimited immigration from foreign countries, it matters not whether this immigration comes to us from the British Isles or from elsewhere; I shall even go further, for I maintain that immigration from the British Isles has been the principal cause of unemployment, at least in the province of Quebec. I cannot understand by virtue of what false reasoning resting on a misinterpretation of patriotism, one so often forgets that the first right to work in this country belongs to Canadians. Hardly has the immigrant from the British Isles set foot on the wharves, in Montreal or Quebec, that he is invited to replace in our factories a French, Irish, English or Scotch Canadian, whose ancestors have been living in this country for nearly 200 years. I am glad to note that the Government has taken the necessary steps to put an end to this invasion.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Hear, hear I
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation):	Let us not
circumscribe the cause of unemployment to industries only. There also exists what the Americans have agreed, for some time past, to call technological unemployment. There is in this House quite a number of business men.
In their own offices, these gentlemen always relying on the principles that improvement is the keynote in business, have been quick to note that the addressograph, mimeograph and etc. have contributed largely in dispensing with the service of numerous employees.
After having pointed out a few causes of unemployment, it is well to look for, if not an infallible cure, at least a remedy to be used in decreasing unemployment. I appeal in this matter to the members of this House who are manufacturers. I also take the opportunity of pointing out to the artisans- those who attend our technical institutions, hoping to become foremen of workshops or even great industrial leaders-the views of Senator Couzens of the United States, who, starting from a simple worker's bench, became the partner of Mr. Ford in his immense plant in the United States and to-day looked upon as one of the wealthiest men in the American republic. This is the advice given by Mr. Couzens to solve the unemployment problem:
Senator James Couzens of Michigan, probably one of the richest men in the United States Senate, declared lately in the Survey-Graphic Magazine: "If every industry were to pay its men by the year instead of by the hour or the day, industry would find a way to stabilize its production so that it got its money's worth.
Competent management finds a way to go through periods of depression and it can find a way to help its workers through them."
There are many industries in this country which have stabilized dividends. There are great railroads, great utility companies which send their quarterly dividends to their stockholders whether times are good or bad.
Professor Squires deplores the lack of cooperation among the employees so as to minimize the crisis of unemployment.
Here are two other views which certainly deserve to be noted:
"Business crises and unemployment are as preventable as smallpox" declared Edward A. Filene of Boston, one of the leading merchants of the country. "The old idea that wages come out of profits was all wrong," said Mr. Filene. It's a good business to pay higher wages than you have to.
What pays is to make prices as low and wages as high as possible. The "new capitalism" understands that business can prosper only when employee and the public are prosperous. High wages pay-and they don't come out of profits. "Only 20 per cent," he says, "of American business understand the truth of the 'new capitalism' but the other 80 per cent will be put out of business if they don't learn it."
Mr. Henry S. Dennison, manufacturer, of Farmingham, Massachusetts, states:
The old idea was that you got rich by making others poor. The new idea is that you get rich by making others richer.

Unemployment-Mr. St. Pere
Many other means have been suggested to counteract the crisis of unemployment. The railway employees of the United States are clamouring for the week of five days; the employees of the large steel corporations in the United States are disatisfied with the wages, at present, paid to them, basing their contentions on the services they render to those large corporations. This is what is now happening in the United States in connection with the wages paid to the employees of the United States Steel Corporation:
The United States Steel Corporation made a peace-time record of prosperity in 1919. After paying all operating expenses, paying interest on bonds outstanding and premiums on bonds retired; after allowing for Federal taxes and setting aside more than $63,000,000 for depreciation of plants and depletion of ore reserves, the Steel Trust still had $197,592,000 net profits.
This is a gain of more than $84,000,000 over the net profits of 1928. It is stated to be about $20 per share of common stock outstanding.
But the article adds: steel prosperity is for steel owners only. No workers need apply for an increase of wages.
Big wages are better than big profits in providing employment. High wages help a hundred families where high dividends help one.
My allotted time, sir, is short, I must therefore be brief. What would be the great remedy to guard against unemployment, taking into consideration the quotations I have just given and without returning to the system of private industry which, undoubtedly, would tend much more to put into practice the sermon on the mount? I state, with all the seriousness that a Christian must bring into the discussion of such problems, that it would be necessary to christianize anew industries and trusts; that it would be necessary to inform these great organizations, which have shareholders spread all over North America, that it is their duty, like that of those who in the past were at the head of private industries, to consider their employees not as slaves but as members of the large Christian community. These people should practise what a large manufacturer in the north of France told his employees: "that he worked to earn and earned to give." Far be it from my thoughts to set at variance capital and labour. That would be the last of the doctrines I would advocate in my riding. But for heaven's sake, when orders pour in by the thousands, when these large manufacturers divide among themselves enormous dividends in prosperous times, let them have the foresight to place in their reserves sums that they could later use to relieve their employees in times of crisis.
The great cure, say our Conservative friends, would be a protective tariff which, at present, is supposed to be doing wonders in the United 
States, notwithstanding that American statisticians themselves state that 24,000,000 Americans are, at present, suffering hardships, in spite of the high tariff wall the United States surrounds itself against foreign products.
In Germany to-day-it is an understood thing-big companies split large dividends among themselves, but unemployment tends to so greatly increase that the People's Party have lately advised Field Marshal Von Hindenberg, President of the cabinet, to impose what they call a "sacrifice tax," that is to increase by 10 per cent the income tax. With regard to insurance against unemployment, it is suggested to increase the premium by half of one per cent, because the funds are exhausted. In order to guard against all inexpediencies arising from the world-wide business crisis, they are considering taxing tobacco, soft drinks and numerous other articles of first necessity, taxes which will further burden the masses. I do not think it necessary to dwell any further on the subject; however, at the risk of being looked upon as a dictator, let me quote the views of Mussolini: '^Parliaments are not in a position to solve the unemployment problem, but this great question should be referred to a commission of experts, and this has already been done in Italy, under the name of "Corpora-zioni" comprising representatives of all classes of society who are studying this great problem free from all political considerations."
I cannot, Mr. Speaker, support the amendment to the motion to go into committee of ways and means, for the following reasons: first its adoption would mean a vote of nonconfidence in a government which has done a great deal for the labouring classes; secondly, it secures but a small pittance for our unemployed ; lastly it would be but a poor remedy for the present depression which our opponents wish to make use of for political purposes. I am a member of the Committee on Industrial and International Relations of the House. Last year when the question of unemployment cropped up it was decided to suggest to the government that they should come to an understanding with the provinces. Were I asked my views with reference to social insurance, I have no hesitation in saying that a well conceived and wisely applied insurance against unemployment, would be very beneficial to our working classes; but not insurance under the control of a political body, as that created by Lloyd George, in England, when under the stress of an afterwar opportunist movement, he made all the English people participate in the insurance benefits derived from the covenanters. I am

Unemployment-Mr. Lacombe
in favour of an insurance against unemployment in which would participate government, industry owners and workers, as requested by the Trade and Labour Congress and the Catholic Unions, and which would be of a nature to satisfy entirely all our workers besides relieving the unemployment crisis. Even then, I revert to my first statement, and say to the manufacturers: If you wish the workers to contribute to this insurance fund against unemployment, pay them reasonable wages. There lies the solution of the whole problem, sir, and I trust this will take place before long and will help to assure to the working classes of this country a fair share of prosperity and justice to which they are entitled.


Mr. LIGUORI LACOMBE (Laval-Two Mountains) (Translation):: Unemployment-Mr. Lncombe
tion for the city workers. Let us further encourage our industries. To the man on the land, let us give the necessary grants to promote agriculture. The present government, in 1929 alone, increased its agriculture subsidies to $118,000,000. It was only just, it was a sound policy. However, all must not hinge on subsidies. Modem methods of farming demand training. Moreover, cooperation is a sure pledge of success. Let us direct our best initiatives towards this end and towards obtaining results from our efforts.
Let me conclude my remarks by stating that personally my entire confidence reposes in this government, which for nearly ten years has never ceased applying itself to improving our finances.
In a speech which was a credit to this parliament and country, the right hon. Prime Minister eloquently depicted the work accomplished in the last decade. The constant reducing of the public debt, the cutting down of taxes, the increase of our production, the progress of trade and industry, all bear witness to the sound administration which presides over our destinies. The stabilization and progress of Canada's finances during the afterwar period, testify to the magnificent effort which Canadians must acknowledge.
I am well aware that the hon. members of the opposition, are endeavouring to close the eyes of the ratepayer to this actual state of prosperity. This of course is a part played by all oppositions. However, when the people will be called upon to choose between the wholesome deeds of one party and the misdeeds of the other; when the Canadian people will be called upon to give their verdict on the present political situation; will it be possible for them to ignore our economic progress and new prerogatives as a nation?


[u"I have listened with much interest to the splendid speech delivered by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. St-Pere). It is a fine oratorical achievement and an irrefutable answer to the statements of the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon). May I now, sir, refer, in answer to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst), to the Labour Gazette, at page 193 of the February issue, 1930. This is what the Labour Gazette has to say:\nAs is customary at the beginning of the year, employment on January 1, 1930, showed a pronounced curtailment which involved practically the same proportion of the aggregate staffs as that indicated on January 1, 1929 and 1928. Activity in recent months has been at an exceptionally high level, so that many employers took the opportunity of closing their entire plants during the holiday season for necessary repairs and inventories, as well as to provide a vacation for their staffs. However, the situation continued better than on the corresponding date any other year since the record was instituted in 1920.\nFollowing up this statement, let me again refer to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, in connection with the Maritime Provinces. The Labour Gazette adds:\nIn contrast with the losses usually recorded at the beginning of the year, there was an increase in employment in the Maritime Provinces; this occurred chiefly in transportation, and was due to the opening of the winter posts.\nI dare not compare the idealistic views of the hon. members on your left, Sir, with the masterful statements that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made a few days ago, on economic conditions in Canada.\nBefore, sir, making a few comments, I wish to state first that the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) is an unfair presentation of economic conditions, such as they exist in Canada.\nForeign capital invested in our national enterprises is on the increase. For the year 1929, our output from the mines increased by \xa720,500,000 over that of 1928.\nThe province of Quebec alone, last year, showed an increase of nearly \xa78,000,000. Is it possible to conclude with such excellent results that unemployment is greater in this country? In Montreal alone, industries, in 1927, were paying in wages the sum of $113,797,512. The number of employees, men and women, was 98,353. I took these figures from the Agricultural and Industrial Review, in the April issue, 1930. The same review adds that the figures for the years 1928 and 1929 will be much higher, thanks to an extraordinary industrial expansion.\nI alluded to a few private industries. Were I to enter into further detatils for the purpose of establishing, always by official statistics, that the prosperity of our large basic industries does not justify the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, I would never end. It would have been better for the hon. member, on his recent trip to Montreal, to investigate at the very sources, to visit the large plants of the metropolis and its port. His views on Montreal would have been fairer to the people of that large city, and more satisfactory for him to relate. Perhaps he would have refrained from moving this amendment which, beside making this House lose precious moments, will have no practical result.\nI have been a constant admirer of the champions of the people who sweat, toil and suffer hardships. With pride have I always championed their cause on all occasions and in all places where I was privileged to do so. I am aware that the fate of the workers is intimately linked to our economic evolution in all fields of activities. But I have already stated, and now repeat it, among the basic industries of Canada, there is one which our governments must never lose sight of. Agriculture gives bread to all men, women and children in whatsoever country we find the human race. Agriculture employs 60 per cent of Canada's toilers; manufactures, forests, mines and fisheries 40 per cent. If nothing must be neglected to assist these industries, let us always bear in mind the one which makes for our prosperity as a nation. Let us find both work for the city artisans and the toilers of the land. To attain that end is it necessary to have recourse to the so-called remedy concocted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps)? Not so. All true Canadians have courage, perseverance and valiance. Inspired by a generous policy, let us still broaden our program of construe-", "Unemployment-Mr. Lncombe\ntion for the city workers. Let us further encourage our industries. To the man on the land, let us give the necessary grants to promote agriculture. The present government, in 1929 alone, increased its agriculture subsidies to $118,000,000. It was only just, it was a sound policy. However, all must not hinge on subsidies. Modem methods of farming demand training. Moreover, cooperation is a sure pledge of success. Let us direct our best initiatives towards this end and towards obtaining results from our efforts.\nLet me conclude my remarks by stating that personally my entire confidence reposes in this government, which for nearly ten years has never ceased applying itself to improving our finances.\nIn a speech which was a credit to this parliament and country, the right hon. Prime Minister eloquently depicted the work accomplished in the last decade. The constant reducing of the public debt, the cutting down of taxes, the increase of our production, the progress of trade and industry, all bear witness to the sound administration which presides over our destinies. The stabilization and progress of Canada's finances during the afterwar period, testify to the magnificent effort which Canadians must acknowledge.\nI am well aware that the hon. members of the opposition, are endeavouring to close the eyes of the ratepayer to this actual state of prosperity. This of course is a part played by all oppositions. However, when the people will be called upon to choose between the wholesome deeds of one party and the misdeeds of the other; when the Canadian people will be called upon to give their verdict on the present political situation; will it be possible for them to ignore our economic progress and new prerogatives as a nation?"]
Mr. MANION:: I ister of National R
Kellner,
McGregor,
Black (Halifax), Hodgins,
Matthews,
Kaiser,
Anderson (Halton), MacNutt,
Stevens,
Manion,
Young (Toronto), Macdougall,
Bell (Hamilton), MacDonald
(Cape Breton), Ladner,
Lennox,
Maloney,
Dickie,
McGibbon,
Macdonald (Kings), Clark,
Ernst,
Bell (St.John),
Irvine,
Gott,
White (Mount Royal), Price,
Cowan,
Short,
Arthurs.
cas paired with the Min-venue (Mr. Euler).


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The question is on the main motion.
Main motion agreed to.


Hewitt Bostock: As regards the declaration of pairs, I pointed out on a former occasion during this session that a list of the pairs is given to the clerk, who registers them. The house does not officially recognize pairs.


Mr. HAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto East Centre (Mr. Matthews). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I was paired with the Minister of National Health (Mr. King). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BOWMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Hodgins). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McPHEE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MALONEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Guerin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. YOUNG (Toronto Northeast):: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Peter McGibbon: I was paired with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Aoung). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PRICE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. COWAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Allan). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SHORT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Foster). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Robert James Manion: I should like to put myself on record, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), with whom I was paired, is out of the house. I wish to state that had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BELL (St. John-Albert):: I was paired with the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. McDiarmid). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: Let me read what May says:	.
There can be no parliamentary recognition of this practice (pairing), although it has never been expressly condemned; and it is therefore conducted privately by individual members, or arranged by the gentlemen known as the "Whips" who are entrusted by their political parties with the office of collecting their respective forces on a division.
The whips give a list of the pairs to the clerk of the house. That saves much time.

Supply-External Affairs


Harry Bernard Short: I want to state, Mr. Speaker, that although I have a regular pair duly registered with the official whip, it has never appeared in Hansard when a vote was taken.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.



[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Office of the Secretary of the Governor General salaries, $34,500; contingencies, including house allowance of $1,500 per annum to the Secretary to the Governor General, $72,500.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is the same amount as was requested last year, with the exception of a slight increase to cover two statutory increases. There is a reduction in contingencies of $15,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Privy Council-salaries, $55,110; contingencies, $7,000.	B
Mr. GARDINER:: Would the Prime Minister explain what the vote of $7,000 for contingencies is for, and how much was spent under this head last year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is for printing and stationery, telegrams and items of the kind. The vote for salaries is $60 less this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
External Affairs-salaries, $103,855; contingencies, $72,500.
Mr. SPENCER:: Would the Prime Minister explain the increase in salaries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is really a decrease in the total vote. There is a slight increase in salaries and a larger decrease in contingencies. The increase in salaries is made up chiefly, I think, of statutory increases. The decrease in contingencies is accounted for by the lower amount required for cables and telegrams. I am afraid it is too small.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Apparently there is an increase of three on the staff-last year thirty-three, this year thirty-six. What are they, may I ask?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is provision for an additional clerk, an additional stenographer and one secretary.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

London- salaries and expenses of the office of the High Commissioner for Canada, including $2,000 additional salary for the High Commissioner to that authorized by chap, 15, R.S.C., $117,260.
Hugh Guthrie: May I ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister what is the total cost of the upkeep of the London office? I remember last session we were rather at cross purposes and in stating the amount when I was discussing the budget I put it much below what it actually was, I understand that there are other departments of the government which contribute money to the London office, and I should like to know the total cost of the office.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The figure in the estimates, $117,260, covers the salaries and expenses of the office of the High Commissioner for all of the offices that are included in Canada House where the High Commissioner has his office. There is an additional expenditure of $34,000 made by the Department of Public Works for the maintenance of the building.


Hugh Guthrie: Do they not also rent another building?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not the High Commissioner's office.


Mr. BENNETT:: They rent a part of the Sun Life building.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe the Department of Health and Pensions has an office in the Sun Life building.


Hugh Guthrie: Then apart from the
amount contributed by the public works department, do I understand there is no other expense to Canada in the maintenance of the High Commissioner's office in London? The $34,000 from public works and the $117,260 in this vote represent the total?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The $34,000
contributed by the public works department and the $117,260 for salaries and expenses, I understand, cover the entire cost. I might mention that the following departments of the Canadian government are represented in the Canada building together with the High Commissioner's office: immigration, trade and commerce, agriculture, customs, soldiers' civil re-establishment, Secretary of State. There are other offices not in the Canada building for archives and air.


Mr. GEARY:: Are these departments
charged with rental outside this amount?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am advised not.

Supply

External Affairs


George Reginald Geary: No charge is made to them at all?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not for those housed in the High Commissioner's office.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand part of this building is occupied as living quarters by some of the officials, and that in consequence you have to go out and rent other quarters. Is that correct?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I believe for
a time the secretary occupied part of the space on the top floor, but I understand he has not occupied it for some time past. Since Mr. Larkin's death my impression is that word came from the secretary that it might better suit his convenience and the convenience of the office if he returned temporarily to the particular quarters which he had formerly occupied, and he may be there at the moment; but if he is, it is purely temporary occupation.


Mr. CHURCH:: Mr. Chairman, while I
do not wish to criticize this particular vote, in my opinion the country is not getting the full advantage it should get from having this office in the old country. All the men who have filled the position of High Commissioner have done so with a great deal of credit and cost to themselves and no doubt they did the best they could for Canada; but I think if the country is to get the full benefit of this vote there should be some reorganization and expansion of the functions of the office. A large number of the duties of this office at present are of a social nature at the expense of the economic, and these duties have been increasing in the past year. When I compare the work that is being done by Australia House in the interests of the commonwealth with that done by Canada House for this Dominion, I find that Australia House is doing all the window dressing in trade and migration and is taking a prominent part in helping to solve the problems of the empire. In order to bring the products of Australia before the people of the old country and the advantages it offers to immigrants, Australia House has opened sub-agencies throughout the motherland while ours is in London alone. I am told that at the trade exhibition held in England last year Canada was not very well represented, and that Australia, New Zealand and the other dominions got a great deal more advertising. The old country papers that I read reported that Australia was doing all the window dressing as regards immigration, and opening new avenues of trade, and so on. I think Canada House might be doing
educational work with respect to marketing Canadian goods and products along economic lines. Since the 26th of January we have had representatives in London at a peace parley. You would almost think it was a six-power instead of a five-power parley. We are gradually interfering in the affairs of Europe generally. It will be noticed that the total vote for the Department of External Affairs now is over $610,000. With this present government it seems to be all external and nothing internal-we are posing as a nation when we are not a nation at all. I regret the death of the late High Commissioner. I am afraid he was not appreciated as a public servant should be. He was a man of high ideals and imbued with a strong sense of public duty. He did a great deal of good work for Canada both at home and in Great Britain. I am not criticizing the work done by him. I believe a lot of good work was done by him to advertise Canada and bring British capital here, but I believe a great deal more could be done in this connection by expanding the functions of the office. What is Canada House doing to-day? What is the function of the High Commissioner's office at the present time Doctor Skelton in his report to the Minister says that the duties of the office are growing, and they are taking on work that they did not do before. I do not know that it is the duty of the High Commissioner to visit every province in Canada and tell what he is doing in London. I think he should devote the whole of his	attention to promoting the
interests of Canada in the old land. This Australian House has been doing a great deal of missionary work which Canada House does not do. It is doing a great deal towards advertising Australia and towards promoting trade between Australia and Great Britain. It has taken up the new problems which have arisen out of unemployment, and is checking immigration with the old land. On the other hand the immigrants who arrive in Toronto are left stranded. We have the case of a man with his wife and family in distressed circumstances; their particular case finds its way to the newspapers, and when we inquire who was responsible for bringing them here the Immigration department denies all responsibility. The governmental agencies should be coordinated and should cooperate with each other. If Canada House is to exist it should assume new functions, and should check its work not only throughout the continent, but in Great Britain. In my opinion there are many other matters which might be taken up by Canada House. If the duties
Supply-External Affairs

lii6S
of that agency were less of a social character and directed more towards problems of economy, we would receive greater value from Canada House than we have received in the past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. MacKenzie King) a question. An inquiry reached me the other day as to whether or not .the official salary of the High Commissioner for Canada is subject to income tax in Great Britain. I was unable to give a definite answer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My understanding is that all High Commissioners have recently been exempted from the payment of income tax.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do they pay a tax at
home?	'


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid I cannot answer that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know, either,
but I was asked that question.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: May I be allowed to say that when I was High Commissioner I always paid an income tax in Canada on my salary but not on the contingencies. I may say that the income tax commissioners in Great Britain .thought that the High Commissioner should pay a tax in that country, but I objected to it. I brought the matter before the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Although the officials considered that under the law the High Commissioner was liable in Great Britain for income tax on his salary, I considered that such payment was not fair; I took the ground that it would be the Canadian government who would have to pay the tax, in case payment was insisted upon. I said that, as the High Commissioner paid income tax in Canada, he would naturally consider that the Dominion should pay any income tax in Great Britain, and that such a payment would be inconsistent with the position of the Dominion of Canada. The Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed with me, and the Treasury thereupon arranged to pay to the income tax commissioners the amount for which they considered1 the High Commissioner might be legally liable in Great Britain.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Washington-representation, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or any of its amendments, $100,000.
Mr. KAISER:: 1370	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-Tokyo
sire to remain a nation, we fix our policy to suit ourselves, we are to be told that we harbour the spirit of ill will towards these people. I have no desire to discuss the matter further, except to say that I think that statement of the Prime Minister was one of a very shocking nature. If he can show me where such a spirit exists in the old Tory homes of Ontario, then he will have shown me something which I have been unable to find in forty years of medical practice.
I think this vote should be analyzed. I am not so certain but that Mr. Massey is doing good work. I know that he gives splendid entertainments to the high class people who go to Washington from Canada; he is a magnificent entertainer, but this is being done at the expense of the common people of Canada and I am not so sure that we are obtaining full value for the money expended.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tokyo-representation, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or any of its amendments, $80,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Who decides the standard of expenditure in connection with these legations? I am informed by members of the Canadian community at Tokyo that although they are delighted in having a Canadian representative there they feel that this country must have lots of money judging by the amount which is flowing around at the present time. Could the Prime Minister give us the classification of this $80,000?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say to my hon. friend that in a world capital like Tokyo, where there are a large number of legations and embassies, a certain standard has prevailed for a considerable time as between the different countries. We have sought in a modest way to follow that standard. From the point of view of numbers we have perhaps the smallest legation in Tokyo. I do not think my hon. friend will find in any particular that the salary paid to any official is above that paid, for example, by the British government to an official holding a like position in the British embassy. As a matter of fact, the salaries paid are considerably lower than those paid by Great Britain for similar classes of service.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Could the committee have the classifications under which the amount is paid?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This vote is made up as follows:

Salaries	 $28,000
Allowances	 28,000
Telegraph, telephones and postage. 2,600
Printing and stationery	 2,000
Travelling	 3,500
Rent, fuel and light	 7,150
There is an additional amount to cover newspapers, office furnishings and sundries, which amount to a little over $8,000, making a total of $80,000. The premises rented include offices in the business part of the city and a residence for the minister in the residential section. The payment for residence is included in the allowances.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I protest against this new embassy idea which the government has started in several countries of the world. Canada is the only country within the British Empire, except the Irish Free State, which is appointing these ambassadors. There are six dominions at the present time, and when India obtains her status there will be seven. I do not desire to mention Washington, but probably one speech will cover all places.
This vote is absolutely unnecessary. The Hon. Mr. Marler is the present ambassador and minister extraordinary. He is extraordinary enough because he was a member of the cabinet for about four or five minutes. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) has referred to the fact that that gentleman was a director of a distillery in his constituency and ran against him for public office. He was defeated, but he is now a great ambassador over in Japan. In this connection the Toronto Globe says:
Hon. Herbert M. Marler, who goes as Canadian minister to Japan, will have to walk warily when doing business with the polished and efficient gentlemen who represent the eastern kingdom. It is not the easiest place in the world for a greenhorn to start "diplomating."
We were supposed to receive a new magna charta from the imperial conference. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) ably represented us there as a Dominion statesman, and he has become imbued with this new international statesmanship. That seems to be spreading all over the house. They used to go in twos and threes; now they go in threes and fours, and by next year they will be going in tens and twelves to become imbued with this spirit at these conferences. Doctor Skelton, the deputy minister, writes a very flowery departmental report regarding these embassies. I do not know what he is doctor of, unless it be of external affairs. I do not know that he is a medical doctor, but I do know that he is

Supply-External Affairs-Tokyo
a very fine citizen, a Queen's university graduate, but has gone too far on states. This supposed magna charta which we were to receive from the imperial conference has undermined the unity of the British Empire. It was to be brought before this house when they arrived back with their carpet bags, but it was found that it might interfere with the rights of the minority in this country, and that was the last we heard of it-it was silently interred. In my opinion dominion status is hardly distinguishable from complete separation, in fact, that is what it is. At Washington we were the first overseas dominion to blaze the trail. It was a new venture, a new departure. Now we have an ambassador at Tokyo and another at Paris. Later on we shall have one at Rome, one at Constantinople and one by one we shall have ambassadors in all the countries bordering on the seven seas.
Where is this all going to land this country? It is going to land it in a policy of empire disunity. Canada was the first dominion to have an embassy at Washington and then the Irish Free State appointed one. Formerly we had a British Ambassador representing the seven dominions including India and he used to act for us all. Now in matters of imperial policy Canada has a legation at Washington. She has there now one whom, I hear, is shortly to go to London. The net result of his work at Washington has been that the United States have gone to work and are raising the tariff against Canada at every opportunity. That is how they are treating this country. When one reads Doctor Skelton's report of the wonderful things done at Washington by Mr. Massey one is reminded of the lines:
And still they gazed, and still the wonder
grew
That one small head could carry all he
knew.
But his work has amounted to nothing as far as the good of this country is concerned. He goes up and down the United States making speeches, and Mr. Marler did the same thing when he crossed Canada in a blaze of glory, addressing boards of trade, empire clubs and Canadian clubs. I do not belong to any of these clubs and I do not want to belong to them. These Canadian clubs are no more Canadian than Empire clubs are imperial, but when it is a question of standing up for the unity of the British empire in matters of policy, these clubs are found wanting.
The net result of Mr. Massey's life work in the United States is that their exports to Canada from the United States have increased 2419-87i
by leaps and bounds. Their exports to Canada are almost $200,000,000 more than they were when Mr. Massey went to the United States two or three years ago, and congress is working night and day tinkering with the tariff against this country, and Mr. Massey has not prevented this economic war against Canada. All that he is doing is getting degrees from different universities from California to the Atlantic; in fact he is becoming very popular, like the Prime Minister, by degrees, but his work has been an absolute failure so far as the people of Canada are concerned.
Boiled down, what does all this mean? It means that we are just like the Irish Free State. Is the Irish Free State in the empire? I would say no. What have they done? They have changed' their flag; they will not have the union jack and they have put up the old rebel flag. They have removed the king's head from the coinage and from the postage stamps. They have refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the privy council. They have refused to appoint king's counsel to the courts. In fact, they have refused to acknowledge the king at all and at Geneva they have refused to have anything to do with Great Britain and the other dominions on empire policies. When Great Britain asks for concerted action, that is the answer they get from the Irish Free State. The government have a separate ambassador at Washington and we are making our own treaties with the United States. They have one at Tokyo and we are making our own treaties with Japan, and other countries. In 1925 a committee was appointed in Canada of seven gentlemen to change the flag and to abolish appeals to the privy council. Under the new status the Governor General is a mere viceroy, and if he appealed to Downing street, he would be told to follow the advice of our cabinet which is the only body who can advise him. We have before the house to-day a resolution from Geneva about an international court, a court with no power to act and enforce, and that could do nothing to carry out its functions if it had any. What is going to be the result of all this? It will simply mean that Canada will be a separate country independent of the motherland. Formerly in Tokyo our trade commissioners were doing all the work that was necessary in that country.
The Pacific question is not one which should be taken up in the haphazard manner in which it is being handled by Mr. Marler representing this government. In the first place in regard to the Pacific question Canada rescinded the treaty with Japan, and has refused also to keep step with the other sister

Supply-External Affairs-Tokyo
dominions, New Zealand and Australia. The government has refused to aid England in the establishment of a naval base at Singapore for the protection of British interests in the Pacific, although New Zealand and Australia gave large sums of money for that particular base which in the future will be the Gibraltar of British naval interests in the Pacific. The government has scrapped all that and now they have appointed Mr. Marler as ambassador at Tokyo. What has he done? I have read some of the speeches which this gentleman has delivered in the city of Toronto and other places about his work and even as good a Liberal paper as the Globe criticizes him. The Globe says:
It is a new path that is being blazed. We are told it is made necessary by the new dominion status. Canada, however, is the first dominion to lay aside temerity and embark on the voyage of discovery and experiment by appointing ministers to the United States, France and Japan. She therefore will have to answer to the other dominions of the commonwealth if the undertaking is a failure from the empire standpoint. She has gone much further even than the Irish Free State.
Just how many competent commentators as the Prime Minister of Australia during the Great war view Canada's departure with fear, it is not easy to learn. It is not customary for public men in other parts of the empire to speak out as freely as he has done about a sister dominion, and therefore the thoughts he expressed a few weeks ago may be more representative than we realize. "If we examine the position closely," he wrote, with particular reference to Washington, "we shall find some disturbing facts. Nations are so inter-dependent to-day that what anyone does reacts more or less seriously upon all, and this is most particularly true of the nations within the British commonwealth, for between them the relations are, of course, much more intimate than are those existing between other nations. Every act and every word of the United States reacts upon the world at large. And naturally we desire that her policy shall proceed along lines compatible with the welfare, not merely of Canada, but of the empire as a whole. But the circumstances of the different dominions vary materially; a policy which serves the immediate interests of Canada-or that seemed to the Canadian people to do so-might prejudice the other dominions or Britain."
For example, what Mr. Marler may do in Japan may prejudice Australian or New Zealand trade and interests in the Pacific, and we are acting without our sister dominions and without any unison. In this way what unity has the empire on such an important matter as the Pacific question is to-day? The Globe continues:
What Canada and the Free State have done, all the dominions may do. Before long the influence of these two dominions may so prejudice the interests of other dominions that they will have to appoint representatives of their own. Then there would be six-with
(Mr. Church.]	u j
India, seven-British ambassadors at the court of Washington. Some may contend that the British ambassador would speak for all. But this is the very point at issue. Not only has Washington three British ambassadors where formerly there had been one, but these approach questions from widely different angles and on different principles. How can the British ambassador speak for Canada and the Irish Free State unless he and their representatives can agree upon the one policy? And if they can do so, the Canadian and the Irishman will surely have no justification for attending the court. Canada has appointed her own ambassador, it is said, because the British ambassador cannot conserve her interests. And this applies perhaps with no less force to the representative of the Irish Free State. Therefore they could not be unanimous, or only when Britain and the other dominions accepted Canada's and (or) the Irish Free State's policy. In other words, the empire can speak with one voice only if Britain and the other Dominions and India subordinate their interests to the interests of Canada and the Irish Free State. And this is what certainly will happen.
It will readily be understood that this diplomatic disunity will land the British Empire in all kinds of trouble. We have representatives in Europe to-day trying to pacify Europe while the Prime Minister has a five-cent policy to pacify the unemployed in this country. We have over at Geneva a small standing army of diplomats, sometimes headed by my friend the doctor, talking peace from the house tops, when there is no peace and where millions of men are being armed in Europe to-day.
The Hon. Mr. Marler made several political speeches on his way to Japan, and no doubt he approves the government's stand because the government shelters itself behind a Torres Vedras policy of legations for all foreign countries separate from the British ambassador.
This policy was never approved by the people of Canada, and I venture to say that it does not command the support of forty per cent of our people. It is simply dividing us from the British Empire in the matter of external affairs. The London Spectator suggests that the speeches of General Jan Smuts, former South African prime minister, regarding the Commonwealth of Nations, when he was in Canada recently, were warnings as prophetic as they were timely. The Spectator says:
It seems to us that the report has ignored the reminder which Lord Balfour was careful to give in 1926, that equality of status does not necessarily mean equality of function.
The conference (on removal of anomalies existing between Dominion and British legislation) seems to have asked itself in reference to each question: "Is this law consistent with absolute equality in every respect?" When they could not say yes, they proposed that the whole law should forthwith be rewritten. Such a method is to encourage a morbid nationalism,

Supply-External Affairs-Tokyo
of which General Smuts complained. If, in pursuit of pedantic nationalism, unity disappears, one of the greatest causes in the world is sacrificed. The commonwealth is now held together by only one real tie, the crown. To encourage, as the conference does, every Prime Minister of every dominion to tender his independent advice to the sovereign is to put an unbearable strain upon the monarchy.
Fortunately, the report is no more than a body of suggestions for the imperial conference, which when it comes to deal with them, will find itself on the broad road to establishment of a permanent imperial control and authority. We do not mean there will be any kind of full imperial conference always sitting at London, but there might well be a permanent secretariat. Advice to His Majesty must somehow be sorted out and unified before it is presented to him as the advice of his ministers.
One of the main things the kaiser of Germany depended on when he declared war was a disunited British empire. He was depending on civil war between the north and south of Ireland, and on unsettled conditions in Canada and throughout the rest of the empire, but when the war came he found the dominions and the empire united. There is a strong public opinion in Canada, as I see it, against this policy of the government of appointing ambassadors to the different capitals of the world. It has never been approved by this house, let alone by the people of Canada. It is a policy that does not in my opinion commend itself to the wisdom of the people of this country. We have a declaration on the order paper to-day of the permanent court of international justice. There are so many of these declarations being signed on our behalf by our respected government leader in the senate at Geneva, that it almost seems to me that we shall soon be signing a declaration of independence from the motherland; we shall be going just about as far as the people of the United States did in their celebrated declaration of independence.
Speaking at Vancouver on November 14, Canadian Pacific despatch to the Toronto Star, the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
Tlie establishment of Canadian legations in France. United States and Japan was a good thing for the British empire as well as Canada, Prime Minister Mackenzie King declared in addressing the Board of Trade dinner here to-night. Misunderstandings between a foreign country and any part of the empire must eventually affect all other parts.
Placing Canada's and the empire's position in a true light before other peoples, would tend to prevent misunderstandings, it would demonstrate to the world a community of nations united under the one crown, a crown "broad based upon a people's will,"
Mr. King's speech was confined for the most part to Canada's diplomatic relations. The key
position this country occupied in developing friendship and good-will among the nations of the world, was laid before the large audience.
"I would like to say how sorry we are that Mr. William Phillips, the first minister of the United States at Ottawa, has for personal reasons felt it necessary to resign from the diplomatic service," Mr. King stated. Mr. Phillips had been a true friend of his country and a true friend of Canada. Both countries were the richer as the result of his service.
I shall not detain the committee further. Here is a vote for $80,000 for Toyko, an increase of $5,000 over last year. What kind of building we have there I do not know, but I venture to say that three or four years from now we shall be spending two or three million dollars for all these embassies the world over. What good are we getting from this representation? It is simply showing to the people of Japan that in so far as the British Empire is concerned we are not a united people. We have disunity in diplomacy, and disunity as regards the policy of the empire in the Pacific, with Australia, New Zealand and the other dominions taking different stands. The whole thing will lead to disorder and chaos. It can have no good results for this magnificent empire. The empire cannot last if this goes on much further. Are we going to have a minister to Turkey? Are we going to send a representative to Russia? Are we going to transfer Mr. Marler to Russia or Turkey? We have ambassadors now in London, Washington, Paris, Tokyo and Geneva costing us $610,000 a year. Wait till you see the vote next year. Mr. Marler is not going to be content to live in rented quarters. He will want a palace costing as they do in Japan, two or three or four million dollars before he gets through. There are rumours that he is to leave Tokyo and heading for Washington, and another of our magnificent diplomats is said to be heading for London from Washington. The taxpayers of this country have to pay for it all, and they have nothing to say about it, nor have their representatives. But I warn the Prime Minister that there will be a rude awakening some day. We are meddling with the affairs of every country in Europe. We are signing peace pacts and agreements over the heads of the British government. Where is it all going to end? It is going to land us eventually outside of the British Empire, land us in all kinds of trouble. Here we are spending $610,000, and we have not a nickel for our own unemployed. Charity should begin at home, even in diplomacy. For all the good the Washington office has done, it might as well be closed up. It has been nothing but a trouble-maker between the two countries, making trouble all the time. What

Supply-External Affairs-Tokyo
has it ever done about the St. Lawrence waterway or Chicago diversion, or the nonenforcement of the Rush-Bagot treaty, or the Jay treaty? My hon. friend from East Essex, speaking of unemployment the other day, told us that Canadians were being turned back at the American border, and only yesterday I noticed that the member for West Belfast told of Englishmen and Canadians being turned out of their jobs in the United States, and the British government has agreed to help and repatriate them and also repatriate Canadians. What is our legation doing about it? All our legation in Washington amounts to is very largely a social legation. That is all it ever was and ever will be. We have a lot of novices in diplomacy at Washington and Tokyo. They know nothing about diplomacy, and we are sending them where they come up against the experienced ambassadors of other countries.
Before the committee on industrial and international relations the other day, it was urged that chairs be established in universities to promote the cause of peace, at a cost of from 8600,000 to $1,000,000 a year. The average student when he gets through university is too busy looking for a job to bother about world courts and ministers extraordinary to Tokyo and Constantinople and all these other places. Sixty per cent of the graduates of the faculty of applied science at Toronto university recently went to the United States or other foreign countries and of the class in medicine, fortydive per cent went to the United States. Where are you going to get the students to train? Mr. Massey and Mr. Marler can learn a lot about diplomacy, and they should have learnt something about it before they left the shores of Canada. I wish to protest against this vote. If there was one country in the world that we should have left alone, it was Japan. We should never have sent an ambassador there over the head of the British government because the Pacific question will be a very troublesome one in the future, and we want a united empire on Pacific policies. I was in the city of Vancouver in 1927, some time ago when special editions of the Saturday night papers came out with the startling headline "War with China." People out there were wondering what would become of our Pacific relations in view of the fact that Canada had not done its part in regard to naval matters. The Pacific is too troublesome a question for us to deal with. The last war bordered on the Atlantic; it may well be that the next war will be in all probability on the Pacific. I know some members across

the chamber are beginning to wag their heads and doubt the wisdom of establishing these legations. Many prominent Liberals and also the newspapers have the same view, and the Toronto Globe backs up the position I take that this is a new departure which is bound to bring disunion instead of union to the British Empire.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, there is just one thing the last speaker (Mr. Church) has said with which I agree, and that is, we do not really know very much about the policy of the government in the orient. It does seem to me, now that we are entering upon a new phase of our national development and are appointing ambassadors abroad, there ought to be some opportunity of discussing Canadian policy, at least of hearing what Canadian policy in the east really is. We have spent a week now in discussing one aspect of domestic policy, we have a great many opportunities for doing that; but it would not seem at the present time as if we had any opportunity of knowing just what our ambassador at Tokyo is supposed to advocate. I have not heard yet whether we have developed a policy for the east. I know it is unfortunate to have to ask the question on an estimate of this character, but I do not know any other place where we can ask such a question. It seems to me something that the house and the country ought to know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the right hon.
Prime Minister answers, there are some matters also which I think might well be discussed in connection with the Tokyo legation, and as it is six o'clock I would ask if we are going on with these estimates after eight o'clock?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then we can discuss them after recess.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 32, respecting The Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company-Mr. Parent.
Bill No. 33, respecting The Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company-Mr. Bradette.

Divorce Court for Ontario ____________

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George), for Mr. Black (Halifax), moved the second reading of Bill No. 54, to incorporate Pine Hill Divinity Hall.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Mr. Speaker, I think
we should have some explanation. of this bill.


Hewitt Bostock: Perhaps the bill had
better stand, since the hon. member sponsoring it is not here.
Bill stands.


DIVORCE COURT FOR ONTARIO
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH ' (Winnipeg North Centre) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 20, to provide in the province of Ontario for the dissolution and annulment of marriage.
Motion agreed to on division and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, before we
proceed any further I desire to move that the bill be now reported.
On section 1-Part of law of England on July 15, 1870, made law of Ontario.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am prepared to support the first clause, but I do so on the understanding that at a later stage an amendment will be moved making this law applicable to the province of Ontario only upon request of the province through its legislature or by order of the lieutenant-governor in council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Such action would be unconstitutional.


An hon. MEMBER:: Only with the consent of the provinces.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: Inasmuch as this proposed Bill No. 20 is to change the divorce law or to make a new law, I think that the wording should be changed. I move therefore, seconded by the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan):
That the bill be amended by striking out all the words after "be" in the twelfth line of section No. 1, and substituting therefor the words "in force in the province of Ontario."
This simply clarifies the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: I moved that the bill be
reported, and on a point of order I would like the ruling of the chair. Before I rose you had read the title to the bill and marginal note.	I j


Mr. CAHAN:: We have been unable to
hear the statement of the hon. member, or the terms of the amendment he is moving. I think we should have an explanation, so that we may know upon what question we are voting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) moved that the bill be reported.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: We have not considered it yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The motion was made as soon as it was called.


The CHAIRMAN:: Before the bill was
properly before the committee my hon. friend rose and moved that the bill be reported. I read clause No. 1, after which the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) intervened. Standing order 76, subsection 774, states:
The bill is considered clause by clause. The chairman usually calls out the number of each clause and reads the marginal note, but he should give the clause at length when it is demanded by the committee.
That had not been done when the motion was made by my hon. friend. My ruling is therefore that the bill was not properly before the committee when the motion was made.


Robert Gardiner: To which motion do
you refer, the motion to report or the motion to amend?


John Frederick Johnston: The motion to report.


Robert Gardiner: Is the amendment in
order?


John Frederick Johnston: The amendment has
been just handed in. It is as follows:
That the bill be amended by striking out all the words after "be" in the twelfth line of section No. 1, and substituting therefor the words, "in force in the province of Ontario."


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I should like to
direct attention to the fact that there is no twelfth line in section 1; there are only ten lines in the section.


Arnold Neilson Smith: That is a very
small matter; I made a mistake. It is the twelfth line of that page.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is the ninth line of the
section.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr Chairman,
some of us are interested in this bill, but as yet we have not heard the amendment or the explanation for it.
Divorce Court jor Ontario


John Frederick Johnston: The amendment is:
That the bill be amended by striking out all the words after "be" in the twelfth line of section No. 1, and substituting therefor the words, "in force in the province of Ontario."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is quite obvious there is
no twelfth line in section 1.


Mr. McMILLAN:: The difficulty is that
when you see the figure 10 it appears to relate to section 1, but does not, and that causes the confusion.


Mr. BROWN:: We are interested in the
effect of the amendment, rather than in the number of the particular line.


Mr. DUNNING:: What does the amendment mean?


Mr SMITH (Stormont):: At the present
time the bill says:
.... shall be the law of the province as to dissolution of marriage and as to annulment of marriage.
I think those words are superfluous; they make it appear as though we are creating a new way of obtaining divorce in the province of Ontario, and by striking out those words and having the section read "shall be in force in the province of Ontario" the matter is clarified. It does not change the bill in any way


Mr. HANSON:: Does the hon. gentleman propose to delete all the words after the word "be" in that section?


Arnold Neilson Smith: Yes. That is
line 9 of section 1.


John Frederick Johnston: Instead of line twelve of section 1 the amendment should read line twelve of the bill.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not see the purpose of
this amendment. The hon. member says that this act shall apply to the province of Ontario only, but the preamble of the bill itself states that it applies only to Ontario, and I think that should cover the point. The amendment would appear to be entirely superfluous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The amendment at least is in accordance with the principles that governed in the western provinces. The privy council held that the act of 1870 applied as of the loth day of July, 1870, and this amendment declares that that statute of England shall be in force in the province of Ontario, instead of saying that the law shall be so and so. I think that does clarify the situation.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the amendment is an improvement as far as the drafting of the
fMr. Woodsworth.]
bill is concerned, but I should like to know why July 15, 1870, is taken. I quite understand that with regard to the western provinces this date should apply as far as the laws of England are concerned, but why apply that to Ontario?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reason is that then there would be uniformity with respect to jurisdiction.


Ernest Lapointe: But apart from making it uniform with the western provinces there is no special reason for saying that the laws of England of 1870 shall be in force.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, because the divorce act of England was passed in 1857. Lord Westbury, then Sir Richard Bethell, worked it through the House of Commons, against the protests of Mr. Gladstone, as perhaps the minister will recall in view of the fact that Mr. Gladstone took much the same view as he has taken. July 15, 1870, is merely an arbitrary date fixed by the statute that brought the western provinces into confederation, and in order that it may not be said that we are giving more extended powers to the Ontario court than those conferred on other divorce courts by this parliament. In British Columbia the same statute is in force, but not as of the same date.


John Livingstone Brown: Then the legislation of 1925 would apply to Ontario as well as to the western provinces?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The effect will be to have the statute, as it now applies to the western provinces, apply to Ontario.


Mr. CANNON:: The section also says:
.... and in so far as it has not been repealed, as to the province, by any act of the parliament of the United Kingdom. . . .
How could an act of the United Kingdom repeal the laws of England so far as Ontario is concerned?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the meaning, as the Solicitor General will see, is that since in England there has been an amendment to the act of 1857, as the hon. gentleman will perhaps recall, this is to make certain that the amending act in England has no force in Ontario, but that the statute of 1857, which is in force in the western provinces, shall be the statute in force in Ontario, without any extension of the powers conferred by later legislation.


Lucien Cannon: Will it be the law as it was in 1870, or the law as it has been amended since?

Divorce Court jor Ontario


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be the law as it was in 1870.
Amendment agreed to on division.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Before this section carries I should like to point out what I have pointed out before, that any argument in favour of this bill would apply equally to other parts of the Dominion. Apparently there are three strong arguments in favour of this bill; the first is that the Senate is incompetent or has not the necessary facilities for granting divorce; the second is the question of jurisdiction, and the third is the question of cost. All these arguments would apply equally to other parts of Canada, and if we are to legislate in this matter for the province of Ontario I contend that the act should be made to apply to all those parts of Canada where the law of 1870 does not apply at the present time.


Ernest Lapointe: Meaning Quebec?


James Arthurs: Yes, meaning Quebec or Prince Edward Island.


Ernest Lapointe: There is this difference: all the members from Quebec are opposed to this bill.


Peter McGibbon: And a portion of the members from Ontario also are opposed to it.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
On section 3

Short title.


Arnold Neilson Smith: Mr. Chairman, I desire to move, seconded by Mr. McMillan:
That the bill be amended by inserting the following therein as section 3 of the bill and renumbering section 3 as section 4:
3. Upon	receipt	by Secretary	of	State	of
Canada of a duly certified copy of an order in council passed by the lieutenant governor in council of the province of Ontario-


Mr. ERNST:: That is a political fol-de-rol.


Arnold Neilson Smith: I will read it
again:
That the bill be amended by inserting the following therein as section 3 of the bill, and renumbering section 3 as section 4:
3. Upon	receipt	by Secretary	of	State	ofCanada of a duly	certified copy	of	an orderin council passed by the lieutenant governor in council of the province of Ontario requesting that this act be brought into force in that province, the governor in council	may,	by
proclamation, declare that this act shall come into force on a day to be named in the said proclamation, not less than three months after the date of the receipt of such request by the Secretary of State.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We should understand the meaning of this amendment, as it places
within the discretion of this government the decision whether or not this measure shall be brought into effect. The province of Ontario could consent to the mode or the manner provided by this amendment, and then the governor in council of Canada would have the option of deciding at his own discretion whether or not by proclamation the bill should be brought into force and effect. If I understand this amendment correctly, unless the governor in council brings this bill into force and effect within -a certain time it remains null and void for all time.


Arnold Neilson Smith: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I absolutely-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arnold Neilson Smith: I have not yet explained the amendment. The main objection of the Ontario members who oppose this bill is that a divorce court is being forced upon Ontario. The result of this amendment would be that such a court would not be forced upon Ontario unless they asked for it, and until they passed legislation which would enable them to do so. There is nothing new about this amendment, because I drew it up in 1928 when I first agreed to sponsor a divorce bill. In the few remarks I made a week or two ago I mentioned that these amendments would be offered when the bill came up for second reading. It is not, as an hon. gentleman has said, political propaganda; it is simply a desire to satisfy those Ontario members who have opposed the measure.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Why do you not try to
satisfy those in favour of it?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am absolutely opposed to this amendment. In the first place, I do not believe that the parliament of Canada has any jurisdiction to give effect to such an amendment. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has sat silent and listened to this proposal made by one of his supporters, a proposal which suggests that legislation passed by this house shall be subject to a decision of the provincial legislature in Toronto-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And he would not give
a nickel to that province.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: -a Tory government to whom, it has been suggested, the Prime Minister would not give a thing. He would not recognize the government of the province of Ontario when it comes to a nickel, yet when it comes to deciding-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Divorce Court for Ontario


Edmond Baird Ryckman: -this very important
question of divorce-


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. members do
not like that.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: -the Prime Minister
has not one word to say.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is simply passing
the buck.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: There is no question
but that the proposal of the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Smith) is unconstitutional. There are hon. members in this house who have a realization of the duty which they have to perform, and they are not willing to take dictation in regard to this matter from any province, even the province of Ontario where good government prevails. I for one am not prepared to surrender the right of deciding by my vote in this house what shall be done in regard to this question of divorce. Let me emphasize that I am as much opposed as any hon. member in this house to the easier granting of divorces, but I realize that this question has been treated by the house almost with ridicule. We have seen the travesty of the granting of divorces by this house. This is not a question of the merits of divorce

I address my remarks to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)-it is not a question of whether it is right or wrong, but rather a question of the method, of the plan, and of what shall be done with these cases. Even those hon. members who are opposed to divorce must realize that the present method pf granting these decrees is nothing less than a joke, if I may be pardoned for using that word. We ask that this question be considered under the same terms as is a question of right or wrong, or a question of justice as between man and man-before the courts. I object to an amendment being introduced which is absolutely contrary to the rules of this parliament. The amendment means that those of us who come from the province of Ontario are being asked to surrender our right to pronounce upon this matter. Others from Ontario may be willing to surrender that right, but we will not consent to our privileges as members of this parliament being usurped by an amendment framed to meet the approval of the Prime Minister.


John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Chairman, I feel it
to be my duty to oppose this amendment. If there is one thing which has been made clear by the discussion upon this question, it is the fact that divorce has been committed to this parliament. In passing this bill through its

second reading we have decided the principle that divorces should be handled by the Courts of Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As delegated by this parliament.


John Livingstone Brown: As delegated by this parliament. I agree absolutely with the reported statement of the premier of Ontario as it came to us in that circular from the Anglican council, that it is not his business at the present time to interfere in this matter. As has been made abundantly clear, the duty has been delegated to us. It has been said in some quarters that we are forcing this upon Ontario against the wishes of the people of that province. Even supposing that were true, we are still doing it in the exercise of our proper functions as members of the parliament of Canada. I do not think there can be any doubt upon that point. But are we forcing it upon Ontario in opposition to the majority of the members from that province? It would be very interesting to look at the vote as it was recorded the other night. We voted on an amendment. That amendment was defeated by a majority of thirteen. Then we voted on the second reading of the bill and that motion was carried by a majority of thirteen. If you look over the vote, and if I have not made a mistake, the number of members from Ontario who voted in favour of that bill was just thirteen more than the number who voted against it, so that practically speaking we can count out all the other members who voted and say that the majority of the members from Ontario have decided in favour of the bill. I feel very strongly on this matter and I shall conceive it my duty to vote against the amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: This bill proposes to vest in the provincial courts of Ontario certain jurisdiction with respeet to the adjudication of matters which are at present in the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. Parliament has the right to do this; it has the right to impose on provincial courts duties in federal matters. There was a time when the right of the federal parliament to do this was discussed and challenged, and the matter was submitted to the courts; but since the decision of the privy council in the case of Valin vs. Langlois with regard to controverted elections in Montmorency, it is generally accepted that parliament has the right to take such action. Such is not the case, for instance, in the United States, where congress has no right to impose burdens or duties on state courts, but in Canada I claim that we have that right. In doing so, however, I think to some extent we

Divorce Court for Ontario
are interfering, though we have the right to do so, with the administration of justice in the provinces, especially in a case like this when it has been represented to us in the house that we are forcing a divorce court upon a province the majority of the people of which are opposed to such a step being taken.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Ernest Lapointe: I say that it has been
represented to us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only way to know is
by what this house says.


Ernest Lapointe: I am not sure about that.
I have heard the hon. member for South Huron on this side and the hon. member for North Huron on the other side say that they cannot find in their constituencies anybody who is in favour of such a court. Surely the expression of views of these two members is entitled to consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They can vote against the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Is it not a good move on the part of the hon. member for Stormont to provide that before this legislation comes into force, the province of Ontario should in some way express its views with regard to the matter?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has done so through its members here.


Ernest Lapointe: I remember my hon.
friend was not so keen in saying that the province had pronounced on the question when on the first vote the majority of the Ontario members voted against the bill. I did not hear my hon. friend say that the province had expressed its views at that time. This is a matter regarding a moral issue, something which goes deep into the hearts and souls of the people. It is a big social, moral and religious issue in the opinion of many people in that province. Why not, before this legislation comes into force, have the province of Ontario express its views through its leading representatives provimcially, because we are enacting a law not for the whole of Canada but for Ontario alone.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: An hon. member spoke about Quebec a few minutes ago. We do not want this to be forced upon Quebec any more than we want it to be forced on Ontario. It is because I would not want a similar law to be forced upon an unwilling province such as Quebec which will never agree to this law, that I do not want it to be forced upon
Ontario in the same way. What is the harm in this amendment? As I said, this is a moral issue, and after all there are precedents along the same lines in the statutes of Canada. There is the Canada Temperance Act, for instance. The probihition of importation of liquor is a federal matter entirely, but we have placed in the statute books a law stating that we will prohibit imports of liquor into any province only after that province, by order in council furnished to the Secretary of State of Canada, has expressed a willingness that we should do so. The Juvenile Delinquents Act is another statute which deals with a social policy, and there again the act comes into force in any province only after an order in council has been passed by the provincial authorities asking us to put it into force. In the Lord's Day Act, another measure dealing with a moral and social question, parliament has enacted a law, but it has taken good care to say that no prosecution shall be instituted except with the approval and consent of the attorney general of the province in which the prosecution is to be taken. There are many precedents for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Stormont. I do not like the amendment; I do not like the bill; I am opposed to the principle of the bill, but I say at least we should accept the amendment and not force this measure upon an unwilling province.


Hugh Guthrie: I am opposed to the bill, and I am also opposed to the amendment. The question of marriage and divorce is under the jurisdiction of parliament; we shall have to assume the responsibility .in the matter and I am not going to try to evade that responsibility. I will not agree to subordinating the jurisdiction of parliament to that of any of our provincial legislatures. I am satisfied that I am right when I say that every matter within the jurisdiction of this parliament can properly be determined by the members here, and that they for all federal purposes represent in this house every province in the Dominion. We have the responsibility. It looks as if this bill would carry. AVell, then, let us stand up and vote according to what we think right in the matter. Do not get out from under; stand up and vote according to your conscience. Do not pass the responsibility on to a body that has no responsibility to us in the matter at all. This parliament has the jurisdiction. Now let it act. I am heartily against the bill and heartily against the amendment.


Martin James Maloney: I feel with the Minister
of Justice and my hon. friend from South
Divorce Court for Ontario

Wellington that this bill is within the competence of the federal parliament. Where was the mover of this amendment, my hon. friend from Stormont, last year? What was the gist of his motion last year? And in connection with the withdrawal of that motion at that time, what was the statement of the Prime Minister? That he at this session would introduce a measure which would take this question out of politics. Where is the Prime Minister to-day? He was absent when two or three votes on this question were being taken; whether intentionally or not, I would not be harsh enough to say, but nevertheless when the final bell rang he gave a vote for the bill on the condition that an amendment would be made to it that it should not come into force until the government of the province of Ontario had requested it. Why should he pass the buck to the province of Ontario? If he is in favour of this bill, why not be manly and bold enough to come out and say so openly? The province of Ontario does not desire this measure. It is being forced on the province of Ontario by those who are not residents of Ontario, by members of this house from outside Ontario-


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: And members
for Ontario.


Martin James Maloney: They are endeavouring
to force this bill on the province. The bill was killed once, but they have brought it back again, and to-night we are dealing with the remains. For my part I refuse to vote either for the bill or for the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Stormont, because I believe the amendment is simply passing the buck. It is insincere, and is moved purely for political purposes.


Mr. COTNAM:: I am utterly opposed to
the principle of divorce. I am opposed to the bill, and I am opposed to the amendment of the hon. member for Stormont. The Prime Minister of this country last year when this legislation was before the house gave a solemn pledge and promise to the members of this house and to the country that at this session of parliament he would introduce legislation to deal with this matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Instead of that, for some
reason best known to himself, he has seen fit only to vote a couple of times on this bill, although he gave a solemn promise that he would deal with the matter this year in the house. He gave that promise to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but to this day he has not seen fit to come forward

and tell the house just exactly what he intends to do or what he wants to do on this question. I believe that the present amendment is simply an effort on/ the part of the government to sidestep its duties and1 responsibilities with regard to this whole question of divorce. It is the same old trick of trying to sidestep the issue and shelve off the responsibility on some other person, instead of facing the issue fairly and squarely here. The province of Ontario has never asked for divorce courts that I am aware of. There is not a citizen in the constituency I have the honour to represent who has ever asked that Ontario shall have a divorce court, and as long as I am in this house I am prepared to support the views of the constituency that I have the honour to represent, whether my constituents be Liberal or Conservative. I do not happen to be in the position of the Prime Minister, who does not care a five-cent piece if they happen to be Conservative. It is my intention to face this issue squarely and to vote for both Liberals and Conservatives in my constituency, who I believe are opposed to the principle of the bill itself and to this shelving proposition of the hon. member for Stormont.


Peter McGibbon: I do not think I need
reiterate my views on this question; for ten years I have voted and spoken in the same way with regard to it. I agree with the hon. member for North Renfrew when he says that this measure is being forced upon the province of Ontario by people who are living outside the province. There are not enough votes in this house from the province of Ontario to carry the measure. I protest against its being forced on the province by people living outside, and I will continue to protest against such a course. I do think that there ought to be a spirit of sportsmanship in this house and that when a minority is defeated it ought to give in to the majority. For ten years, I say, I have apposed such a measure as this. For the first time we are beaten. The bill has been given its second reading by a majority of the house, even if members from the province of Ontario have also voted for it. I feel that the amendment of the hon. member for Stormont is nothing but a piece of subterfuge whereby hon. members can get under the table and shirk their responsibility, play more or less the parts of cowards, and not come out and register their votes as they ought to register them either for or against this measure. What is to be gained by this? We have heard from the premier of Ontario that he will1 not ask for a divorce court; then I ask those who are

Divorce Court for Ontario
attempting to force the measure upon the province, what is there to be gained by carrying an amendment which means nothing? In my parliamentary career, Mr. Chairman, I have never yet reached that stage where I would be a party to killing my own bill.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Peter McGibbon: Who said earried?


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go ahead, doctor.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Peter McGibbon: I think, Mr. Chairman,
we have reached the stage where we ought to consider the position of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the leader of the government. A year ago he gave his promise to the house that he would offer a solution of this question. Now I ask him and I ask the house: Have we not, as members, a right to know what his solution is? I admit it is a troublesome question to some of us who do not believe in divorce. It is probably a still more troublesome question to members of the government who draw their support solidly from one province which is so absolutely opposed to divorce. After all, governments are made to govern, and I submit that this government should have the courage of its convictions, that the Prime Minister should redeem his promise and give us a solution of this question. So far as I am concerned, sir, my stand is well known. I will vote against the amendment, I will vote against the bill, and I will vote against everything in connection with it.


Thomas McMillan: Mr. Chairman,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question, question.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Thomas McMillan: Until there is order in
the chamber I shall certainly stand. I submit at the outset, in view of the fact that a number of my warm personal friends have endeavoured to interrupt to such an extent that I would not be allowed to express myself, that I am within the judgment of the house when I assert that I have never wasted very much time here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas McMillan: For that reason, if for
no other, I do not see why hon. members should not be able to sit in silence and listen to me as I have always been in the habit of listening to them. I claim that right for every member and I do hope it will be accorded me.


An hon. MEMBER:: Time wasted.


An hon. MEMBER:: Talk on the bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. IRVINE:: Mr. Chairman,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


William Irvine: I rise to a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman is not addressing himself to the amendment before the house.


Thomas McMillan: Mr. Chairman-


William Irvine: Ruling?


Thomas McMillan: Mr. Chairman, it is
your duty to decide the point of order.


John Frederick Johnston: On the point of order, the member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) who has the floor, was asking the member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) to assist him in keeping order in the chamber.


William Irvine: I rise to a point of order.
If you are going to rule on the point of order, Mr. Chairman, do so. I object to your comment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. Sit down.


Thomas McMillan: From the discussion
so far as it has proceeded I do think that the members of this house have not really grasped the point of the amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Thomas McMillan: I do not need to tell
the house that I have always been opposed to the principle of the bill, and I want to say further that I have had more commendation from my constituents in South Huron-


An hon. MEMBER:: They are only fooling you.


Thomas McMillan: *-over the stand I have taken on the matter of divorce than on any other matter which I have discussed from the floor of this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas McMillan: My constituents are in
earnest in this matter, and they know I would
1382	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-Tokyo
not take the stand I have taken on this question if I was not conscientious in the matter.
Now, sir, as I say, I do not think hon. members have grasped the real meaning of this amendment. Let me read it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


Thomas McMillan: Let me read it:
That the bill be amended by inserting the following therein as section 3 of the bill, and renumbering section 3 as section 4:


An hon. MEMBER:: Applesauce.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Thomas McMillan: Now, Mr. Chairman,
it is not to be expected that I can proceed, because it is impossible for me to make myself heard, in view of the noise in the chamber.
Progress reported.


Hewitt Bostock: The hour for private
and public bills being exhausted, the house will now revert to committee of supply.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Tokyo-representation, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or any of its amendments, $80,000.
John Frederick Johnston: We shall continue with the consideration of item No. 242, as it appears at page 63 of the estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to give us an idea as to what the minister at Tokyo is doing, and of what his establishment consists. We would like to know the personnel and the salaries that are paid. I also directed the Prime Minister's attention to the fact mentioned by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that the situation in the Pacific is one of great seriousness, and it might be well to have a statement from the Prime Minister as to the policy of the Dominion government in the orient and the Pacific. It has been customary for ministers of foreign affairs to indicate their policies of administration in connection with matters of this kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Has that been, reduced to
writing?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I made a statement at the last session of parliament m which I set out the particulars of the arrangement. It was thought desirable that the statement should be made to parliament in that form. The record appears in Hansard; the statement was made intentionally in that form. One of the important features of the immigration arrangement between Japan and Canada is that passports must be signed or vised by designated officials. The viseing of passports for Japanese coming to Canada is part of the function of the legation, in many instances it may involve in advance the searching of individual records and the ascertaining of specific facts and information. As hon. members know, an important conference has been recently held in the Orient dealing with Pacific relations. Canada was represented at that conference by some of her best known citizens. I believe those who represented Canada found the presence of a legation in Tokyo extremely helpful. They found that the legation placed them in a position where they could very quickly become acquainted with those matters which from a Canadian point of view deserved careful consideration. The minister has very wisely sought to familiarize himself with political and economic conditions in Japan before attempting other duties, and his time up to the present has been devoted to the establishment of the legation on the right principles and in accordance with correct methods of procedure. From time to time special questions may come up, and as they do they will be dealt with individually. I do not know that it is possible to state a policy for Canada with respect to the Orient other than that of seeking in every particular to maintain the most friendly relations with the peoples of that portion of the world. It is the duty of the legation to see that no problem arises as between Japan and ourselves which through diplomatic handling can be prevented. With relation to problems which concern countries other than Canada and Japan, problems which have an imperial significance-if we wish to use that phrase-or a world significance, I would say that the relation of the Canadian minister in Japan to the British ambassador would be the same as the relation of Canada's minister at Washington to the British ambassador in that city. We have been told repeatedly by
Sir Esme Howard, former British ambassador at Washington, that he found the establishment of the Canadian legation there, and in particular the presence of Hon. Mr. Massey, of the utmost assistance. He believes that the whole British relationship has been materially strengthened as a result of Canada having opened a legation in Washington and through the helpful cooperation there has been between the Canadian minister and the British ambassador. I believe the same will prove to be equally true in Tokyo.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
ask whether the jurisdiction of the minister in Tokyo extends in any degree at all to China or other adjacent countries?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend knows, the Orient covers a lot of ground. The relations between Japan and China are a factor in questions which may arise even as between Japan and this country. We have thought it advisable to have the Canadian minister, while in the Orient, pay a visit to China with a view to advising the government upon features which he thinks should be brought to our attention with respect to that country as well. I may say that when Sir Austen Chamberlain, at the time Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was in this city and we were discussing the question of the opening of a legation in Tokyo, he expressed to me the view that in his opinion it would be very helpful to the Canadian minister at Tokyo to visit China, and he stated that in the event of that course being thought desirable the British government would facilitate the movements of the Canadian minister in every way possible. At the time it seemed to me the idea was a good one, and it has been acted upon to a certain extent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to ask further if it is the intention of the government to propose a revision of the treaty, or the drafting of a new treaty, between this country and China.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter has not thus far been considered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am obliged to the
right hon. Prime Minister for the information he has given, but I should like to know something about the constitution of the legation. As I understand it from what the Prime Minister has said, and as I have gathered from what I have read, it is quite clear that the real value of the minister at Tokyo at the moment is that by virtue of his position, being a representative of Canada on the poli-

Supply-External Affairs-Tokyo
tical side, he is enabled to obtain access to governmental departments that a mere trade commissioner could not so speedily secure. From what I have read of the operations of our present minister at Tokyo since he went there, I should judge that his time has been principally taken up in the promotion of trade, and that in promoting trade his one service is that by virtue of the dignity which attaches to the position he is given t'he right of access to officials who would be denied to one engaged as a representative of trade only, and the minister thereby has extended the sphere of influence of Canadian exporters. So far as I can find out that seems to be a fair statement of the situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend has stated the position as it is at present very fairly, although I should not restrict the minister's functions and services as much as he has done. The presence of the minister in Tokyo, perhaps more than anything else, has brought this country to the attention of the government, the large financial and commercial interests, and the people of Japan. That is a phase of our representation in the Orient which I think is quite important. I believe it is true that the presence of the minister in Japan has made it possible for numbers of persons in this country to become acquainted with individuals and firms in Japan by correspondence and in other ways and with opportunities so far as furthering Canada's interest in the Orient is concerned, which otherwise would not have been possible.
With respect to the establishment, the personnel consists of the minister, the Hon. Herbert Marler and a secretariat of three. Mr. Langley is the first secretary, and he is also the representative of the Department of Trade and Commerce. Mr. H. L. Keenleyside, is also a first secretary, and Mr. K. P. Kirkwood is third secretary. There is a clerical staff of three stenographers; there is a Japanese translator and an assistant; a Japanese stenographer and a messenger and office boy, who I imagine are also Japanese.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What are the salaries, if you please?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister receives a salary of $12,000, which is the amount paid the ministers at Washington and Paris and the High Commissioner in London. The minister receives also an allowance of $10,000 out of which he must meet the expenses of his residence and living. He is also allowed $3,000 for a car. The two first secretaries each receive a salary of $4,000, and

they each will have an allowance of $4,000. The third secretary receives a salary of $2,580 and an allowance of $1,500. The salary of the commercial first secretary is paid by the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much is that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is $4,000.


James Dew Chaplin: To whom is that paid?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is paid Mr. Langley, the first secretary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is he the commercial
secretary?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Robert James Manion: I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman if he has the trade figures for Japan for the last three years, just to give us a comparison of the exports and imports over that period.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I have not the figures here.


Robert James Manion: Then perhaps the right
hon. gentleman can tell me if the balance of trade in our favour has increased in the past year or whether our trade relations have become any more favourable as far as Canada is concerned during the past year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would direct my hon. friend's attention to the fact that it was September before the minister reached Tokyo. He has been there now just a little over six months, and I doubt very much if the figures are available for such a recent period.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geneva-salaries and expenses of the office of the Canadian advisory officer, $25,000.
Robert James Manion: Would the Prime Minister explain this item?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is the Canadian office at Geneva, which has been in existence for some years. An increase of $2,500 has been necessitated by additional clerical work.


Robert James Manion: The nomenclature of the vote seems to have been altered each year.
I have 'been trying to check up the votes for the last three or four years for the League of Nations, and I find this year that vote No. 243 covers the salaries and expenses of the office of the Canadian advisory officer; vote No. 244 covers Canada's contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations; vote No. 245 covers the expenses of Canadian delegates to the assembly, council and com-

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
missions of the League of Nations, and vote No. 246 covers the publications of the League of Nations. The total of those votes amounts to something over $233,000. In making a rough check of the votes for previous years,
I find the vote for salaries and expenses to be roughly as follows:
1927	 $10,000
1928	 12,000
1929		 21,000
1930		 22,500
1931		 25,000
Although I have made this computation very hurriedly, I think it is correct. It shows that from 1921 to 1931 there has been an increase from $10,000 to $25,000. The same thing is true with regard to the vote for the League of Nations, that vote having increased from $150,000 for 1927 to 1184,000 for this year. It would appear that the votes are being increased each year, and as a member of this house I would like to know why. I cannot see why this vote should be increased over last year, and I would like to have an explanation from the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question
of my hon. friend will be best answered perhaps by my reading a paragraph from the report of the Department of External Affairs. This paragraph will indicate how the work of the Canadian advisory office at Geneva has been increased. It reads:
The work of the Canadian Advisory Office at Geneva as the established channel of communication between the government of Canada and the League of Nations, has continued to grow with the development of the league's activities and the responsibilities involved in the place in the league's organizations which has been attained by the Dominion. As a temporary member of the council and as a member of the governing body of the International Labour Office, Canada is called upon to participate in all the important conferences and administrative activities of the league. In addition to assisting at meetings of the council and of the assembly, the Canadian Advisory Officer has represented Canada in the meetings of the preparatory disarmament commission, the conference on revision of the Red Cross convention, commissions for the preparation of the convention on private manufacture and supervision ' of manufacture of arms, and the conference for the suppression of counterfeiting. The advisory officer represented the Minister of Labour at the sessions of the governing body of the International Labour Office and acted as a delegate at the sessions of the International Labour Conference. Reports on the various questions before the league have been forwarded and an increasing measure of information as to league activities furnished Canadian correspondents and the growing number of Canadians who visit Geneva.
As is shown by the paragraph which I have just quoted, Canada's representation at Geneva 2410-88
has become quite as important as that of any other country. Adequate representation has necessitated some slight additional expenditure. The division of the items is made simply to enable members of this house to estimate better what the activities are of the particular officers, and the work to which parliament is being asked to appropriate moneys.


Robert James Manion: I do not claim particularly that there is too much being spent, but it does strike me as strange that every time we open up an office of any kind-the Prime Minister has had a longer experience in civil service affairs than I have-whether it be in Canada, Geneva, Washington or elsewhere, the expenses of such office keep on increasing. Geneva is a considerable distance from Canada, and I would suggest that it might be well for the government, whether it is this government or the one which will succeed it, to check up the expenses of offices such as this. In reading the newspapers of England, the United States and Canada, I have seen protests against the expenses of the League of Nations. Most of those complaints were upon the ground that an immense civil service organization was being built up without any control being exercised. Considering the distance Geneva is from Canada, it is very easy to add a few extra clerks, secretaries and other assistants to the personnel, and hire a few extra automobiles without any check-up being made. Perhaps it is our duty to pay, but we should not permit the building up of such organizations without some check-up being made.
A hurried estimate of the expenditure for last year shows that they amounted to $215,000 for the Geneva vote, while the total for this year amounts to $233,000. I am quite certain that an examination of the votes for previous years will show that they have increased as the years went by. I suggest to the right hon. Prime Minister that the office at Geneva be informed that the people of Canada feel that unless it is absolutely necessary we should not have to go on increasing year by year the amount of money voted for that office. To a large extent this is true also with regard to the offices at Tokyo, Washington and other places. The sooner these outside offices are informed that this parliament is checking their expenses-at least in a general way; it would be very difficult to check them in detail-the better it will be for Canada as well as for the offices concerned. I for one desire to put myself on record as being opposed to this continual increase in the cost of running these offices, because after all the people have to pay the bills. A check-up of the civil service

1386	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
in Canada will show that there is a continual growth from year to year, and the expenses of that growth are sufficient without a continual increase in the cost of a little civil service outside of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The votes with respect to Geneva are the same this year as they were last year, with the exception of the vote covering the salaries and expenses of the office, of the Canadian advisory officer, which vote has been increased by 82,500, to cover the additional clerk which I have already mentioned, and the vote covering Canada's contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations, which has been increased by 812,445.80. That is an increase, however, which we are not in a position to control. Our percentage of the expenditure of the League of Nations is something like per cent, and there has been an increase in the total expenses of the league due to certain new activities in which the league has become interested. There is, for example, an inquiry into certain diseases in Latin-American countries, the carrying out of the recommendations of the economic conference of 1927, conference on the codification of international law, the strengthening of the narcotic law, and in addition there is the contribution which the different countries are making to new buildings for the League of Nations. All of that accounts for part of the increase in the amount, but it is a division of the total expenses of the league which is made by the League of Nations itself, and not an expenditure which we are in a position to control except to the extent to which we can make our voice heard for economy at the league itself. With respect to the voice of Canada in the matter of league expenditure, I think I can assure my hon. friend that it has been on the side of economy and not of extravagance.


Robert James Manion: I quite agree that the
Prime Minister is right in saying that the large increase is due to Canada's contribution to the League of Nations, and to a certain extent his statement that we have not much control over that is also correct. But I repeat that I read some months ago that Prance was protesting against the continual increase in her expenditure in connection with the League of Nations. I do not think we need be too proud to take the same attitude, because the expense in connection with the item of which the Prime Minister spoke, over which in a sense we have no control, has increased from $150,000 in 1928 to 8184,000 three years later. The only way in which that expense can be [Mr. Manion.l
kept down for all countries is for Canada to take its attitude through its representatives at Geneva, just as France, England and other countries should take their attitude through their representatives at the same place. In these days of high expenditures, neither France, England nor any other country can afford to pay more than it has to; and of course that applies to Canada.


Miss MACPHAIL:: While I have always
been an advocate of economy, there is true economy and false economy. I think at an earlier stage in the session I gave the figures showing that the military expenditures of the countries of the world for one year would run the League of Nations for six hundred years. If we really want to save money I would suggest to the hon. member for Fort William that we can cut it off the estimates of the Department of National Defence and with good economy add it to the expenditure that is being made at Geneva. It was my great privilege to see something of the work that was being done by the Canadian office in Geneva last fall.


Robert James Manion: I hope that was not the
cause of the increased expense.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I hope not. Before
dinner the hon. member for Toronto Northwest said that we had a whole army at Geneva. We have six Canadians in the Canadian office and I must admit that they are a host in themselves. Doctor Riddell, the head of the office, Colonel Georges Vanier and Mr. E. D. McGreer were, I thought, about as fine types of Canadians as could be found anywhere and they were doing serious work for Canada. What is more, they were doing it enthusiastically, and this cannot always be said of members of the house.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let the hon. member speak for herself.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am not the least enthusiastic member of the house.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: How could they be anything else to the hon. member?


Agnes Campbell Macphail: The office that we have at Geneva is really very beautiful, but it is not expensive, because thinking it was so beautiful I expected it would be expensive, so I asked what the rent was and I found it was amazingly low. I spent a good deal of time in the office with the three young women and the men I mentioned. I felt they were trying their very best to hold down expenses and spending only what money needed to be spent to do good work for Canada in Geneva.

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
I feel also that countries that have offices at Geneva are in a much better position while the assembly is in session than countries that do not have offices there. I am not trying to assist the Minister of External Affairs, but it seems quite reasonable that the expenditures would increase while we have a seat on the council of the League of Nations. I do not care to say anything more under this particular item, except this: let us not start economy on the peace end of our activities; let us begin to economize when the estimates of the Department of National Defence come up and then I will enlist the services of my good friend the hon. member for Fort William.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend probably
thinks we should cut down the navy too.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Certainly.


Robert James Manion: I will vote with her to
cut down the navy. I do not wish to be misunderstood as opposing our contribution to the League of Nations. I still take my attitude, with all due deference to the lady who has just taken her seat, that we might just as well be as economical as we can at Geneva and be as economical as we can at home. I did not have the advantage she had of visiting those offices or I might be defending the Prime Minister in this matter too.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: That may come also.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I note that Canada's
contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations for 1930, is 8184,000. Would the Prime Minister be good enough to tell us the nations that contributed sums in excess of Canada's contribution?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
that Canada stands about tenth on the list.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The International Postal Union schedule governs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that is correct. I could not name the countries offhand, but I imagine my hon. friend will be able to surmise what they are.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Am I then correct in
saying that there were nine other nations that contributed more than the amount contributed by Canada to the League of Nations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
understanding.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not wish to be in the position of always criticizing the League of Nations, but I should like to find out something about it. Who compose the league? What does it do? What are its functions? Wbo are Canada's delegates? There is a
labour delegation that goes over there and there are ladies going over there. Mrs. Mary Ellen Smith, who was supposed to be an impartial representative, went over there and when she came back she toured Canada addressing Liberal associations and criticizing the head of the party in this corner of the house. I am becoming alarmed at these expenditures. Canada is contributing the largest amount per capita of any member of the league. The mother country last year paid $395,000 to the League of Nations. I quote this from the Mail and Empire of a despatch from London of the 22nd March:
It cost Great Britain $100,000 for the reestablishment of its embassy in Moscow, according to the civil estimates issued to-day. Other estimates dealing with foreign affairs showed that Britain's contribution to the League of Nations increased during the year from $355,000.to $395,000 annually, this country paying 10.65 per cent of the total league expenses, not, however, including the international labour organizations.
That is what the mother country is expending. Is this country increasing its expenditures? I think the amount is $284,000 when it is totalled up. This money is absolutely wasted. The government are busying themselves in every capital in Europe about foreign affairs and they cannot attend to their own home affairs. They are spending $450,000,000 in this parliament. Charity begins at home. A five cent policy is the cheap politics of the head of the Department of External Affairs towards his own people. He may read from Industry and Humanity all he likes, but charity begins at home. I want to read one or two paragraphs to show what actually goes on at the league on which we are spending so much money. I am quoting from the League of Nations, First Impressions, by George Bernard Shaw in the Empire Review. He thus describes his first visit to the league in 1928:
When my presence at Geneva during the annual assembly of the League of Nations was mentioned in the press, I received several letters, of which the following is a fair sample:
"I cannot help being rather surprised and shocked to read that you 'sit on the bench of mockers and hypocrites' .... In this country every little child knows that the League of Nations is only a bluff and nothing but an instrument for the policy of the allied forces .... I really am at a loss to understand why you don't feel your responsibility as a mental tutor of the world, when taking such a step as taking part in the comedy of Geneva, which is a tragedy for every country that does not find mercy in the eyes of the world's high C finance."
This letter is not a stateman's utterance. It is a crude expression of the popular impatience which sees no more in the league than an in-

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
strument for the instantaneous extirpation of war, and is ready to throw it on the scrap-heap the moment it becomes clear that no such operation is possible, and that the big powers have not, and never have had, any intention of relinquishing any jot of their sovereignty, or depending on any sort of strength and security other than military.
Roughly and generally it is a fact that the pacifist oratory at the assembly is Christmas card platitude at best and humbug at worst. The permanent departments of the league have to fight hard to defeat the frequent attempts to sabotage it by the big powers through their deciduous members.
Whilst I was there the press was keeping the public amused, not to say gulled, by gossip about the assembly meetings, at which nothing happens but pious speeches which might have been delivered fifty years ago.
We have two hardy perennials at the league, the leader of the Senate Hon. Raoul Dandurand, and Sir George Foster. They seem to be two souls with but a single thought, two hearts that beat as one as to the league. I have heard in this house some of our delegates talking about our maritime ports. When they go over to the league for a nice trip they do not leave our maritime ports. No, they sail on the George Washington and other fine steamers from the port of New York. That is how much these favourite statesmen care about our maritime ports. I quote again:
It was so impossible to listen to them, or to keep awake during the subsequent inevitable translations, that the audience had to be kept in its place by a regulation, physically enforced,-
I wish we had this regulation in this house. Mr. Shaw continues:
-that no visitor should be allowed to leave the ball except during the five minutes set apart for that purpose between speech and translation. Fortunately, the young ladies of the Secretariat, who have plenty of dramatic sense, arrange the platform in such a way that the president, the speakers, and the bureau are packed low down before a broad tableau curtain which, being in three pieces, provides most effective dramatic entrances right and left of the centre. When a young lady secretary has a new dress, or for any other reason feels that she is looking her best, she waits until the speaker

possibly a Chinese gentleman carefully plodding through a paper written in his best French has reduced half the public galleries to distraction and the other half to stertorous slumber, when she suddenly, but gracefully, snatches the curtains apart and stands revealed, a captivating mannequin, whilst she pretends to look round with a pair of sparkling eyes for her principal on the bureau. The effect is electric: the audience wakes up and passes with a flash trom listless desperation to tense fascination, to the great encouragement of the speaker who, with his back to the vision beautiful, fondly believes he has got them at last, nwfr. Ghumh 1
That is the kind of thing, cheap political vaudeville, that goes on at the League of Nations. We have been reading in the papers of a peace parley of five powers, but it is really six powers. Canada is represented there, this great nation with its wonderful fleet and its wonderful contribution to the league, the heaviest contribution of any country. Canada is represented at the peace parley by Colonel Ralston, the Minister of National Defence. He was wired to the other day to come home, but he did not come. He has asked to see the thing through. The Prime Minister of France, wdien asked by newspaper men why he was leaving the parley at London for Paris, said, "I cannot spend all day looking out of my hotel wdndow however fine the weather may be," and outside he asked the reporters for a cigarette. The United States report says he was tired of it, and it was reported that our representative was also getting tired of it. The net result should be that our Minister of National Defence should be asked to come home and allow the mother country to look after European affairs. What we should be doing is to attend to the functions of this parliament and be passing legislation for the benefit of the working classes of this country. Let us do something practical, but we spend more than half our time trying to prove that Canada is a nation and that the league is the cure for all the ills of the human race. Dear knows what our representative at, the peace parley is going to bring back in his club bag. The Minister of Justice brought back a wonderful new magna charts by which we were to be released from the tyranny forever of Downing street and have as an adviser a governor general who would make speeches just like a member of parliament does and cease being a governor, only a viceroy. The delegates to the league are all politicians. They are selected after the fashion of the Prime Minister when he is dealing with unemployment. He separates the sheep from the goats. No Tories are ever allowed to represent Canada at the league.
The first item under the heading of Geneva is for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Canadian Advisory Officer. He is a doctor, of what I don't know yet. Everybody connected with External Affairs is a doctor. What he is a doctor of I do not know. Some of the quack cures of these doctors on external affairs have been hurting this country and the British Empire. Who does the Canadian Advisory Officer advise? Does he advise parliament? A doctor advised the industrial and international relations committee to put up $600,000 to $1,000,000 for chairs in our universities to teach our young people something

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
about foreign affairs and to get the international formulae. I have one hundred and twenty-five students of Toronto universities that I am trying to get a job for now. Mr Cyrus Eaton, the great Cleveland financier and philanthropist, went to Cleveland in his student days at McMaster and stayed there when he graduated. He would not be one of those who would stay at home and imbibe this magnificent dream of our new status, this international diplomacy which everybody gets so fed up on. Every child in the schools is to be given a copy, if you please, so that he may learn what our magnificent diplomats are doing at the League of Nations. Our university students, over fifty per cent of them, go to the States and other foreign countries. We are thus exporting our greatest assets, our clever students.
I have asked who composes the league. We have had twelve years of nothing but peace pacts and agreements and speeches, and what has been the result? It has been the utter failure of open diplomacy, which Mr. Woodrow Wilson so strongly, and so disastrously for the peace of Europe, advocated. Will Italy have anything to do with the league? Mussolini calls it a lot of horse play; that is the phrase of the Prime Minister of Italy. Will Germany or Russia have anything to do with it? Russia is mobilizing millions of men and marching on China, equipped with tanks and all modern military equipment. I quote from the January, 1930, number of the English Review:
At present, while peace is chattered about in the suburbs of Western Europe, anarchy is spreading over vast tracts of territory. Millions of men are under arms; millions of homes are in constant peril of loot and desecration. Before 1914 these things would have roused the conscience of Europe. To-day Europe is so conscious of its moral superiority and unswerving devotion to peace that it will not move a finger. It will only sign pacts and pass resolutions. These war books reflect this evil mood. They are teaching people that all the good things in life come easily and automatically and that all the evil is due to the interference of politicians and soldiers with the peaceful evolution of society. That is a lie. One glance round the world to-day proves it so. But the literary coteries who are booming their books will not take that one glance. They must be taught to do so.
There are a whole lot of sensible people in this country who do not believe in the league, who have lost confidence in it. The league has been a nice, pleasant annual gathering, providing an enjoyable trip overseas on the most modern ships, sailing out of the port of New York instead of out of our St. Lawrence and maritime ports, for a lot of favourites of the government, and all the flatterers of the
government took passage. The boys have a nice pleasant trip and imbibe the higher statesmanship of Geneva and all its vanities. What do they do when they go over there? They run up a lot of bills and nobody knows what they are for. Where is the Auditor General, what is he doing about this particular department? Have you ever seen a statement of the expenses of this league? I have looked for such a statement in vain. Let me enumerate these expenses:
Canada's contribution to the expenses of the League of Nations for 1930, including secretariat, International Labour Organization and permanent court of international justice, $184,227.
A permanent court of international justice for what? To help pacify Europe? What we want in this country is a court of justice that will give the working class a chance in Canada, that will give them bread instead of a stone. Here is another item:
Expenses of Canadian delegates to the assembly, council and commissions of the League of Nations, $21,000.
Who are these delegates? What political party do they belong to? Are they supporters of the government? Of course they are; that is the reason they get the trip. Then we have these expenses for publications:
Publications of League of Nations for distribution to members of parliament and a grant to the League of Nations Society in Canada, $3,000.
That is $3,000 thrown away. The whole vote of about $243,000 is money that might be spent to much better purpose in giving relief to our women and children suffering in the cities and towns of this country- This expenditure would not be so bad if it was helping remove the risk of war, but the Prime Minister of France says that that risk is just as great as it ever was. The amount of money this league is spending is going up by leaps and bounds. This afternoon I was referring to the ultimate disunion of the empire as the outcome of the policy of this government. To-day in Washington there is the representative of the Irish Free State and our own representative. Not only is this government interfering in Europe, it is interfering in the Pacific too.
But to return to Europe. It is only about a week ago that the Prime Minister laid on the table Senator Dandurand's declaration with respect to the optional clause. He said it could be put down on a foolscap sheet of paper. It should have been made on April Fool's day. Senator Dandurand holds up his right hand and makes that declaration in relation to the optional clause. If Canada
1390	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
got out of Europe altogether and our government contented itself with trying to govern Canada instead of Europe, this country would be far better governed than it is to-day. There are a few matters on the front page of today's paper that might well engage the attention of this particular department; one being the dismissal of British subjects from their jobs in the United States. Why has not that been brought to the attention of the League of Nations? The American people do not belong to the league. They started the league and then they said they would not have anything to do with it. Now they are going to build a canal of their own down through New York state, and there will be no deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway owing to the way Canada has run away from the St. Lawrence. What is the government doing about that? Would it not be better for our representative in Washington to get busy about something practical? These leagues never were of much use. After the great Napoleonic wars ending in 1815 the Holy Alliance was formed by the emperors of Austria and Russia and the king of Prussia, but it came to nothing. The United States covenanted to protect Belgium, but they did not do anything to carry out that covenant. The Persians, the Greeks and the Romans all had leagues, but to no purpose. I have never yet heard of a league that did anything to justify its existence. I fail to see what benefit the government is getting from this expenditure. The League of Nations has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. If we spent one half of the time on the economic problems confronting this country that is spent on this League of Nations- if Canada would only mind her own business and keep out of Europe, it would be far better for the Dominion and the empire. When Laurier took office our national expenditure was $36,000,000; to-day it is about $450,000,-000-roughly half a billion dollars, although our population is very little more than we had in 1896. The government is simply spending money like water. It would be much better if they spent this money in helping the motherland keetp up her navy. I venture to say that anybody who wants to be a delegate at Geneva had better get a promise from the government at once, because I believe the league will blow itself uip if you give it time. We are paying to become a nation. Here is a paragraph about the league from the Morning Post:
The anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar yesterday serves as the peg on which the Morning Post to-days hangs its leading editorial on "Naval Necessities." Referring
rMr. Church.]
especially to Canada, the newspaper said: "Canada owes both her existence and her liberties in the first place to the Royal Navy, and then to that balance of power which maintains the British Empire in the new world as in the old. Let that balance be destroyed and how long, despite all pacts and treaties, would any part of that Empire rest secure?
"Canada is growing mightily, not only in industry and agriculture, but in commerce. Her ships are even now bringing to her people the fruits, sugar and other tropical commodities of the West Indies. For the protection of that traffic her naval provision of two destroyers is almost ludicrously inadequate. Her vast grain trade, her sea carriage east, west and south- these owe their security to the existence of the Royal Navy under whose benignant shade Canada has grown and prospered.
"These things are taken so much as a matter of course as to be ignored in the outlook of most of the Dominions. Yet it remains true that the trade of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa have no other security than the fleet which they seldom see, but of which the very existence is a perpetual restraint to any potential enemy. The ideal of peace in an unarmed world is not served by ignoring the truth."
It would be far better for Canada if we devoted the money we are spending on the League of Nations as a contribution towards the British fleet. That is the only real League of Nations; all other leagues are mere moonshine. The British navy has been the only league thait has protected civilization and humanity for the past century. I am not going to move a reduction of the vote because I think it Should be out out altogether. I would give the League of Nations as much as the Prime Minister would give to unemployment-five cents; and that would be too much.


Mr. ROBINSON:: Before the vote passes, Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion to make to the Prime Minister. I think it is an opportune time to draw his attention to the fact that Greece is celebrating the hundredth anniversary of her independence, and Great Britain and the United States have sent their congratulations to that country. I would suggest that Canada might follow their example.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Thank you.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I should like to offer a suggestion. It is only recently that we in Canada have been under the necessity of dealing with foreign affairs. So far there does not seem to be any machinery set up by which we can secure an intelligent discussion of these matters. We have no established procedure. It does seem to me that not merely should these items of expenditure in connection with the league be brought before the house but also the various policies that are being discussed in the league Should come under review. The other day in the

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
committee on industrial and international relations someone asked what we knew with regard to the rights of minorities. Senator Dandurand has been very active in regard to this matter and I fancy there is no country which takes a keener interest than we do in the rights of minorities. So far as I know, however, there has been no discussion in this house in regard to the matter, and no policy has been worked out. It may be that Senator Dandurand is working along the very best lines, but we have had no report other than what has been published in the records of the league. I submit to the Prime Minister there ought to be some very definite means adopted whereby consideration could be given to these affaire. We have set up a committee on industrial and international relations. It was on the suggestion of the Prime Minister that the second part was added and the committee given jurisdiction over international relations, but that phase of the work has never been taken seriously. This year for the first time a reference has been made to that committee, when it was asked to consider the motion of the member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). I do not know whether that committee as now constituted is the proper place to deal with external affairs or whether it might be desirable to have a separate committee. When there are so many matters of importance to be considered it might be well to have a separate committee. As we are aware, the United States senate oommittee on foreign affairs is very influential, and I can see no reason why we should not have a committee of that nature in connection with this house.
I hope the Prime Minister will understand that I am in sympathy with an extension of work along these lines, but I consider that we should have better opportunities of becoming informed, and we should have some voice in tiie determination of policies relating to external affairs.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before the item
carries I would like to have a statement from the Prime Minister. I wish to ask if we will have an opportunity at this session of the house to discuss Canada's foreign policies.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not control either the procedure or the proceedings of the house. With the best of intentions I tried last session to meet my hon. friend on a difficult matter, but apparently I have not been able to accomplish my purpose either to his liking or to the liking of some other hon. members. I hesitate to promise anything which it may be impossible to fulfil. As far
as external affairs are concerned, the same opportunities are afforded for discussion of that subject as are afforded for the discussion of any other subject which may be considered by parliament. As to fixing a specific time I confess I find it somewhat difficult to undertake anything of that nature.


George Halsey Perley: May I suggest
to the Prime Minister that the question raised by my friend from Fort William (Mr. Man-ion) is worthy of the consideration of those who may represent Canada next year at the assembly? As the Prime Minister no doubt knows, there are half a dozen committees of the assembly, one of which deals with financial matters and the consideration of such questions as the division of expenses, what the total budget shall be, and things of that nature. It is very necessary that our representative on the financial committee should pay particular attention to the question that has been raised by the member for Fort William. The hon. member has said that there is a gradual increase from year to year in the expense of the league, and particularly in Canada's share of those expenses. I am of the opinion that the league is doing good work, but unless the matter is very carefully handled this country may be asked to pay more than its just share. In that connection I see no reason why the Prime Minister should not instruct our representative on the financial committee so that he may be able to consider the financial side of the question with greater care.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be
only too ready to act on the suggestion of my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not very well satisfied with the situation as it has been left by the Prime Minister. In this item we have, for instance, grants made to the international labour office. I am keenly interested in what has been going on in connection with that office. There is no real opportunity under an item of this character to discuss in detail what the international labour office has been doing. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) is not present to-night and we are deprived of the information he could give us as to what has been done. He is not here to answer any questions or criticism that we may have to offer. I do not think anybody would suggest that this is a suitable opportunity to discuss matters of that kind. I do not want to be put in the position of having to move the adjournment of the house or to make a motion upon going into supply. I hope such procedure will not be necessary. I want it clear that I am
1392	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
making no threat, but I do not think that a private member on this side of the house ought to be placed in the position where he has to move the adjournment of the house or make a motion upon going into supply before he can get consideration of matters of this kind. They are of sufficient importance to merit consideration by this house, and it is for that reason I appeal to the Prime Minister and ask that in some way they should be brought before the house. Would it not be possible to set aside a particular date for the discussion of league affairs?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point out to my hon. friend that about ten days have elapsed since I made the motion that the house go into supply to consider the estimates of the Department of External Affairs? As the hon. member knows, the consideration of the estimates is the opportune time to discuss any matter pertaining thereto. I deliberately brought on my estimates early in the session so that the fullest opportunity would be given to hon. members to discuss external affairs. In other years the criticism has been made that the estimates for this department have been considered at a time so late in the session that there was not opportunity for full discussion. This year they have been brought on at an early date, and for ten days past the house has been aware of the fact that these estimates would be considered just as soon as the house went into committee of supply. I cannot think of a better opportunity to discuss matters relating to the League of Nations than when the items in the estimates which affect the league are being considered. If my hon. friend can suggest a better opportunity that that afforded by supply, I would like to have his suggestion. It seems to me that supply affords the best of all opportunities. I may say that there will be two or three matters relating to League of Nations affairs which will come before the house shortly. There is one on the order paper at the present time relating to the optional clause. There are other matters, one of which relates to the approval of the protocol for the revision of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, and another relating to the approval of the protocol for the accession of the United States to the protocol of signature of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. These matters will afford opportunities for further discussions. I think the house will permit considerable latitude on any one of these subjects. There is no desire in any way to restrict consideration of these important matters.
[Mr. Woodsworth.l


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am considerably
troubled by these items we are voting for external affairs. I am convinced that we are paying more than any other nation receiving similar service. I think the figures for London, Washington, Paris, Tokyo and Geneva are much in excess of what the work could be done for. I do not think any other nation pays as much for the upkeep of any legation as we pay in the case of Washington, especially if we take into account the interest on the money we have invested there. It may be that the United States pays more with respect to Paris, but I should like to know if the Prime Minister can tell us of any nation which pays more for Tokyo than we pay. As far as Geneva is concerned it is proposed to expend this year about $235,000, and I do not believe we get value for it. It is not a question of "keeping up with the Joneses;" in these items we are running far ahead of them and setting a pace. Canada is the most extravagant of the nations with regard to its external affairs. When I think of the debate which just finished to-day; when I remember that we have no money for unemployment, it seems a shame. We have these sums of 8117,000, $100,000, 180,000, $233,000 and so on, but nothing for the unemployed. I want to ask the Prime Minister if something cannot be done, while he is at the head of the government, to economize in these matters. I know something about these trips abroad; at one time I crossed the ocean with some delegates who were going to attend the League of Nations, and they regarded it as a great joy trip.
I will tell you what I am satisfied I could do. I could take the sum of $50,000 and put a man in London who could take care of all Canadian interests there; for $25,000 I could put a man in Washington who would look after the situation there. You could allow the same sum for Paris and Tokyo, and it would be sufficient. If we were on the job; if we were desirous of advancing the interests of this country instead of being anxious to give people pleasant jobs and nice trips, we could take care of the financial interests, the foreign trade and the international relations of this country in a way that would benefit Canada, at a very much less cost than that which is now involved. It is appalling to me to see Canada paying these immense sums. If I am wrong I should like the Prime Minister to tell me what nations are paying more for similar services than we pay. There is no answer. I happen to know a gentleman who was recently appointed United States ambassador at Warsaw, and certainly in that

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
ease there was no appropriation like this. I remember that two years ago the complaint was made that we were trying to "keep up with the Joneses." I do not want anyone to outstep us in the race, but I object to our country setting the pace for all the others, and that is the position in which we are placing ourselves now in view of the amounts we are asked to vote for external affairs. I object, Mr. Chairman; we could do the business of the country more economically and more effectively at much less expense; at least that certainly is my opinion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geneva-expenses of Canadian delegates to the assembly, council and commissions of the League of Nations, $21,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Just here I should like to say a word of commendation to the government for having placed the last delegation on what appears to me to be the proper footing; that is, the delegation was not composed entirely of supporters of the government. I believe Sir George Foster and Miss Macphail were members of that delegation, and they represent parties other than the Liberal party. We have a precedent for an action of that kind, since last year Lord Cecil was appointed a member of the British Empire delegation as representing the government of Great Britain. It strikes me that in these matters of such great interest to the country we should rise above narrow party lines. After all when it comes to matters of international importance we are all Canadians, and it seems to me the government should be commended for having taken action along this line.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: All prepared to take
trips together at the expense of the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, I do not think that is the idea; it seems to me this is a bigger thing than merely joy riding. I must confess that for a long time I was not tremendously enthusiastic about the league because it seemed to me simply a league of victors and was so circumscribed in its powers that it did not amount to a very great deal. However, as the years have gone by, within somewhat narrow limits, it is true, the league has done very good work, and as a matter of fact it is the only international organization in existence. I think any thoughtful student of world affairs must come to the conclusion that to-day we cannot go along just within our own national limits; we must have some form of world organization if we are to prevent world wars in the future.
Therefore I urge that we should support the League of Nations. If we recognize that Canada must play a part in the League of Nations, then we cannot talk in a cheap way about our delegates to that league taking a joy ride. One might just as well say that when we come to Ottawa to attend the sessions of this Dominion parliament and to look after the business of the country we are taking a joy ride. I think we must recognize that the league is coming to be something of a world parliament; we should choose our representatives just as carefully, and they should take their duties just as seriously, as is the case with representatives in our own legislative bodies. Our delegates have been in attendance at the league; they have come in contact with some of the world leaders and discussed some of the world problems, but there is no opportunity for them to present anything in the shape of a report to other members who have not had the opportunity of going to Geneva. Again I do not know just how this could be done. Some of us have discussed matters with them privately with a view to getting information. I do not suggest that most of us have anything to contribute, but rather that we should receive information as to what is going on, and then possibly have a chance to pass judgment on the policies which have been brought forward.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Since the matter has
been brought up by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I want to say something about my appreciation of the action of the government in sending a parliamentary delegation to the League of Nations last September. I feel slightly embarrased in doing so, because I was one of the group sent. I did not accept the offer of the government as meaning that I would be given a joy ride. That it would be an excursion which would afford me pleasure was of course the case, but that was not the reason I accepted the offer. Hon. members will recall that last year I made the suggestion that the delegation sent to the meeting of the league should be non-partisan. The government acted upon my suggestion with alacrity, and I was taken more or less by surprise as the government does not often take my suggestions seriously. Sir George Foster was appointed to go, not because he was a Conservative, I take it, but because he had done very excellent work for peace and for the League of Nations. I was asked to go, possibly because I had been interested in this subject-I hope that was the reason. When Sir George Foster, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott), the Minister of

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
National Revenue (Mr. Euler), Senator Dandurand and myself arrived in Geneva, we found that we were not Liberals, Tories or Independents-we were Canadians. The treatment accorded to us by the members of the governing party was all that it could possibly have been. Sir George Foster and myself were treated as well as if we had been Liberals- but we were not and that perhaps is something to be thankful for-and I want to say publicly that I think this government deserves credit, not because they appointed us but because they appointed those who were not of their own party, and having done that they treated us as well as though we had been of their own party.
Until I visited Geneva I was something like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), I was not a particular enthusiast for the League of Nations. I believed that it was a cumbersome machine which had in this country some advocates who tvere not very devoted to the interests of the common folks. This view led me to become skeptical of the work being done, but after my visit I have been convinced that it is accomplishing most excellent results. I would make a suggestion to this government, if they should be the government in power when the next appointments are made, that they send the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church). This may seem like a drastic suggestion, but drastic action is necessary. I am sure that he would come back an enthusiast for the league. I found that those who went to scoff remained to pray.
The suggestion has been made that this trip was a joy ride, and I think it was particularly applied to me. I resent that, not because it was applied to me but because it was applied to a Canadian who was acting as a delegate to the League of Nations. If any Canadians have gone to Geneva in the past thinking of their trip as a holiday, they should be severely censured. To learn the workings of the cumbersome machinery of this parliament is not an easy task or one that can be learned rapidly, and it is more difficult to become familiar with the assembly and the committees of the League of Nations.
I would like to offer a few practical suggestions. First of all, I think the government should make the appointments as early as possible, so that those who are appointed may inform themselves on the subjects to be brought before the league. To do that takes considerable reading and time. It seems to me to be rather an insult to the greatness of the work of the league to send people who are ill-prepared. We had almost no time in which to prepare ourselves. There may have

been some who had these subjects at their finger tips, but I assure the committee that I was not in that category.
Another suggestion I would make is that the authority should not be centred in the head of the delegation. In making this suggestion I am not insinuating that the gentleman who headed the delegation was not very able or exceptionally well informed, but if the authority was diffused among the members of the delegation and each one made responsible for certain items on the agenda they would then feel a responsibility to inform themselves regarding particular items, and to discharge their duties to a degree which they cannot feel when they are not in the last analysis fully responsible. My next suggestion may amuse the committee, but I think there should be continuity in the delegation. The committee may think that I have a desire to be sent back to Geneva, but it will realize that if the members of this House of Commons were changed every year, with the exception of one or two, there would be considerable difficulty in doing even reasonably good work. New delegates are appointed each year and it is only by the time they have to depart that they are able to learn the run of things.
As Canadians, and particularly as members of this House of Commons, I think we should rid our minds of all thoughts that attending the assembly of the league is a joy ride. I would like to see the Minister of External Affairs attend the assembly of the league each year, but as he is also the Prime Minister, I realize that that would be impossible. However, someone closely attached to the Department of External Affairs and responsible to that department, such as the under secretary, should attend these meetings. Eight prime ministers and twenty ministers of external affairs attended the tenth assembly of the league.
I think that every facility should be granted to acquaint the parliament of Canada and the people of Canada with what the delegates have seen and what they have done.
I think the delegates before they leave Canada should be well acquainted with the mind of the cabinet in regard to the matters appearing upon the agenda. Another necessary qualification for this work is an understanding of the French language. I was never so sorry that I could not speak French as I was when I attended the league this year. It does seem a pity that more Canadians do not become acquainted with our two languages.

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
I make these suggestions in good faith because I feel that if they are aoted upon, the work at Geneva will be vastly improved. We have a tremendous work to do there. We are the only member of the league from the North American continent. When I realized the number of seats held by South America, and the great importance Europe attaches to itself in the work of the league, I was convinced that we have not been living up to our full responsibility to this new community, the world.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to express my thanks to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for drawing the attention of the house and of the country to the composition of Canada's representation at Geneva at the assembly of the league last year. He drew attention particularly to the fact that the delegation was not composed merely of members of one political party. I think the delegation represented, so far as it was possible so to do, pretty much all shades of opinion in parliament. May I say to the hon. member for Southeast Grey that the government felt that the country as a whole would appreciate there being on the representation from Canada a woman representative, and that we could think of no one who could more appropriately represent the women of Canada than the first woman member in the House of Commons? If there was ever any doubt as to the wisdom of the choice, that doubt was dispelled the moment my hon. friend accepted the invitation, attended the League of Nations and made known her impressions and views with respect to its work. The suggestions which have been made to-night by her are, I think, entirely to the point. They are all of a character that. I believe, should receive and, I may say, will be given very careful attention.
Mr. STEW"ART (Leeds):	There are two
advantages that we may expect to derive from the League of Nations and from the fact that we send representatives there. The first is the contribution which we through our representatives make to the work and the undertakings of the league. As has been suggested, it is very important that those who go there should be well equipped in every way with information in advance as to the agenda, and should be assigned some particular part in the work that is to be done. The other advantage to be derived from sending representatives to the league is the information which is brought back to us and which is disseminated amongst the Canadian people
as to the work, objects and accomplishments of the league. When we refer a matter to any committee of the house it is quite in order to expect and receive from that committee a report. While listening to the discussion I was thinking it would be to our advantage if,- when these delegates return, we had a report as to the situation as they see it from the Canadian standpoint. So far as I know no such written report has ever been made by the delegates from Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A sixty page
report was submitted to parliament more than a month ago.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: From the Canadian delegation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not seen it yet. It has not come to my mail box. That is after all the line along which we shall get the best results, namely, by making known the objects, work and accomplishments of the league and the part which our representatives have taken in its work. If such a report is available it should be given very wide distribution and should be made known to all who are interested in the work of the league.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The report was tabled and the announcement thereof appeared in the votes and proceedings. Copies were distributed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Copies may
have been distributed amongst the members, but that is not the distribution I have in mind. I have in mind a much wider distribution than that, because that, after all, will touch only the fringe of the situation and will not reach many organizations and people who are deeply interested in this work.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: I should like to endorse the statement made by the hon. member for Leeds as to the interest taken in reports given by members of the delegation to Geneva on their return to Canada and the advisability of a wide distribution of those reports. It was my good fortune last year to be asked to address many meetings on this question, and I always found the people more interested in the proceedings at Geneva and the work of the League of Nations than on any other question. Wherever I had an opportunity to speak to the Canadian people on the matter, they were keenly interested in knowing how the work was conducted, about the people who came from other countries, their objects and particularly their outlook.
1396	COMMONS
Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
One thing that interested them more than anything else was the spirit which is evident at Geneva in the gatherings of the assembly and things of that sort. Sometimes in such conferences as that which is now proceeding in London and that which takes place annually in Geneva in the assembly and council of the league, there is apparently a great deal of talk and not so much work done. The old farm saying, "Much cry and little wool," is, in the minds of some people, applicable, but the same thing is true of every parliamentary gathering. It is unquestionably true of this house.


Robert James Manion: Let the hon. member speak for himself.


Malcolm McLean: I am speaking
for myself, and I would like to associate my hon. friend with me in speaking for ourselves. This however is more apparent than real. In a gathering such as this, where men and women come from all parts of Canada and their opinions are so diverse, it is necessary to do much talking and to delay proceedings a long time until matters are threshed out. The same thing is true in committees. In Geneva the business is conducted in the same way and according to the same principle but on a much larger scale. There were many women delegates at the assembly last year-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Ten.


Malcolm McLean: I thought there were more than that. There were eight or ten on the committee on which I had the pleasure of sitting. As they come from all parts of the world, represent almost all the highly civilized countries, and discuss very important affairs, it is inevitable that much time must be taken in and much thought given to the carrying on of the work of the assembly.
It is not correct to say that the assembly is a holiday in itself. Through the hot weather of the month of September in Geneva, in poorly ventilated halls with very little fresh air coming in, sitting under very difficult circumstances-which will be remedied as soon as the new parliamentary buildings are completed-the delegates stuck to their work, not from three o'clock in the afternoon but from ten o'clock in the morning and in committees for long stretches of time on end. I can assure this committee that anyone who sat in the assembly or in the committees and paid attention to the work that was being carried on certainly worked hard. The parliament of the nations that meets at Geneva

is unquestionably becoming the most important political gathering in the world. Canada gets not only the benefit of which the hon. member for Leeds spoke, that is of learning through the delegates what goes on there and how it is done, but also a good deal of benefit from the wholesome advertising she should get and has been able to get all through the years during the ten assemblies of the^ league. One of the fine things that a Canadian meets in Geneva is the high regard in which this country is held by the assembly of the league and by the men who come there year after year from the various countries. This is due I think to the class of members who have been sent there from the earliest days of the league down to the present time, with due allowance for modesty on the part of some of us who happened to be there on one occasion.
My only regret is that more members of parliament have not been able to go and that I did not know more about the league in previous years and in the session during the year in which it was my good fortune to be asked by the government to be one of the representatives at Geneva. It is well worth while to study the work of the league, to render what assistance we can by word, thought and influence in this country and to keep in touch with the work that is being carried on there. Whenever possible we should endeavour to visit Geneva and see how the work of the nations is being conducted. It is a big thing, a growing thing. The spirit that is evident at Geneva is extremely strong. I had never had an opportunity before to realize how necessary and wise it was for men and women to talk and work and keep on talking and working even when apparently they were not coming to a solution of their difficulties. I happened to be on the fifth committee, which dealt, amongst other things, with narcotics. During the first meeting of the committee the delegates of certain countries in Europe made statements that their governments had last year voluntarily instructed the manufacturers of narcotics that they must cut down their output to a certain figure. They did this voluntarily. The Canadian delegation thought that this would be a good time to introduce a resolution looking to a conference of all the manufacturing countries, with perhaps some of the victim countries, in order to secure a limitation of the manufacture of narcotics, and then ration them in order to avoid suffering on the part of those who needed them, and avoid also the contraband manufacturing of narcotics. The Canadian

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
delegation announced to the British delegation that they had this in mind. The British delegation had introducted a resolution of that character five years before, but had not succeeded in getting it passed. It was evident that the British delegation wished to reintroduce such a resolution at that time, and in cooperation with the Canadian delegation the resolution was introduced. At sitting after sitting of the committee that question was fought over. Everybody wanted to do something about it, but it was difficult to come to an agreement as to terms. The resolution was moved and many amendments were considered. At times it looked to some of the delegates from other countries that the situation was hopeless. But finally, after a drafting committee had been appointed, and had done much work, a solution was arrived at; a resolution was passed unanimously calling for a conference, to be held shortly, of all the manufacturing nations, with at least an equal number of the victim nations, in order to secure a reduction in the manufacture of narcotics and their rationing so as not to increase the price, and also to take steps to guard against what happened in this country in connection with a reduction in the manufacturing of another article, and its subsequent illicit manufacture and sale. My experience on that committee indicated the wisdom and the necessity of continued discussion with a view to reaching an amicable solution. Of course, that is not new: we do it in committees of this house all the time, and much of the important work of the League of Nations is done in committees, just as is the case in this parliament.


George Reginald Geary: When we come to the next
vote we shall find an item that seems to have been overlooked by a number of those who have spoken. In addition to the publications of the League of Nations for distribution to members of parliament, we subscribe for the publications of the Empire Parliamentary Association. These reports and publications come to our letter boxes in such numbers that unless one follows them closely he is very likely to pass over them. But as the hon. member for Southeast Grey will agree, it is not difficult, if one takes advantage of what is offered just in these publications of the League of Nations and of the Empire Parliamentary Association, to keep fairly well abreast of the general current of affairs, and at least to know what is going on and what is going to be dealt with by the league in the assembly and otherwise. I think that that is money well spent. Perhaps I am a little ahead, Mr. Chairman, in discussing that vote.
We have a League of Nations society in Canada, which is doing its best to increase its membership. It has a publication called Interdependence. If the people of this country only realized it, there are publications available which will enable an3'body who chooses to take advantage of them to keep fairly well abreast of what is going on in the league. Up until the last ten years we probably took more of an academic interest in these matters because we were a little far afield, but since the war we have been drawn more into the current of events and we feel somewhat of the interest the Britisher is bound to have every day he reads of foreign affairs in his morning paper. I do not think that the press in Canada up to the last two or three years have carried items of foreign news to any great extent and it is not to be wondered at that the people of Canada have not felt bound to take a great deal of interest in foreign affairs. But the great war brought us into the swirl of events, and as time goes on we shall be drawn farther afield than we have been up to this time.
I	am very glad to have heard what my hon. friend from Southeast Grey has said about the league and her experiences there. 1 should like to say that that is no different from any other trip. If one wants to work, one works; and if one wants to make a joyride of it, one can do so. The League of Nations being of the importance it is, and Canada taking part in it to the great extent it does, I would not for a moment consider cutting down our activities in that regard, but rather I think we should seek to further our connection with the work.


Robert James Manion: I wish to say a word or two on a question not dealing with the league at all, but dealing with external affairs. It is of some importance, and perhaps may be said on this item as well as on any other.
There is an organization called the Parliamentary Economic Conference which, except for the interval of the war, has been meeting yearly for the past twenty or twenty-five years. Last fall it met in Berlin, Germany, and some sixty-two or sixty-three countries were represented. The majority of the representatives pay their own expenses. I am not suggesting that this is an opportunity for this government or any government to spend more money. I am pointing out that it is an economic conference of a good deal of importance, attended by some sixty-two countries. At the last meeting Great Britain had some twenty-five representatives. Canada had no representative present; at least, she would not have had a representative had not a member of this house of parliament been in

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
London at that time and been asked by Sir Howard d'Egville, the secretary of the Empire Parliamentary Association, to represent Canada. He hesitated to go, pointing out that he was not even a supporter of the government, but it was represented to him that this was a parliamentary organization that had nothing to do with governments and was not political in any way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Who was the representative?


Robert James Manion: I was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was not the Minister of National Revenue present at that conference?


Robert James Manion: No, there was no other representative of Canada present, and I went only incidentally. I had not intended to mention my name until the Prime Minister asked for it.
The Parliamentary Economic Conference is a business organization dealing, for instance, with such subjects as the rationalization of industry and matters of that kind. It covers a large field. It is an organization which should be attended by business men, and I am sure that we have in this country outstanding business men who would be glad to represent Canada at the annual meeting of that conference. It is, I think, of some importance. I do not know that it would be of any great value, except that it would have its value in contacts and in a certain amount of advertising for our country, so many countries being represented at the conference. As I said, Great Britain had twenty-five delegates, and there were also representatives from Japan and various otheT countries. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that it might be well for the Department of External Affairs to get in touch with Sir Howard d'Egville and see if Canada cannot be represented at future conferences, not at the expense of this country at all, but by prominent business men of Canada who would be glad to attend at their own expense. Most of the representatives of Great Britain went at their own expense. While some of the countries pay the expenses of their delegates, I think the majority do not. I offer that suggestion for the consideration of the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Thank you.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Would the Prime Minister be good enough to give the details making up the item of $21,000 for expenses of the Canadian delegates to the assembly?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These were
travelling and other incidental expenses. I do not appear to have them in detail.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I cannot find the amounts to each delegate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They will appear in the Auditor General's report for the different years.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I should like to get the information. I may not be careful enough in searching, but I cannot find the information. I should like to know how the $21,000 is split up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: About twothirds of the expense is incurred in connection with the work of the assembly and about one-third in connection with the work of the council and the commissions. There are travelling expenses, hotel expenses, and other incidental expenses.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I really must request an answer, because vote 245 is set out as:
Expenses of Canadian delegates to the assembly, council and commissions of the League of Nations, $21,000.
I want to know who were the delegates and how much was paid to each one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The delegates were the Right Hon. Sir George Foster, the Hon. Philippe Roy, Miss Agnes Macphail, M.P. and Mr. Malcolm McLean, M.P. Probably I should have mentioned first Hon. Senator Dandurand, Hon. J. C. Elliott, and Hon. W. D. Euler. They composed the delegation to the last assembly. I cannot say at the moment who the delegates to the next assembly will be. Their expenses altogether amount to $12,000.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I should like to know how those expenses are distributed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As near as I can give my hon. friend the particulars, the expenses were: Senator Dandurand, $2,500; Hon. J. C. Elliott, $2,515.93; Hon. W. D. Euler, $2,000; Sir George Foster, $1,680; Hon. Philippe Roy, SS46;-of course Mr. Roy was in Europe at the time-Miss Agnes Macphail, $1,658; Mr. Malcolm McLean, $1,817. With, respect to the expenses of the three ministers the first mentioned I may say that in connection with the work of the league a custom prevails whereby each country extends some form of hospitality to representatives of other nations, the expenses incurred in connection therewith so far as Canada is concerned are distributed amongst the ministers who repre-

Supply-External Affairs-Geneva
sent Canada. That would account for the larger amounts charged against the ministers as compared with the other delegates.
iMr. WOODSWORTH: Before we pass from external affairs, although it does not come directly under this item, would the Prime Minister give us a statement with regard to our present relationship to Russia? How far have we established connections now that relations have been established between Great Britain and Russia? To be more specific, if, for example, a Canadian wishes to go to Russia can he obtain a passport here, or must he obtain it through the British authorities?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as
relations between Canada and Russia are concerned, they are similar to those existing between Canada and any other country, other than those in which we have legations. We have legations only in the United States, France, and Japan; we have not legations, in nor do we receive diplomatic representatives from, any other countries than those three. Russia in that regard is in exactly the same relationship to Canada as, say, Italy or Austria or Germany.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Did we not break
our relationship with Russia?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There had been a special diplomatic privilege given to Russia. That was discontinued. Russia at that time under a special treaty negotiated with Great Britain to which this country had become a party, had a position of advantage, diplomatically, relative to that granted to any other country. A change was made in that regard, as my hon. friend knows, when the treaty was abrogated. That, however, has left Russia, so far as receiving diplomatic missions by Canada is concerned, simply in the same position as any other country, save the three 1 have mentioned. If any one from Canada wishes to visit Russia he can obtain a passport from the passport office at Ottawa. To admit him to Russia, it would have to be vised, I believe, by Russian authorities.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is Russia represented at the League of Nations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think not.


Robert James Manion: I understood the leader of the opposition wished one item to be held over


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the next item.


George Halsey Perley: Regarding this
particular item, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for Mel-fort (Mr. McLean) suggested there should be
a wider distribution of literature with respect to the league. I know of no way in which it can be done more effectively than by the League of Nations Society. Ordinary membership of the society costs only a dollar a year, but that does not pay the expenses incident to distributing the bulletins and other papers sent out to the ordinary members. The more help the government gives to the society the more they will be able to distribute this literature to their ordinary members. That is the cheapest and simplest way of securing that distribution.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, April 9, 1930