1931-05-15

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) presented the first report of the special committee to which was referred Bill No. 4 to amend the Copyright Act as follows:
Your Committee recommends that it he granted leave to print 400 copies in English and 150 copies in French of its proceedings and of the evidence to be taken by it, together with such papers and documents as may be incorporated with such evidence, for the use of the Committee and for the use of the members of this House; and that Standing Order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
Your Committee further recommends that it be given leave to sit while the House is sitting.
Mr. CAHAN moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
First report of the select standing committee on standing orders-Mr. Bury.
Mr. BURY moved that the report be concurred in.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: I should like the hon. gentleman to give some explanation so that we may know why this permission should be granted. I think in a matter of divorce, as I understand this to be, the rules of procedure should be strictly observed.


Mr. BURY:: I may tell my hon. friend that the explanation given the committee was that it was impossible to locate the respondent in the case until May 4, when he was personally served. Therefore it was impossible to file the petition in time.


Ernest Lapointe: I think this motion
should stand so that we may see for ourselves what is at the bottom of it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the accession, in respect of Canada, to chapters I, II, III, and IV of the General Act of 1928 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, subject to the following conditions:-[DOT]

International Disputes-Mr. Bennett
1.	That the following disputes are excluded from the procedure described in the General Act, including the procedure of conciliation:
(i)	Disputes arising prior to the accession, in respect of Canada, to the said General Act or relating to situations or facts prior to the said accession;
(ii)	Disputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement;
(iii)	Disputes between His Majesty's government in Canada and the government of any other member of the League of Nations which is a member of the British commonwealth of nations, all of which disputes shall be settled ill such manner as the parties have agreed or shall agree;
(iv)	Disputes concerning questions which by international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of states; and
(v)	Disputes with any party to the General Act who is not a member of the League of Nations.
2.	That His Majesty in respect of Canada reserves the right in relation to the disputes mentioned in article 17 of the General Act to require that the .procedure described in chapter II of the said act shall be suspended in respect of any dispute which has been submitted to and is under consideration by the council of the League of Nations, provided that notice to suspend is given after the dispute has been submitted to the council and is given within ten days of the notification of the initiation of the procedure, and provided also that such suspension shall be limited to a period of twelve months or such longer period as may be agreed by the parties to the dispute or determined by a decision of all the members of the council others than the parties to the dispute.
3.	(i) That, in the case of a dispute, not being a dispute mentioned in article 17 of the General Act, which is brought before the council of the League of Nations in accordance with the provisions of the covenant, the procedure described in chapter I of the General Act shall not be applied, and, if already commenced, shall be suspended, unless the council determines that the said procedure shall be adopted.
(ii)	That in the case of such a dispute the procedure described in chapter III of the General Act shall not be applied unless the council has failed to effect a settlement of the dispute within twelve months from the date on which it was first submitted to the council, or, in a case where the procedure prescribed in chapter I has been adopted without producing an agreement between the parties, within six months from the termination of the work of the conciliation commission. The council may extend either of the above periods by- a decision of all its members other than the parties to the dispute.
And that this house do approve of the same, subject to the said conditions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I assume that hon. members of the house have had an opportunity of reading the General Act of 1928, which has been distributed through the distribution office. It will be observed that the motion, in terms, approves of the accession in respect of Canada to chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 of
the General Act of 1928. This act is called the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, and under that act the first methods to be applied are conciliatory methods, the first chapter being entitled "'Conciliation." Article IV of that chapter provides that the commission of conciliation shall be composed as follows:
The commission shall be composed of five members. The parties shall each nominate one commissioner, who may be chosen from among their respective nationals. The three other commissioners shall be appointed by agreement from among the nationals, of third powers. These three commissioners must be of different nationalities and must not be habitually resident in the territory nor be in the service of the parties. The parties shall appoint the president of the commission from among them.
To the other provisions I will not refer, because I take it that hon. members are probably quite familiar with the general act itself.
Chapter 2 refers to the judicial settlement of disputes:
All disputes with regard to which the parties are in conflict as to their respective rights shall, subject to any reservations which may be made under article 39, be submitted for decision to the Permanent Court of International Justice, unless the parties agree, in the manner hereinafter provided, to have resort to an arbitral tribunal.
It is understood that the disputes referred to above include in particular those mentioned in article 36 of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice.
Article 39, which comes under the provisions of the General Act, refers to the reservations, which do not apply to those who accept the General Act. I do not think it necessary to take up the time of the house in reading them. So far I have dealt with chapter 2.
Chapter 3 deals with settlement by another method altogether-that is, by arbitration: first, conciliation; second, by course to the International Court of Justice; and third, by arbitration. Article 21 reads:
Any dispute not of the kind referred to in article 17 which does not, within the month following the termination of the work of the conciliation commission provided for in chapter I, form the object of an agreement between the parties, shall, subject to such reservations as may be made under article 39, be brought before an arbitral tribunal *which, unless the parties otherwise agree, shall be constituted in the manner set out below.
It is, perhaps, unnecessary to do more than observe that the tribunal shall consist of five members, each of the parties nominating one member, who may be chosen from among their respective nationals. The two other arbitrators and the chairman are to be chosen.
1628	COMMONS
International Disputes-Mr. Bennett
by common agreement, from among the nationals of third powers-very much like the provisions with respect to commissions for conciliation.
Chapter 4 deals with the general provisions of the act itself. I do not think it necessary to refer to the articles of that chapter, because it will be observed that the resolution provides that it is expedient for Canada to approve of the accession to chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the act. Then follow the provisions, in the resolution, with respect to the exceptions from the operation of the act. These are important. May I direct the attention of the house to them:
^ 1. That the following disputes are excluded from the procedure described in the General Act, including the procedure of conciliation:
(i)	Disputes arising prior to the accession, in respect of Canada, to the said General Act or relating to situations or facts prior to the said accession.
That is a reasonable provision inserted by the governments of Great Britain, Australia and Canada, for it takes ou't of the operation of the General Act, the settlement either by way of conciliation, by recourse to the courts, or by arbitration, of such disputes as arose prior to the accession of this country to the General Act or relating to situations or facts prior to such accession.
(ii)	Disputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement.
It frequently happens, for instance, that methods may be devised by countries for the settlement of disputes peacefully, which would take such disputes out of the operation of this act. In other words, we will rely upon this act with respect to the matters which we have agreed to settle peacefully. Then:
(iii)	Disputes between His Majesty's government in Canada and the, government of any other member of the League of Nations which is a member of the British commonwealth of nations, all of which disputes shall be settled in such manner as the parties have agreed or shall agree.
That, of course, is a much wider question. It has been felt that members of the same family should settle their differences, if any, by recourse to methods entirely different from the methods that would be adopted for the purpose of settling differences between a member of the family and strangers. Discussions have taken place from time to time as to the method by which a court could be constituted within the empire for the settlement of empire differences. This provides that members of the commonwealth of nations known as the British Empire, who are members of the

League of Nations, shall not have recourse to the provisions of the General Act for the settlement of any disputes or differences that may arise between them.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: How would that
affect India?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As India is now constituted, it clearly provided that India's case would not be settled by recourse to the provisions of the General Act, if, for example, they had any dispute with us or with South Africa or Australia or New Zealand.


James Shaver Woodsworth: India is a member of the league.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, India is a member
of the league; that is the reason. India is a part of the British commonwealth of nations and is also a member of the League of Nations. Therefore disputes arising between two parts of the British Empire, which are members of the League of Nations, wall not be settled under the provisions of the General Act, but by some other method which has been or which may hereafter be agreed upon.
It is not necessary at this time to discuss in this chamber the question as to the establishment of some empire tribunal for the settlement of differences of that kind. Suffice it to say that discussions have gone on now for a period of some ten years, and those discussions are still going forward. Personally I look for the establishment some day of a tribunal that may be agreed upon, so that in the event of there being differences they may be settled 'by recourse to that tribunal and not to some tribunal outside of the empire itself.
(iv)	Disputes concerning questions which by international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of states.
That, it is needless to say, is a very important reservation. International law recognizes the rights of a state to settle certain domestic problems without having to arbitrate them or to yield. to conciliation from without, or by recourse to the decisions of any tribunal, whatever it may be. The other evening we had some slight indication of what might be involved. International law does not countenance the idea that a sovereign state may have to listen to another sovereign state indicate how that state shall settle its domestic problems. We may, if we have agreed so to do, make arrangements by which we offer our services; and frequently in diplomacy we know that states have offered their good offices for the purpose of bringing about adjustments. But international law recog-

International Disputes-Mr. Bennett
nizes that there are certain matters of a domestic nature which should not be regarded as a subject for discusison before tribunals set up, for instance, under the provisions of an agreement such as this.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Do I understand
the Prime Minister to say that such a question as we had under consideration the other evening, with respect to the Ukrainian problem in Poland, would be precluded from consideration under these provisions?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has not
followed me. By international law it is not competent for a sovereign state to interfere with the domestic business of any other sovereign state, unless there is an agreement permitting it to be done. I did not allude to the matter under discussion the other evening in order to illustrate my point, because both parties are members of the League of Nations. I was dealing with what would happen if they were not members of the league and had not agreed to settle their disputes in certain ways. The very recognition of the existence of a national community involves the right of that national community to carry on its own domestic business in a manner which is acceptable to the majority of the people within the area constituting that national. It is true that by international agreements such rights have to some extent been settled during the years. But those hon. members of this house who recall the cablegram which the then German emperor sent to President Kruger, with its repercussions, and who also recall the discussions in the House of Commons when Sir A.usten Chamberlain and the chancellor of the German empire began at long range a discussion which ended in rather acrimonious observations being made by both, will realize that the general principle of international law is that there is no right in one country to interfere in the domestic business of another unless it be that by agreement that other country has afforded the opportunity for such action being taken. It has been a constant practice in diplomacy, almost crystallized into a recognized procedure .rnder international law, for disinterested states to offer their good offices for the purpose of arriving at adjustments which might prevent near revolutions, but not to interfere in the domestic affairs of any given country. This reservation is prepared for the purpose of recognizing the general principles of international law, the non-interference by outside communities in the domestic concerns of this country or any other country that- may be a party to the act.
The next dispute excluded is No. 5, which reads:
(v) Disputes with any party to the General Act who is not a member of the League of Nations.
That reservation was inserted in the accession resolutions of Great Britain and Australia and is now being submitted to this house because it is felt that disputes as between two communities, one being a member of the League of Nations and the other is not, should not be subject compulsorily to determination and settlement by recourse to the provisions of the General Act itself. Those reservations, as I say, were inserted by a general agreement between the governments of Great Britain, Canada and Australia. When the matter came before the British House of Commons on March 9 of this year the foreign secretary moved a resolution approving of the accession of Great Britain to the General Act. Sir Austen Chamberlain moved an amendment against acceptance on the ground that it diminished the authority of the council of the league and constituted a procedure tending to encourage international disputes. The matter was discussed by some very eminent members of the House of Commons, such as Sir Rennell Rodd and Major Hills, and others, who emphasized that ground and contended that the provisions for arbitration where no rule of law exists, practically gave five men power to legislate on what were distinctly political matters. I need hardly say to this house that one of the great difficulties in arriving at peaceful settlements between countries by recourse to arbitration or other methods of similar character, whether it be conciliatory or judicial, has been the unwillingness of sovereign communities to submit political differences to the judgment of any arbitration tribunal. One might say in the broad and general way and without exaggeration, that in the main that difficulty is what has brought on -war, the unwillingness of communities to submit political questions to the determination of an arbitration tribunal however eminent it may be.
It will be recalled that before the war the Bryan treaties for arbitration were approved by the United States Senate, and I think one was approved by this house and adopted by Great Britain, but in general there has been the difficulty in having nations believe that political matters should be settled by recourse to arbitration because it was feared that there would be interference with what they conceived to be the right to settle their own disputes in the way they thought best.

1630	COMMONS
International Disputes-Mr. Bennett
The records will show that some of the Labour members of the British House of Commons objected to the extensive character of the reservations, particularly that one which excluded signatories who were not members of the League of Nations. However, Sir Herbert Samuel, Sir Donald Maclean, Mrs. Manning, Mr. Noel-Baker, and others contended that the General Act did not supersede the work of the council, but merely supplemented it where experience had shown it could not reach finality. They urged that the reservations safeguarded the points as to which the greatest uncertainty might arise until such time as additional experience could be Obtained as to how far they were necessary, and pointed out finally that accession at the present time would extend only until 1934, when additional reservations could be made or present reservations could be reduced in the light of intervening experience. That is a fair precis of the attitude taken in the House of Commons in England with respect to this matter when it was under discussion.
The British house voted down the amendment of Sir Austen Chamberlain. The resolution of the assembly of September 26, 1928, does not seem to 'have been referred to although, in my judgment, it would seem to dispose of Sir Austen Chamberlain's argument. That resolution reads as follows:
The assembly invite all states to accept arbitral decisions for the settlement of all disputes either by becoming parties to the annexed General Act or by concluding conventions with individual states. For the same purpose, they specifically declare that undertakings such as the General Act are not to be interpreted as restricting the duty of the League of Nations to take at any. time whatever action may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of the world, or as impeding its intervention in virtue of articles 15 and 17 of the covenant where a dispute cannot be submitted to arbitral or judicial procedure, or cannot be settled by such procedure, or where the conciliation proceedings have failed.
That resolution declares the principles and purposes of the league with respect to this act. If the act is read in the light of that declaration and of the reservations which, after all, are reservations which this or any other country would be expected to adopt in the light of our present practice and knowledge of international affairs, there should be no difficulty in this house giving its accession to this General Act.
This act is not preceded by a protocol. As all hon. members who have looked at it will have observed, it is signed by the president of the ninth ordinary session of the

assembly of the League of Nations and by the secretary-general, and communities who were members -of the league were invited to indicate their accession to it by appropriate resolutions 'by their legislative bodies charged with responsibility in the premises. In our case, that is the Commons House of Parliament and the Senate House of Parliament, and the resolution which is now being submitted for the consideration of this house seeks the approval of Canada's giving her accession to this General Act. I doubt not that most hon. members observed the other day that the French republic adopted this General Act with certain reservations, which I am bound to say I have been unable to secure at the moment. There are a considerable number of them and if my general information is accurate, one is somewhat more extensive in its operations than any of the reservations contained in the submission to-day. Mr. Briand, the foreign secretary, indicated his intention of himself, depositing at Geneva the accession of the republic of France, he considering it to be a matter of very considerable importance in the preservation of the peace of the world.
AVe have now the following safeguards of peace: the covenant of the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand pact, a declaration against war as an instrument of national policy, arbitration treaties, and before the wax we had the court at the Hague. AVe now have our permanent Court of International Justice.
This resolution is one asking the House of Commons of Canada to approve of the Dominion acceding to the provisions of the General Act, with the reservations indicated, believing that it is one Step more towards the pacific settlement of international disputes. I do not intend to dwell upon the desirability of that and one of our most eminent historians has pointed out that the very existence of democracies is opened to the maintenance of militarism. As to that I think there can be no question, and while I am hopeful, I am not so hopeful of the future as not to realize that, human nature being what it is, as long as armaments are made and nations invest money in them, just so long will there be danger of a spark creating the explosion that will result in wax. The other evening, just by accident, I picked up an old magazine, and I observed there a translation by Dryden of a poem by Lucretius. It was an appeal for peace 2,000 years ago. I could not but reflect tliat after
2,000	years mankind is still striving for peace, still endeavouring by pacific methods to make our civilization respond to the demands we

International Disputes-Mr. Lapointe
make upon it, realizing and recognizing that war is waste: that it cannot in any sense be approved as an instrument of national policy, and that we at this time are paying the penalty that all the nations of the world are paying for the wastage of men, material and money that took place from 1914 to 1919, Under such circumstances I should think there would be little difficulty in this new democracy giving its accession to a method of settlement of differences that", happily, I think, will not arise in our time between this and other countries, for we ourselves have made provisions for the settlement of our difficulties on the American continent to a large extent by the international treaty which we made in 1908. Happily, I say, if we have differences, they will be composed by resort to conciliation, or to the courts that may be established to ensure the great principles of international law are more firmly asserted and more clearly understood with the lapse of time, or by arbitration when that becomes the last resort to which men may appeal for the settlement of differences between their country and another. I commend the approval of the accession of this General Act to the favourable consideration of the house.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this resolution as a new move in the organization for peace, as a new link in the chain of the machinery to secure the prevention of war. After the foundation of the League of Nations and the various instruments and agencies which were established for discussion and conciliation, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has said that the most important step was the creation of the world court. But only justiciable disputes, and even at that, only a certain category of justiciable disputes, could be submitted to that court. In 1928 came the treaty of Paris, ordinarily called the Kellogg pact, by which Canada with most of the other nations of the world agreed to outlaw war, and took the pledge to see to it that every difficulty between our country and the othere should be settled by pacific means. When the Kellogg pact was submitted for the approval of this parliament, I took occasion to state that it was of great value; that it was certainly most important for the people of the world that all nations should consider war as a crime and should outlaw it, but that the value of that pact would consist mainly in the measures which might be adopted afterwards to make it effective.
The first measure that was adopted, as far as many countries are concerned, was the accept-
22110-104J
ance of the optional clause of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, whereby we bound ourselves to accept the decision of that court in regard to certain disputes which might be submitted to it by us and other countries. At the time Canada assumed the leadership in the British commonwealth of nations for the acceptance of that optional clause. Indeed, Britain was rather doubtful; it was against British tradition to submit to a tribunal outside of the empire, on which tribunal foreigners would sit, any dispute concerning the empire. Canada stated both at the League of Nations and at the Imperial conference that we were ready to accept the optional clause and we merely agreed to postpone our declaration to that, effect until a final decision was reached by the other nations of the empire and this was done, I believe, in 1929. The General Act was drafted by the League of Nations in 1928 and submitted to the various countries. Our delegates at the League of Nations-and I refer more .particularly to Senator Dandurand -took a strong attitude in favour of arbitration, and indeed it is gratifying to us that to-day this attitude is endorsed and supported by the other countries of the British commonwealth. Arbitration, security and disarmament -they are the three fundamental principles: which seem to be linked together and which are pointed out as the goal to be reached iby all nations.
By the approval of this resolution and the acceptance of arbitration as the means of settling our disputes with other countries, we and the other countries which accept it are clearing the road for the momentous gathering which is to take place next February for the disarmament of the world. All countries will be represented there, even those that are not members of the League of Nations. In that connection Mr. Speaker, I was reading the other day that in the British parliament they have appointed members of the three parties to the imperial defence committee in order to prepare the case of Great Britain to be submitted to that very important conference. In the Lnited States they have adopted the practice of sending members not necessarily on the side of the government in office to conferences on disarmament. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he consider ' the advisability instead of having solely the government of Canada represented at this most momentous gathering, of having the parliament of Canada represented there. I believe that the parliament of Canada should be represented at that world conference to ex
1632	COMMONS
International Disputes-Mr. Lapointe
press the unanimous voice of Canada in favour of disarmament, and in favour of that great work for peace.
Justice and peace, I might say, are twin sisters. The one cannot exist without the other. The obligation, the compulsory nature of the pacific solution of difficulties is an essential condition, a sine qua non condition, for the prevention of war. Arbitration is an act of moderation. It is an act of patience. It is the desire to do what is right, and it affords the means of redressing injustices between nations without resorting to the still greater injustice of war, because, after all, bullets and machine guns cannot be considered as the instruments of fair and impartial justice.
The world has always craved for peace. This is not new. What is new is the organization for peace. War has always been organized, but peace has not been organized in the past. Peace was often a subject for discussion and debate, for fine words, but deeds for peace have only come to exist since a few years ago. This resolution before us to-day is one deed in the organization for peace, in that organization *which is necessary to effect a change in the *conditions that exist. Arbitration accepted -everywhere, will be a greater security than armaments. I was amazed the other day to hear an hon. gentleman say in this house: If you want peace, prepare for war. It was simply repeating that old saying of centuries; "Si vis p&eem, para bel'lum." That was the doctrine of the nations prior to 1914-prepare for war and you will have peace, and it is because of that doctrine that the world has been drenched with blood. It has been proved futile and vain. It is in organizing for peace, and not for war, that peace can be secured.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Does my hon. friend
think that if England had been prepared for war in 1914 the Great war would have come?


Ernest Lapointe: The result has demonstrated that the nations which were not prepared were the victorious nations in the end.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: How
does thq hon. member prove that statement? That is an assertion of fact.


Ernest Lapointe: I am afraid there are
still some gentlemen who will vote for resolutions, of this kind, but who do not believe in them. I shall not try to convince my hon. friend.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
no answer.
I Mi-. Lapointe. 1


Ernest Lapointe: We do not think alike
on these things.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree.


Ernest Lapointe: I know that, but I prefer my own view's to those of the hon. gentleman.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
your privilege.


Ernest Lapointe: That is right. If my
hon. friend will discuss this matter and give us the benefit of his opinion, I shall be quite pleased to listen to him, but in the meantime I would ask him to listen to me.
By arbitration it is intended to apply to nations the same rational principle for the settlement of differences as all the civilized countries have accepted for the settlement of disputes between individuals. Even during the war, as early as 1917, I remember that Pope Benedict XV preached the doctrine that the nations which would refuse arbitration ought to be considered as the aggressors. Arbitration provides at least a way to try to prevent war, and I think it should enlist the support of hon. gentlemen everywhere.
The resolution before the house provides for accepting a tribunal of conciliation, or conciliation and judicial settlement by way of the Permanent Court of International Justice, or, if the nations prefer, by arbitration before an arbitral tribunal.
In the first place, all disputes may be submitted to conciliation. Then disputes as to the respective rights of nations are to be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice or to an arbitral tribunal; but, by agreement, they may also be referred first to conciliation. In the third place, nonlegal disputes, if not settled by conciliation, are to be referred to an arbitral tribunal. There are at least four reservations, which are the same or about the same as were put into our acceptance of the optional clause. The last one reserves disputes with any party which is no't a member of the League of Nations. I suppose that owing to the conditions mentioned in section three of this resolution that reservation had to be placed there, because nations which are not members of the league could not submit their differences to the council of the league.
My only regret so far as the last reservation is concerned would be that it excludes the United States. After all the main difficulties or the greatest sources of trouble we might have in Canada necessarily would be with our neighbours to the south. As the Prime Minister has stated, however, fortunately there exists a tribunal for the settle-

International Disputes-Mr. Lapointe
ment of differences. The general impression is that the International Joint Commission exists merely for the purpose of settling difficulties concerning boundary waters. For the information of the house I would state that its powers are wider than that. Sections 9 and 10 of the treaty of 1909 permit either of the two countries to submit any difficulties to the International Joint Commission for investigation and report, if the two countries agree the decision shall be binding. I do not think Canadians fully realize the great significance of the powers of the International Joint Commission whereby if the two countries agree, the decision of that court is binding. Further, by the Kellogg-Briand pact signed by the United States and Canada both countries bind themselves to exhaust all pacific means of settling difficulties before resorting to war. In connection with the treaty of 1909 I submit the Kellogg-Briand pact places an obligation on the part of the United States as well as on the part of Canada to submit to the International Joint Commission any trouble or difficulty which may have arisen between the two countries. Up to the present time the International Joint Commission has proved its usefulness in the settlement of international difficulties. Only recently it came to a unanimous decision on a matter which had created much friction between the state of Washington and the province of British Columbia with regard to damage by fumes and smoke passing from the plant of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company into the state of Washington. The farmers of that state complained of damage occasioned by the fumes from the works at Trail, B.C.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course they dealt
with that only by consent.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, by consent. By
agreement the difficulty was submitted to the International Joint Commission, it could not have been submitted otherwise. Fortunately a unanimous decision was reached and accepted by both parties, with the result that the trouble has disappeared.
I have but one thing further to state. I do not know whether my right hon. friend the Prime Minister remembers that once he told me in this house I was taking my policies from Geneva.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: I am glad to see that he is taking some policies from Geneva.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but there is a great
distinction between the two.


Ernest Lapointe: This resolution is one of them. My right hon. friend says there is a great difference between the two. It is fashionable among certain business circles to speak contemptuously of idealists. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no antagonism between ideals and action. Ideals inspire and animate action; they control action and direct where it should go. I think that not only in that sphere 'but in other spheres the right hon. gentleman may, if not take his policies from Geneva, at least act in cooperation with the other countries of the world. The progress of the last fifty years has changed the world. The combined efforts of scientists and industrialists have absolutely revolutionized economic conditions. Until fifty years ago, provided certain conditions existed, a nation could live by itself and for itself. Not so to-day. The slightest dislocation in the- trade of the world has its effect everywhere. The last dislocation we know has had its effect in many countries, and probably everywhere. In some countries the effect has been rebellion or revolution; in others, as in -this country, the result has -been a change of government. Sir, in this house the other day an hon. member said we were too much inclined to think internationally. I do not agree with him. We are not thinking internationally enough and I state that at the present time the most important concern of a statesman is to undertake nothing without first -considering not only the interests of his own country but the result of his action on other countries. Modern progress has made the world accessible by a trip of twenty days. Every country is our next door neighbour and surely we must cease to think in terms of mail coaches and paddle boats. These are the views I hold, Mr. Speaker, and it is because of these views I congratulate the right hon. gentleman upon bringing forward this resolution. It is in the hope that the resolution will go further that at this time I give it my support.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, with most of the admirable sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) and by the late Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) I heartily agree. It is with the greatest pleasure that I support the present resolution which I think is but another step in the right path towards peace. At the same time, as an old pacifist not only between wars but during wars, may I express the view that perhaps some of the reservations contained in this resolution could have been dispensed with. The right hon. gentleman, who is always at his best when he advances prin-
1634	COMMONS
International Disputes-Mr. Bourassa
ciples of law, has rightly said that these reservations, at least those of a general portent, are in accordance with the principles and practices of international law. He is quite right, but following the words and the line of argument followed by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is it not true that the tendency, and the right tendency, at the present time is not only to render war more difficult but to make peace easier, and therefore to change the spirit and practice of international law and international relations, so as to make peace more readily acknowledged and create more obstacles in the way of war?
I have given some little time during my life, sir, to the study of modern history, and I have been struck with one feature. Either with regard to the last war, which some are beginning to understand, or with regard to previous wars let us say only in the last century, one thing is striking. Most of the men who were responsible for the policies of the various countries who declared war or against whom war was declared did not want it at heart. Take the last war; whether in Germany or in England, in France or in Russia, in Italy or in Roumania, I believe-though I did not always believe it-that most of the statesmen responsible for the diplomacy and the policies of those countries did not want war. But, as Mr. Lloyd George has expressed it most tersely, they all tumbled into war. Why? There were various causes, into which I will not go, but the main reason was because the instruments of peace were not at hand while the instruments of war were simply surrounding them. In each of those countries there was a huge army or a powerful navy headed by officers full of military ardour. I do not think those officers were much more desirous of war for the sake of war than politicians or diplomats, but with them war was a trade, and they realized that they could not keep up very long the efficiency of these instruments of war in any other way. With the day of war close at hand, they thought it was the duty of their rulers to strike the first blow at the most opportune moment for their own country. That was the thought of such a noble man as Lord Fisher. I refer frequently to him because, having known him, I know what was in his mind and in his heart. He wrote, over his own signature, that the great fault of his country was not to have struck at Germany at a more opportune moment, so that Lord Fisher's name and his words have been quoted in Germany as Bernhardi's words and arguments have been quoted in the other camp, to show that England on the one hand
LMr. Bourassa.]
or Germany on the other was bent on making war. I think that was untrue of both countries and of their responsible statesmen. I believe the same thing could be demonstrated with regard to every other great country in Europe and in America.
Surely in this country, whatever position we may have taken with regard to the merits of the war and the moral duty of Canada to participate in that war or, as I took it, the	moral	duty	of	Canada	to	abstainfrom that participation, I think we all agree that	if it	had been	possible	we	shouldnot have been there. I think we all agree that as one unit of the great British commonwealth of nations-I do not like the word, but I make use of it since it is accepted now-our influence in the councils of that commonwealth always should be towards safer guarantees of peace, towards arbitration and conciliation rather than towards the organization	of war	for the	empire or by	the	empire,against the	rest of	the	world. I	am	sure in
that statement I express the sentiments of the Prime Minister and of my friends to my right as well as my own. In that respect I entirely agree with the Prime Minister, and I think he has expressed admirably the broad sentiments of all classes of Canadians. He can count upon the support of such old pacifists as myself in this direction, as I think he can count upon the support of his own friends who approved of the participation of Canada in the last war.
Let me repeat, however, that if we want to lend our help and exercise our influence in the direction which is implied in this resolution, we could dispense with some of those reservations. Let us take them one by one. In the first reservation we exclude from our adhesion to the act "disputes arising prior to the accession, in respect of Canada, to the General Act, or relating to situations of fact prior to the said accession." Why make an exception of that kind? Those past difficulties, if there are any, are of the same nature as difficulties that may arise in the future and therefore, if we think proper to adhere to any international compact the object of which is to settle by peaceful means future disputes, why not make it retroactive so that past difficulties, or difficulties the causes of which may have arisen in the past, also may be covered by the same act? If that act is good for disputes not yet arisen, surely it ought to apply equally, to disputes that have been already launched or which are possibly under discussion, but susceptible of being settled by arbitration.

International Disputes-Mr. Bourassa
I think everyone can agree to the second reservation, because it is in the spirit of the resolution. I might even say that it 'broadens the scope of the resolution. It indicates that we are prepared to submit to other peaceful means of arbitration questions that could not be settled under this act, and that we do not shut the door upon other means of peaceful action.
With the third reservation I at once agree and disagree. I would welcome the day when this government, as representing the senior partner in the association of nations outside of Great Britain itself, would take the initiative in bringing about the creation of a board of arbitration as between the various partners of the British commonwealth of nations. I consider the Prime Minister, in spite of many differences of opinion we may have had in the past or may have in the future, well qualified to bring up, at the proper and nearest possible occasion, this question of creating a board of arbitration as between the various partners in the British commonwealth of nations. The idea already has been suggested in this house; I hope it will make its way. If we accept as true-and I think it is now accepted by all, including even those who at first disputed the principle-that Canada, Australia, South Africa and Ireland are full-fledged nations, equal in status with Great Britain, and subordinate to no other nations even within the sphere of the British Empire, then surely, as among ourselves, we are all in the position of nations enjoying equal rights, having to fulfil equal duties, including the supreme and primary duty of agreeing solemnly before the world to submit all our internal disputes to a proper tribunal. The voluntary recoirrse to such a tribunal, either by Canada, in some difficulty with Australia or New Zealand, for example, or by Ireland, in some misunderstanding with respect to the interpretation of their treaty with England- the voluntary recourse to such a tribunal, I say, even within the realm of the British commonwealth, would be in our day the greatest standing lesson in peace, accord and amity which the British Empire could give to the world at large. If, therefore, it is the intention of the government to encourage the devising of some means of settling international disputes-and I insist upon the word international, since we are all equal nations within the empire-between British communities, then I have no objection to our withdrawing from the operation of the General Act any question in dispute between ourselves.
Paragraph 4 provides for "disputes concerning questions which by international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of states."
It is in respect to that point that I think it well to clear the atmosphere just now. The Prime Minister has stated, concisely and with precision, the state of international law as it has obtained up to our day, and perhaps as it still is in the letter of the law. The ex-Minister of Justice stated that up to 1914 no nation acknowledged any supreme authority over itself or over other nations to prevent international disputes. Upon this point I beg to differ from both the right hon. gentleman and my hon. friend. My hon. friend says that up to fourteen years ago there was no such thing as international arbitration. That compels me to introduce a subject which might, perhaps, be a bone of contention between some of us. But as a student of history I wish to present the question in no spirit of dogmatism.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend has misunderstood me. The treaty of 1909 with the United States-


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not speaking of
individual treaties; I am speaking of universal policy. I understood my hon. friend to say that up to 1914 the old Roman dictum, that if you wish for peace you must prepare for war, was practically the only rule among nations. May I refer him to a man who certainly never displayed any narrow, bigoted, sectarian spirit-the late John Morley. I shall have to rely upon my memory for what I am about to say, after many years of recollection. But as I remember, in one of the finest chapters of his Life of Gladstone, either in connection with the situation that arose at the time of the Franco-Prussian war, or more probably still in reference to the ever-recurring oriental question, at the time of one of the innumerable occupations of the island of Crete, John Morley refers to the attitude of Gladstone. Morley, as everyone knows, was a thorough agnostic; and analyzing the state of mind of one of the pillars of the Anglican church, who a few years before or after made use of his powerful pen to denounce the papacy, Vatican and Vaticanism, he showed that Gladstone was nevertheless big enough to recognize the part which the papacy had played in international misunderstandings. Both Gladstone and Morley knew enough of their history to know that, for centuries, for nearly a thousand years, by common consent of all the nations comprising what has been called Christendom, there had existed a
1636	COMMONS
International Disputes-Mr. Bourassa
spiritual power of arbitration in the Holy See. The exercise of that power, in international affairs, was a purely human function. The exercise of that political power was in the hands of the pope by common consent of the nations. No pope and no council of the Catholic church, including the Vatican council, has ever held that this was a prerogative of the Roman pontiff by reason of his claim to the apostolic succession. It was a purely political power to which all the nations gave allegiance because, in the eternal words of Edmund Burke, they considered that the pope, even when some of the nations had seceded from Rome, was still the spiritual head of Christendom. To come back to Gladstone's reflections, as analyzed by John Morley. Ever since the treaties of Munster and Osnabruk, ever since the peace of Westphalia, so-called, which in the words of some of the highest authorities on modern history has changed the operation of international law in modern times, the power of arbitration exercised by the papacy has been rendered vacant. Catholic nations have not, any more than Protestant nations, acknowledged it. One of the articles of the secret treaty concluded in 1915 between England, France, Italy and Russia, excluded the pope from the councils of nations, at least in the settlement of the last war. But, in the words of John Morley, no substitute was then created. The League of Nations is an attempt to replace the old spiritual authority of the Holy See by something more akin to the principles and practice of democracy. Whether we like or dislike democracy, whether we believe or not in its power, nevertheless the League of Nations is an attempt to constitute such a substitute. Not all-powerful, I admit; its weaknesses and deficiencies have been proven on several occasions since the war; but, nevertheless, it is an attempt to approximate the old ideal and practice of previous days when that power of arbitration was exercised. The League of Nations, with its council, is no more capable of stopping all wars than the old papacy was capable of doing so. Yet, it can stop some, as it did. We should strengthen the hands of the league as much as we can in all disputes. We should multiply all the instruments for peace by means of arbitration and common understanding, which may supplement the work of the League of Nations and prolong its usefulness. To that end I agree with this motion. But if we want it to be operative, all nations should decide to renounce that pagan principle which is no more in conformity with the democratic spirit of the League of Nations than it was with the spiritual ideals of ancient 
Christendom: that the nation's pride, that the nation's pretensions, that the nation's spirit of exclusiveness should prevail over the good of the whole world. Nations should be prepared to submit questions-I will not say of internal policy because I agree entirely with the Prime Minister that that is not the business of other nations-but such questions of internal affairs, pretensions and national pride as come into conflict with the pride, interests and affairs of other nations; because, when that conflict happens, it ceases to be exclusively a national affair, it becomes international, just as the right of every individual to his own liberty ceases to be a right the moment it interferes with the liberty of another man who in turn has equal rights. The ignorance of this truth was one of the causes of many wars during the last century.
I mentioned a moment ago the Franco-Prussian war. The records in Germany are now available because of the revolution, and we are enabled to read what the statesmen of both countries did at that time. We know enough of French history to realize that the man who, for many years, was held responsible for the declaration of war against Germany, Emile Ollivier, was opposed to that war; but he was afraid of popular sentiment. As he said:	I must now make popular a war which I abhor. Why was that necessary? Because national pride would not submit to any external arbitration.
The late Czar of Russia offered to submit to arbitration the difficulties which arose between his country and Austria. The records disclose that the ex-kaiser was just as opposed to war as was the czar. He knew that he would have to suffer just as much as would the czar, but there was the question of national pride. He thought that Austria would be opposed to submitting a question of that nature to an outside tribunal; and because of a narrow minded' view of national pride and interest this tremendous calamity occurred. Whether it be kings, statesmen, publicists, although in their hearts most of them were opposed to war, they actually launched upon the world this horrible curse which cost the lives of twenty millions of people and brought about the economic disasters with which this government, as well as all governments, are now confronted. National pride precluded a resort to outside arbitration.
This reservation seems to me to be the greatest obstacle to the carrying out of this agreement; but I hope my remarks have been accepted by the house as the remarks of one friendly to the object in view. I will sup-

Tariff Board
port this motion because I believe that every step in the right direction, although it may be too short or too slow, is a step towards the accomplishment of the end, not only by our country but by the world at large. In this, I agree with the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe).
The world is being tossed about by two currents, extreme nationalism and extreme internationalism. There is a right path between those two extremes, the path towards the truth. Surely upon God's earth there should be room enough for all races, for all nations and for all communities to develop their own genius and enjoy their proper freedom. The duty lies upon every nation to have that respect for others which they in turn expect to receive. That is what I call internationalism. Internationalism is not the eradication of national sovereignty and of national pride, it is the adaptation of the interests of all nations towards those of others. The general application of the golden rule is the only way by which peace and amity can be brought about between nations, as well as between individuals.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure for the appointment of a tariff board, to prescribe the constitution, functions and duties of the board, and to provide for the salaries to be paid the members, officers and employees of the board.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is antecedent to the introduction of a bill which will provide for the creation of a tariff board- by statute and not by order in council-to exercise the functions mentioned in the bill. This board will be comprised of three members. It will be a court of record, and in addition to carrying on the duties of a tariff board it will exercise certain powers which are now exercised by the officers of the Department of National Revenue as well as by officers under the combines act.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to discuss this matter at any length at the moment, but I would point out to my right hon. friend that so far as the
existence of a tariff board is concerned, its constitution, personnel and the provisions for carrying on its several functions were in existence at the time my right hon. friend came into office. This legislation becomes necessary solely by virtue of the fact, that he abolished the then existing board and now introduces a bill to create another board. The Prime Minister stated that the previous board had been appointed under an order in council. That is perfectly true but-
Richard Bedford Bennett: Without any authorizing
statute.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: -parliament had appropriated moneys specifically for the creation of a tariff board in that manner. I agree with my right hon. friend that a statute is preferable but I would point out to the house a rather significant circumstance; the one board was abolished the instant my right hon. friend came into office, but he has waited until late in this session to introduce his bill creating another board. It would seem that my right hon. friend had had in mind, immediately he came into office, the drastic changes in the tariff which were made at the last special session, and that he did not wish to have in existence at that time any tariff board to which by any possibility the proposed changes might have been referred for consideration before they went into effect. I think he will agree that a tariff board, even of his own creation, would not have countenanced changes as excessive and drastic as those made in the tariff at the last session.
There is one other point of which I should like to make mention. Yesterday, in referring to this particular matter, my right hon. friend said that we could get full particulars on the second reading of the bill. I hope the Prime Minister will give to us, immediately we go into committee, some of the particulars. I believe the country would like to know what the differences are between the powers and functions of the board that is now to be appointed and those of the previous board. It is desirable that before we discuss the second reading of the bill, there should be an opportunity of getting from the different parts of the country, through the medium of the press and in other ways, some expression of view on the changes which my right hon. friend is proposing in the powers and functions of the board he is about to create as contrasted with those of the previous board. AYhen we go into committee I shall ask him if he will favour us with something more in the way of detail than he has been prepared to give thus far.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Tariff Board
Mr. SPEAKER:: In the unavoidable absence of the deputy speaker I shall ask the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) to take the chair.
The house went into committee, Mr. Bury in the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman opposite suggests that it might be desirable to give some further particulars at this time with respect to the contemplated legislation. I think I am within the rules when I say that the principle of the bill must be determined on the second Tending, and the resolution before the committee now does not involve a statement of the provisions of the bill except in the most general terms.
First, there was no statutory authority for the former tariff board. It had not behind it any authority of any kind, shape or form, except the authority to pay it. It existed by order in council, an administrative act, without legislative jurisdiction or authority, and being that sort of board it was not a court of record; it had no power to administer an oath and it had no power to institute inquiries except in so far as people saw fit to attorn to it. The result was, in the words of the chairman of the board in his last report, that he was able to establish relations with various manufacturers. With that kind of board this country has no part; that kind of board this country will not tolerate. It became in the words of Mr. Darby, in his letter to a Toronto paper, a political organization sitting in a red parlour, doing things with the least possible difficulty, with the purpose of having people make statements, read briefs and then go on with a little further inquiry. After that speeches were made by the consumers' league, and that is all there was to it. I defy any hon. member to say that there was any shadow of legislative authority for that board.


Mr. TOTZKE:: Never intended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course there was not; it was never intended there should be. In other words, it was just what the hon. gentleman would have it appear to be, a gigantic bluff without power, without authority, with the semblance of being clothed with the outward and visible signs of authority, but lacking them, so far as parliamentary action was concerned, except in the estimates to provide for its own pay. That is all.
This bill proposes first of all to create by statute a board. That board will be a court of record; it will administer oaths. It will hear evidence under oath and it will also

hear evidence touching every matter which affects the application of a tariff to this country.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Will it have legislative
authority?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will not. That rests
with parliament.


Mr. POWER:: The other board had power to examine witnesses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not under oath.


Charles Gavan Power: It examined them.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is that the only distinction?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are several others.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: We shall know
the old board by its tariff fruits.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The action of the former administration in setting up its tariff board by order in council was an endeavour by order in council to set up the board that Sir Thomas White provided for in the legislation introduced in 1912. After the Conservative party came into power in 1911, it promised a tariff board. It had done so before the election. The bill was introduced into this chamber; it passed this chamber; certain amendments were made in the Senate and the bill never became law.


Charles Gavan Power: That was because there was some kind of legislative sanction to its decisions.	[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was not in any
way, shape or form:, directly or indirectly.


Charles Gavan Power: I think that was the objection taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was my business to
know it was not.


Charles Gavan Power: That does not convince me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I merely indicate it was my business to know it was not.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman will read Hansard, he perhaps will know and he would not subject himself to the humiliation of acknowledging himself to be wrong.


Mr. EULER:: What then prevented it from passing?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There shall be a board to be called a tariff board, and the board shall

Tariff Board
be a court consisting of three members with power to make inquiries under oath and with a seal. It will be a court of record. The inquiries will be for the purpose of ascertaining-
(a)	the price and cost of raw materials in Canada and elsewhere, and the cost of transportation thereof from the place of production to the place of use or consumption;
(b)	the cost of production in Canada and elsewhere, and what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of production;
(c)	the cost, efficiency and conditions of labour, including health of employees, in Canada and elsewhere;
(d)	the prices received by producers, manufacturers, wholesale dealers, retailers and other distributors in Canada and elsewhere;
(e)	all conditions and factors which affect or enter into the cost of production and the price to the consumers in Canada;
(f)	generally, all the conditions affecting production, manufacture, cost and price in Canada as compared with other countries.
That is the report to the minister. The purpose of it is obvious to any hon. gentleman who desires to protect the Canadian producer from unfair and unjust competition from other countries.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Will the board hold public hearings?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will; it is a court of Tecord.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Will it travel around the country or just sit in Ottawa?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are provisions for hearing evidence in towns other than Ottawa,


William Daum Euler: Will it have power to make actual changes in the tariff rates?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Daum Euler: That power will be left with parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Absolutely.


William Daum Euler: A rumour has been published in the newspapers that the power now held by the board of customs will be enjoyed by the tariff board; is that right?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was just coming to that.


Mr. SPENCER:: Will the board make recommendations to the government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will make reports.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Will the. officers be appointed by the Civil Service Commission or the tariff board?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The commissioners will
not be appointed by the Civil Service Commission.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Will the board replace
the consumers' league?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it will be where
it belongs, I think.


Albert Frederick Totzke: The consumers' league belongs before the tariff board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I understand that. I
hope they will !be provided for by Canadians and not by competing industries outside of Canada.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Never outside Canada, but always by Canadians.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Will the employees of the board be appointed by the Civil Service Commission ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They will be appointed
by the board. May I point out in answer to the hon. member for North Waterloo that it is proposed that the duties of the customs board shall be taken over by the tariff board from a date to be fixed by the governor in council. At the present time, as the hon. gentleman knows, those who sit in judgment upon appeals from the board of customs are the very men who make the ruling.


William Daum Euler: Not all of them, not a
majority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not all, but my hon.
friend will agree that very often in practice that is what it means, and it is felt that in accordance with the modern practice in other countries it is better to have some tribunal that is free from any antecedent inclination in the matter.


William Daum Euler: Is this board modeled upon
the practice of some other country, and if so, which country?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but I pointed out to my hon. friend that in modern practice there is an appeal.


William Daum Euler: I understood the Prime
Minister to refer to the modern practice in other countries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the United States, as
my hon. friend knows, there is provision for appeal. It is called a court of some kind.


Mr. VENIOT:: Will there be an appeal
to council from the board?
Tariff Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Will the sittings of this new board last longer than the inquiry over which the Prime Minister presided last fall with regard to agricultural tariffs?


Richard Bedford Bennett: They will probably not
last quite as long as the sittings that were held by the order in council board. May I add that the seven or eight volumes of evidence taken by that friendly gathering it was not a tribunal-will be found in the library. When my right hon. friend referred to the tariff of last session, which I shall be prepared at the proper time to discuss, I think he overlooked the fact that the items to which most objection was taken were the items dealt with by that inquiry board, and the record is there. I do suggest that if hon. members will read that evidence they will conclude that the action that was taken by the government last session was not more than was necessary to save the industries in question from disaster.


Charles Gavan Power: The glass industry, for
instance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The potato industry.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Does the Prime Minister
mean that the tariff changes of last session were based on evidence given before the tariff board?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that. He said that the evidence was very useful. If the hon. gentleman would go into the library and look at it-I suppose he has never read the evidence-


Albert Frederick Totzke: I have read most of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -he will find a great deal of evidence upon which no action was taken by the former government, and which, if it means anything, means that the Canadian producer was not having an equal opportunity and a fair chance in his work.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Has the right hon. gentleman considered the Canadian consumer?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is provided for in
the bill, which provides for such steps being taken as in the opinion of the board may be necessary for the purpose of preventing exploitation of the consumer.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps this question may
have already been asked and answered. Under

the old customs board there was an appeal to the governor in council.'Will that be possible under the new legislation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not as it reads at the
moment.


William Daum Euler: But there is an appeal?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at the moment in
the bill as prepared. The provision is that it shall not come into force until an order in council is passed. The bill provides that the board shall cause its decisions to be published in the Canada Gazette, and part two provides that it shall not come into force until an order in council has been passed by the governor in council. It is left that way in order that the house may discuss the matter freely and fully and conclude what action should be taken in that regard. There is also a provision whereby the powers of the Combines Act for initial investigations may, if it is thought desirable, be exercised by the board itself. The board is also empowered to make the investigations which the judge of the exchequer court makes under the Customs Tariff Act as it now stands.


Peter John Veniot: Has the Prime Minister
considered leaving the customs board as it is. that is, the board consisting of members of the customs department and members of the Finance department, dealing with interpretations of the tariff act, and allowing appeals from their rulings, if objection is taken to them by the financial interests of the country, to the new board that is to be created?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is thought that the
method I suggest would be the best method. The officials in the department thought it desirable.


William Daum Euler: Have there been any protests from the general public or from business men as to the rulings given by the customs board under the former practice? I do not think there can have been more than two or three appeals a year if that many, from the decisions of the customs board. I am asking merely to ascertain whether there has been any dissatisfaction. I am not finding any fault with the practice now to be followed, because possibly it is more logical than the practice that obtained before. This is true, that the customs board consisted of the commissioner of customs, the assistant commissioner of customs, and three others who were not identified with the customs department at all. It is also true that where an appeal was taken by some importer the customs board itself was headed by the very same commissioner of customs who had given the decision in the first place, and possibly to

Tariff Board
that extent he might be prejudiced. There is this, however, to be said for the old practice, that the decisions of the board on appeal were never appealed to the governor in council, and one may therefore conclude that the decisions were, after all, fairly satisfactory. That is the point I desired to make. I do not know of two or three appeals a year. I can recollect only one appeal from the customs board so long as I was a member of the council, and that was by the very gentleman whom my right hon. friend did not appreciate perhaps as much as he should have, the representative of the consumers' league, who appealed with respect to magazines.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Prime Minister if I am right in this, that the new board combines the functions of the old tariff board as an advisory body to the government on applications for changes in the tariff that may be submitted to it, with the functions of the customs board, which gave rulings and decisions with respect to matters that were referred to it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not referred to it. As the hon. gentleman said, it is purely a matter of administration. As my hon. friend from North Waterloo has said, in the end the appeal was heard by a body which the commissioner of customs himself presided over. There were po great complaints that I know of, but sometimes there were some. I have heard of dissatisfaction in one or two instances, but no general dissatisfaction. It was thought, however, that the new board would be a very excellent body for that purpose, it being free from the difficulties which the hon. gentleman has mentioned. The board is a body to which an appeal can be taken in matters of administration, and administrative powers have certainly been very large in connection with the Customs Act and the tariff of this country.


William Daum Euler: Apparently the Prime Minister has not quite decided whether the decision of the new tariff board with regard to appeals shall be final.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I intend that the matter shall be dealt writh by the house, if hon. members think it desirable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to
clarify my understanding as to the functions of the board in regard to tariff legislation. Ain I right in assuming that this board will be an advisory board to the government, that it will not itself define in any particular what the tariff is to be but will deal with applications which may be referred to it by
the government for consideration, and give to the government upon the facts its advice with respect to those various applications?


Charles Gavan Power: Advice without any recommendation?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A report is made by the board to the minister. The proposed bill contains the following section:
It shall also be the duty of the board to inquire into any other matter or thing in relation to the trade or commerce of Canada which the governor in council sees fit to refer to the board for inquiry and report.
Inquiries under this section shall be conducted in a summary manner, and the respective reports to be made pursuant to its provisions shall succinctly state the facts as ascertained; and each report shall be accompanied by a copy of the evidence, if any, taken, and by a copy of all information obtained in connection with the inquiry.
It is not intended that the board shall make recommendations, but shall submit a finding of facts. I take it my right hon. friend, as is his custom, has been following with some interest the proceedings of a similar board in the United States. I commend to this house the findings of that board concerning maple sugar. An application was made to the board to reduce the duty on maple sugar and the report to the president on which action was taken and the duty by executive action reduced was one of the most-if I might be pardoned for saying so -scientific documents I have been privileged to read. It showed in great detail the comparative costs of producing maple sugar in Quebec and in the United States, referring particularly to the state of Vermont. There was consideration of the sugar groves, the cost of getting the sap, the cost of transportation, the cost of production, and marketing details. Upon that report of the facts the president of the United States, under the statutes of that country, had the authority to take action. As I have stated it is intended in this case that the tariff board after hearing the evidence under oath shall make a report or a finding of facts, succinctly stating the facts as ascertained from the evidence. Such evidence shall be transmitted to the executive so that such action may then be taken by parliament as may be thought desirable.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the exception of the power to take evidence under oath it would seem that the powers of the proposed board are similar to those of the tariff board which is being abolished.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which has been abolished.
1642	COMMONS
Tariff Board


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, which has been abolished. My right hon. friend stated that the former board had no statutory authority. I am afraid those words will be interpreted to mean that it had not the sanction of parliament, and that parliament did not authorize its establishment. If my right hon. friend intended to convey that impression I say that he is quite wrong. Parliament explicitly voted money for a tariff board; the functions of the board were explained to the House of Commons at a time when my right hon. friend was leader of the opposition. If he was not leader at that time at least he was leader during part of the time that the board was in existence. I do not think he ever raised the objection he is now raising as to the necessity of having the power to take evidence under oath. That is the only feature as stated thus far in which the two boards differ. I do not think he raised that question, nor do I think he raised the question of the necessity of a statute. He may have, but I doubt it. The point however is that the value of any course of action or procedure is to be judged by its fruits. The Prime Minister knows that boards of arbitration may be constituted on a voluntary or on a compulsory basis, and the fact is that for the most part boards of arbitration which have been voluntarily constituted have been more effective than those operated on a compulsory basis. So long as all interested parties are satisfied with the facts which are being brought to light the additional feature of taking evidence under oath rather than having it given voluntarily is of quite secondary importance. With respect to all the reports submitted by the late tariff board I think it is fair to state that as regards the facts on which conclusions were reached, there was no difference in the views of the different interests which wished to be heard and had the opportunity of being heard before the board.
My hon. friend made reference to the bill which was introduced by Sir Thomas White in 1912 for the formation of a tariff commission. I believe that prior to that date the Conservative party had intimated that there would be a tariff commission and gave the public, to understand that that commission would have the power to decide what the tariff should be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says "no".


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was in the house at the time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I accept my right hon. friend's word for that. Sir Thomas White's first pronouncement in regard to the tariff commission is found at page 5010 of Hansard, 1012, and is as follows:
Now I come to the question of the tariff. In view of the legislation of this session providing for the creation of a tariff commission, whose duties it will be to obtain and submit for the information of the government evidence and data from which the question of customs duties may be considered with greater certainty of knowledge than has been possible in the past, we have no tariff changes to propose at the present session.
That is the one reference made to the tariff commission which the government of that day was to appoint. The commission was put forward as a reason for not making any tariff changes at the time.
The next year Sir Thomas White made this remarkable reference to the proposed tariff commission:
Having regard to the prevailing prosperity of the Dominion, as disclosed by the trade statistics which I have presented to the house, and the fact that there is always a delicate adaption of business to the rates of the tariff, there is, I believe, a general consensus of opinion that anything in the nature of an extensive revision of the tariff is not called for by existing conditions and would be contrary to public interest.
Sir Thomas White's attitude toward the tariff commission was to make it a means of avoiding any excessive tariff changes or, indeed any tariff changes at all. My right hon. friend's attitude toward the tariff board has been to get rid of it altogether so that he could make, without possible reference to a board, the most drastic changes that have ever been made in the history of the tariff in this or any country.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


Mr. SPEARMAN:: The Prime Minister has indicated that certain functions now exercised by the customs board would be taken over and exercised by the new tariff board. As there is a vague idea in the country and among hon. members of the house as to the actual details of those functions now exercised by the customs board I would suggest that when the bill reaches the committee stage it would be well for the Prime Minister to go into detail as to those duties. The information he could supply would be of value to hon. members.
Mr, BENNETT:	I shall be very glad to
see that that is done. The duties are defined by statute, but I shall have the statute here and read it when the bill is before the committee.

Tariff Board


Mr. HEAPS:: There has been a great deal of interest and discussion concerning the new tariff board. I also am interested in its creation. From what I have heard to-day I am under the impression that the net result of passing the bill would be that there would be an appointment of three good Conservatives to take the place of three bad Liberals. I do not know whether or not my supposition is correct, but that is my impression at the moment. If a tariff board is to be appointed, I should like to see on that board experts who will give their time and thought to these questions, who will be removed from any influence of this house, men of reputation and standing as economists. However, during the past few weeks I have listened to speeches from hon. members opposite claiming that industries in this country are now in a fairl}' prosperous condition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I hear some hon. gentlemen opposite say "hear, hear." If our industries are in a prosperous condition what is the need for the creation of a tariff board at this time? There are other elements in the country now which are far from prosperous, yet the purpose of this measure, is to give industries that protection which is necessary to keep them in the state of prosperity which hon. members opposite claim exists at present.


Mr. MORAND:: Would my hon. friend tell me who said industries were in such a prosperous condition? I never heard that statement.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Within the past few weeks hon. gentlemen opposite have been telling us of new industries springing up and working overtime and all that sort of thing, and when I mentioned that fact some hon. members opposite said, "hear, hear." Articles have appeared in eastern papers telling of the tremendous prosperity which was brought about as a result of new tariff legislation, but now I hear a member of the Conservative party rise in his place and question the. assertion that these changes which were made in the tariff have brought prosperity.
At the present time there are industries in this country which, comparatively speaking, are in a prosperous condition and which pay good dividends to their bondholders and shareholders. I do claim, however, that there are other elements in our community, the great mass of the primary producers, the farmers and the men and women employed in industry, who to-day are having a much greater struggle than the men whose money is invested in industries. It may be very
commendable for the government to introduce legislation which will give to the manufacturers the measure of protection which they desire or which the government thinks should be given them, but the time of the house could be spent to much greater advantage in caring for those who are in dire need at the present time.
As far as the tariff is concerned, it means practically nothing to the men and women employed in industry, and I make that statement with some little knowledge of the facts. There never have been such widspread wage reductions as have taken place since last September, when these increases in the tariff became effective. The industries which received the benefits of protection from parliament are among those which have been making the largest reductions in wages. Now the right hon. Prime Minister comes to this house with a measure which he says will create a board to inquire into the industries of this country and see what measure of protection they deserve. I claim our first duty is to see to it that the people who are protected are the men and women employed in industry. Figures were given to the house by the hon. member for Sherbrooke-and they cannot be disputed-showing that people employed in the textile industries are receiving wages of from $2 to a maximum of $17.50 per week. I have in my hand a communication from men employed in the textile industries in Ontario, showing that there have been great reductions in pay. During the past few months men have been compelled to go on strike in order to protest against wage reductions, but to-day we are asked to. consider legislation which will give increased: protection to the owners of the industries in which wage reductions have, been made.
Unless there is something in this measure which will help the men and women employed in industry I say the whole thing, as far as the workers are .concerned and to use the words, of the Prime Minister himself, is nothing more than a gigantic bluff.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to applications which have been made for increases in the tariff, of which I understand there are between one thousand and two thousand. Will these be referred to the tariff board before any further tariff legislation is introduced in the house, or is it the intention of the government to proceed with tariff legislation before referring these applications to the tariff board?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hardly think this is a question which arises now. The budget speech.
Tariff Board

will disclose the answer. Surely my right hon. friend knows that the intention of the government with respect to tariff applications cannot be said properly to arise out of legislation with respect to the creation of a tariff board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point is this: My hon. friend now is asking parliament to make provision for the investigation of applications for increases in tariff. Undoubtedly the legislation is supported by strong arguments that these matters should be carefully investigated in the first instance. I think it is most important that we should know whether the government intends this legislation to apply to applications at present pending or whether by the legislation now introduced, the government intends simply to create a board which will function after this session of parliament, and to put through in the meantime far-reaching tariff changes on the representations of one only of the parties interested and without an opportunity being given other parties to be heard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I repeat that this question has nothing to do with the measure now proposed. The bill to be based on the resolution is to enable parliament to create a tariff board, and what action is taken with respect to given matters will :be apparent from the result. It is quite Obvious that to anticipate by asking whether or not a given application will 'be referred to a board that does not exist, cannot have anything to do with legislation which proposes to call that board into being.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should just like to make quite clear to the Prime Minister what I believe to be the feeling of the people. They believe that something was put over them at the last session of parliament, in the vast changes made in the tariff without any investigation whatever which enabled either workingmen, farmers, or consumers to present their points of view with regard to the proposed changes. That was done by getting rid of the tariff board in advance of introducing the legislation. Now I hope my right hon. friend is not going to endeavour to introduce further tariff legislation in advance of royal assent being given this proposed measure. He ought to make it clear at the earliest possible date that in finding it advisable to have a tariff board at all, that tariff board should be given the opportunity of very carefully investigating all applications for increases in the tariff from this time on and before any further tariff legislation is enacted by the house. In other words, further tariffs should not be

framed in this parliament solely on the representations of the special interests which my hon. friend opposite is seeking to help, and without any representation from either the consumers, the farmers, or the workingmen.


Mr. YOUNG:: There are three or four questions which suggest themselves to me in this connection. Will the hearings before this tariff board be open to the general public? Will ample notice be given to all parties when the hearings are to be held? Will it be permissible for any citizen of Canada to appear before the board and plead the cause of any person or group of persons who may be opposed to any application being made? Will all the evidence be printed, together with the recommendations made by the board, so that we shall be in a position to judge whether or not the recommendations are based on the actual evidence submitted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question which the hon. gentleman has addressed to you, Mr. Chairman, might properly be dealt with after he has seen the bill. It is never customary to attempt to answer questions of that character at this stage. When the resolution is adopted there will be a motion for the first reading of the bill, and before the second reading the hon. gentleman will have an opportunity to study its contents carefully. On the second reading he can, as doubtless he will, express his disapproval of the provisions of the bill.


Edward James Young: Does the Prime Minister expect I shall disapprove?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it would be very odd-


Charles Gavan Power: The Prime Minister cannot think much of his bill if he expects the hon. member to disapprove of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Weyburn is unlike the hon. member for Quebec South, He is always saying that no good can come out of Nazareth; the hon. member for Quebec South says, "I really wholly agree, but I am sitting where I am and therefore I disagree." There are, of course, many details that have to be dealt with. When reference is made to the alleged fact that the tariff board was dismissed, may I point out that what happened was this: An order in council was rescinded and the board was without a chairman. That chairman is now a member of this house, having early in the days of June resigned from the duties of the board to run as a Liberal candidate on July 28.

Tariff Board


An hon. MEMBER:: And was elected.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly he was elected; in view of the observations he made, why shouldn't he be?


Mr. HANBURY:: Does the Prime Minister suggest that it was for the same reason that the government were returned-because of their observations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think that to some extent that might be so. It certainly was not the reason why the hon. gentleman was elected, though; there were matters that went far deeper than that. However, to meet the difficulty there is in the bill a provision that no member of the board shall be eligible to be a candidate for election to the House of Commons until after the expiration of two years from the date he ceases to be a member of the board. At least, we shall not have a repetition of what we have had.


Mr. YENIOT:: Why make it two years? You are taking away his liberty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not probable that the hon. gentleman will fill one of these positions and therefore I thought two years was ample.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there is anything discreditable in being a member of this house or in being a member of a tariff board? I think the provision is most gratuitous, and the implied reason for its being in the bill is as unworthy as it is self-evident.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The bill lacks a good deal of dignity.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Hon. members are going outside the purview of the resolution, which concerns merely the question whether or not it is expedient to bring in a measure.


Mr. McLURE:: I wish to ask one question with respect to this resolution. At the last election we heard a great deal about the consumers' league in conjunction with the tariff board.


Ernest Lapointe: And butter.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The two were linked togetliei as one great concern. The question I wish to ask in this connection is this: Will there be associated with this new tariff board now proposed a consumers' league with a franking machine for political propaganda?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In reply to my hon. friend's question, I can assure him I have a very large quantity of literature franked by various members of parliament, prepared by 22110-105
the mouthpiece of the consumers' league. It is not proposed that that scandal shall continue.


Ernest Lapointe: Good heavens! What
about last year?


Peter John Veniot: What about the franking during the elections by the party opposite?


Albert Frederick Totzke: The offenders were not to be found on one side alone. The Prime Minister is quite right in deciding that the franking privilege shall be curtailed to some extent, but I submit he would be wise in applying the restriction to the members of his own party. That, however, is apart from the question I wish to ask. In this discussion the impression seems to prevail that only applications for increases in tariffs will come before the board. Will it not be possible for the board to hear applications for reductions as well?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am grateful to the hon. gentleman for asking that question, because it was his own leader who kept on insisting upon increases in the tariff. I intended to remove that misapprehension, but I assumed that when the bill was in committee there would be ample opportunity to do so. I have never heard for a single moment, except from the right hon. gentleman, that only applications for increases would come before the board.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: You couldn't expect anything else now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
would interrupt less, he would probably-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Be more dignified?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. I am glad
the hon. gentleman suggested it, because consideration for his feelings forbade my doing so.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The Prime Minister
forgets that he interrupts more than any other hon. member in this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The applications that
will come before the board may be applications for either increases or decreases.


Ernest Lapointe: The latter will remain
mere applications.


Mr. MARCIL:: In 1912, Sir Thomas White introduced a bill for the creation of a tariff commission. I have not read lately the literature on the subject, for it is nearly twenty years ago. Is the present measure based largely on the same lines as the proposed bill of that day, or are there changes?

Tariff Board


Richard Bedford Bennett: All tariff board legislation is based upon the same general principles, whether it be the tariff board of the Free State or of South Africa, or the investigating body in Australia. They are all based upon the general principles that were found in the bill of 1912, but which, of course, do not appear in their entirety in this measure; because there are changes which time, observation and experience, have indicated to be desirable. But in a broad and general way, the theory of a tariff board measure is that opportunity shall be afforded for the purpose of ascertaining facts, upon which facts it will be possible to conclude what action should be taken to enable the citizens of one country, in competition with another, to carry on their industrial life as well as other phases of their existence. That is the theory of this bill.
they should report the facts as ascertained, together with a copy_of the evidence. Inferences are not to be drawn by the board.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Unfortunately I was not in the chamber when the Prime Minister made his preliminary statement. Will it be the duty of the chairman of this new board to prepare the budget speech for the incoming minister of finance?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think the present custom will be departed from.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 47, for the appointment of a tariff board.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Frederick George Sanderson: I understood the
Prime Minister to say that there was provision in the bill that no member of the new tariff board shall be a candidate for parliament until the expiration of two years after his resignation from the board. Has he made provision that no defeated Conservative candidate shall be a member of this board?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only point I do not understand about the hon. gentleman's question is why he did not ask it sooner. He is rather tardy in putting the question. There is no such provision.


Mr. COOTE:: From reports which have
been current in the country during the last six months, it seems natural to assume that there will not be very much work for a tariff board after the forthcoming budget is brought down. Does the Prime Minister anticipate that there will be sufficient work for the tariff board to do to justify our passing such a measure as this?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member will
observe that- there are three additional duties cast upon the board: one with respect to the Combines Act, another with respect to the Customs Act, and a third with respect to the customs board of appeals. So that it is quite probable they will be fully occupied.


Mr. IRVINE:: Do I understand the Prime Minister to say that this tariff board will not only find facts but submit to the government their finding on those facts?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think the hon. gentleman followed w'hat I said. I stated what the board should report: that is to say, that


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
London-salaries and expenses of the office of the High Commissioner for Canada, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or any of its amendments, including $2,000 additional salary for the high commissioner to that authorized by chapter 92, R.S.C., $132,260.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was the date of the appointment of the present high commissioner to London?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not recall
the exact date, but a return was tabled today by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) in connection with this office. My memory is the appointment was made some time in December.


Albert Frederick Totzke: What is the explanation of the increase in this item?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With the permission of my hon. friend, may I interject a question? The Prime Minister has stated that the present high commissioner was appointed in December.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have the exact date
now; it was November 28.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend's government came into office early in August and at that time the Hon. Vincent Massey was the High Commissioner for Canada to Great Britain. Why was Mr. Massey obliged to resign that position? ,


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the use of the
word "obliged" is rather strong, but he did resign. The position is this: there is a High

Supply-External Affairs
Commissioner's Act, and the duties of the high commissioner are covered by a return tabled to-day. The High Commissioner for Canada is not a diplomatic officer in the sense in which that term is used with respect to external affairs. His position with respect to the government is one of the most confidential character and in my judgment the High Commissioner for Canada should be in touch with the government of the day in Ottawa in such a way as to indicate that it has his confidence and he has the confidence of the government. I stated at the last session that this was my conception of the duties of the high commissioner. I intimated that to Mr. Massey and I read to him the statute which enumerates the duties of the high commissioner. Apparently Mr. Massey felt that if that was my conception of the position and he not being, shall I say, a supporter of the policies of the administration, then he should resign. I did suggest that he would not be able to reflect the policies of this government in London in the manner in which I should like them to be expressed. Mr. Massey had left a diplomatic office to take a political office, and having done so he felt that he could not properly interpret the views of the administration, and therefore he resigned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I differ with
my right hon. friend in his view that the position of High Commissioner for Canada is a political office. In my opinion that position is the highest of all diplomatic offices which can be held by anyone belonging to this country. The act which creates the office refers to the commissioner as the agent of Canada., not as the agent of a political party. That is the difference in essence between the view of my right hon. friend and the view which we on this side entertain. The last thing in the world which should be countenanced is that any person representing this country, whether in Washington, Tokyo, Paris or London, should be regarded as other than a representative of the country as a whole and not as a representative of a political party. When Mr. Massey accepted the position in London he did so on the understanding, which was publicly stated, that the London office was the highest of all diplomatic offices in the gift of the government of Canada. He had filled the office of minister at Washington for more than three years, I think everyone in this country will say most acceptably, not as a partisan but as a faithful, loyal and distinguished representative of Canada in the United States. His representation in the United States being what it was and being so generally commented on by members of all political 22110-105}
parties in Canada as of the most exemplary character, he was appointed by the government of the day to London when a vacancy occurred in that office. The construction which my right hon. friend has just placed upon the nature of the London office means that those who go into the service of the country abroad will have no reason to look to London as a possible post to which they may ultimately attain, and that the position will be filled only by political partisans. May I say, having regard to the record of those who have filled that high position in the past, there is ample precedent to show that it has not been regarded as one necessarily identified with the government in office at the time. Probably no one represented Canada with more distinction in the high commissioner's office in London than did Lord Strathcona. Lord Strathcona was a Conservative who sat in this house as such; he was appointed by Sir John A. Macdonald's government to the position of High Commissioner in London. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into office, he did not take the attitude that because Lord Strathcona had been a Conservative member of parliament and had been appointed by a Conservative administration, he should not continue in the post of High Commissioner for Canada in London. Sir Wilfrid Laurier continued Lord Strathcona in that position and he held it throughout the fifteen years Sir Wilfrid was in office and, if I am not mistaken, as long as he lived. That was, it seems to me, the correct way of proceeding. It will be most unfortunate for this country, in its relations with Great Britain and other countries as well, if an all important precedent of that kind is departed from and an entirely different view taken of the character of that position.
Mr. Massey's letter of resignation was brought down in a return last year and I shall read it to the house, because it gives the grounds on which Mr. Massey tendered his resignation. This is the letter:
Batterwood House,
Near Port Hope, Ontario,
August 14, 1930.
My Dear Prime Minister,-
I appreciate your courtesy in arranging our conversation of yesterday in answer to my letter requesting an expression of your wishes concerning my appointment to the high commis-sionership in London.
I left the legation at Washington and accepted a transfer to London on the understanding that the office of high commissioner was an integral part of our service abroad differing, of course, in its procedure from our foreign diplomatic offices but akin to these in the qualifications of its personnel and in the relation of that personnel to the government which it serves. I now realize that our ideas regarding this are at variance. In our die-
Supply-External Affairs

cussion on this subject you were good enough to make clear your view that the office of high commissioner should be held by someone in close political association with the government of the day, and I understood from what you said that you had in mind plans for this post as a result of which my own appointment could no longer stand. In these circumstances I, of course, at once offered you my resignation from the high commissionership which I now confirm-the resignation to take effect whenever you so desire.
In resigning from this post in our service abroad, of which I have been a member for three and a half years, I should like to say that no one belonging to. the service and who has been engaged in its work, could retire from a post in it without a feeling of having been greatly privileged.
With kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Vincent Massey.
The Hon. R. B. Bennett, P.C., K.C.,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Ontario.
No one could read that letter without appreciating the fact that in as dignified language as it is possible for anyone to use, Mr. Massey was making it quite plain that he had been forced by the Prime Minister to resign, and for the reason that the Prime Minister wished to have a close political associate given that particular office. Before we increase the salary of the High Commissioner for Canada and vote further moneys for that office, we ought bo understand definitely whether the position of high commissioner is to be regarded as primarily in the nature of a political post to be filled only by a political partisan, or whether it is to be regarded as a part of the service of Canada abroad. In using these words, I am referring to the Prime Minister's view of the office, that it is a political office, and I say: You cannot give to the word "political" any significance in regard to an office which means the representation of Canada as a whole, excepting "partisan political" as distinguished from "diplomatic." I regard that office as a diplomatic office in the truest sense of the word. Diplomacy as used in reference to matters of state is simply the art of conducting negotiations as between governments. The fact that one or both of the governments is not a foreign government but is a government of a country within the empire, does not make the post any the less a diplomatic post. It is a diplomatic post because the person who holds that office is the representative of his country in another country. He is not the representative of some department of government. He is not a government official in the ordinary sense of the word. He is the representative of the government of his country, the agent of his country, and not of a political party.
JMr. Mackenzie King.]
I should like in this connection to read to the house the language of the act which created and governs the office of high commissioner. It is in a return to which my right hon. friend has just referred as having been brought down. I have not the return under my hand, but the following will be found as part of the terms. The statute creating the office of High Commissioner for Canada is chapter 92 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927. Section 2 reads:
2.	The governor in council may, under the great seal of Canada, from time to time, appoint an officer to be called the High Commissioner for Canada, who shall hold office during pleasure.
3.	The High Commissioner shall-
(a)	act as representative and resident agent of Canada in Great Britain, and in that capacity, execute such powers and perform such duties as are, from time to time, conferred upon and assigned to him by the governor in council;
(b)	take the charge, supervision and control of the immigration offices and agencies in Great Britain, under the Minister of Immigration and Colonization;
(c)	carry , out such instructions as he, from time to time, receives from the governor in council respecting tile commercial, financial and general interests of Canada in Great Britain and elsewhere.
Those are the essential sections in the act referring to the functions and duties of the high commissioner, I would ask my right hon. friend to point out wherein those functions as between Canada and Britain differ in any essential particular from those of an ambassador resident in the capital of another country. It is true, as my right hon. friend pointed out last year, an ambassador is appointed by His Majesty and represents the king as well as his country. The king's representative, however, where he is an ambassador, is appointed on the recommendation of the government of the day. His Majesty does not select some personal friend for an appointment of the kind; His Majesty appoints the one whom the government of the day recommends for the office, and the ambassador thus appointed is the representative of his country resident at a foreign capital. The words in the statute describing the position of high commissioner are: "act as representative and resident agent of Canada in Great Britain." He is a resident agent. That likewise is the essence of the position of the ministers of foreign countries who have come to reside in this city. They are the resident agents of other countries in Ottawa. Our ministers at Washington, Tokyo, and Paris are resident in the capitals of those countries as the agents of the government of Canada, and speak with the authority, not only of the government, but also of His

Supply-External Afairs
Majesty, in conducting negotiations. All the qualifications of character, ability, tact and judgment, which are essential in a minister or an ambassador abroad, are equally essential, if not indeed more necessary in a representative of Canada in Great Britain than in Canada's representatives elsewhere.
I cannot see how my right hon. friend can draw an essential distinction between the two classes of positions.
To change the essential nature of the position of high commissioner at this time, when there is admittedly equality of status as between this country and Great Britain, makes the matter a great deal more serious than would otherwise be the case. Let me illustrate what I have just said. We have in Canada at the present time a representative of His Majesty's government in Great Britain in the person of the High Commissioner for Great Britain in Canada. If the same interpretation is to be applied by the British government to that post as the Prime Minister to-day is applying to the post of High Commissioner for Canada in Great Britain, then the British government should appoint to Canada in the position of high commissioner a political agent, a representative of the Labour party in Great Britain who would be in close association politically with the Labour government in Great Britain. Has Great Britain taken that [DOT]attitude in appointing her high commissioner? When Sir William Clark was appointed to Canada, he was appointed by the government of the Bight Hon. Stanley Baldwin, a Conservative administration. Mr. Baldwin's government changed, and the government of the Bight Hon. Ramsay MacDonald came into office in England. If the interpretation of the high commissioner's office is that which the Prime Minister of Canada has put upon it, then the moment the government in Great Britain changed, there should have been a change in the person of the High Commissioner for Great Britain in Canada. If he had been appointed originally as the agent of one political party and another political party came into office in Great Britain, then that other political party should have sent a political representative here. I ask hon. gentlemen how we in Canada should feel if a change of that kind were made? I ask the Prime Minister how he would have felt, or would feel to-morrow, if the Ramsay MacDonald government said:	WTe are of the
opinion that our representative in Canada should be someone in close political association with the Labour party in Great Britain, and we are therefore sending as high commissioner to Canada a political partisan in order to see that our policies are carried out in the particular way we think desirable and in order to make those policies prevail in the Dominion. I venture to say our confidence in the high commissioner would be lost at once.
I should add this further fact. The position that Sir William Clark held prior to the time he came to Canada was that of a member of the diplomatic service who had gone into the diplomatic service as a career. In exactly the same way as Mr. Massey had taken up public service-
Some. hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: He was a Liberal
candidate first.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In exactly the same way

I do not know what hon. gentlemen are laughing at-the Hon. Mr. Massey accepted the position of minister to Washington in order to devote his life to the diplomatic service of Canada. That was the reason he gave up his .business connections and many other associations when he accepted that position. He accepted that position asa career position, exactly as Sir William Clark accepted his position in the foreign service of Great Britain as a career position. Subsequently Sir William was appointed to his post in the Dominion by the Baldwin government.
May I say further I fail to see wherein it should be a reflection upon any man that he has belonged to a political party. I do not believe that the record of the services of those who have left politics for diplomatic posts will justify any jeer on that- score. Take the ambassadors of Great Britain. The right hoin. Lord Bryce, who was appointed to Washington, had been a member of a Liberal government in England. He was retained in Washington by a Conservative administration. The Right Hon. Lord Crewe, who was ambassador of Great Britain to Paris, had also been, a minister of the crown in a Liberal administration. He was retained as ambassador and filled that same position under different governments. Names like Lord Bryce and Lord Crewe are not any the less honoured because these gentlemen previous to their appointments as diplomats were associated with a political party. They are judged by the manner in which they discharged their duties after accepting office.
Take the position of members of the judiciary in this country. No one. thinks of raising a question with respect to a member of the bench on the score of his having been a
Supply-External Affairs

Conservative member of parliament or a Liberal member of parliament. When an hon. member accepts a position on the bench he leaves his party views behind him, and he accepts the position knowing that it will remove him entirely from political strife and political life, and I say that exactly the same view 'should be taken with respect to anyone who accepts the position of High Commissioner of Canada in Great Britain. He ought to look upon the position as one which demands in the strictest sense of the word an absence of partisan actions of any character. He must certainly be prepared to carry out the instructions and directions of his government. He must carry out their policies, and the government always has it in its own hands to remedy the situation if he fails to do so. Any ambassador in a foreign country is obliged to carry out the policies of the administration that may be in office in the home country. If he does not agree with those policies and feels it on his conscience not to further them, he must resign, but so long as he fills the position of ambassador, which is in every country a very trusted post, his duty is to further the policies that are those of the government of the day. That has been found to work admirably in the British foreign office and in the British *diplomatic service all over the world. We in Canada at this time when this country is *coming more and more to the fore as a nation, with all the attributes of a nation, and with a status politically that is equal to that of Great Britain herself in reference to international questions, cannot be too careful to follow the highest example, and I submit that in this regard there is no better example than that of Great Britain herself.
Last year my right hon. friend did give to the house a statement of his point of view on the position of High Commissioner and the office. I read from Hansard of September 20, 1930:
With regard to the position of high commissioner I can point out only that it is a statutory office. Provision is made for that office by a statute passed by this parliament in the days of Sir John A. Macdonald. From that day until this the position has been of a political nature, using the word in the large and proper sense of the term. In the judgment of this administration the high commissioner should not only reflect the policies that are originated and initiated by the government of Canada, but enjoy to the fullest degree the confidence' of the administration and reflect the spirit and attitude of mind of the administration towards the problems with which they have to deal. It therefore follows that the incumbent of that office is practically a member of the administration so far as the discharge of his duties in London is concerned. He is not a diplomat, for under the convention of 1926 communications are from prime minister

to prime minister. Between nations such as the United States, France or Japan, communications are through the minister and from the minister to the governments of those countries. In addition to that of course it is known that a minister is appointed by the sovereign while the high commissioner is appointed by the government. The statute has provided in terms that the high commissioner shall be the agent of Canada in Great Britain; that he shall be responsible for discharging the obligations of practically the Minister of Immigration in Great Britain and that he shall deal with such other financial and commercial matters as may be entrusted to him.
The one sentence there that seems to me to sum up everything is this:
The statute has provided in terms that the high commissioner shall be the agent of Canada in Great Britain.
He is the agent of the country, not the agent of a political party, and I think my right hon. friend has already found out that he would have been a little more fortunate in his choice if he had held to one who had had some diplomatic training and experience and had justified bis selection, and had not ventured quite as far as he did into the political arena.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman the matter may be put very simply: Whoever is High Commissioner for Canada in London must have the confidence of the government of this country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend if that is not true of ambassadors in all countries?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a different matter, however, if the incumbent of the office has so voluntarily expressed himself as to make confidence in him impossible. The recognition of that fact by the gentleman in question undoubtedly induced him to resign.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take exception to the remarks of my right hon. friend. The letter to the Prime Minister was worded courteously. He handed in his resignation when he was compelled to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was not compelled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was not compelled?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On that point I differ from my right hon. friend. Mr. Massey would never have resigned if the present Prime Minister had not told him plainly that he intended that post to be of a political nature and that he wanted someone to fill the position who politically would be his personal friend.

Private Bills


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be that Mr. Massey discussed the matter more fully with the leader of the opposition than he did with me. I say that Mr. Massey was not asked for his resignation. He was asked this, however: "Do you think in view of the fact which I mention you could possibly maintain the confidence of the government, or give it yours?"-and he resigned. Properly so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What answer
did he make to that question? .


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer he made
was this: I put to him the circumstances under which he came into public life; I put to him the circumstances in connection with the duty on agricultural implements and his expressions of opinion concerning the then Prime Minister and government of the day. I put his statements to him fairly; I put to him the communications which he had had with the then leader of the opposition. I put the fact to him that within a few months later he accepted office under the man whom he had thus described. He *sought from the electors of the county of Durham a seat in parliament; that seat was [DOT]denied him. I refer hon. members to the .speeches he made and the attitude he took concerning the policies he espoused. Then I -turned to him and said, as I now say to his spokesman in the house: "Can you possibly represent the administration of this day anywhere, at any time, in any place?" Do hon. members think he could? Would any man give such a man a power of attorney to act .as his representative, in view of those facts? In business could that be done? Could it be done in commerce? I ask those questions, as a matter of fair dealings between men. How could I carry on? How could any Prime Minister carry on business in London with that man as his representative? He had made statements publicly; he had made statements regarding the then opposition which made it impossible for one charged with responsibility to open his heart to him. How could one open his heart to him? How could it be [DOT]done? And in turn how could he open his heart to that Prime Minister? Let us be fair about these things. The conduct of the business of government is not the easiest thing in the world. It is a complex matter; it involves checks, balances and adjustments-The statutes provide the conditions under which a man shall be high commissioner. What are they? Among other things he represents the Department of Immigration. Listen to the words of the statute: "under .the Minister of Immigration." Yes, "under
the Minister of Immigration." In other words the high commissioner is a civil servant appointed by statute, which provides for his salary and the services he shall render as a civil servant. Under the circumstances was there anything left to do but to say to him, "Do you think under such circumstances you could represent this government as its agent, and as the alter ego of the government or speak for it?"


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Does Mr. Ferguson do that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will come to that presently. That was the difference between us. On one hand an ambassador is appointed by the sovereign and the high commissioner by order in council. One is the appointee of the government and the other on the recommendation of the government is appointed by the sovereign. One is a civil servant and the other is not. One discharges political^ duties and the other discharges diplomatic and political duties. One is an agent of the government under the terms of a statute. Where is the statute which defines the duties of a minister? Where is it? Would anyone think of appointing a minister to represent-^


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would call
your attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that it is six o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it is six o'clock.
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


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 26, respecting the Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury).
Bill No. 20, respecting a certain patent of A. R. Wilfley & Sons, Incorporated)-Mr. Anderson (High Park).

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 13, respecting Grain Insurance and Guaranty Company-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre) -Mr. Geary in the chair.
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive agreed to.
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
On section 4-Rights of 'holders of preferred stock.
Mr. BOTHWELL:: Has this bill passed the committee, and were any amendments or changes suggested?


Richard Burpee Hanson: In the absence of the sponsor of this bill I might say that the bill was fully considered this week in the banking and commerce committee and unanimously reported without amendment. Everything that is sought to be done in the bill could be done under the Companies Act by supplementary letters patent if this were a company incorporated under that act, but because it is an insurance company it is necessary to come to parliament.


Alfred Speakman: Is the whole change in the bill the increase in capital stock?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, the capital structure is being changed by the creation of preferred shares out of the present common stock.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 5 to 8 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
*

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 27 respecting the subsidiary high court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada-Mr. Chevrier-Mr. Geary in the chair.
On section 1-Management fund.
Charles Edward Bothwell: I assume this bill was approved by the banking and commerce committee as well?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Geary):: I have a note on the back of the bill that it was reported from the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
BURRAltD INLET TUNNEL AND BRIDGE COMPANY
The house in committee on Bill No. 31, respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company-Mr. Munn-Mr. Geary in the chair.
Sections 1, 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Power to replace span.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Just for the sake
of information I should like to know whether the new span will be sufficiently wide to allow
[Mr. Bennett.!
ships to pass without the danger of another similar accident happening. I have had complaints from the masters of ships that the old bridge was quite unfit. Owing to the tide the boats could not possibly be sure of getting through without damage. I would ask the mover for some statement on that point.


Wilfred Hanbury: In answer to my hon.
friend's inquiry, may I inform the house that the width of the span will be the same as previously, It is anticipated, however, that regulations will be made by the harbour commissioners of Vancouver to control the traffic in such a way as to reduce to a minimum the possibility of accidents in the future.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was not on the
committee, but that arrangement does not seem to me to be at all satisfactory to the masters of ships. They tell me that it is impossible under certain conditions of tide to go through without danger of ships running foul of the piers.


Wilfred Hanbury: I can assure the hon.
gentleman that the shipping people of Vancouver have given the suggested changes their careful consideration. Until probably a week or ten days ago they felt as the hon. member does; but having been given full information in connection with the proposed permanent changes, which will be made in the course of a few years, they have agreed, I understand, that the span should be replaced, and they will offer no further opposition.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead) moved the second reading of Bill No. 28, to amend the Bankruptcy Act (Priority of Claims).
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 1-Priority of claims for wages, salaries and commissions.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Explain.


Mr. HACKETT:: Mr. Chairman, bankruptcy offers a method as well as a means for distributing among his creditors the property of a man who is unable to pay his debts in full. According to the act, creditors are divided into two classes, ordinary and preferred. Among the preferred creditors are servants who work for a salary. That class

Bankruptcy Act-Priority of Claims
has always been recognized as being entitled to preferential treatment and to be paid their wages for a period of three months preceding a winding-up order. The purpose of this amendment is to provide for a class of servants hitherto unprovided for. A large number of salesmen receive their renumeration for their work either when the goods sold have been delivered, or have been paid for, or at some fixed time after either events. Travelling salesmen are now going throughout the provinces selling goods to be delivered next autumn, and most of them will receive payment for their efforts thirty, sixty and ninety day after the goods have been delivered or after they have been paid for. The purpose of this amendment is to entitle these men to preference for their wages when a period of not more than three months has elapsed from the date their wages became due. If a salesman were to sell a bill of goods to be delivered on January 1st, and under the terms of his contract he is to receive his salary, wages, commission or whatever you choose to call it, thirty days after the goods are paid for, and the goods were to be paid for on March 1, he would have a preferred claim should the firm for whom he is working happen to go into bankruptcy within three months after March 1.


Peter John Veniot: That is not now the case.


John Thomas Hackett: No. But there is
nothing new in the principle involved. There are forty odd thousand, travelling salesmen in this country who are denied the benefit of a preference for their wages falling due during the three months which precede a bankruptcy. This amendment seeks to give to that large class the privilege extended to others.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, I have no
antagonism to the principle of this bill except that I find that it will give to these men working on commission a double priority. They will be given priority for the three months following the date of the assignment, but there will be commissions falling due before that from previous transactions or possibly cash sales-these men do not sell exclusively on a basis of payment in three months; sometimes they sell for cash-and they would be given priority for the three months prior to the date of assignment as well as a further three months following the assignment.


John Thomas Hackett: I do not think that that would happen. After earning their commissions some of these men have to wait from
six months to a year before receiving them. There might be cash transactions within the three months preceding bankruptcy which would entitle them to preferential payment.


Alan Webster Neill: And earnings falling due
within that period.


John Thomas Hackett: Yes. At the proper
time an amendment to this section will be offered.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is there any such thing as a legal definition of the term "travelling salesman"?


John Thomas Hackett: I merely took that class as an example. The section of the bill reads as follows:
Thirdly, all wages, salaries, commissions or compensation of any clerk, servant, travelling salesman, labourer or workman, in respect of services rendered to the bankrupt or assignor during three months before the date of receiving order or assignment:


Mr. ILSLEY:: Will the hon. member explain the necessity for the words:
-moreover, that any advances made on account of such commission shall be deemed to have been legally paid on account thereof;


John Thomas Hackett: The Bankruptcy Act
provides that certain payments made within thirty or sixty days prior to a bankruptcy are presumed to have been made in anticipation of bankruptcy and are therefore illegal. An exception is made in the case of wages, and this section would put the payment of commissions in the same class and exempt them from the presumption of fraud which attaches to ordinary payments made in anticipation of bankruptcy.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury):: I would point out to the hon. member that if he desires to make any amendment, this is the appropriate time.


John Thomas Hackett: I move:
That the word "or" in the eighteenth and twenty-first lines be deleted and the words "or payment" be added in the eighteenth line after the word "delivery" and the words "or paid for'' be added in the twenty-first line after the word "delivered."


Olof Hanson: I would like to point out that
the hon. member cannot amend his own bill.


George Reginald Geary: I move that amendment


Alan Webster Neill: Would the introducer of the bill be kind enough to read it as it will be when amended, beginning with the words "provided that commission."?
1654	COMMONS
Bankruptcy Act-Priority of Claims


John Thomas Hackett: It will read:
Provided that commission earned more than three months before the date of a receiving order or assignment, but not payable (by the terms of the creditor's agreement) until the shipment, delivery or payment of the goods sold, shall be deemed to have been earned within three months of the date of the receiving order or assignment, when the said goods have been shipped, delivered or paid for within three months of the receiving order or assignment.


Alan Webster Neill: Would the hon. member in
charge of the bill not think it better if it read: "delivery of or payment for the goods sold"? It is better English anyway.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I think the hon. member's point is well taken.


John Thomas Hackett: Yes-"Shipment, delivery of or payment for."


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni a few minutes ago raised a point that was not cleared up, at least to my satisfaction, and that is whether there might not be more than three months' priority. Suppose a travelling salesman were working on a cash basis during the last three months before bankruptcy. He would receive priority for his full time for those three months. Then if commissions fell due for previous transactions, he really might be crowding into those last three months much more than three months' priority. Is that not correct?


John Thomas Hackett: I think that is correct,
but that is exactly where the difficulty lies, that people who work for those commissions are precluded from payment for six, nine or twelve months, and in that event the man would be receiving merely what he would have received months before had he been receiving a daily, weekly or monthly stipend. This is a peculiarity of the commission arrangement.	'


James Lorimer Ilsley: I understand that, but there is a possibility, under this amendment, that he may be getting priority for much more than three months' pay for his work. Is that not correct? Let me put the case again, because I doubt whether the sponsor of the bill understood it before. This is the case I have in mind; Suppose a travelling salesman were working on a cash basis, getting paid day by day for what he does-that might or might not be possible-during the last three months before bankruptcy. Under the bill as it stands he gets priority for three months' remuneration. Then, under the proposed amendment he also gets priority for such commissions as may fall due during 
those three months for work that he has done six, nine or twelve months previously. In other words, in the case I have put, he gets a priority that an ordinary wage earner does not receive. There may be some explanation. The point has just occurred to me.


John Thomas Hackett: That is quite correct,
bpt I do not know that it is altogether a likely case. Let us suppose that a man were working on commission, he might finish his work at the end of May, his commissions might not fall due until early next year. On June 1 he goes to work on a cash basis for someone else. The situation would be identical, but still, under the amendment, he would preserve his right to priority in the event of bankruptcy to all commissions falling due within three months of a receiving order.


Alan Webster Neill: In that case he would have
lost his right of*priority, would he not? Does the law not require the man to be in the employ of the bankrupt right up to the date of the assignment?


John Thomas Hackett: The amendment would
give him that priority.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Why should the commission man be preferred in any way to the ordinary wage earner who may have earned wages over a period of, say, a year before the assignment?


John Thomas Hackett: He is not. He comes in as an ordinary employee. The only difference is that under this system the man, instead of receiving wages, weekly, fortnightly or monthly, has to wait six, nine or twelve months for his commission. This merely gives him a priority in regard to amounts which fell due within the three months preceding a receiving order.


Alan Webster Neill: That is exactly what the bill does not say. It does not say a priority for three months' earnings. It says, "commission earned more than three months before." He might earn twelve months' commission and it is all to be considered as coming in under the three months' priority. That priority should be limited at least to three months' earnings of commissions. Now he can get priority for twelve months' earnings.


John Thomas Hackett: Only if the commission
falls due within the three months.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I think the difference between the commission man as dealt with in the bill and the ordinary wage earner is this, that the ordinary wage earner can sue for his wages that have been earned prior to the three months, as soon as they have been earned, whereas the commission man is tied

Criminal Code-Trade Marks
up; he cannot sue. In other words, he may have earned his commission and he may see his employer going on the rocks, but his hands are tied by reason of the agreement that his commission is not to be paid until the goods are delivered or paid for. He has absolutely no protection. In other words, he is in quite a different position from the wage earner who can take immediate summary proceedings to cover his wages earned prior to the three months; the commission man cannot do so.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The commissions of the commission man, I presume, are falling in from month to month and he is being paid commissions from time to time throughout the year. This amendment will permit him to get commissions which have been earned beyond the three months period, 'but not payable before the three months period. That will mean that he has priority over the claims that fall in during the three months prior to the assignment and also will have priority for the commissions that have been earned, say, during the twelve months before that. The commissions have been earned but are not payable. By way of illustration an ordinary farm labourer who is working for a period, say, of eight months, and is to be paid in the fall, has priority for only three months' wages. Suppose he works eight .months at $40 a month, payable in the fall; he has priority for only three months' wages.


Mr BURY:: He can sue for his wages.


Charles Edward Bothwell: He cannot sue until his wages become due, which may be at a date after t'he assignment. This commission man has clearly a preference over the ordinary wage earner.


Mr. SMOKE:: It seems to me that a number of hon. members are labouring under a misapprehension. If they will refer to line 21 and following lines of the amending bill they will see that it is limited to the goods which have been shipped or delivered within three months of the receiving order or assignment. Surely it cannot be contended that the preference amounts to more than the commission on the goods shipped in the last three months prior to the assignment.


Alan Webster Neill: There .might have been a whole summer's trade done in the three months.


Franklin Smoke: That might accidentally
happen.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto) moved the second reading of Bill No. 34, to amend the criminal code (trade marks).
Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At page 1517 of Hansard, in the debate on May 12, you ruled as follows as to this particular bill:
Yet rule No. 3 as it appears and has been quoted at page 348 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms has not been complied with in the preparation of the bill now before the house.
I cannot find, sir, that it has been complied with since, because the bill is in exactly the same form in which it was last Tuesday.


George Reginald Geary: Is my hon. friend' taking
the point of order that the bill is not in order, or that his point of order taken against the bill when it was last before the house was considered favourably by your honour? I think there was no ruling by your honour. The last words of your honour were to the effect that it would be well to refer the bill to the law clerk for consideration. Following your honour's suggestion in that regard the bill has again been referred to the law clerk, who says that it is perfectly in order in every way.


Alan Webster Neill: The law clerk says so?


George Reginald Geary: Yes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With all due deference
to the law clerk, this bill and several others on the order paper do not in all particulars comply with the rules. I have looked at several of these bills and most of them are proposed amendments to existing legislation. I do not think it would be well to delay the passage of the legislation or to incur the expenditure necessary for reprinting the bills. I do not think the house or any member will be misled by the form in which the bills appear at present, and the discussion that has taken place will serve as a notice to hon. members who are introducing legislation in the future. My ruling will be that Bill No. 34 is in sufficient compliance with the rules to be proceeded with.


Alan Webster Neill: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but will it not be necessary to pass a resolution to rescind your ruling of last Tuesday?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My ruling made just
now is plain enough.
16,56

Criminal Code-Trade Marks


Alan Webster Neill: All too plain.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Mr. GEARY moved that the house go into committee on the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: The bill has not been read a second time yet, Mr. Speaker, We are waiting for the hon. member to move the second reading. It was the point of order that we were discussing.


George Reginald Geary: When the order was first
called I rose and moved the second reading, the first time I was on my feet.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion to go into
committee is not debatable.


Alan Webster Neill: This is really beyond the
limit. Surely any hon. member is entitled to speak on the second reading of the bill, and whoever heard of an hon. member speaking to the second reading of a bill before the member in charge had given an explanation. It would have been considered discourteous if I had butted in ahead of my hon. friend from South Toronto. There must be some courtesy and decency in the debate, I should think.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 1

Forgery.


George Reginald Geary: I should like, Mr. Chairman-


Alan Webster Neill: I would*ask, Mr. Chairman,
that you read each section. I think that is the rule when the reading of the sections is requested, so that we can get some faint idea of what the bill really means.


George Reginald Geary: If my -hon. friend had not
interrupted, he would have seen that I was proceeding, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, to explain the sections of the bill.


Alan Webster Neill: It is not your explanations
that we want, at present, but the reading of the sections by the chairman.


Olof Hanson: Is it the pleasure of the committee that I read the sections? Section 1 reads as follows:
1. Section four hundred and eighty-six of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:- Criminal Code, chapter thirty-six of the
"486. (1) Every one is deemed to forge a trade mark who either
(a) without the assent of the proprietor of the trade mark makes or reproduces in any manner that trade mark or a mark so nearly resembling it as to be calculated to deceive; or
(Mr. Speaker.]
(b) falsifies any genuine trade mark, whether by alteration, addition, efiFaeement or otherwise.
(2) Any trade mark or mark so made, or reproduced, or falsified is, in this part, referred to as a forged trade mark."


George Reginald Geary: This bill is introduced at.
the request of certain persons who have been interested in the protection of trade marks, whether used as labels or in any other way in which a trade mark is used. The right to the use of a trade mark is for the protection of the person owning the trade mark and applying it to goods of his manufacture. If that trade mark be allowed to be reproduced and applied to goods which are not of his manufacture the manufacturer is being deprived of his rights, and at the same time goods, possibly of an inferior quality, are being imposed upon the'public by some manufacturer other than the one in rightful possession of the trade mark. I understood from those who asked me to promote this legislation that section 486 of the criminal code was not clear enough to enable a conviction to be had for an infraction of such section 486. It was found that if a man had trade marks and packages together in his premises obviously with the intention of applying the trade mark to the packages and going into the market with the substituted goods, he could not be convicted unless it was proved he himself forged the trade mark. If he had the forgeries prepared by others and only had the- forged trade mark in his possession, there was no offence. Moreover it was found that unless he had actually applied the trade mark or label to the package there was no offence under the code. It was quite obviously the intention that no one should secure forged trade marks and packages which were designed to carry a certain trade mark and place himself in a position whereby he could issue goods of a spurious nature deceiving the public as to the true source of manufacture. In a good many industries matters have come to a serious pass and I understand the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) agrees that this legislation will remedy the fault which now exists under section 486. The proposal is that the section should have added to it in the second line of section (a) the words "or reproduces in any manner." That is, if the offender does not forge the trade mark but by means of a die reproduces it, he is equally guilty. That would seem to be sound common sense. Subsection 2 is amended by adding the word "reproduced." Any trade mark so made or falsified is referred to as a forged trade mark. It. is quite obvious, however, that a reproduction would be an equal forgery,

Criminal Code-Trade Marks
and that point is cleared by the amendment to subsection 2. I am quite frank to say that the unsatisfactory condition of the law in regard to trade marks has created some havoc in a good many rather popular industries; at least it is creating difficulties among the consumers of certain of the manufactures of those industries.


Alan Webster Neill: I wish the hon. member
would particularize the industries to which he has referred.


George Reginald Geary: In my province and in other provinces the government of the day has seen fit to ensure that the people who are consumers of well known-


Peter John Veniot: Spirits?


George Reginald Geary: -commodities in the production of which Canada I understand stands second to none, are sometimes deceived by reproductions of the product being forged upon them at the price of the original and proper product. We do not want that to occur, because it would seem to be a dangerous practice.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the product?


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman-


George Reginald Geary: For instance it might even be Quaker oats.


Alan Webster Neill: I am indeed saddened to hear the reputation given to the province of Ontario by the hon. member for South Toronto. I have always understood that that city was preeminent for its virtues. I assure him that the difficulties which he describes are a surprise to me; we are not troubled in that way in the province of British Columbia-at least we have the decency to keep quiet about it. We do not have to go to parliament to have our grievance remedied. The hon. member who introduced the bill, either out of kindliness and courtesy or out of some lingering sense that he had not given me a fair deal on the second reading, has been now allowed contrary to the rule to give a general explanation of the bill. I appreciate the courtesies which have been extended to him and ask that I be allowed the same latitude. You are aware, sir, that what has been called the principle of the bill is generally discussed on the second reading. I was looking for that principle in order to discuss it, but I have had great difficulty in finding it. I am not using the word "principle" in the sense of the difference between right and wrong, but in the sense of a line of thought running through it or a line of action running through
it intended to arrive at certain desirable ends. However I cannot find any principle in the bill. To my mind it is an incoherent collection of amendments, some contradicting each other, in . others wholly needless.
To begin with, my first comment on section 486 as amended is that it ipains me to point out that in addition to complying only to a very limited extent with the rules as to form, whoever drew up this bill erred in another way. I think I am paying the hon. member for South Toronto a real compliment when I say that I hesitate very much to think that he was the originator of the bill. In all charity I believe some other lesser light handed it to him and placed upon him the responsibility of putting it through the house. With the respect I have for him, his brilliant legal career and the position he occupies in that great city of Toronto, the Babylon of Canada, I do not believe he originated this bill. If hon. members think I am not right in the use of the word "Babylon," I would ask if the conditions described by the hon. member himself could not be likened to that of Babylon. When we look at the fourth line of section 486 we find certain words underlined, showing that those words are being introduced anew into the bill. I do not believe there has been any deliberate attempt to deceive the house; the mistake may have been made unintentionally or inadvertently, but certainly the result is to misrepresent the case because one of the words underlined is, in fact, in the original act. May I point out that the word "makes" is in the original act, although, in this amended section we are led to believe that the word "makes" is not in the original. Under ordinary circumstances the addition of a word here or there might be of little consequence, but in this particular case it makes a great deal of difference. I cheerfully agree-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is now nine o'clock.


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, I am sorry.
Progress reported.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Armand Renaud La Vergne: When the committee
rose at six o'clock we were considering item No. 300 on page 62 of the estimates, concerning the office of the High Commissioner for Canada.
Supply-External Affairs


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the committee
rose at six o'clock I was continuing my statement with respect to the position of the Minister at Washington. My right hon. friend suggested that he had been-


Mr. DUFF:: London.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, Washington. My right hon. friend suggested that he had been transferred to London. I think that is an improper term to use. The truth is the order in council was passed on July 24, 1930, appointing Mr. Massey to London. It is not correct to say that he was appointed to London in the month of May or any other date, because the order in council was dated, as I say, July 24, 1930. It was approved on that day, the order being passed the day before. It reads:
The committee of the privy council, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, advise that the Honourable "V iucent Massey, a member of His Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, be appointed High Commissioner for Canada in London from the 23rd July, 1930, under the act, chapter 92 of the revised statutes of 1927, in succession to the Honourable Peter C. Larkin, deceased; and that his duties include supervision over the various agencies of the Canadian government in the United Kingdom as described in the order in council (P.C. 330, 10th February, 1922) by which Mr. Larkin was appointed.
The committee, on the same recommendation, further advise that His Majesty the King in respect of Canada be humbly moved to issue Mr. Massey's letter of recall from the United States, and to indicate that Mr. Massey has fulfilled his mission to the entire satisfaction of His Majesty in respect of Canada.
That was the order in council which removed Mr. Massey from Washington and appointed him to London. I said it removed him from Washington; that is hardly a correct term. It asked that his letters of recall be granted, and as a matter of fact the way in which a minister is withdrawn is not by order in council. He has his letters of recall signed by the sovereign on the application of the government affected, and in this instance the letters of recall were actually signed on the day this government came into office. They subsequently came back to Ottawa from London; they were signed on the 7th day of August, 1930, so on the 23rd of July Mr. Massey was appointed, the approval being given on the succeeding day, and his letters of recall were actually signed by the sovereign on the 7th of August of last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Have they been presented as yet to the president of the United States?
[The Chairman.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not. The order in council appointing Mr. Larkin, to which reference has been made, contained these words:
The minister considers that this is an appropriate ^ occasion for defining the duties of the Canadian High Commissioner. The statute creating this office (43 Vie. chap 11) provides that the high commissioner should act as the duly accredited representative of Canada and resident agent of the Dominion in London to watch over the growing interests of Canada in the United Kingdom. The policy embodied m the original act creating this office has been departed from in that there are in London at the present time direct representatives, having practically independent and separate offices, of the Departments of Immigration, Trade and Commerce, Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment and Board of Pension Commissioners, also other departmental representatives carrying on their work outside the control of the High Commissioner.
The minister submits-
That is my right hon. friend opposite.
-that there is necessity in this connection to coordinate these activities, and prevent overlapping. It has frequently happened that the same matters were dealt with by different offices and agencies at the same time, thus producing confusion and injury to Canada's reputation and the effectiveness of its administrative methods.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs therefore, both on the grounds of economy and efficiency, and with the concurrence of the ministers concerned, recommends that all the official activities of the various agencies of the Canadian government in the United Kingdom should be placed under the supervision of the high commissioner.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs further recommends that the high commissioner should in all matters of public policy communicate direct with the Prime Minister.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendations and submit the same for approval.
That order in council was passed on February 10, 1922, and reference was made to that order in council in express terms when Mr. Massey was appointed on the 23rd of July, 1930. It is the basis of the observation I made last session, that the high commissioner must be taken to be practically a member of the administration. Mr. Larkin was sworn of the privy council shortly after his appointment. Mr. Ferguson was sworn of the privy council. It was felt that one who is charged with the responsibility for the conduct not of one but of several departments of the public service in London must occupy a position' almost analogous to that of a member of the government, and he is so treated. Now, for instance, in the office at London at the present time 3rou will find lodged the high commissioner, the immigration office, a branch of the Departments of Trade and Commerce, Agriculture,

Supply-External Affairs
Customs, Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment and Secretary of State, and there are also branches of the Archives and the air force in other offices.
The result is that to all intents and purposes the High Commissioner for Canada is minister in London, apart from being high commissioner, for immigration, trade and commerce, agriculture, customs, soldiers' civil reestablishment and secretary of state. I say to this committee that during all the time Mr. Massey was in the United States he discharged no duties analogous to these at all, and no minister from this country to Tokyo or Paris discharges any such duties or exercises any such oversight in connection with the activities of Canada in those countries. There is such a clear distinction that all you have to do is go into the offices and observe them. I did say to Mr. Massey that I thought he had discharged his duties at Washington with credit and distinction alike to himself and to this country, but he discharged what might be called the ornamental duties which appertain to the office of minister. For instance, he had a commercial attache, Mr. Mahoney, at Washington, who looked after these matters in that city. That cannot be said in any sense to be analogous to the departmental activities of our representative in London, and in the duties discharged so effectively by Mr. Massey, the social obligations of a great office in Washington, he had nothing analogous to these duties which must be discharged by wnom-ever is the high commissioner in London, because these branches of the departments of government of this country which are under that roof in London must be administered by the high commissioner.
Sir Alexander Galt was the first high commissioner from this country. He was appointed to London by Sir John A. Macdonald. Part of the correspondence between Macdonald and Galt has been published. Part of it will be found in the letters of Sir John A. Macdonald; part will be found in the life of Sir Alexander Galt, and part has not been published at all. There is no doubt, however, that while on the one hand Sir John Macdonald regarded Sir Alexander Galt as a Canadian ambassador, on the other hand he treated him as reflecting the mind of his government, and he was very clear in that regard. Then there came Sir Charles Tupper. Would anyone for a moment say that had the government of the day been defeated. Sir Charles Tupper could have remained in London representing a Liberal government
in Canada? Has anyone ever taken the trouble to read the debates in this house showing the attitude of the Liberal party towards Sir Charles Tupper and his administration of the affairs of Canada as high commissioner in London? Would anyone for a moment say he would have been accepted as high commissioner had the Liberal government succeeded in the days of Mr. Blake, or later in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier? When Sir Donald Smith, afterwards Lord Strathcona, was appointed to succeed Sir Charles Tupper at London, it will be recalled that Sir Charles Tupper came to Canada to take over the position of Prime Minister. He came over as the Conservative Prime Minister. Previously he had come to Canada to participate in a general election; he took part in that election and then returned to his office as high commissioner. The relations between him and Sir John A. Macdonald were of such a character that they are well described by the mention of that famous cablegram which Sir John Macdonald sent to him, saying that the situation was getting rather complicated and his presence here was greatly desired. Sir Charles Tupper cabled, "Sailing to-morrow," and he came to Canada and took part in the election. Then he went back and remained as high commissioner until he came out to Canada as Prime Minister. Following that, Sir Donald Smith, afterwards Lord Strathcona, was made high commissioner.
While Sir Donald Smith was high commissioner, the general election of 1911 took place. Lord Strathcona came out and offered his resignation both to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and to Sir Robert, then Mr. Borden. Neither accepted it. The one said it was not for him to accept it and the other said he was not yet in a position to do so, and he remained there as high commissioner until he died. But it is also known that Lord Strathcona, at a public banquet on Dominion day in London, indicated that he proposed to retire from the office. It is well known that his successor was selected and was named, in so far as a successor could be named without its being made public. That is well known. His position was an extraordinary one. He was a man of advanced years when appointed, a man of great wealth, and he occupied a position that could not be said in any sense to be political. He discharged his duties without regard to the government, by merely carrying into effect the instructions he received. Those who are familiar with the work he did then will realize that the office at 19 Victoria street was an entirely
Supply-External Affairs

different place from Canada House on Trafalgar square to-day, both from the standpoint of the work that had to be done, the personnel and the staff employed, and from the point of view of the general attitude which a high commissioner must observe towards the problems that come before him for consideration.
When Lord Strathcona vacated the office the Right Hon. Sir George Perley occupied it; and during a portion of that time, be it known, he was a member of Sir Robert Borden's government. There are those who believe that it is in the interests of this country and of Great Britain as well that the incumbent of that office should be a member of the government of the day in this country. I know that Sir George Perley entertained that opinion and still does, and there are many who share the 'view. It will be recalled that when Sir George Perley surrendered the office he offered his resignation to my right hon. friend opposite and in due course retired. I do not say that, had he desired to remain, the right hon. gentleman might not have permitted him to do so; but I should be inclined to say he would not. It would not have been his view at that time that the High Commissioner in London should be a former member of a Conservative administration. And indeed, I have always felt-there is nothing new about this -that he would have been entirely right in viewing the situation in that light. Then came the success of my right hon. friend opposite, and with the retirement of Sir George Perley, Mr. P. C. Larkin was appointed high commissioner. Mr. Larkin was a gentleman of large business experience and interests, and he discharged his duties well. But certainly, from any conversations which he ever had with me, I do not think he would have looked upon the office as a political one. He did indicate, however, that had the party with which I was associated been successful in 1925 or 1926 he would have resigned. Whether his resignation would have been accepted or not is, of course, a matter with which the government of that day would have had to deal.
Then Mr. Larkin died and the office fell vacant. Mr. Pa-caud, as acting commissioner, has discharged the duties of the office, one of very considerable importance, just as he would normally have discharged them had he been merely secretary. He was appointed acting commissioner and was given a small additional compensation. I may say that he did not receive the emoluments and fees that were
fMr. Bennett.}
paid the commissioner, although he discharged the duties. Then, the office having been vacant from 1929 until July, 1930, Mr. Massey, who was then minister at Washington, was appointed to the post. It well may be that had the post been started on the basis which my right hon. friend mentions it could have been maintained as a diplomatic position. But I think I have indicated sufficient to any hon. member of this house to show that, according to the records of Hansard and the history of the period during which the gentlemen named were high commissioners, in every instance these gentlemen were, shall I say, colleagues, in the large and broad sense, of the Prime Minister and his ministers of the respective governments. And when Mr. Massey found himself in the position he did-and I am free to say that I had no knowledge that action had been taken until after I saw the order in council under which he was appointed, of which, naturally, I was not aware in view of the fact that we did not come into office until August 7-is it not apparent to the house, under these circumstances, that Mr. Massey would be the last man in the world to expect to remain as high commissioner in London?
It is common knowledge in Washington, as it is elsewhere, that Mr. Massey felt perfectly certain that the then government would be sustained. Had he remained at Washington he would not have been dealt with differently from Mr. Marler or Mr. Roy. These gentlemen are still occupying their positions as ministers, and Mr. Marler is a former member of a Liberal administration. He occupies the office in Tokyo and is at present on leave of absence in Canada. He has not been removed from his office, and it has not 'been suggested that he should be. He is still there. Mr. Roy was a former Liberal senator, appointed for Alberta in 1905, a Liberal 'by conviction and declaration-indeed, I should say, by warm declarations in recent years. But Mr. Roy occupies his position still and no one questions it. No one has suggested that Mr. Marler should resign. I have not done so. Nor has anyone suggested that Mr. Roy should resign; I have not, nor has the government. These gentlemen are both in the positions to which they were appointed.
But I do draw a sharp distinction between a minister and one who occupies the statutory position of high commissioner, as a civil servant charged with administrative responsibility for a given department of the public service of Canada in London. And for that reason I believe that Mr. Massey felt it was clearly his duty to resign, as in fact he did.

Supply-External Affairs
I can only say that the same considerations that moved the government with respect to the positions of Mr. Marler and of Mr. Roy would undoubtedly have moved the administration with respect to Mr. Massey had he remained at Washington. The situation is so entirely different in a foreign country from what it is in Great Britain: it involves so many different problems, so many different angles from which the same problem may be viewed, that I cannot conceive of any Canadian occupying the position of high commissioner who does not command at once the confidence, in the widest sense, of the ministry of the day. He reports directly to the Prime Minister in accordance with the minute which was passed when Mr. Larkin was appointed, and he gives his confidence to the Prime Minister. Mr. Massey was the first to realize the situation, and so resigned.
There is the story, and I am confident, as confident as one can be, that no man can properly discharge the duties of high commissioner who has not, in the large, broad and true sense of the term, that confidence in the policies of the administration which has appointed him, which will enable him successfully to fulfil the functions of his office. For that reason the resignation of Mr. Massey was accepted. And I am bound to say that a high commissioner's resignation would foe accepted again to-morrow; and so long as the administration holds the views it now holds, that action must be taken should1 a similar situation arise at any time.
But let us test the question in another way. Will my right hon. friend say that if he were in office to-morrow he would not expect the present high commissioner to tender him his resignation? It seems to me that one must always test these questions by some practical inquiry.


An hon. MEMBER:: Precedent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; there can be no precedent if the right hon. gentleman's views are right.


An hon. MEMBER:: He should be recalled now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The high commissioner is not here to speak for himself, but in Canada he was well able to do so. The gentlemen who are so vociferous in their attacks at this moment would be silent in his presence. May I venture to say-


Ernest Lapointe: Bring him here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, urge me no more. The hon. member remembers Regulus before the Roman Senate. Should there be a change in the administration I have no doubt the right hon. gentleman would expect the present incumbent to resign. Apart altogether from any other considerations which might be in his mind or in the mind of the incumbent, that would be so.
I do not think I can usefully take up the time of the committee any longer. I have endeavoured to explain frankly my appreciation and understanding of this office. I have done that by appealing to the record of history; because I have had to accept responsibility I have not suddenly arrived at an opinion with respect to it. From the opinion which I have held since I first knew of this office I was able to appreciate its historical record. The attitude of mind of the various incumbents of the office towards the government of the day impels me to believe that that office is one in which the incumbent must occupy a position practically analogous to that of a member of the administration. There are those who believe that the incumbent should be a member of the administration, as was the right hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) when he was a member of the government of Sir Robert Borden.
I may have imposed a little longer than I had intended upon the patience of the committee, but I was desirous that hon. members should understand the principles which actuated the government in accepting the resignation of Mr. Massey. I repeat that I pointed out to him that he had discharged his duties in laying the foundation for the future administration of his office in a manner acceptable to the Canadian people, and that he had brought credit and distinction upon both himself and
them.	I said with great frankness to him
then,	and I say it now publicly in this house, that that had nothing whatever to do with the principle which was involved, the application of which resulted in the acceptance of his resignation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, when a few minutes after six o'clock I directed your attention to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) had gone past the time for recess, I thought he was going too far in other directions as well. After listening to his words this evening, I am inclined to think that he has been reflecting upon what just at the hour of adjournment he was saying in respect to the Hon. Mr. Massey.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall repeat it if desired.

Supply-External Affairs


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must confess I was somewhat surprised to hear the Prime Minister of Canada make a personal attack of the kind my right hon. friend did upon the character of one who has represented this country in the United States during the past four years with, as he himself now says, such distinction. The right hon. gentleman has just taken to task an hon. member on this side for speaking of a gentleman who is not here to answer for or to defend himself. The Prime Minister knows better than anyone else the care which should foe taken by one in his position in making attacks upon any public man who is not in a position to answer and be heard immediately in reply. He gave what purported to be a private conversation between himself and Mr. Massey. '


Richard Bedford Bennett: I must challenge that
statement. The right hon. gentleman has a habit of talking about private letters and private conversations. He asked me what I did say to Mr. Massey, and treating him as Mr. Massey's spokesman in this house I answered his inquiry; otherwise it would not have been done. He asked for it and he got it.


Ernest Lapointe: Why the heat? There
is nothing wrong about that..


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This afternoon my right hon. friend indicated how he had put the thumbscrews on Mr. Massey, how he had subjected him to a species of inquisition during that interview, and his own words will bear that out. He finally drew from Mr. Massey the statement that unquestionably if such were the views of the Prime Minister of this country it would not be possible for the two of them to work together. My right hon. friend knows better than anyone else that his interviews with Mr. Massey were directed with a view to forcing his resignation, and as Mr. Massey is not here to answer for himself as to the position which he took, I would refer again to the letter which he sent to my right hon. friend, and which sets forth the basis of his resignation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And which I am informed the right hon. gentleman wrote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to say to my right hon. friend that that is-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which I am advised, I
should say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is an
absolute falsehood, and the Prime Minister of this country has no right-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -to direct a
statement of that kind to anyone in this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We shall discuss it
presently.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I had no knowledge of the letter which was sent to my right hon. friend or the terms in which it was sent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, or the terms in
which it was sent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I use that
phrase.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman knew all about it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I knew a letter was being sent to my right hon. friend but I did not know its terms.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Having regard to the
rules of this house, I think the right hon. gentleman will have to withdraw the word "falsehood."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister had better withdraw what he said in the first instance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister will accept the language of the right hon. gentleman opposite because he is bound to, but the right hon. gentleman must withdraw that word. Not that I care myself, because the statement coming from him has no effect upon the record; but the rules of the house require that it be done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
one quite so sensitive as my right hon. friend in regard to any matter with reference to himself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, it is the
use of the word itself which is outrageous, and if the hon. gentleman will reflect a moment he will realize-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What word?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word "falsehood."


Olof Hanson: I would suggest to the right hon.
gentleman that he had better withdraw that word.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I said the statement was a falsehood, but I am quite prepared to follow the rules of the house-


An hon. MEMBER:: No quibbling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -if there is a desire that the word should not appear as being applied to my right hon. friend. I am only too happy that it should not apply.

Supply-External Affairs


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that I was informed that the right hon. gentleman wrote that letter, and I changed the word "informed" to "advised." The right hon. gentleman said that that was not so, but he admitted that he knew that a letter was being written. I will give him the further history of it later on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my
right hon. friend will tell me who informed him of that fact.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will not do that, although my right hon. friend referred to a private letter the other day.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon.
friend shields himself behind an anonymous individual, and yet when I mentioned a letteT which was given to me as a public letter, not as a private letter-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was marked "private".
Mr.	MACKENZIE	KING:	The	letter
was sent to me as a public letter and I will if desired produce it and lay it on the table of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was it marked "private"?
Mr.	MACKENZIE	KING:	The	letter
was an answer to a public communication.


Mr. BENNET  T@: Was it marked "private"? \
Mr.	MACKENZIE	KING:	The	letter
sent by the Prime Minister was an answer to a public communication. It was marked "private" so that it could be used as an answer but might not according to his present interpretation be produced publicly. The person who received that communication sent it to me with the request that it should be made public, and I have since received a further communication asking why it was not made public. If my hon. friend would like that letter laid on the table of the house I shall be pleased to put it there.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman knows that he has himself written letters by the hundreds marked "personal." The letter I referred to this afternoon, which I have not seen, was marked "personal." The attitude taken by my right hon. friend during the elections of 1925-26 was that once he had put "personal" on a letter it could not be made public without his consent. That is the universal rule-the writer determines that, not the receiver.
22110-106i


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that
is* a debatable question with regard to public communications on public matters. When communications are sent to ministers of the crown asking for information, and they are replied to by ministers of the crown, ministers of the crown have no right to protect themselves with respect to their replies simply by writing the word "personal" over their communications.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree with that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
point with respect to the letter to which I have just referred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has spoken about an informant. If the statement made by the Prime Minister is correct, whoever was his informant told him something that was not true. When my right hon. friend refers to an informant, he owes it to the house to give the name of his informant.
What I wish to say, however, is this: my right hon. friend before the six o'clock recess indulged in a personal attack upon a distinguished gentleman in public life who was not in the house or in any way in a position to defend himself. I shall give again to the house on his behalf the only statement which it is within my power to give, namely, the one contained in that gentleman's communication to the Prime Minister himself. It is in a letter which I read this afternoon under date of August 14, 1930, and the point at issue is contained in the following sentence :
In our discussion on this subject you were good enough to make clear your view that the office of high commissioner should be held by someone in close political association with the government of the day, and I understood from what you said that you had in mind plans for this post as a result of "which my own appointment could no longer stand.
As a result of the plans which the Prime Minister himself indicated to Mr. Massey, the latter's appointment could no longer stand. For this reason he continues:
In these circumstances, I, of course, at once offered you my resignation from the high com-rmssionership, which I now confirm.
May I say that if there ever was a gentleman who filled a public office in a manner which was acceptable to men and women of all political parties in this country, it was the Hon. Vincent Massey in the distinguished manner in which he filled the position of the first minister from this country to Washington. Not only did Mr. Massey win the

Supply-External Affairs
praise of men of all political parties in Canada, but distinguished public men and officiils of the highest rank from Great Britain were loud in their praises of the services which Mr Massey had rendered not only to Canada but to the British Empire. During the time Mr. Massey was at Washington we _ had .visiting Canada two British prime ministers, at least one secretary of state for foreign affairs and we have had visits from two British ambassadors who were his associates at Washington. All of these very distinguished gentlemen have been more than loud in their praise of the great service which was being rendered at Washington by Mr. Massey not only to Canada but to the British Empire as a whole. It is generally admitted that no minister or ambassador at Washington filled his position with greater credit to himself and the country which he represented there than did the Hon. Mr. Massey. In these circumstances it was owing to Mr. Massey to receive rather the public thanks of the Prime Minister of Canada for the services which he had rendered, than the personal attack which was directed against him just before the six o'clock recess. My right hon. friend, however, has evidently upon reflection thought better of his words and he has seen well this evening to intimate that with his own lips he told Mr. Massey he had represented his country most acceptably during the time he represented Canada at Washington.
But I must take exception to the view expressed by the Prime Minister as to the significance of the position of minister at Washington. The Prime Minister said that Mr. Massey had fulfilled certain ornamental duties; that he had discharged social functions will great satisfaction and credit. If the Prime Minister thinks the position of minister at Washington is one concerned pi i-marilv with ornamental duties and social functions, he has an entirely erroneous view of what the position of minister at Washington amounts to. I hope he has taken other things into consideration in connection with that appointment than the merely ornamental duties and social functions that are to be performed. The right hon. Lord Bryce, who was British ambassador at Washington for many years, stated on one of his visits to Ottawa that two-thirds of the business of the British ambassador at the time he occupied that office was concerned with all-important affairs with respect to Canada. Later Sir Esme Howard, who was British ambassador at Washington at the time Mr. Massey went there, made a similar statement. Sir
[Mr. Mackenzie Kine.3
Esme Howard indicated that the duties of the Canadian minister at Washington were most extensive and responsible. With a neighbour as near as the United States is to this Dominion, with border questions of the character they are, with the extent of territory what it is, there are in the nature of things any number of all-important questions. Let us take a matter such as the St. Lawrence waterways: does my right hon. friend think that matters pertaining to the St. Lawrence waterways are in the nature of an ornamental duty or a social obligation: that it requires one possessed only of those qualifications to handle matters of that kind? Then there are questions with respect to deportations, to emigration matters to the tariff and what not. There is n-o end of all-important questions. Indeed, it would be very difficult to imagine two countries that have more important questions arising between them than those which arise and are certain to continue to arise between the United States and Canada. What is required in a minister representing Canada at Washington are the very highest of qualifications of a character that would be expected from one holding an all-important position in public life.
My right hon. friend spoke about the different distinguished gentlemen who have held the position of High Commissioner in London. In that connection it seemed to me his remarks served only to emphasize the difference between the point of view the Conservative party is now taking through the Prime Minister and the point of view the Liberal party has always taken. My right hon. friend pointed out that Sir Charles Tup-per was a strong political controversialist; that Sir Alexander Galt had equally been very strong politically as a controversialist. He did not need to point out the controversial powers of the present High Commissioner, but he altogether skipped over mention of the fact that during the entire time that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was Prime Minister of Canada, the position of High Commissioner in London was held by Lord Strathcona who was a political opponent. For many years, including the fifteen years of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's administration Lord Strathcona continued to occupy the position of High Commissioner in London long after Sir Alexander Galt had filled it, after Sir Charles Tupper had filled it and prior to the time Sir George Perley filled it. Lord Strathcona was not discharging merely an ornamental function in London; he was not acting on his own initiative in matters over there, with the

Supply-External Affairs
Canadian government indifferent to what was transpiring in London. Lord Strathcona was acting under the direction of the government of Canada : he was the agent of the government of Canada and he was fulfilling his duties under the direction and in accordance with the instructions of the Prime Minister of the day. During the time that Lord Strathcona held the position of high commissioner many very important negotiations were conducted between the Canadian and British governments. Though himself a conservative, he reflected the mind of the Liberal administration in his negotiations with the British Government just, as I said this afternoon, Lord Crewe, who had been a member of the Liberal government in Great Britain, reflected the mind of a Conservative cabinet when he was ambassador in Paris; just as Lord Bryce, when he was ambassador at Washington, reflected during a part of his term of office the mind of a Conservative cabinet, although he himself had previously been a member of a Liberal administration in England. The point of view which Sir Wilfrid Laurier took throughout the whole of his administration was that Lord Strathcona had filled the position acceptably prior to the time that he Sir Wilfrid had come into office; that he was a gentleman whose name, ability and influence were recognized, that it was in the interest of Canada in its relations with the British government to maintain every confidence between the government there and the government here, and that Lord Strathcona, being a public man and broad in his views, might be expected to discharge his duties as high commissioner in an acceptable manner, and he did discharge them in a most acceptable manner during the entire time he was Canada's High Commissioner.
My right hon. friend asks, would I agree to the Hon. Mr. Ferguson remaining in office as High Commissioner for Canada should I again come into office. May I say this, that if the Hon. Howard Ferguson, during four years of office in the United States as the representative of Canada had discharged his duties in the highly acceptable manner that Mr. Massey did, had he gained the esteem and regard of the Canadian people and of the British people to the degree to which Mr. Massey gained it in that time, I should certainly, had he been appointed to London at a time I came into office, have thought twice before I would have asked him immediately to forego that position. If the Hon. Howard Ferguson were to be asked by me to resign immediately, it would not be on the score of partisanship exhibited before the election, though heaven knows that no
man ever exhibited more in the way of partisanship; it would be for the manner in which he has discharged the duties of high commissioner since he has been in London.
In this connection I think I may as well proceed to see to what extent the present High Commissioner in London is reflecting the mind of the present administration. My right hon. friend says that the duty of the High Commissioner in London'-he repeated it this afternoon-is, first of all, to reflect the policies that are originated and initiated by the government of Canada. That is the first thing-to reflect the policies that are originated and initiated by the government. The second is to reflect the spirit and attitude of mind of the administration. The third thing is that he is practically a member of the administration. My right hon. friend has added to-night a fourth role which the High Commissioner in London fills, and that is that of civil servant.
I do not know how flattered the Hon. Howard Ferguson will be with his new title, but at any rate my right hon. friend has stressed it this evening.
Now I wish to read one or two utterances of the present high commissioner, and I shall ask my right hon. friend, because he and not the present high commissioner has to take the responsibility, how far the views expressed by the high commissioner reflect the policies of his administration, reflect the spirit and attitude of mind of the administration; how far the high commissioner is acting as a member of the administration, and how well he is qualifying himself to be continued in office as a civil servant.
My right hon. friend told us this afternoon that the Hon. Howard Ferguson was appointed on the 28th of November. As a matter of fact, he was not sworn in, I think, until some little time after that. He was sworn into office on the 18th of December, but he was appointed by order in council on the 2Sth of November. Now, between the date on which he was appointed by order in council and the date on which he was sworn in, the present High Commissioner for Canada in Great Britain gave a public address in which he outlined his conception of the aims and duties of the high commissioner. The address was delivered with that end in view. It was a public utterance, so that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister could not fail to understand to the full exactly what view the Hon. Howard Ferguson took of the appointment which had been given him on the 28th of November and to the fulfil-
Supply-External Affairs

ment of the duties of which he was formally sworn on the 18th of December. I will read from a Canadian Press report which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of December 5, and in other papers of the same date. I will read the account through and then ask my right hon. friend afterwards, if he will permit me, with respect to the policies and views therein set forth, how far they reflect the mind and the attitude of the present administration.
Before I read the statement of the present high commissioner's views as to his own duties and functions, let me remind the house of what was said by my right hon. friend only this afternoon in discussing another measure at the opening of the sitting. My right hon. friend was talking then of sovereign powers, of not interfering with each other's domestic affairs. He said that one country had no right to interfere with the affairs of another country, and he made a very strong point of that. Now I assume that in that particular he does not regard one rule or practice as existing for a country which is a foreign country and another and different rule and practice existing for a country which happens to be a nation within the British commonwealth of nations to which we belong. I would assume, at least, that he would expect any representative of the government of Canada to be as careful about not interfering in the internal affairs of another part of the British Empire as he would be about a representative of this country not interfering in the domestic affairs of some foreign nation, and particularly not interfering in the domestic affairs of Great Britain.
Last week the hon. member for Vegreville spoke with respect to conditions in Poland, and my right hon. friend then laid down the doctrine which should govern this country in discussing the internal affairs of other countries. This is what he said on May 8th last:
When you begin to discuss the internal government of a friendly power you are on very dangerous ground. It is not the duty of this Dominion to undertake to advise people how they should govern themselves. That is their business.
He also said:	.
There is an obligation upon us as a member of the League of Nations, and it is a rather serious obligation, not to reflect upon the other members of that league.
Now Great Britain is a member of the League of Nations as well as Canada and Poland, and the words which my right hon. friend used in reference to Poland I take it would in his mind foe equally applicable to Great Britain. Having made clear the position as he has stated it himself, I would ask my
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
right hon. friend to be prepared to tell us how far the expressions of view by his representative in London reflect the spirit of his administration and their policies:
Toronto, December i-A detail of his aims and ambitions as High Commissioner for Canada in London and a diagnosis of the ills which are now afflicting the British empire as a whole, and Canada and Great Britain in particular, was given by Premier G. Howard Ferguson, of Ontario, to the members of the Technical Service Council at their second annual dinner here to-night.
Remember, this was after Mr. Ferguson had been appointed high commissioner by order in council, but before he was formally sworn faithfully to discharge the duties of that office. Had the Prime Minister felt that these views did not reflect those of his administration, all he had to do was to say to his friend that he did not see very well how he could be sworn to office in view of his entertaining those particular views. In the absence of that step, we must assume that these are also the views of the Prime Minister:
''If I can," said Mr. Ferguson, "revive the invaluable stimulus that for centuries has been the basis of British progress and achievement, if I can contribute somewhat to direct the thought and endeavours of the British Isles toward cooperation with those portions of the empire outside the isles, if I can help to create a new attitude toward empire problems, I shall feel that I have been amply rewarded for some of the things that I leave behind me here in Canada, and for the efforts that I intend to make to accomplish my aims."
"I am not going over there to sell wheat. I am going to London with the hope that I may be able to do something to remould, or revise the contemporary spirit of the British people," said Mr. Ferguson.
"My observations over there are brief, and, perhaps, unreliable." Premier Ferguson said, "In the old country patriotic fervour, British persistence. British traditions, have to a large extent broken down. You all know the pride the Britisher has always taken in his country, in his production, in his position in the business and industrial world.
"Unfortunately the fact that they have tens of thousands of grown men that never did a day's work, the fact that they are paying what is termed the 'dole' to fifteen-year-old children and up, has contributed to the destruction of the morale of the British people. I think that is what is -wrong with Britain more than anything else.
"I can assure you that I never would have thought of leaving the happy hunting grounds, which I have enjoyed here for some time, if I did not think there was a real need for somebody to revive the old spirit of pride and self-respect for their country. I may not be the man, I doubt very much if I am. My spirit has been puddling round with the comparatively little things in the province of Ontario; and, when one goes out into the larger field-not only unknown to you-you are dealing not alone with national, but international affairs.

Supply-External Affairs
"Nevertheless, if I may use a clerical expression, ' when the call came' to me, and was pressed upon me, and it was pointed out that I might be of some service, I felt that, if I was to remain in the public service, that if I was imbued with the proper patriotism, that it was my duty to try. I am, therefore going to England to try to do something to revive that invaluable spirit."
Great Estates Ruined
Referring briefly to his recent visit in Great Britain the premier described "examples of where the extreme socialistic doctrine now prevailing in the motherland have led. It makes my heart bleed," he declared, "to see the great and traditional estates cut up and ruined by death duties, estates responsible for the greater and better part of our Canadian live stock, to quote only one instance of their value to us and the motherland. The education bill now before the English house raising the age of obligatory attendance at school to fifteen years, and providing for the subsidization of parents for loss of labour in this manner is another example of bad conditions now existent."
"Never in the history of living men has there been such a critical situation in the British Isles as at this moment and never has the whole people been so deeply concerned and stirred with national conditions as they are to-day. That, in my judgment, is the best evidence that they will, at a reasonably early stage, arise in their might and put a stop to this downward trend toward destruction."
I do not think I need read any more from that speech. I have read sufficient to indicate what in the. mind of the present high commissioner is his duty in the old land, his conception of the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite and of their attitude of mind with respect to those policies.
A few minutes ago my right hon. friend said he did not regard the. high commissioner as an ambassador or as having a diplomatic position. That being so I would ask him how it happens that he undertook to remind the high commissioner after that gentleman had made the speech I have read of what had happened to Sackville-West. Sackville-West was an ambassador who had been somewhat indiscreet in a letter he had written and as a result was recalled. My right hon. friend took occasion to administer a sharp rebuke or reprimand to his political friend and to say that he was so doing by way of example, indicating clearly that despite his present remarks in his view the position of high com-, missioner is supposed to carry with it some of the responsibilities of a diplomat, that the position in fact is diplomatic in character. Speaking of the reprimand by my right hon. friend and bearing in mind his conception of the high commissioner as a civil servant, I would remind the house that the occasion upon which the reprimand was administered was that of the opening of the Albany club,
a Tory political club, in the city of Toronto on January 6, after the high commissioner had been appointed by order in council and had been sworn to the duties of his office. On that particular occasion the Prime Minister himself in his speech reminded the audience that the Albany club was the very cradle of Conservatism in Canada. I should like to know from him whether he holds the view that as a civil servant Mr. Ferguson is to have the right of attending banquets at political clubs, is to be free to enunciate all kinds of view's; and in particular does my right hon. friend say that what was expressed by Mr. Ferguson in the address I have just read represents the policies of the government and the spirit of the present administration towards the problems of Great Britain? If those, statements do not represent the policies and spirit of the government I ask the Prime Minister what steps he purposes to take or what steps if any he has already taken to make clear to the British people that Mr. Ferguson in thus speaking did not express the ^views of the administration.


William Richard Motherwell: Give him a raise in salary.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the item carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.
Some hon. MEMBER'S: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right hon. friend thinks the order is a little too large perhaps I can take it up sentence by sentence. First of all Mr. Ferguson says:
I am not going over there to sell wheat.
When the Prime Minister was in London attending the Imperial conference he stated that the main purpose of his visit to London and to the conference was to find a market for Canadian wheat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What did he say?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read what he said; he did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not playing upon words. I am taking the intent-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what he said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking of what my right hon. friend meant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And neither is that the sense of what I said.
166S
Supply-External Affairs


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will leave it to the house and to the country to judge what was said. What he meant was that the main object of his mission was to try to further in Great Britain the market for Canadian wheat. I hope I am putting it broadly enough.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is somewhat better, but still it is not quite right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall leave my right hon. friend out of the picture, because apparently he can never be quoted accurately anywhere, either in the press or in parliament. I shall confine my remarks to the high commissioner. The high commissioner said that he was not going to Great Britain for the purpose of selling wheat. Are we to understand from that that the present high commissioner had been instructed by the government not to endeavour to find a greater market in Great Britain for Canadian wheat, or that having been so instructed he has defied the administration and has said that he does not intend to go to England to sell wheat? The committee is entitled to an answer.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not a bit of it. We all know of the readiness and the alacrity with which my right hon. friend makes replies to questions. When he finds it necessary, in order to cover his confusion, to draw pictures, and does not rise to his feet to make reply, we know he is pretty hard pressed.
I shall direct my right hon. friend's attention to the next matter. Mr. Ferguson states further:
I may be able to do something to remould, or revise, the contemporary spirit of the British people.
Has my right hon. friend instructed the high commissioner to embark upon a regenerating service? The Prime Minister has nothing to say, but keeps on drawing.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: He is drawing Mr. Ferguson's picture.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Bearing in mind the Prime Minister's statement that the high commissioner reflects the spirit and attitude of the administration, I ask if the spirit and attitude of the Conservative government in Canada towards Great Britain is as described in the following:
In the old country patriotic fervour, British persistence, British traditions, have to a large extent broken down. You all know the pride

the Britisher has always taken in his country, in his production, in his position in the business and industrial world.
Unfortunately the fact that they have tens of thousands of grown men that never did a day's work, the fact that they are paying what is termed the "dole" to fifteen-year old children and up. has contributed to the destruction of the morale of the British people.
Is that the view of the administration? Does my right hon. friend think this expression with regard to the British people by the high commissioner for Canada will gain for him any confidence on the part of the government or people of Great Britain? Does the Prime Minister think that the administration represented by the high commissioner, which keeps him in that position despite utterances of this character, will command any respect from any government in Great Britain or from the people of that country? Then he proceeds:
.... a real need for somebody to revive the old spirit of pride and self-respect for their country .... I am therefore going to England to try to do something to revive that invaluable spirit.
Then we come to another part, of the speech. At the time this utterance was made the British government had before it certain legislation dealing with educational matters. The high commissioner was not in doubt as to the existence of the bill or the stage which it had reached, because he said:
The education bill now before the English house raising the age of obligatory attendance at school to fifteen years and providing for the subsidization of parents for loss of labour in this manner is another example of bad conditions now existent.
May I ask the Prime Minister this question: If the High Commissioner for Great Britain, who represents the British government in this country, made a similar statement with regard to legislation before any of the provincial legislatures of Canada or before this parliament, would my right hon. friend remain silent and utter no protest, or would he ask for the recall of the high commissioner? I say there is nothing-and I agree with my right hon. friend in this- in connection with which a representative of one country must be more careful than interfering in the domestic affairs of another country. When the representative of Canada accredited to Great Britain deliberately endeavours to destroy legislation which is being promoted by the government to which he is being sent, surely the time has come when someone in the country should draw the attention of the ministry to the fact and place upon the ministry the responsibility for permitting that sort of thing to continue.

Supply-External Affairs
In what I am saying now I am not reflecting upon the present high commissioner. He has reflected upon himself, but I am concerned with the ministry of Canada. I am concerned with my right hon. friend and the attitude which he takes towards the representative of Canada in Great Britain. I say that unless he is prepared to endorse these sentiments he owes it to Great Britain to make some public explanation not only to this house but to Great Britain as well with respect to the attitude of his government in regard to these matters.


Ernest Lapointe: I am in a sense sorry
for the right hon. Prime Minister, but on the other hand he certainly has brought this calamity upon himself. I do not think the right hon. gentleman was fair to himself or to the position he occupies when he endeavoured this afternoon and to-night to reduce the status of the High Commissioner for Canada in Great Britain to that of the servant of a government, the tool of a party, instead of the representative of a whole country. I do not think that is a fair position to take.
My right hon. friend referred to the statute. That statute was passed in the old days when Canada was a colony and had not reached that equality of status of which my right hon. friend now is boasting, as I am. The language of the statute is specific. It says:
The high commissioner shall
(a) act as representative and resident agent of Canada in Great Britain, and in that capacity, execute such powers and perform such duties as are, from time to time, conferred upon and assigned to him by the governor in council.
Since then the various Imperial conferences have considered the status of the High Commissioner for Canada, and it has been decided that Great Britain should send a high commissioner here as we are sending a high commissioner to Great Britain. The high commissioners in London have been given high precedence at court and elsewhere, coming after the ambassadors. I repeat that the high commissioner represents the whole of Canada and all the people of this country. If we were to accept the views of the right hon. gentleman I am sure some of us would not feel at home when we went to London and visited the Canada building. Previously every Canadian thought he was at home there, but now he will have to be a Conservative and a supporter of the right hon. gentleman to have that feeling.
Mj' right hon. leader has referred to one of the numerous speeches made by the present high commissioner. I will not go as far as a
newspaper went sometime ago, after one of his outbursts at a banquet in England. That newspaper, which is not at all a supporter of the leader of the opposition, said, "Every time Mr. Ferguson speaks, Canada blushes." I would not go so far as to say that, but I will say that it relieves her dignity to some extent when the right hon. gentleman takes the stand that Mr. Ferguson speaks only for the government, that he speaks as a civil servant and for his party, and that he does not speak for me or for the rest of the people of Canada. It is a good thing that the people of Great Britain should know that we in this country who are not supporters of the right hon. gentleman do not share the views of the high commissioner as he has been expressing them to the people of Great Britain.
The office of High Commissioner for Canada in London is the highest in our diplomatic service. That view has been accepted by the people of Canada, and our representative there should act as a diplomat, as an ambassador, as the representative of one country to another. What are the duties of a diplomat? He has to use tact and judgment; he must be unobtrusive. I remember hearing Sir Esme Howard, who was a very distinguished British ambassador at Washington, speak before the Canadian Club in Ottawa. At that time he said, "Go everywhere in the world; you will not find any monument erected to a diplomat. We work in silence."


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is hardly accurate.


Ernest Lapointe: It is accurate. I quote another definition by another diplomat, Sir Edward Mallet, who was at one time British ambassador at Berlin. He said:
The world is a huge body clad in a garment of state. We diplomatists, studded all over the earth, are unobtrusive buttons which hold the garments together. As long as we perform this function satisfactorily we pass unnoticed, because the garments continue to sit properly. It is only when we break loose or come off that we become an object of attention or discussion.
The trouble with our High Commissioner in London is that he breaks loose, and that is why he is attracting such attention and so much discussion. And I know that my right hon. friend regrets it more than we do on this side of the house.
As my right hon. leader has noted, Sir William Clark, who occupies the same position in Canada, was appointed by a Conservative government, and he was retained in the office by the present Labour government.- I do not know whether he is still in office, but I know that the High Commissioner for Australia,
Supply-External Affairs

General Ryrie, who had been appointed by Mr. Bruce, was retained when the Labour government took office in that Dominion. I know also that the High Commissioner for New Zealand kept office after Mr. Coates had resigned and had been replaced by the present government there. My right 'hon. friend opposite seems to foe the only one who holds the view that the high commissioner must be his servant, or tool, or supporter, or by whatever term you choose to describe him, instead of being the representative of the country
I saw in the newspapers yesterday the statement of an admirer of our representative in Britain to the effect that he was selling Canada to England. Well, I must admit that his methods have more the appearance of salesmanship than of statesmanship. I do not think there is any doubt about that. My right hon. friend made reference to Sir Charles Tupper's having taken part in an election in Canada while he was high commissioner. Surely my right hon. friend does not consider this desirable. Surely our representative in Britain to-day ought to be the representative of all Canadians and not merely of a party. I do not think it is fair to take that stand, and even if it was done in the past it should not be done now.
During the last general election I had the pleasure of visiting some constituencies in the province of Ontario. Do not blame me for anything that may have happened, for I believe that we won in most of the constituencies in which I appeared-


Richard Bedford Bennett: You picked them with care.	[DOT]


Ernest Lapointe: -except where the hon. friend for South Timiskaming (Mr. Gordon) was elected.


Mr. GORDON:: I thank my hon. friend for having come there.


Ernest Lapointe: I knew the hon. gentleman would say that. I anticipated the remark, for I believe he has said that I rather helped him. However, Mr. Ferguson took exception to a minister representing Quebec going into Ontario and addressing the people of that province. May I suggest that a federal minister is minister for the whole Dominion of Canada, and therefore I had more business speaking in Ontario on federal matters than Mr. Ferguson has speaking in Britain on British matters.
Before concluding, I wish to join with my leader in paying tribute to Mr. Massey. Mr. Massey was not the tool of a party while he represented Canada in Washington. I remember attending a dinner of the Pilgrims Society

in New York in honour of Mr. Massey. There were five hundred representative Americans present and they had invited twenty public men of Canada, more than half of whom were Conservatives. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Fisheries was one of the guests, and if he were here he could bear me out when I speak of the high esteem, the affection and the respect in which Mr. Massey was held in the United States of America. Indeed, I have never heard a eulogy so eloquently expressed as the praises of Mr. Massey by Canon Cody of Toronto, who is certainly not a Liberal and was not politically a friend of Mr. IVfassey. My best wish for Mr. Ferguson would be that some day he might merit the same tribute.


William Duff: The leader of the opposition, in his remarks, read from the report of a speech made by the High Commissioner in London, in which he is represented as having said that he was not in the old country to sell wheat. My memory is not particularly good, but when that speech was quoted, my mind went back to a despatch which I saw in a number of newspapers in which I observed that the hon. gentleman who holds the important office of High Commissioner for Canada in London was supposed to have visited Rome for the purpose of attending a conference, in connection, I presume, with the sale of wheat. It appears, therefore, that Mr. Ferguson, between the time he made that speech in Toronto and the time at which he arrived in Rome to attend that important conference, must have changed his mind or else have received instructions from the Prime Minister intimating that he had certain duties to discharge in regard to the business of this country which would take him to that conference. The ex-Minister of Justice also referred to the fact that Mr. Ferguson had expressed disapproval of a minister in the Liberal cabinet, representing the province of Quebec, going into Ontario and taking part in the last federal election. Mr. Ferguson evidently has also changed his mind with respect to Quebec ministers; because in a despatch which I noticed in the Toronto Mail and Empire of April 2, 1931, I find the following :
Pope's apostolic blessing is bestowed on Ferguson.
That is the heading, and the despatch is by George Hambleton, Canadian Press staff writer. The article reads:
Rome, April 1.-Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, Canadian High Commission to London, who is attending the world wheat conference here, and Mrs. Ferguson, to-day were received by the pope in private audience.

Supply-External Ajjairs
"It was merely a courtesy call," Mr. Ferguson said afterwards to the Canadian Press. Later he would pay his respects to His Holiness on behalf of the Dominion, Mr. Ferguson said.
Mr. and Mrs. Ferguson were presented to the pope by G. A. D. Ogilvie-Forbes, Charge d'Affaires of the British Ministry to the Holy See.
The chief delegate of the Argentine to the world wheat conference. Tomas LeBreton, who is Argentine Ambassador to Paris, was also presented to the pope to-day.
His Holiness discussed Canada in a most cordial and interested manner, with Mr. and Mrs. Ferguson, and imparted an apostolic benediction before they left.
We are all glad that the high commissioner, after despatching his business in Rome, had the courtesy to call upon His Holiness, who graciously bestowed upon him the apostolic blessing. I am sure that you, Mr. Chairman, as well as I, after following Mr. Ferguson's political career in Ontario

and I am bound to say that there is much about him that I admire, for he is a bonny fighter and I admire a fighter-must be glad that, as I say, he had the courtesy to call upon the pope. I might say, on behalf of a certain section of the province of Nova Scotia, that I am delighted to think he went and saw the pope and got his blessing. But I wonder whether, before he called upon His Holiness, he also got the Prime. Minister's benediction.
Now what is the reaction in Canada to Mr. Ferguson's visit? On April 3 the Toronto Globe published an editorial under the caption. An Awkward Situation. I quote the following:
Now the fat is in the fire. Canada's High Commissioner in London has received the blessing of Has Holiness the Pope. There is nothing unusual in this. Other eminent men from many countries have been recipients of the same attention while in Rome. But the point lies in Mr. Ferguson's fraternal affiliations in this country in the days before he ceased being a politician and became a diplomat.
After listening to the remarks of the Prime Minister I am convinced that Mr. Ferguson is still a politician and not a diplomat. The article continues:
It is unfortunate that this incident occurred just after the grand lodges of the province have held their annual meetings. But surely something can be done about it. In view of this news from Rome, can a man who has been familiar with the inner circles of the order be honoured any more? The only official and prompt action that seems possible just now is to change the password. It seems improbable that a former high official of the lodge, fresh from an audience with the pope, should have the daring to present himself before the tyler; but Mr. Ferguson is nothing if not courageous, and may try it.
The question to be decided is wdiether the present High Commissioner for Canada, former Premier of Ontario and honoured member of
an influential order, is making progress or slipping backward. This will be answered in different ways by the people of the province. Grand knights and members of the Knights of Columbus may be depended upon to approve Mr. Ferguson's action; to them it will look like a gain. But the grand masters and the rank and file of the other order will think otherwise. It will be hard for them to arrive at a satisfactory and at the same time diplomatic decision.
There is no question but that Mr. Ferguson has "gone over to Rome," but he was dealing with the wheat problem. He has bent the knee before and been blessed by the head of a church that is known to have no great friendship for the order. This cannot be denied, as other people were present. Why did the high commissioner create such a situation? Probably because when in Rome he followed the example of other distinguished diplomats. And in the splendour of the Vatican he may have forgotten temporarily about old days in Ontario politics.
Let us hope he did. That article is from the Toronto Globe, but perhaps I should give the other side of the question. It may be said that the Toronto Globe is not very friendly to Mr. Ferguson, but I hold in my hand a paper, the editor of which is good enough to send copies to all members of this house, no matter what may be their politics or religion. This is The Sentinel.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not get it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nor do I.


William Duff: I can assure the hon. members it is worth reading. In the issue of Thursday, April 9, just eight, days after Mr. Ferguson made his obeisance to His Holiness the Pope, there appeared an article headed "Pope Blesses Ferguson" which reads as follows:
Hon. G. Howard Ferguson's visit to the pope, and getting the papa! blessing, will come as a shock to the Orangemen of Canada.
The blessing presages disaster for the high commissioner, as in numerous other cases. The Spanish armada set sail with the pope's blessing. and see what happened to that. Innumerable other cases could be cited in which the pope's blessing preceded calamities to its recipients.
It will be said that diplomatic precedent required the Orange ex-Premier of Ontario to visit the pontiff. That will not go down with the Orange lodges in Canada. It would not have caused a rupture of any kind if Mr. Ferguson had left Rome without seeing the pope.
I do not suppose the pope would have become ill. The article continues:
One sure thing is that he was not thinking of his Orange friends back home when he paid his homage to the head of Romanism. There is, of course, no violation of his Orange obligation in getting the blessing of the pope, but to seek it is repugnant to every instinct of a true Orangeman.

Supply-External Affairs
This is the statement of a paper which has supported Mr. Ferguson for many years; this is what they think of Mr. Ferguson's actions while acting as high commissioner in London.
The amount of this vote this year is $132,260 as compared with $117,260 for last year, an increase of $15,000. We have been told that the government is economizing because of the financial conditions in this country, but here we are faced with an increase of $15,000. The increase includes an addition of $2,000 to the salary of the Hon. Mr. Ferguson. Apart from any criticism which might be made of Mr. Ferguson, the fact remains that under present day conditions he should not receive an increase in salary. I object to Mr. Ferguson's receiving that extra $2,000 -when there are other important matters which should be looked after. Civil servants are being dismissed people are out of employment, public works are being curtailed, and I object to and protest against this increase. What was Mr. Ferguson's salary, before this increase was granted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute provides for a salary of $10,000, but an additional $2,000 has been paid for many years. The position of high commissioner necessitates his residing in London. There is no residence in London as there is in Washington, and the increase is to provide something in the way of accommodation. No doubt something will have to be done with regard to a residence in London. The high commissionership must not be left open for rich men alone, but unless some provision of this sort is made, only rich men can accept it. To one having an income of $900,000 or $1,000,000 per year, the office was worth three or four hundred thousand annually because the incumbent does not have to pay income tax. Something has to 'be provided in the case of men in moderate circumstances. Since the days of Sir Charles Tupper it has not been found necessary to make this provision, until the present instance. The office in Paris carries with it a residence at a very low rental. It was first rented immediately after the war, and the minister told me that the rent was something between one and two thousand dollars. When the estimates were being prepared a cable was sent to the minister to make certain about that rental.
So far as the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) is concerned, I suppose the correct answer to his remarks would be that contained in the school textbooks: When at Rome do as the Romans do.


William Duff: A better answer would be: whilst the lamp holds out to burn, the vilest sinner may return.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is still hope for the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough.


William Duff: I am referring to Mr. Ferguson and not to the right hon. Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Quebec-East (Mr. Lapointe) has been singularly unfair in his remarks, more so than he would like us on this side to be. I said that Mr. King was a civil servant.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. King?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I meant to say Mr. Ferguson. It is long since my right hon. friend was a civil servant.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Please do not confuse me with him-with anyone else if you like.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman should not let his animosity extend so far. First, may I suggest the statute provides:
The high commissioner shall act as representative and resident agent of Canada in Great Britain.
He represents all Canada, just as I frequently used to say that the right hon. gentleman himself was not only Prime Minister and leader of his party, but leader of the House of Commons; just as the government is the government of Canada and not the government of a party. So Mr. Ferguson under the statute is the representative and resident agent of Canada in Great Britain. I think it was not cricket for my hon. frieud to try to assert that I had lowered Mr. Ferguson's status by referring to him as I presently shall again, as a civil servant. But his position is as the representative in Great Britain of Canada, of all provinces, of all Canadians, of all classes and creeds. He is the Canadian representative, and no one would more quickly than Mr. Ferguson himself disown the thought that in that position he represented the party. That is number one.
The second is:
The high commissioner shall, in that capacity, execute such powers and perform such duties as are, from time to time, conferred upon and assigned to him by the governor in council.
To that extent be is the instrument of the government to do what the government by order in council directs to be done. The third is:
The high commissioner shall take the charge, supervision and control of the immigration offices and agencies in Great Britain, under the Minister of Immigration and Colonization.

Supply-External Affairs
There his chief is the Minister of Immigration; there his direction is from the Minister of Immigration; there he is to all intents and purposes a deputy minister with regard to that particular work. The fourth is:
The high commissioner shall carry out such instructions as he, from time to time, receives from the governor in council respecting the commercial, financial and general interests of Canada in Great Britain and elsewhere.
I think my hon. friend will now agree that in the first instance the gentleman in question represents Canada; second, he is in the position of a civil servant, and I am using that word in its proper sense, in that he is carrying into effect the directions received from time to time by (a) the governor in council, and (b) the Minister of Immigration. An ambassador, a minister from Great Britain, is a civil servant and is classified as such.


Ernest Lapointe: In that sense he is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the term is used, therefore, in that sense, as I used it, I think the hon. gentleman was not quite fair in endeavouring to have it appear that the expression had been applied to the High Commissioner in some derogatory sense. For no higher praise can be given to any man than that he is serving the state faithfully as a civil servant. The permanent civil servants of Britain are the men who have maintained the continuity of her policy and her supremacy for instance, in finance, commerce, and so forth.


Ernest Lapointe: All this lecture is useless. I did not say it was because Mr. Ferguson had been referred to as a civil servant that my right hon. friend had degraded the office. It was because my right hon. friend said that the high commissioner had to represent the spirit and mind of the government and be a tool of his party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I accept the hon. gentleman's word, but I took down his opening words, and he referred to the high commissioner as having now become a civil servant. He may not have meant it in that sense, but that is the only reason I am speaking of it.


Ernest Lapointe: Hansard will show.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, Hansard will show.


Ernest Lapointe: And I will not touch it as others do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman need not look so hard at his friend beside him.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I resent very much the remark of my right hon. friend in that regard. If he will just pay attention to himself, he will have more than he can handle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If my right hon. friend will look at the speech he made in the house on the address at the opening of parliament and the speech printed and sent out through the country, he will see exactly what I mean.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I challenge my right hon. friend to mention any single change made by me in Hansard with respect to any matter of fact. As regards grammatical changes, transpositions and matters of that sort-well and good.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was what went to the printer and what was printed in the speeches that were distributed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is nothing to withdraw.


Wilfred Hanbury: Was it Hansard the right hon. gentleman referred to?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The official copy sent out of the right hon. gentleman's speech on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Go and look at it.


Edward James Young: What is the matter with it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say there was anything the matter with it. Let us go a step further. The hon. gentleman has referred to the speech made by Mr. Ferguson after he was appointed and before he was sworn in as High Commissioner for Canada in Great Britain. All I can say is this, that Mr. Ferguson gave an assurance he had no idea that his speech was being published. To start with, it was at a small gathering of people, although the impression was given that it was a large one; and I wonder how many hon. gentlemen there are, if there be one, who have not talked with their neighbours about the policy in England regarding the dole and its effect. How many have not talked about the effect of the dole?


Edward James Young: We are not commissioners.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is quite clear. I was not in Canada at the time and Mr. Ferguson assured others as well as myself- and I believe it is a fact from independent inquiries I made-that he thought all he was doing was talking to a small number of people and there was to be no publicity.
Supply-External Affairs


Frederick George Sanderson: Does the Prime Minister endorse the speech?


Wilfred Hanbury: Is it suggested-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not all try to rise at once. Take a little time about it. That is the explanation I received of that incident, and I think it is a reasonable one. The right hon. gentleman opposite has referred in terms, paragraph by paragraph, to a report cf that speech as well as to other speeches that were made by Mr. Ferguson in England. All I can say is this: I have not seen other than the reports of the press with respect to the speeches delivered in England, but I do recall the report which I read in a paper of one speech that I happened to listen to, and that is the speech into which the right hon. gentleman says I interjected some reference to Saekville-West. The occasion was the opening of a building, and as a matter of fact how you say things when you are talking together is vastly different from what they look like when they are printed. Is there one hon. member that does not know that? You may say something as a joke with a smile on your face, but the paper records neither the smile nor the joke.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. gentleman was not fully reported, but not misreported?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not a question about what I said at all. I am speaking about what somebody else said. I am quite willing to be interrupted; it does not in the least disconcert me. I am reciting what must be known to mosit hon. members.


Wilfred Hanbury: Is it suggested that the Prime Minister was the joker?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman's observations have not added anything thus far to this discussion. The reason he is there and I am here is perhaps apparent from that, if that is what he is asking for.
Just let me proceed a step further. It is easy to criticize the observations of public men as reported in the press in that way when such observations may be said to be but a passing joke. I happen to know the Sackville-West incident very thoroughly, and it just crossed my mind from a criticism I had been reading of the high commissioner. He had been joking with me because of something that had transpired, and he said he might be back here with his carpet bag or his valise, or something of that sort, and I said, "Do not forget Sackville-West." That is all that was said, and that was the basis of that remark.
'.Mr. Bennett.]


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The Prime Minister was smiling at the time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the gentleman who
is now high commissioner that I am speaking of at the moment. I do not propose to-night to enter into any elaborate defence of Mr. Ferguson. He needs none at my hands. He is a very well-known Canadian, and the principal difficulty that seems to be experienced by most hon. gentlemen opposite is that he contributed to their discomfiture on more than one occasion.


William Daum Euler: Not so very much.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is a fair
statement, and its truth is generally recognized. I am quite willing to agree that the hon. member for North Waterloo would not be greatly discomfited because he thinks so nearly as we on this side of the house think with respect to the great fiscal policies of this country. The high commissioner is rendering great and useful service to this Dominion. The Englishmen with whom I speak have no criticism to make of his observations and remarks in England. They regard him as an 'admirable incumbent of that office, and one whom they are delighted to honour and for whom they have the warmest regard. That is the information that I receive, and I regard it as equal to the information that has been given to this house as to the high regard in which our neighbours to the south held the former minister to Washington. I can assure the house that I have seen no Englishmen or residents of Great Britain who have not spoken in the highest terms of our high commissioner.
I should like to make one further observation with respect to Mr. Massey. I did not bring about the discussion of the circumstances under which Mr. Massey resigned. That was asked for. I would gladly have refrained, in view of what I said at the last session, from discussing the interview that took place between us. He came to see me, not privately, but as the Prime Minister of this country. He asked me to make an appointment; I did so, and he came. I discussed frankly, as I told the house this afternoon, the circumstances to which I then ailluded, and Mr. Massey wrote his resignation. I said that I was informed that the right hon. leader of the opposition had written it. He says that that is a false statement, and I gladly accepted his statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It certainly is. Mr. BENNETT:	But Mr. Massey left
the hotel and went to visit the leader of the opposition that evening, as was his right and

Supply-External Affairs
as one would expect he would. I believed, therefore, when the information was given to me, that he discussed the matter very fully with the leader of the opposition, and it did not seem unreasonable that the right hon. gentleman would have assisted him in connection with what was written. I did not make that statement in any censorious sense or as not being within his rights. The right hon. member says that my information was not correct, and that is quite satisfactory so far as I am concerned.
I accepted Mr. Massey's resignation, having first given him the reasons for the attitude which I took in connection with that office. I have not changed my opinion with respect to it. I still say that that office is an office in which the high commissioner represents Canada as a whole, but owing to the peculiar language used in the statute and the obligations that rest upon him in connection with the administration of the day, charging him with ministerial responsibilities of administration, he cannot discharge those responsibilities unless to the fullest possible extent he enjoys the confidence of the administration, and the administration gives him its fullest confidence in the same sense.
I think it was not quite worthy to suggest that I believed the office of minister to Washington was one in which the discharge of social duties and obligations was the only obligation upon whomever held that office. I do not think that is quite in keeping with the tenor and character of this debate. No one knows better than I that that is not so, and no one knows better than I that Mr. Massey left what you might call the administrative features of that office largely to others and himself attended to what I called the addresses made to universities-a volume of which has just been published, excellent, too, in every way-and to the great social duties of his office. I do not think that Mr. Massey would be the man to take care, for instance, of the situation arising out of the St. Lawrence waterway. For the very same reasons I do not think either by training or experience or otherwise he would undertake the duties in connection with it. When I say that I think it is not quite worthy of hon. members to suggest that I had that thought in mind in view of the appointment which I made to that office. I think the house is perhaps getting into an attitude of mind with respect to it that does not reflect the highest ideals of public service in connection with an institution such as this. But I am content to leave that criticism to those who read it.
I can only repeat that when we came into office we found that, three weeks before, Mr. Massey had been appointed High Commissioner for Canada in London. He sought for and obtained an appointment with me, not privately, but in my public position. I did not conceive, as the leader of the opposition has said, that it was a private discussion. Mr. Massey did not suggest it was. He may have said since that it was, but he did not so indicate to me. I stated as clearly and emphatically as it is possible to do in the course of a conversation just what my views were. I got the statute and showed it to him, and then he admitted, at least, in this sense, that if my views were as I indicated it was quite clear that he was not in accord with them, and he sent me his resignation. That is the story.
I give it to the house because it is entitled to receive it. I put it on Hansard last session, on the second last day before the house rose,
I think. I repeat, that if similar conditions again arose I would regard it as my duty to do what I did at that time because I do not believe it is possible to maintain the office in London except on the basis I have indicated. I assure the committee that had the letter of recall not been issued, Mr. Massey would still be minister at Washington as Mr. Marler is at Tokyo and Mr. Roy is at Paris.
As to the increase in this particular item, it is accounted for by the reasons I have given. It is quite apparent that with freedom from income tax a rich man can afford anywhere from three to four hundred thousand a year in connection with that office, but a man of moderate means or a poor man cannot afford to do it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let us examine for a moment what my right hon. friend has just said as to what he would have been prepared to do about having Mr. Massey returned to Washington.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, no; he would not have been removed from Washington.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He would not have been removed from Washington had the letter of recall not been issued. I asked my right hon. friend, and I ask him again now, whether the letter issued by His Majesty for the recall of Mr. Massey has been presented to the president of the United States up to this time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say, no.
Supply-External Affairs


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So the fact is that at this moment, while we are discussing this matter, His Majesty's letter recalling Mr. Massey has not yet been presented to the president of the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was signed on the 7th of August.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is trying to have this house and the country believe that he had no other object in view with respect to Washington than to have kept Mr. Massey there provided the letter of His Majesty asking for his recall had not been issued. I say that if my right hon. friend had wished to use the letter of recall as a means of keeping Mr. Massey at Washington, he could quite easily have taken advantage of the fact that at the time the letter of recall had not been presented to the president of the United States; up to the present time it has not been presented, and until the letter has been presented Mr. Massey has not been recalled. The position at the moment is that Mr. Massey has not yet been recalled from Washington. My hon. friend however has made another appointment. Before we have completed the discussion concerning the minister to Washington no doubt he will give the house the reason for the appointment. When he tells the country that his reason for not leaving Mr. Massey at Washington is because of the letter of recall, I think the country ought to know that the letter of recall has not yet been presented and will not be presented until the gentleman whom my right hon. friend has appointed presents it in person to the president, of the United States.
So far as Mr. Massey being the best of all persons to fill that position, I do not think we need repeat what has been said concerning Mr. Massey's extraordinary fitness for the post. The press of all shades of politics not only endorsed Mr. Massey's appointment to Washington and the manner in which he discharged his duties while there, but also in the strongest terms endorsed his appointment as High Commissioner for Canada in London.
_ May I say, as it may be a matter of interest for hon. members to know, that at the time of the death of the Hon. Mr. Larkin when the government was considering the appointment of a successor I had a long distance telephone conversation with the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, the then Premier of Ontario, with respect to a matter on which negotiations were pending. In that conversation Mr. Ferguson said to me, "If I may be

permitted to do so, I would like to make one suggestion, that you appoint Mr. Massey to London as high commissioner. No better appointment could be made." The view held by Mr. Ferguson at that time was one held by gentlemen like Canon Cody and others high in the ranks of the Conservative party. I venture to say that with the exception of my right hon. friend, and that for the personal reasons he has mentioned to-night, almost everyone in Canada who has been interested in the representation of Canada in Great Britain would have been quite content and more than pleased to have seen the appointment of Mr. Massey continued.
My right hon. friend has not yet indicated his views with respect to the utterances of Mr. Ferguson in London which I have read this evening. My right hon. friend said I had referred to Mr. Ferguson's speeches in Canada and in London. To-night I have not referred to any speeches made in London, but before this item is finally passed I intend to do so. I hope to get from the Prime Minister some expression of his views as to how he regards the various opinions being expressed in Great Britain by the high commissioner. Having relation to the time of Mr. Ferguson's appointment, his speeches may be divided into three classes. There are those which took place before he was formally appointed, those which took place after his formal appointment and before he left for England, and those which have taken place since he has been in England. I have read only from one address *which he delivered after he had received his formal appointment and before he went to England. I think the first public utterance made by Mr. Ferguson in regard to the appointment was an announcement made before the Prime Minister himself had informed the country about the appointment. I do not know whether that announcement was made in accordance with the views of my right hon. friend, but if the high commissioner was not checked up for that indiscretion, I must say the attitude of the Prime Minister toward his London representative must be very different from his attitude toward most people.
I have been attempting to discover why my right hon. friend will say nothing with regard to Mr. Ferguson's speeches in London, and in particular nothing with respect to the speech to which I have just referred in which the high commissioner stated his views concerning the people of the empire. I think I have the reason; it was given very plainly by the high commissioner himself in his first speech after reaching the old country. The high commissioner served very prompt, notice

Supply-External Affairs
on the Prime Minister that if the Prime Minister ventured to criticize him a resignation would be handed in and he, Mr. Ferguson, would again be back in Canada. I do not think there are many who fail to perceive that there is hardly room for both these gentlemen in Canada at the same time, and the purposes of my right hon. friend for the present are served very well by having the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson on the other side of the ocean. Speaking at the Canadian Club in London on February 10, Mr. Ferguson said:
The moment I have to keep silent about the British Empire, that moment will my resignation be received by the Canadian government.
. . .	1 hope not only to proclaim my faith,
but, if it is necessary, to proselytize any doubting Thomases.
Is it the view of my right 'hon. friend that it is the duty of the High Commissioner for Canada in London to spend his time proselytizing doubting Thomases in regard to empire matters? We all know that the speeches which have been made in Great Britain by the present high commissioner have been in the nature of what might be termed proselytizing speeches by an imperial missionary, a missionary of empire. At this point may I draw the attention of hon. members to what appears to be a very marked difference between certain policies advocated by the Prime Minister of Canada in Canada and the policies advocated in Great Britain by the high commissioner, his representative in Great Britain. In Canada we hear from the Prime Minister a great deal about "Canada first"; in Great Britain on the part of his political associate it is "Empire first." In Canada the Prime Minister speaks about "Canada first" and his Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) publishes highly priced advertisements containing the following words, "Buy Canadian-made goods." In Great Britain the High Commissioner for Canada finds fault with the British people because in that country there is an advocacy to buy British goods. Let me quote from a speech delivered on March 10 by the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson before the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in London. This is an Associated Press despatch which appeared in the Evening Citizen, and also on the same day in other newspapers of Canada:
When I see in England such slogans as "Buy British goods made in England by British labour" it seems to me to be forgotten that goods of Canada and other parts of the empire are equally British. Imperial consolidation cannot be effected on the lines of discrimination.
I ask the Prime Minister if that statement by the high commissioner reflects the policy of the present government? Is that the attitude of the government towards British goods? Are we to have one doctrine in this country of buying Canadian goods made by Canadian labour to the exclusion of British goods, and at the same time are we to have the people of Britain told that when they suggest the buying of British goods made by British labour they are discriminating against Canada and working against empire consolidation?
Referring to the coming Imperial conference at Ottawa the high commissioner is quoted indirectly as follows:
It was not expected that the recent Imperial conference would produce more than the development of a certain atmosphere, he said: The problem involved the whole reconstruction of the economic fabric of the empire.
I would ask hon. members to notice those words:
The problem involved the whole reconstruction of the economic fabric of the empire.
"Reconstruction of the economic fabric of the empire." That is the policy of the Canadian government in Britain: "Canada first" is the policy of the same government here.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I would draw the right hon. member's attention to the fact that it is now eleven o'clock.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, May 18, 1931.