REPORTS AND PAPERS

Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: I beg leave to lay on the table of the House correspondence and reports of the Minister of Justice, approved by the Governor in Council, upon provincial legislation from 1896 to date, as compiled by the Parliamentary Counsel. I might say that these are so numerous because of the fact that the existing reports at the time of the fire in the old building were destroyed, and it was necessary to replace them.


Mr. MURPHY:: What do they relate to?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They are reports upon provincial legislation, dealing with the question of disallowance.


Mr. FIELDING:: Is it contemplated to print them?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I expect they will be printed. The matter will come before the Printing Committee.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister):: I beg to move:
That the names of Messrs. Stewart (Lanark), Green, Douglas (Cape Breton), and Griesbach, be substituted for the names of Messrs. Boys, McIntosh, Meighen and Porter on the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: This is the first intimation we have had of any alteration of this
kind. Nothing has been said about it to any one on this side of the House.


Arthur Meighen: I did not think it was usual in a case of this kind. The motion is simply to substitute the names of members on this side of the House for other members on this side of the House who are not able to attend. There are only three of them here, and one unfortunately is not in very good health.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not suppose there is any objection to the motion, but is it not customary for matters of this kind to be arranged between the two sides of the House?


Arthur Meighen: If so, it must have been done previously by the whips. I did not know of any such custom. The motion has just been handed to me; I did not know anything about it until this minute.


William Stevens Fielding: The change does not affect any member on this side?


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: My recollection is that in cases of this kind it has not been thought necessary to make any communication. It is merely a substitution of certain members on this side for certain other members.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: The reason for the change is that we have called one or two meetings of this committee and have never been able to get a quorum. The motion simply substitutes certain men on our side for certain other men on our side.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 83, to amend the Criminal Code.
He said: This Bill proposes to amend the Act of last year, Chapter 43 of the Statutes of 1920, by striking out paragraph (aa) of Section 2. In 1919 an amendment to the Criminal Code was enacted, providing that aliens who had in their possession a pistol, rifle, shot-gun, revolver, and so forth, must get a permit from the chief of police or some other authority. By the Act of last year, that clause was struck out and a wider clause substituted, relating to any person who:
-(has in his possession any cannon, machine gun, rifle, gun, revolver, pistol, bomb or other
[Stage Direction]
firearm, or any air gun or any device or contrivance for muffling or stopping the sound of the report of any firearm, without having a permit therefor, which permit may be issued in the same manner, by the same persons, and as near as may be in the same form, as in the case of the other permits referred to in this section; provided that no British subject shall be required to obtain a permit with respect to any shot-gun now owned by him;
The effect of that was to compel every one who had a rifle, revolver, or a weapon of any kind in his house to go to the chief of police and obtain a permit. Now in some sparsely settled parts of this country the chief of police may be sixty or a hundred miles away. It also meant that a citizen of Toronto or any other large centre- places in which so many of these burglaries and hold-ups were taking place-who had a weapon in his house must get a permit from the chief of police. Furthermore, any city, town or village to which had been donated a cannon by the Government had to obtain a permit for that,-they have had to get permits for cannons that were used at Sebastopol and Louisburg; I suppose they have had to get permits even for the cannons in the embrasures at Quebec. Now, I do not think it was the intention of Parliament to put a provision of that kind on the statute book. It is not only absurd in that respect,' but people have very often been compelled to pay from 50 cents to $5 for these permits, though the Act did not anticipate that any charge would be made. Furthermore, I think it is a very grave hardship that a man who has a military rifle and wants to shoot should have to get a permit. The intent of the present Bill is to strike out that clause of last year's Act and restore the law as it stood on the statute book in 1919, providing that aliens alone shall come under the rule. I think we can trust Canadians in this country. This is not Ireland; we have no rebellions or troubles of any kind here, and it is a reflection on Canadian citizens to have a law of that kind as one of our statutes.
Mr. POWER:: Under the law for 1919,
were all British subjects permitted to own firearms of any description?


Mr. CURRIE:: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: So that the effect of the amendment is to restore the law as it was?


John Allister Currie: Let me read the proposed amendment.
1.	Paragraph (aa) of Section 2 of Chapter 43 of the Statutes of 1920 is repealed and the following substituted therefor;

(aa) "being an alien, has in his possession any pistol, rifle, shot-gun, revolver, firearm or offensive weapon without having permit therefor which permit may be issued in the same manner by the same persons and as near as [DOT]may be in the same form as in the case of the other permits referred to in this section (1919 2 Sess., C 12).
That does not touch the Canadian or British subject; it leaves them the same privilege they have enjoyed for the last century.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

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

Mr. MOLLOY:: 1. (a) Did the Indian Department in 1919 sell some of the Blood Indian cattle to save them from starvation? (b) If so, how many, to whom were they sold and (c) at what price per pound? "
2.	(a) What was the total price received for said cattle, (b) where were they delivered, (c) w>ho paid the freight from the Blood Reserve, and (d) how many, if any, died on the road?
3.	After gathering the cattle for that shipment and sale, how long were they held and fed before being shipped?
4.	How many hundred loads of hay were fed to the said cattle, and from what supply was the hay taken ?
5.	How much did the net receipts from the sale of these cattle exceed the replacement value of the hay fed to them while awaiting orders to ship?
Hon. Mr. .TOLMIE:
1.	(a) Yes, 591; (b) Gordon, Ironside & Fares, 590; 1 sold at Cardston; (c) 50 at 5 cents per lb., f.o.b., Moose Jaw; 534 at 51 cents per lb., f.o.b., Moose Jaw; 6 cripples for $37.58; 1 sold for $50.
2.	(a) $20,643.56 net; (b) 432 delivered Gordon, Ironside & Fares, Moose Jaw; 157 delivered Gordon Ironside & Fares, Rush Lake, 1 sold at Cardston; (c) Gordon Ironside & Fares; (d) 5 died on the road.
3.	Started to round up at reserve November 24, but not all rounded up until first week in December. Held on average two weeks. Shipped December 15. Arrived at destination December 18.
4.	About 100 tons. Supply from haj bought by Indian Department fron Indians on Reserve at cost of $8 to $10 pe) ton.
5.	$18,643.56.


Mr. WHITE:: 1.	How many Blood Indian cattle did the Indian Department in 1919 remove by rail from the Blood Reserve to the Stony Reserve in Alberta to save them from starvation?

2.	On what date were these cattle gathered for shipment and on what date were they shipped?
3.	What was the quantity and replacement value of the hay fed to them while awaiting shipment?
4.	What did it cost in transportation expenses to remove these cattle from the Blood Reserve to the IStony Reserve and return?
5.	What was the total amount of expenses charged against them at Stony Reserve? -
6.	On what date and how many of these cattle were returned to the Blood Reserve, excluding calves born at the Stony Reserve?
7.	What was the total cost of this operation from the time the gathering of the cattle began to their return to the Blood Reserve?
8.	What portion of that amount was charged directly or indirectly to the Blood Indians and to what account or accounts?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	419.
2.	Started to round up at reserve November 24, but not all rounded up until first week in December. Shipped December 15.
3.	About 50 tons. $1,000.
4.	$877.50.
5.	$2,938.55.
6.	Returned on August 14 and 20; 251 cattle were returned.
7.	$4,316.05.
8.	All this expenditure was charged to the trust fund account of the Blood Indians, to which the revenue arising from grazing leases was credited.


Mr. WHITE:: 1.	Is it true that the thoroughbred bull herd on the Blood Reserve was recfuced from 66 in the fall of 1919 to 8 survivors in the following spring? If so, what happened to the rest of them? If not, what are the correct figures?
2.	Was a memorial presented to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs on May 31 last on behalf of the Blood Indians and, (a) was It therein charged that the losses of the Indian cattle and horses were due to the maladministration of their reserve by the department's officers, and (b) was the Government therein requested to have said charge investigated by a commission with court powers?
3.	What action was taken by the Government on said memorial during the eight months following its presentation?
4.	Has the Government yet replied to the said memorial of the Blood Indians?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Sixty bulls were on hand in September, 1919; 36 old and useless bulls were sold; proceeds used to buy younger stock; 22 died.
2.	Yes.
3.	Its subject matter was investigated by the officers of the department.
4.	Yes.
CAjNADIAN national, railways-


ST. ALEXIS
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 1.	Have any requests been received for enlarging the station or erecting raised platforms
at St. Alexis railway station in the county of Bonaventure?
2.	What action, if any, has been taken in the matter? If no action, why the delay?
3.	Have any portions of said station grounds been leased to one Arsenault, Blaquiere and Arsenault, or Ludger Gallant, or any other parties, to the exclusion of the public for any purposes whatever?
4.	If so, will the management of the Canadian National Railways inquire if this is in the public interest?
5.	If not in the public interest, will said lease
be cancelled?	,


Hon. Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1.	Applications received locally in August, 1919, for loading platform.
2.	Work not started on account large amount of other and more important work elsewhere. In 1920 work was deferred for same reason.
3.	Application received from Joseph A. Arsenault and Ludger J. Gallant to lease land on which to erect storage warehouses. Matter was approved and leases now being completed. No other applications for leasing land received.
4.	Not considered to be detrimental to public interest, or that patrons of railway will be inconvenienced in any manner.
5.	If railway finds buildings interfere with efficient handling of its business, leases will be cancelled. Buildings are only of a temporary nature.


HIGHWAY GRANTS
Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	What are the names of the eleven highways in the province of Quebec which, according to information supplied by the Minister of Railways, and published in Hansard of April 14, 1921, have received or are to receive federal grants under the authority of the Highways Act?
2.	What sum has been paid to date in connection with each of the eleven highways?


Hon. Mr. REID (Grenville) :: 1.	Answered by reply to Mr. Tobin's question, page 2428, unrevised Hansard, for Wednesday, April 20.
2.	Payment of $56,374.19 has been made on Montreal-Quebec Highway. Accounts connected with other highways now being audited for payment of grant.


DRAWBACKS TO CANADIAN MANUFACTURERS
Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :: 1. What amounts have been paid to Canadian manufacturers by way of drawback of customs duty on articles purchased by manufacturers and wrought in Canada into goods to be exported from Canada, or by way of specific sums in lieu of such drawback during the fiscal years ending March 31, 1919, 1920 and 1921?

2. What amounts have been paid to such manufacturers by way of such drawback or by way of specific sums paid in lieu thereof on articles purchased by manufacturers and wrought in Canada into goods to be consumed in Canada during the said years?


Hon. Mr. WIGMORE:: 1.	Fiscal year ending:
March 31,	1919

$ 7,449,837	80
March 31,	1920___ 14,330,355	75
March 31,	1921

 11,075,509	15
2.	Fiscal year ending:
March 31,	1919_____$ 852,129	61March 31,	1920____ 1,230,315	92March 31,	1921____ 1,572,488	74


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS - MONTREAL-WINNIPEG PASSENGER TRAFFIC
Mr. KNOX:: 1.	What is the average number of passengers carried on Canadian National through passenger trains from Montreal to Winnipeg?
2.	What is the average number carried from Winnipeg to Montreal?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1 and 2. The Select Standing Committee on National Railways and Shipping has under consideration the question of what information as to operation should, in the public interest be brought down in Parliament. The view of the management is that it is inadvisable to reveal detailed information with regard to particular trains, especially those operating in competition with rival lines.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN

['Well, I have no objection. If my fion. friend desires to discuss this I will move that the committee rise and report progress and beg leave to sit again.\t-\nItem stands.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the House adjourned at 12.50 a.m., Friday.\nFriday, April 22, 1921.']
Mr. CARDIN:: What are the names, occupation and residence of the persons who have applied for the position of superintendent of the Government shipyards at Sorel?



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Stevens Fielding: Before the Orders of the Day
are proceeded with, Mr, Speaker, I ask your permission to offer a suggestion to, and to make a request of, my right hot:, friend the Prime Minister. I was not in the House last night, but I believe he intimated his intention to go on to-day with the Grand Trunk Arbitration Bill. I want to suggest to him that, in view of the great importance of this measure and the fact that it was introduced somewhat informally only two days ago and distributed only-yesterday, and as many questions are being raised regarding our existing obligations, he might consider whether he is acting wisely in pressing the Bill at the present time. We might reasonably ask that it be

fixed for, say, next Tuesday; that would not be unreasonable notice for such an important measure.


Arthur Meighen: The important feature of the
Bill provides that the arbitration tribunal may be reopened if the provisions of the Bill are accepted by the Grand Trunk before May 16. Now, a certain notice is required for the Grand Trunk shareholders to hold a meeting legally, and my hon. friend will see at once that it is important that it shall appear just as soon as possible what the judgment of Parliament is upon the measure. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that is of very considerable importance. I do not want to rush the Bill unduly, and for that reason I did not press to have it proceeded with yesterday; but I should like to have it taken up to-day. However, we can arrange the proceedings of the House so that I may not request to go on with it until this evening.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard to the
acquisition of the Grand Trunk Railway, may I ask my right hon. friend whether in the opinion of the Government the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Government are still bound by the agreement of March 8, 1920? If this is a matter of legal opinion, perhaps the Prime Minister will state whether the Government has obtained legal advice from the Department of Justice or from other legal authority, and, if so, whether he will communicate such advice to the House.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that I
fully comprehend the question, but, as I understand it, it is, whether we are bound by the agreement of March 8, 1920. I should say, generally speaking, that we are bound by the agreement because it was entered into legally on both sides. If there is any special phase of the obligations which the hon. gentleman desires to have information upon, I would suggest that he write to me, and I will have his communication submitted to the Justice Department and have an answer prepared at the earliest possible date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desired to
know whether in view of the circumstance that certain proceedings had been discontinued in regard to the arbitration, the Government were of opinion that that discontinuance in any way released them from their obligations under the agreement.


Arthur Meighen: SHrely the hon. gentleman can see that it would not be in the
public interest that the Government's opinion of its own legal position should be disclosed to the other side. Our opinion may be wrong, our opinion may be right -whatever it may be I do not see how it would be to the public advantage that we should state the position that we take as regards our legal rights under the agreement, at all events until they are challenged.


William Stevens Fielding: I may be permitted to
state to the right hon. gentleman that the postponement of this Bill until this evening will serve no good end. If the adjournment which I have suggested is not to be granted, my right hon. friend may just as well go on this afternoon as this evening, for I think either course is objectionable. There is nothing to be gained by waiting until this evening if my hon. friend wishes to go on with the Bill now.


Arthur Meighen: In further answer to
the suggestion of my hon. friend, I may say that at his request the Government is prepared to defer the motion for the second reading of the Bill until to-morrow.


DR. GRAHAM BELL'S SECRETARY
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford) :: May I ask the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) if his attention has been called to a despatch in the morning paper headed:
U. S. bars Secretary of Dr. Graham Bell.
Miss Catherine Mackenzie Temporarily held up.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. It is not competent for the hon. member to bring up such a matter at this stage.


OIL LEASES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Some days ago the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Gries-bach) asked me a question on the orders of the day with regard to delay in the issuing of oil leases. I was not ready to answer the question at that moment, but I stated that I would do so at the earliest opportunity. It was alleged that there has been delay in the issue of leases applied for in the Fort Norman and Great Slave districts. The reason is this. The regulations provide that an applicant must stake his claim himself and within thirty days make application for a lease. If the claim is distant more than a hundred miles from the office of the recorder or sub-

recorder at which he must make application, then he is allowed an additional day for each ten miles, or fraction thereof, that the location is distant.. The Fort Norman district is distant about 1,300 miles from the city of Edmonton, the nearest office/ that has been created until now or until very recently. That involves the expiration of about five months before a lease could be finally issued, because otherwise there might be danger of a prior applicant having staked the ground. As regards the Great Slave Lake district, it would take four or five months for leases to be granted in order to be sure that there was no prior applicant. On account of the great distance from the recorder's office, however, a new office is being created in the northern district, and sub-offices, so that the difficulty as to time will be obviated in the future.
There has been some delay, as well, because it has been contended by certain lessees that the terms of their lease do not give them the rights that the regulations intended should be granted. That has been referred to the Department of Justice; I am not sure whether a decision has been come to on the point or not. That caused some little delay, but my opinion is that there are very few that have had to stand beyond the time which was necessary by reason of the distance of the locations from the recorder's office. It will be recalled also that the rent dates from the time of the issue of the lease, not from the time of location, so that applicants lose nothing in that respect.


CANADIAN REPRESENTATION IN THE UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply- Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Miscellaneous-Canadian Representation in the United States, $60,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: An appropriation was voted for this purpose last year. At that time the Government intimated that the matter was very urgent. May I ask my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) if any appointment at Washington has been made up to the present time?


Arthur Meighen: There is some urgency in regard to the matter. I do not recall what was said in the House during the debate last year, but it is important that the office be filled. The reason*the office has not been filled up to now, is merely that the Government has not decided on

the best person to fill this very important position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then the Government has not made up its mind as to who is to receive the appointment?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Mr. CAHILL:: Is the Government open for suggestions?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, especially from the hon. member.


Frank S. Cahill: Then I would suggest that the Prime Minister go himself.


Robert Laird Borden: I should like to say a few words in regard to this subject, especially as it was considered in the House last year and perhaps not as fully debated at the time as its importance demanded. The progress of constitutional development in this country since Confederation has been as marked as the development of our natural resources; and perhaps few of us realize that within the lifetime of men who are members of this chamber, a British statesman of great eminence, occupying a very responsible position, reached, and announced in the Imperial House of Commons, the conclusion that responsible government in the sense in which we now understand it was inconsistent with the colonial status. Perhaps it might not be out of place to trace briefly, but I hope fairly and accurately, the progress of thought in Canada with regard to this particular question, and in connection with it the progress of thought respecting the negotiation by Canadian representatives of commercial treaties affecting this country.
As far back as 1870, on March 16, Mr. Huntingdon, then a member of this House, moved a resolution in the discussion of which the negotiation of commercial treaties was more or less confused and involved with trade questions. And indeed in looking over the debates-there have been quite a number-respecting the right of Canada to negotiate her own commercial treaties, I find that in most instances the constitutional aspect of the question has been more or less overshadowed by fiscal controversy. Mr. Huntingdon's resolution laid down certain principles of fiscal policy and looked towards the establishment of continental free trade in this country. Five days afterwards, on March 21, Sir Alexander Galt moved an amendment, which omitted some of the affirmations of trade policy but preserved the

terms of the original resolution in the operative paragraphs so far as the question I am now considering is concerned. Those paragraphs are as follows:
That it is expedient to obtain from the Imperial Government all necessary powers to enable the Government of the Dominion to enter into direct communication for such purpose with each British Possession and Foreign State.
That in all cases such proposed commercial arrangements should be subject to the approval of Her Majesty.
Sir Alexander Galt supported the resolution in a strong speech, in which he pointed out that already representatives of the colonies in negotiating treaties had acted in a practically independent capacity. Sir John Macdonald opposed the resolution, largely on the ground that it was unnecessary and, further, because he thought that it would tend to weaken the ties between Canada and the Mother Country. He moved this further amendment, which will be found in Hansard of 1870 at page 583:
That all after the word "resolved" in the main resolution be struck Out, and the following substituted: "That this House, while desirous of obtaining for the Dominion the freest access to the markets of the world, and thus augmenting and extending its prosperity, is satisfied that this object can be best obtained by the concurrent action of the Imperial and Canadian Governments, and that any attempt to enter Into a treaty with a foreign power, without the strong and direct support of the Mother Country, as the principal party, must fail, and that a Customs Union with the United States, now so heavily taxed, would be unfair to the Empire and injurious to the Dominion, and weaken the ties now so happily existing between them.
The concluding portion of Sir John Macdonald's amendment emphasizes what I said a moment ago, that the constitutional question was more or less overshadowed toy the question of fiscal policy.
In 1871, the following year, Sir John Macdonald, with much misgiving and no small reluctance, became one of the British Commissioners at the conference which resulted in the Treaty of Washington He felt that his position as a commissioner acting under instructions from the British Government was somewhat inconsistent at times with his duty as Prime Minister of Canada. However, he stoutly maintained Canadian interests and on one occasion at least had a rather notable victory over his colleagues upon appeal to the Home Government.
In 1874, the Hon. George Brown, at the instance of the Canadian Government, was officially associated with the British ambassador at Washington in negotiating a treaty of commerce between Canada and
the United States. If I remember correctly, the treaty was signed, but it was not ratified by the Senate of the United States. And as far back as 1869 Sir John Rose, acting for the Canadian Government, had gone to Washington on an informal mission in connection with trade questions.
The Treaty of Washington was followed by the Halifax Fisheries arbitration in 1877, in which the interests of Canada were represented by Sir Alexander Galt as the British commissioner. The case on behalf of this country was entrusted on that occasion to Canadian counsel; I do not think any British counsel were engaged.
In 1878, Sir Alexander Galt was commissioned to undertake negotiations with Spain, and afterwards with France, for better commercial relations. Lord Salisbury on that occasion was careful to say that "the negotiations must be conducted by the British ambassador in each instance." That position was, however, abandoned by the British Government before many years had elapsed.
In 1879, the Canadian Government, having appointed Sir Alexander Galt High Commissioner for Canada in London, applied to the British Government to have him appointed a commissioner when treaties were being negotiated in which Canada was interested. In reply, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Sir Michael Hicks-Beaeh, said:
In reply, I have to inform you that it is not thought desirable to appoint a Canadian commissioner to take part in the negotiations of any treaty, but if your Government desire to send a person enjoying their confidence to advise with Her Majesty's Government, or with the British ambassador, on any questions that may arise during the negotiations, Her Majesty's Government will be happy to give attention to his representations.
Before many years there was a very marked advance from the view thus laid down by the Colonial Secretary.
On April 21, 1882, the Hon. Edward Blake in a notable speech moved an important resolution. The discussion which took place upon that resolution merits, I think, some attention. Mr. Blake's resolution was somewhat lengthy and I shall not present the whole of it to the House, but only the important feature. It began as follows:
That Mr. Speaker do not now leave the Chair, but that it be resolved, that Canada no longer occupies the position of an ordinary dependency of the Crown; she numbers four million of free men, trained in the principles of constitutional government; she comprises one-half of the North America Continent, including seven Provinces federally united under an Imperial



Charter, which recites that her constitution is to be similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom; and that she possesses executive and legislative authority over vast areas in the North-West, out of which one Province has already been created, and in time others will be formed.
The resolution then proceeded to refer to the enormous resources of Canada, and to the necessity of careful attention to our own trade interests in the negotiation of commercial treaties. It emphasized the differences in fiscal policy between Canada and the Mother Country, it alluded to the very great complications and delays involved in the reference of certain questions to departments in the United Kingdom, and it concluded as follows:
That it is expedient to obtain all necessary powers to enable Her Majesty, through her representative, the Governor General of Canada, acting by and with the advice of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada, to enter by an agent or representative of Canada, into direct communication with any British possession or Foreign State, for the purpose of negotiating commercial arrangements, tending to the advantage of Canada, subject to the prior consent, or the subsequent approval of the Parliament of Canada signified by Act.
In speaking on this motion he used this language:
But, Sir, objections are made to this.
That is, to his proposal.
What are these objections? The first that occurs to me is the statement that our Envoy would not be treated with respect. I repudiate that suggestion. The Queen is the Queen of Canada as well the the Queen of England, and an Envoy sent by the Queen, through her representative in Canada, is the Queen's Envoy as much as if he would have been sent from the Court of St. James, and we need only ask that it should be so looked at, and that is the true constitutional view in which it is to be looked at.
The authority is vested in Her Majesty; it is exercised by Her representative l*ere in her name, upon the advice of the Queen's Privy Council in Canada, and obtaining his power our Envoy would be received with all the respect due to the Queen's Envoy.
Further on he affirmed:
By proceeding in this direction, we shall be doing matters of business in a business way. I believe that we shall be acting on these same principles of growth and development to which I referred a while ago-that we shall be evolving those principles of vitality and development upon which the continuous growth and expansion of the Empire really depend; that we shall be proceeding in the direction of accomplishing that on which the maintenance of the Empire really does depend-such an organisation of its internal parts, such an arrangement of external regulations, such a system-unsymmetrical and full of anomalies, if you please, but partaking of the federative character-as will be calculated to make it continue and exist more and more, not indeed as the arrogant dominat.or over any power, but as the mighty

moral force-proving, as well by its internal organisation as by its external relations, the truth by precept and example of those principles of freedom, justice, and liberality, which should sway the modern Christian world.
An interesting debate took place. Sir John Macdonald, then Prime Minister, opposed the motion, principally upon two grounds. He urged that Canada had already in this respect all necessary liberty and full co-operation from the Government of the United Kingdom, and further he thought that the resolution would weaken the ties which united this Dominion to the Mother Country. In effect, he declared that it pointed to the eventual separation of this country from the British Empire.
Sir Charles Tupper, who succeeded Sir Alexander Galt as High Commissioner, was the Canadian representative and took a very independent position at the International Congress for the protection of submarine cables in 1883. Hon. gentlemen will observe that I am endeavouring to give the facts in chronological order. I am not following the association of subjects but rather the sequence of relevant events as they occurred from time to time.
In 1884 Sir Charles Tupper, still High Commissioner, obtained a fuller recognition of Canada's right to negotiate treaties with foreign countries. This right was recognized in a letter from the foreign Office dated July 25, 1884, from which the following is an extract:
If The Spanish Government are favourably dispose.! the full power for these negotiations will be given to Sir Robert Morier and Sir Charles Tupper jointly. The actual negotiations would probably be conducted by Sir Charles Tupper, but the Convention, if concluded, must be signed by both plenipotentiaries.
Hon. gentlemen will observe that a great advance was thus effected upon the position taken by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, who had declared in emphatic terms that there could be no Canadian plenipotentiary in the negotiation of treaties.
In correspondence between the Hon. T. F. Bayard, Secretary of State for the United States, and Sir Charles Tupper in 1887, Mr. Bayard, dealing with the difficulties which had arisen over the treaty of 1818, used the following language:
In the very short interview afforded by your visit I referred to the embarrassment arising out of the gradual practical emancipation of Canada from the control of the Mother Country and the consequent assumption by that Community of attributes of autonomous and separate sovereignty, not, however, distinct from the Empire of Great Britain. The awkwardness of this imperfectly developed sovereignty is felt most strongly by the United States, which can

not have formal relations with Canada, except directly and as a colonial dependency of the British Crown, and nothing could better illustrate the embarrassment arising from this amorphous condition of things than the volumes of correspondence published severally this year relating to the fisheries by the United States, Great Britain and the Government of the Dominion. The time lost in this circumlocution, although often regrettable, was the least part of the difficulty, and the indirectness of appeal and reply was the most serious feature, ending, as it did, very unsatisfactorily.
In the same letter Mr. Bayard expressed the expectation that Sir Charles Tupper would be appointed plenipotentiary of Great Britain in the proposed negotiations with the United States, and deplored the delay occasioned by the roundabout manner in which the correspondence on the fisheries had been necessarily conducted. In reply, Sir Charles Tupper agreed that direct personal communication would save valuable time and render each side able to comprehend the needs and position of the other.
In 1888 Sir Charles Tupper was appointed plenipotentiary with the right hon. Joseph Charbberlain in negotiating a treaty between Great Britain and the United States for the settlement of the fishery question on the Atlantic coast of North America. This treaty, however, was not ratified.
In 1889, on February 18, Sir Richard Cartwright moved a resolution which he supported by an important speech. I propose to make a brief reference to the resolution and to the debate which ensued thereupon. The resolution was as follows:
1.	That it has become a matter of extreme importance to the well-being of the people of this Dominion that the Government and Parliament of Canada should acquire the power of negotiating commercial treaties with foreign states.
2.	That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she wlil empower her representative, the Governor General of Canada, acting by and with the advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, to enter, by an agent or representative of Canada, into direct communication with any foreign state for the purpose of negotiating commercial arrangements tending to the advantage of Canada, subject to the prior consent or subsequent approval of the Parliament of Canada, signified by Act.
Sir Richard Cartwright's speech was very lengthy and the speech of my right hon. friend the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) in reply was also somewhat elaborate. The debate was not altogether free from considerable liveliness on both sides. Those of use who were fellow-members with Sir Richard Cartwright and the present Minister of Trade and Commerce in the days gone by have very vivid recollections of some exchanges of repartee in which they often indulged in those days. Sir Richard took the ground that in North American affairs it was desirable that the interests of Canada should be dealt with by Canadian representatives. I quote from his speech as follows:
More than that I say, what is known' to every member here, what is known to every man of common sense in Canada, that it is utterly impossible that an English ambassador, notwithstanding the fact that he may have enjoyed many years of experience, can possibly know as well as one appointed by ourselves either the wants and necessities of the people of Canada, or the particular feelings and prejudices which actuate the people of the United States.
Further on he said:
We, need to have agents or representatives of our own at such a point at any rate as Washington, not to speak of other places with which we have important relations. That is becoming a necessity to us in the most ordinary times. Such is the magnitude of the interests between Canada and the United States that if there be one point on the earth's surface where it is important to Canada to have an ^gent who shall keep our Government well advised, who shall be responsible to the Government and people of Canada, who shall take his orders from us, and who shall know that it is his business to look after the interests of Canada and nothing else, it is there.
Again he said:
What, after all, do we ask for? We ask that Her Majesty the Queen of Canada, acting by and through the Parliament and Privy Council of Canada, should use her prerogative to appoint agents, as she most undoubtedly has the power to do, .to deal with foreign states on our behalf.
The present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) replied at very considerable length to the arguments of Sir Richard Cartwright, and he based his nonacceptance of the resolution principally upon the following grounds: He did not think it was worth while that Canadian representatives should go roaming around the world trying to negotiate commercial treaties, and he urged that the progress made in having the interests of Canada in commercial treaties realized and considered by the Mother Country had been very great. He noted and enumerated the occasions on which Canadian representatives had acted. Further, he urged the point very strongly that if Canadian representatives went alone to negotiate treaties with foreign countries, they would lack the support and backing which they otherwise would have if the methods pursued in the past were still continued.

In 1892, there were two notable debates, one initiated by Mr. Dalton McCarthy, Conservative member for one of the ridings of Simcoe, and the other initiated by the Hon. David Mills. Mr. Mills' resolution was very much along the lines of the resolution of Mr. Blake in 1882, and that of Sir Richard Cartwright in 1889. I think some reference to it would not be out of place, as Mr. Mills made a very important and comprehensive speech and the considerations in opposition to his resolution were put forward with much skill and force. The resolution which Mr. Mills moved, and which was an amendment to a motion to go into Commiteee of Supply, was this:
That all the words after the word "That" be left out, and the following inserted instead thereof: "it is expedient to obtain the necessary powers to enable Her Majesty the Queen through Her representative the Governor General of Canada, upon the advice of his ministers, to appoint an agent to negotiate commercial treaties with other British possessions or with foreign states, subject to the prior consent or subsequent approval of the Parliament of Canada."
He explained that he used the word " agent " in the resolution because he desired to employ as broad and comprehensive a term as possible; that this
4 p.m. word would cover every species
.	of government representative
abroad, whether he were a commercial or political agent, whether he were a person holding the rank of a permanent official or ambassador, or whether he were a plenipotentiary extraordinary, specially appointed for a specific purpose and the accomplishment of a particular end. In speaking on the motion, he made certain observations, which I shall present to the committee if I am not unduly wearying them. He said:
I am about to ask the House to declare that the time has come when commercial treaties, in the interest of Canada, should be negotiated bypersons who are responsible to the Government of Canada and for whose act the advisors of the Crown in Canada should be held responsible to the House of Commons.
Further on, he said:
The attributes which go to make a people into a nation cannot be assumed at will. The sovereignty of States is not a matter of legislation, or of official determination. States grow up by slow degrees from the condition of dependency to that of sovereignty.
And further:
They enter the society of nations whenever the time comes that they feel the want, and are prepared to undertake the responsibility which international obligations impose.

And further on:
But, Sir, we are met at this point by the objection that the external relations of all parts of the Empire must ever remain in the hahd3 of Her Majesty's advisers at Westminster; that no other rule can be reconciled with the unity and stability of the Empire. This, Sir, it seems to me, is simply begging the question in dispute. I deny it. Were the contention well founded, it would only prove this, that 'the destiny of the British Empire is that its colonies shall reach a period of maturity, and that the Empire shall then fall to pieces.
Further on he made this observation as to the development which had taken place in the past:
When, Sir, we first set out to give practical effect to our claim to self-government, we confined our demands to our domestic affairs ; wie limited those demands by our local interests. We did so because these were sufficient at thait time to meet all our governmental wants. They are not such, however, as to meet the wants of a community such as we have now become.
Later in his address he explained:
All I ask by the motion which I am about to place in your hands, Mr. Speaker, is that we shall give full play- to those vital forces in our constitution which on account of our material growth and the increasing complexity of society, will impose on us the necessity of a larger power of self-government than we have, up to this moment, seen proper to demand.
And again:
It seems to me that the time has come when the power to act must, in the case of all the large colonies, accompany the interest. That, I think, is a safe rule. I think that mistakes are much less likely to be made and difficulties are much less likely to grow up, and ill-feeling is much less likely to be engendered, where the sovereign responsibility rests with those who are chiefly affected.
And again:
The constitutional development of the colonies no doubt must bring about a change in one respect in the relation of the dependencies to the parent State. That relation is no longer the relation of lord and vassal. It is the relation of friends standing upon a footing of equality, not equal in strength, but equal in rights ; and the dominant influence of the mother country ought to depend upon its superior wealth and its superior numbers, and not upon any assertion of sovereignty over us with regard to matters specially concerning ourselves.
There are many other portions of Mr. Mills' speech which I have before me, ,ant\ jwhich are of especial interest in view of the rather remarkable foresight which he displayed as to the path of future constitutional development; but I have already quoted pretty largely from his speech, and I leave further perusal of it to any other hon. gentleman who may be interested in the subject.
The attitude of the Government in reply to the motion of Mr. Mills was expressed

in a forcible speech by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Poster). He entirely admitted that full representation of Canadian interests was necesary in the negotiation of commercial treaties, and, indeed, other treaties. He pointed out that Great Britain binds no self-governing colony to any treaty except by the consent of its Government. He argued that there must be but one seat of sovereign and absolute power as to treaties, and that seat must be in the United Kingdom itself. He further pointed out that representatives of Canada had gone to Washington, Madrid, Paris, the West Indies and Brazil, and in conjunction with the British Minister or Ambassador had carried on negotiations.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier made a notable speech in this debate, a speech which has often been quoted. He regarded the proposal advanced by Mr. Mills as merely a step in a natural evolution; it was a step towards complete citizenship. He said that it might create alarm, but he pointed out that alarm had been created in the minds of many people not only in the Mother Country but in Canada at the institution of responsible Government, and he thought that there was no more cause for alarm in the one case than in the other.
Another debate which took place in that year, on a motion of Mr. Dalton McCarthy, is both interesting and important because it relates directly to the question now under discussion. On May 2, 1892, Mr. Dalton McCarthy moved the following resolution:
That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the vast commercial interests existing between the United States of America and Canada, and of the political questions from time to time requiring adjustment between the Dominion and the neighbouring Republic, it would tend to the advancement of those interests and the promotion of a better understanding between the two countries were a representative appointed by the Government of the Dominion, subject to the approval of Her Majesty's Imperial Advisers, and attached to the staff of Her Majesty's Minister at Washington, especially charged to watch, guard and represent the interests of Canada.
I propose to ask the indulgence of the committee in referring at some length to this debate, because it is so directly relevant to the question now before the committee and further, because it contains notable utterances by the very able men of those days. The debate, having been adjourned, was resumed on May 11, 1892, when Mr. C. H. Tupper, now Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, moved the following amendment:
It is expedient that communications be opened with Her Majesty's Government in older to bring about such fuller representation of Canadian interests at Washington, and at the capitals of other countries in which such other representation may be found desirable, as may be consistent with the proper relations which should exist between Great Britain and Canada.
The resolution moved by Mr. Dalton McCarthy is to be found on column 1950 of Hansard, and the amendment moved by Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper at column 2467. Mr. McCarthy, in support of his motion, spoke of the enormous interests df Canada at Washington, interests larger than Canada had with any power except the Imperial authorities at Loudon. At column 1951, he used the following language:
Although I realize the practical impossibility of the country making treaties irrespective of the Imperial power and of the Imperial authority, I do not see why we should not have a representative, not in any sense independent of, but acting in conjunction with the representative of the Crown at Washington, who would he specially charged to watch over and guard Canadian interests. That appears to me as a practical step, a matter which should meet with the concurrence, and I hope will meet with the concurrence of members on both sides of the House.
Sir George Foster, speaking next in the debate, sympathized very strongly with any desire to carry on, so far as it could be legitimately and properly done, the extension of Canada's power in regard to the management of her own affairs. He was not very strongly sympathetic with the resolution in the terms in which it was framed, and he pointed out the practical difficulties of our having an attache of our own at Washington. For this reason, he favoured the appointment of a commercial agent.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier warmly supported Mr. McCarthy's resolution. He said (column 1957) ;
For my part, I hail with great pleasure the motion of the hon. member for Simcoe. It seems to me that his proposition, though it does not go so far as I would wish, would still be of great advantage to the people of Canada at large, and a great improvement on the present state of things. It is manifest, and it must become more and more obvious, that the interests of Canada and *the interests of Great Britain are of necessity, on account of their respective positions, distinct and separate upon many things.
Further on, in the same column, he used these words:
As I have said the proposition of the hon. gentleman is not perhaps as broad as I would desire, but I recognize the great difficulty which stands in the way. We are a colony of Great Britain, and it is impossible for us to have anything better than what is proposed. . . .

The hon. gentleman suggests that there should be a Canadian attache to the British Embassy. The experiment is worth trying. I do not know . how far it will work, but for my part I say that a great many of the difficulties which marked our relations in the past with the United States would be obviously overcome if we had such an agent.
Further on in his .speech, he observed that the attache should communicate through the ambassador to the Government of Great Britain and the Government of Canada. At column 1959, he spoke as follows:
I agree with the hon. gentleman that the question is one of very great difficulty. I am sure that this arrangement would not work as satisfactorily as I would wish it possible for it to work, but, as long as Canada continues to be a dependency of the British Crown I can think of no better method than that which is suggested here of Canada conducting her affairs in regard to our relations with the American people. Situated as we are, the remedy the hon. gentleman proposes will certainly have my support, and I think my friends on this side are prepared to give it their cordial support.
Mr. Weldon, of St. John, warmly supported the resolution, which also received the approval of Mr. Casey. Mr. Cockburn of Toronto also approved the proposal, as did Mr. Mills who expressed the following opinion:
It does not seem to me that there are the difficulties in the way of working out this question that have been suggested by some hon. gentlemen in the discussion that took place earlier in the session. I have pointed out before that the tendency at the present time, the evolution, if I may be allowed the expression, of our constitutional system shows that the exercise of executive authority with reference to external relations cannot always be continued in the hands of those who reside at Westminster ; and when the interests of any important colony are paramount, when it is the colony which is chiefly concerned, then it is the responsible government of the colony, and not that of the United Kingdom, which should control the negotiations for the settlement of the question. Now, it is because that is the case with Canada that I favour the proposition of the hon. gentleman. I do not say that, as worded, it is in all respects such as would occur to my mind; but I accept it generally as a first step necessary for the establishment of our control for the securing of a substantial voice in the management of our external affairs.
Mr. McNeil, a Conservative member, and one who was most strong in his support of the Imperial tie, favoured the proposal and expressed the view that it would tend to the benefit not only of Canada but of the Empire as a whole.
Sir John Thompson spoke-column 1970 -in favour of the appointment of an agent at Washington, but not a diplomatic agent. He considered that the practice of arranging that some person recommended by a Government of Canada should act with the

British plenipotentiary on behalf of Her Majesty had been satisfactory in the negotiation of treaties of late years. At column 1972 he spoke as follows:
I think the time is approaching when it may be desirable for us to have an agent at Washington as well as at other points in the United States, an agent appointed with the consent of the British Government, not clothed with plenipotentiary powers, but with such powers as a commercial agent is clothed with, and that, with the sanction of the British ministry, he should be at liberty to communicate to us any difficulties he may apprehend, any emergencies he may foresee, which an attache of the British minister could not dp under the seal of secrecy which would be attached to the position he would hold on that staff:
And again, in the following column, he used this language:
I urge upon the House again that if we are to take the very important step of having a representative there, or in any other foreign country, we ought to insist that so far as confidence is concerned, he should be independent of the British minister, having a right to approach him daily and to receive communications from him, and the minister should be charged with the duty of giving him such information as can be properly given in the interest of Canada; but that we should not have him in such close relations that he must obtain the assent of the minister himself before he can make any communication to this Government.
It will be observed that neither Sir John Thompson, nor any one else went so far as to express the view that we should have at Washington a representative clothed with such powers as would enable him in respect of Canadian affairs, to approach directly the Government of the United States. Sir John Thompson thought that the attache would not be at liberty to communicate fully to the Government of Canada on account of the secret or confidential character of the information which would come to him. Sir Louis Davies, who spoke in the same debate, emphasized the great delay that occurred in connection with communications between the Government of Canada and that of the United States, and which in one case had extended to seven months before a reply was received. He argued very strongly that the step proposed was one of natural evolution, and he thought that a special attache appointed by the Canadian Government, would necessarily be permitted to make representations on behalf of his Government. Sir Wilfrid Laurier later on in the debate expressed regret that Sir John Thompson had moved the adjournment, and he spoke as follows, at column 976:
The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) has suggested the very best plan under the cir-

cumstances; that we should have, so far as we are able to acquire it under present circumstances, an embassy of our own at Washington in the manner he has suggested, an attache to the British embassy, reporting not only to the British Government, but to the Canadian Government as well. But what does the Minister of Justice propose? He proposes that Canada should have an agent at Washington. Of course, he would not be an accredited agent who could be recognized by the American Government. They could not treat with him; he could not approach the Secretary of State and have official relations with him. Of course, he could have confidential relations, he could communicate confidentially with, the Secretary of State, if the Secretary of State chose to see him.
And Mr. McCarthy, who also spoke on the adjournment, urged once more that the proposal which he had put forward was a reasonable one. He said:
Granted now that no attache of the British Government could report except on the authority of the British minister, granted that everything he knows and acquires he is bound to hold under the seal of secrecy, of course that leaves matters as they are to-day. But if this proposition which I venture to present to the House is acceded to, a way and a means must be found by which the minister will permit, not in a hostile spirit, but will permit communications between the Governor General here, who is the head of our executive, and the representative we send to Washington. Now, I do not know where this may lead, but I have the greatest confidence that it will not lead in any way which will be injurious to the interest which binds us now so happily to the mother land.
Resuming the adjourned debate, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper urged the necessity of consultation with the British Government before any final action was taken. That was the proposal expressed in his amendment. He spoke as follows, column 2466-7:
I said that no hon. gentleman seemed to desire that there should be a direct diplomatic representative of Canada at Washington, but I may correct that, because, towards the end of the debate, the leader of the Opposition, if I understood him aright, proposed that there should be a minister appointed at Washington who should report direct to the Canadian Government.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier: Concurrently to the two Governments.
Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper: I think he will see that, if we were to demand that at the outset, the difficulty would be greater than if we simply proceeded to ask for the appointment of an agent as is now proposed.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in speaking on the amendment, at columns 2469-70, dealt with the difficulties of diplomatic representation as distinguished from those attending the appointment of a mere agent. Mr. Mills, of Bothwell, (col. 2471), made the following important declaration with regard to international usage.
There is no rule better settled in international law than this, that every Sovereign State shall speak to every other Sovereign State through whatever agency it may itself determine upon. It is not for the United States to dictate to us or to the Government of the United Kingdom whether it s/hall communicate to the Government at Washington through one or through two diplomatic servants. The Government of the United Kingdom may communicate through one or through two such officers. If an Ambassador Extraordinary is appointed you have two agents, 'both of whom are authorized to speak, one of whom will speak generally, the other, who is authorized to speak on a particular subject, will speak on that particular matter.
And further on he said:
But on questions relating to the sovereignty of Her Majesty on this continent, we are far more interested than the United Kingdom, and why should not the determination of that question be in the hand's of the responsible advisers of the Crown here, just as the other question is in the hands of the responsible advisers in the United Kingdom?
There are other interesting observations in Mr. Mills' speech, but I shall not quote further from him. Sir John Thompson, speaking to the amendment, at page 2478, said:
I argued at the moment in reply that while we asked for an attache, we might find that the powers which this House desired to clothe him with were quite inconsistent with the status of an attache, and that therefore it was unwi6e to commit ourselves to the particular name and designation of the officer; and when the honourable gentleman asks me now what we are to communicate with the British Government about, I tell him that it is precisely to make that arrangement which he suggested in answer to me in that debate might be made with Her Majesty's Government, and the only impediment to which was the mention of "an officer attached to the staff of Her Majesty's Ministry."
Further on in the same column he said:
Bait the point on which we differ is this: We are not all sure, on the contrary, we are very doubtful, that the particular kind of officer we are willing to appoint shall be heard' as representing Canada. If we are not able to get an officer who can be heard, we do not want any officer at all. We would not have sent as High Commissioner to England, one who was to be an officer in the 'Civil .Service of Great Britain, in the position of a clerk in the Department of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. Nor are we prepared to accept as our representative at Washington any person who is to be a mere servant in the British legation there.


Mr. McMASTER:: We hardly hear you, Sir, you are dropping your voice.


Robert Laird Borden: He said:
Nor are we prepared to accept as our representative at Washington any person who is to be a mere servant in the British legation there.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: At column
2479 he made the following declaration:
It is for the purpose of avoiding any expression which would limit the powers of this officer and narrow our expression of opinion by a name, that we desire that the House should not be committed to any particular terms describing him; but that we should ask Her Majesty's permission to have a representative, with the right of introduction to and communication with the Government of the United States, and the right to speak for us, subordinate, of course, to the minister there. Canada desires all these powers, and probably would not be satisfied with anything less if the country sends a representative there at all.
Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper's amendment was declared carried on division, Mr. McCarthy having expressed satisfaction therewith.
The arrangement in respect of which this appropriation is proposed was announced to the House of Commons on May 10, 1920, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, acting as Prime Minister, in the following terms which had been agreed upon between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Canada:
As a result of recent discussions an arrangement has been concluded between the British and Canadian Governments to provide more complete representation at Washington of Canadian interests than has hitherto existed. Accordingly, it has been agreed that His Majesty, on the advice of his Canadian ministers, shall appoint a minister plenipotentiary who will have charge of Canadian affairs and will at all times be the ordinary channel of communication with the United States Government in matters of purely Canadian concern, acting upon instructions from and reporting direct to the Canadian Government. In the absence of the ambassador, the Canadian minister will take charge of - the whole embassy and of the representation of Imperial as well as Canadian interests. He will be accredited by His Majesty to the President with the necessary powers for the purpose.
This new arrangement will not denote any departure either on the part of the British Government or of the Canadian Government from the principle of the diplomatic unity of the British Empire.
The need for this important step has been fully realized by both governments for some time. For a good many years there has been direct communication between Washington and Ottawa, but the constantly increasing importance of Canadian interests in the United States has made it apparent that Canada should be represented there in some distinctive manner, for this would doubtless tend to expedite negotiations, and naturally -first-hand acquaintance with Canadian conditions would promote good understanding. In view of the peculiarly close relations that have always existed be-between the people of Canada and those of the United States, it is confidently expected, as well, that this new step will have the very desirable result of maintaining and strengthening the friendly relations and co-operation between the British Empire and the United States.

I venture to submit to this committee that the arrangement set forth in the statement which I have just read to the House meets all the difficulties which were raised in the debate of 29 years ago. In the first place the Canadian representative is to be an envoy of the King. Mr. Blake, Mr. Mills, and Sir Richard Cartwright emphasized the view that an envoy of the Queen appointed upon the recommendation of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada would he received with respect in any country of the world. That view was not controverted nor could it be. In the next place, it is perfectly apparent from the statement I have read that the King's Minister, appointed on the recommendation of the Government of Canada is to be in confidential communication and in direct touch with the United States Government; that he shall report directly to the Government of Canada, and that every function which is ordinarily discharged by the British ambassador at Washington under present conditions in relation to Canadian affairs will be discharged in respect to those affairs by this minister acting in harmony and in co-operation with the British ambassador, but possessing a perfectly independent status so far as the affairs of Canada are concerned. He will not have any subordinate position such as an attache would have even under the proposition of Mr. Dalton McCarthy-he will be the King's envoy to represent especially Canadian interests. This is not a step towards the disintegration of the Empire; it is merely carrying into effect the principle laid down in many of the speeches which I have quoted-the principle that where the interest lies there must he the responsibility and there also must be the action. So I venture to think that the proposal outlined in the statement that I have read to the House is one eminently in the interests of the Canadian people.


Mr. VIEN:: Will the right hon gentleman allow me to ask him whether this implies that the Canadian minister will be attached to the British Embassy in Washington, or whether there would be a separate office for Canada at Washington?


Robert Laird Borden: There will be, in connection and in co-operation with the British Embassy at Washington, a Canadian . minister who will be specially charged with the duty of representing Canada and safeguarding Canadian interests. The statement which I have read speaks for itself: I should not think there

would be any misapprehension as to its effect.


Thomas Vien: Does it mean that the Canadian minister at Washington would have separate quarters and be quite independent of the British ambassador?


Robert Laird Borden: Those are only matters of detail with which I am not concerned at the moment.


Thomas Vien: Would the Canadian minister be subordinate to the British ambassador at Washington in respect of Canadian affairs?


Robert Laird Borden: Not at all. He would be the King's envoy in respect to Canadian affairs. It is not expected that there would be conflict or difficulty between them, and in respect of Canadian affairs it might naturally be anticipated that the judgment of the Canadian envoy would be respected by the British ambassador.


Thomas Vien: Did I understand rightly last year when, if I remember well, it was stated that the Canadian minister would be considered as an assistant ambassador at the office of the British ambassador?


Robert Laird Borden: I hope my hon. friend will be good enough to restrain his curiosity until I have finished my speech. I shall then be prepared to give him what information I can.
I have spoken, of the debate in 1892. I shall go on step by step and show the various events of later date which bear upbn this question. In 1892 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, concluded in conjunction with Sir Julian Pauncefote, the negotiations which resulted in the Behring sea treaty. He also acted as the British agent, in the arbitration at Paris, in 1893. In 1893 Sir Charles Tupper negotiated an arrangement respecting commercial relations between France and Canada.
At the Colonial Conference of 1894, the following resolutions were passed:
That provision should be made by Imperial legislation enabling the dependencies of the Empire to enter into agreements of commercial reciprocity, including power of making differential tariffs, with Great Britain or with one another.
That any provision in existing treaties between Great Britain and any foreign Power which prevent the self-governing dependencies of the Empire from entering into agreements of commercial reciprocity with each other or with Great Britain should be removed.
This apparently led to an important despatch of June 28, 1895, from the Colonial Secretary, Lord Ripon, to Canada and to
the Australian colonies. Lord Ripon expressed the view that the power of negotiating treaties by colonies without reference to the British Government would give them an international status as separate and sovereign states, and would result in breaking up the Empire. Therefore such negotiations must be conducted by Her Majesty's representatives at the court of the foreign power. He agreed that such representative should have the assistance of a colonial representative either as a second plenipotentiary or in a subordinate capacity. He declared, inter alia, that any tariff concessions by a colony to a foreign country must be extended to Great Britain and the rest of the Empire.
In 1898 Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir Richard Cartwright and Sir Louis Davies were members of a Joint High Commission with Lord Herschell to negotiate a treaty or treaties covering several outstanding questions between the British Empire and the United States, some of which specially related to Canadian interests.
In 1903 the Alaska Boundary Treaty was negotiated under the direction of Canada, although the British ambassador at Washington acted as plenipotentiary. Sir Clifford Sifton, then Minister of the Interior, was appointed British agent in the subsequent arbitration.
In 1907 Mr. Fielding and Mr. Brodeur negotiated a commercial convention between Canada and France, and in 1909 a supplementary convention. There is a rather interesting phase in connection with that to which I might allude. Sir Edward Grey, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on July 4, 1907, addressed a letter to His Majesty's charge d'affaires at Paris. He spoke of the desire of Sir Wilfrid Laurier to open negotiations for a new commercial convention with the French Government and requested the charge d'affaires to endeavour to assist Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the attainment of his object. Then he used this language:
You are doubtless cognizant of the Marquis of Ripon's despatch of June 28, 1895, to the Governors of the principal British colonies, in which it was laid down that commercial negotiations of this nature being between His Majesty and the Sovereign of the foreign State should be conducted by His Majesty's Representative at the Court of the foreign Power. A copy of this despatch is enclosed herewith.
I do not, however, think it necessary to adhere in the present case to the strict letter of this regulation, the object of which was to secure that negotiations should not be entered into and carried through by a Colony unknown to and independently of His Majesty's Government.
The selection of the negotiator is principally a matter of convenience, and, in the present cir-

cumstances, it will obviously be more practical that the negotiations should be left to Sir Wilfrid Laurier and to the Canadian Minister of Finance, who will doubtless keep you informed -of their progress.
I may say that subsequent events showed that this particular feature of Lord Ripon's despatch of 1895 has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. My hon. friend at my left (Mr. Rowell) tells me he is under the impression that it was modified by a subsequent despatch. I have made inquiry as to that, but up to the present I have not been able to trace any such despatch.
In the same year, 1907, Mr. Lemieux, then Minister of Labour, if I remember correctly, went on a mission to Japan with respect to immigration from that country to Canada.
In 1909 there was a rather notable paragraph in the Speech from the Throne delivered by His Majesty to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It reads as follows :
Satisfactory progress has been made in the negotiating of outstanding questions with the United States of America. A treaty to regulate the use of the waterways adjacent to the international boundary between Canada and the United States has been arranged. The question being one of special Canadian interest the advice of the Dominion Government was sought and followed upon it.
As a matter of fact the negotiations were carried on, if I am correctly informed, through the British ambassador at Washington it may be, but also directly by Sir George Gibbons, who acted under the instructions of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then Prime Minister.
I pause to say that I think the negotiating of that treaty and the establishment of the International Joint Commission was a very notable achievement of the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I api not at all sure that either the people of this country or the members of this House realize adequately the immense advantages which have resulted from the establishment of that commission.
Now, I have under my hand a number of very apt and cogent utterances of Sir Wilfrid Laurier with regard to the development of the powers of self-government in respect to external affiairs. I shall not quote more than one or two of them. Speaking on March 4, 1909, on the proposal to create a department of External affairs, he said:
We have now reached a standard as a nation which necessitates the establishment of a department of External Affairs.* * * Why have

another department? I have simply to answer that such experience of Government as I have had leads me to believe that we have attained such development as a nation that in order to deal with these matters, we must have a department for the purpose.
He also spoke in 1910 of the important part taken by consuls of foreign countries resident at Ottawa in matters which ordinarily would be transacted through diplomatic channels. He regarded this as a natural development, and thought that it did not in any way operate to the prejudice of the unity of the Empire, but that it was of great advantage to the government and people of this country.
Continuing the chronological survey, 1 might say that the North Atlantic Fisheries treaty of 1910, the Behring Sea Inter national Convention of 1911, and the Sock eye Salmon treaty of 1920 were all nego tiated by representatives of the Canadian Government in conjunction with the British ambassador at Washington, although insome cases he himself may have signed as plenipotentiary.
During the war, and particularly after the United States had entered the war, it became apparent that Canadian interests at Washington required special attention and consideration. Accordingly, in January, 1918, a Canadian War Mission was established under the chairmanship of Mr. Lloyd Harris. The organization has only recently been discontinued, although during the past two years the personnel has been greatly reduced. The mission had access to the departments of the United States Government so far as our interests were immediately concerned. It was not a formal diplomatic mission. It was created by Order in Council, and I may say that the terms of the Order in Council indicated a somewhat advanced status on the part of this country. I shall trouble the committee with some extracts from the Order in Council, as it is worth having of record with the other events and utterances to which I have referred.
It set out, in the first place, that many important matters affecting Canada's participation in the war were directly and continuously concerned with conditions and the course of events in the United States. It went on to assert:
That out of such considerations there has arisen the inevitable necessity for frequent and prompt communication and negotiation between the authorities of the Canadian and the United States Governments. In view however of the extent and complexity of the war organization which has necessarily been developed by both, such negotiations are subject to serious delay if conducted through the usual diplomatic

channel ; for His Majesty's Embassy in Washington are obliged in the prevailing conditions to deal with an ever increasing multitude of important affairs not directly concerning Canada, and indeed the negotiations in question are not diplomatic in their nature but rather are largely of a business and commercial character requiring different, more direct and prompt treatment. As a consequence the custom, which had already arisen before the war, of arranging conferences from time to time between Canadian and United States officials for specific purposes of common concern, has since been greatly developed with marked benefit.
The Prime Minister further observes that the development in all these respects, however, has been such that some more direct, less casual, less transient arrangement for securing the object indicated should be devised.
Then it recommended the appointment of a Canadian representative at Washington and expressed the opinion that the ends in view might be attained by the institution of a Canadian War Mission in the United States under the chairmanship of a man of high business qualifications and wide knowledge, experience and energy who should be directly responsible to the Cabinet. The Order in Council goes on to declare:
2. The chairman shall be empowered to represent the Cabinet and the heads of the various departments and other administrative branches of the Government of Canada in respect to negotiations relating to purely Canadian affairs which it may he necessary to conduct-
(a)	With the heads of the departments or other administrative branches, committees or commissions, or other officials, of the Government of the United States ; or
(b)	With the other British or Allied Missions operating in the United States in connection with the war.
It further provided that the commission should endeavour to act in the closest conjunction with the British War Mission at Washington and avoid duplication of effort; further, that the chairman should keep His Majesty's High Commissioner and Special Ambassador at Washington generally informed of the main lines of his actions and should request the ambassador's advice or assistance whenever these might be required. The Order in Council also provided that the chairman should be entitled to be informed on all negotiations between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States in so far as they affected Canada. The mission was obviously, as I have said, not a formal diplomatic mission, but in fact its duties did extend even to questions usually classed undqp that head. There can be no doubt whatever that the mission, the members of which acted without remuneration, was of the highest possible advantage to both countries.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I shall refer to the resolution of the Imperial War Conference in 1917 in order that its terms may be before the members of this committee; perhaps we may occasionally be inclined to forget them. The relations between the British Dominions and the Mother Country were under consideration at that conference. After much informal discussion between the representatives of the dominions they finally agreed upon the resolution which I am about to read. That resolution was submitted to and approved by the government of the United Kingdom and was finally passed unanimously by the Imperial War Conference in these terms: The Imperial War Conference are of opinion that the re-adjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important andi intricate a subject to be dealt with during the war, and that it should form the subject of a special Imperial Conference to be summoned as soon as possible after the cessation of hostilities.
They deem it their duty, however, to place on record their view that any such re-adjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing power of self-government and complete control of domestic 'affairs, should1 be based upon a full recognition of the Dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth, and of India as an important portion of the same, should recognize the right of the Dominions and India to an adequate voice in foreign policy and in foreign relations, and should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in all important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments mg,y determine.
Now, coming more particularly to the practical side of the question I venture to believe that the appointment of a minister with the power that I have mentioned will be attended with the greatest possible benefit to this country and will assist the supreme purpose of maintaining good relations between the British commonwealth and the commonwealth of the United States. Before the war Lord Bryce said that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the work of the British Embassy in the United States was taken up with Canadian affairs. It is possible that the proportion may not hold good to-day; nevertheless it must still be very large. Among the questions dealt with in recent years between Canada and the United States there have been the following:
The Chicago drainage canal.
Supplies of coal for Canada.
Levels of the Lake of the Woods.
The United States Merchant Marine Act.
Levels of Lake Memphremagog.
Exportation of pulpwood from Canadian Crown Lands.

Interchange of cars between Canadian and American railways, especially between the Canadian national system of railways and the railways of the United States.
Panama canal tolls.
Fishery questions on both seaboards and on the Great Lakes.
I cannot help believing that the presence of a Canadian minister at Washington armed with the powers foreshadowed in the statement made by Sir George Foster last year-a Canadian minister thoroughly familiar with the conditions of this country and its needs-would be of the greatest possible assistance, not only in settling difficulties and differences if they should arise, but in preventing the occurrence of any such difficulties. That is one of the main features of diplomatic action: by constant conference and association and also by the help of the personal touch which conference and consultation bring about, to have explanations made, to have points of view accepted, and to bring about amicable arrangements which otherwise would not be possible. I feel that it is highly important, as has been said by the right hon. Prime Minister, that the appointment should be made at as early a day as possible. Such representation will be thoroughly justified by and entirely consistent with the status of Canada under the resolution of the Imperial War Conference, but which she has acquired chiefly from the part she has taken in the war and at the Peace Conference. General Smuts, some months ago, spoke of the British Empire as an inner league within the League of Nations. That very well expresses the status of the nations of the British Empire at the Peace Conference, and it is upon that status that we rest our right of distinctive representation at the Capital of the great neighbouring nation with which our own affairs are so constantly and urgently associated from time to time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My purpose is not to comment on the very able address of the right hon. member for King's^ (Sir Robert Borden) to which we have just listened. My right hon. friend has gone very fully into all the discussions that have taken place in this Parliament with reference to representation at Washington. I should like to ask him if he is aware of this Parliament having anywhere at any time considered the wisdom of having a Canadian minister at the British Embassy at Washington act with respect to Imperial affairs in the absence of the 
British ambassador. I might refer concretely to this statement made by the then acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) in this House on May 10 of last year:
In the absence of the Ambassador, the Canadian minister will take charge of the whole embassy and of the representation of Imperial as well as Canadian interests.
Is my right hon. friend aware of any consideration having been given to so wide a power being accorded a Canadian minister?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware that the subject has been discussed in any of the debates to which I have alluded.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend mentioned that, in an appointment of a minister extraordinary, the responsibility should always lie where there was interest. I took his words down. He said: "Where interest lies, there will be the responsibility." Might I ask my right hon. friend this question: In the event of the Canadian minister acting for the British Government in the absence of the Brtish ambassador, to whom would he be responsible,-to the British Government or to the Canadian Government?


Robert Laird Borden: The language to which my hon friend alludes was used by the Hon. David Mills, although I adopted it later in my address. I remember distinctly that Mr. Mills made use of that expression. I cannot appreciate very well the difficulty which my hon. friend has. The British ambassador at Washington would be responsible to the British Government; he would be responsible in a sense also to the governments of all the Dominions by reason of the consultation which takes place in respect of the interest of the whole Empire from time to time. The Canadian minister at Washington, in the absence of the British ambassador, would stand in the British ambassador's place, and he would have precisely the same responsibilities as those which would be imposed while acting in the same manner.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would he be subject to recall by the British Government in the event of his taking a step of which the British Government did not approve?


Robert Laird Borden: Such matters, I think, are not dealt with in that ,way. As Canadian Minister, he would not be subject to recall by the British Government. If there was any difficulty of that kind which my hon. friend conjures up, I have
A PRTTi 21. 1921
i
no doubt such questions would be settled as all questions are, by conference between the two governments.


William Stevens Fielding: The right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), besides giving us his impressions as to the usefulness of having an ambassador at Washington, has given us a very interesting review of the development of what might be called the self-government of Canada, especially in relation to commercial treaties.
I am quite sure the labour that my right hon. friend has put into the study of this matter has given us a document which will be very useful by way 5 p.m. of reference to those students who are interested in that class of subjects. He has shown very clearly the progress that has been made. That progress has been even greater than my right hon. friend has told us. To-day Canada is under the operation of treaties, and treaties of commerce too, in the making of which she had no voice whatever. They still apply and govern Canada. It was under those conditions, in view of the fact that treaties of that kind were governing Canada, that there grew up a very natural and proper feeling that Canada should have a larger voice in the making of treaties concerning her own alfairs. It was out of that condition that there grew the development to which the right hon. gentleman has called attention. But that was a condition of the olden time. We outgrew that many years ago; we have outgrown it so fully that, speaking for myself, I am of opinion that we have got as far as we need to go to-day. We are right at the very verge of independence. There are some who wish to go further, and while I do not quarrel with them for holding that view, I do not agree with them; and I do not believe the majority of the people of Canada do.
We have made great progress in the negotiation of treaties. My right hon. friend said that the principle laid down by some of the statesmen whom he quoted was that negotiations in regard to questions concerning Canada should be conducted by Canadians responsible to the Canadian Parliament. I entirely subscribe to that. That is the condition we have today; that is the condition we have had for many years. The statements of my right hon. friend, pointing out the many occasions on which Canada has been represented by her own statesmen, prove the truth of what I now say. For a long time 

I could not at the moment fix the date,
but it is certainly within the whole period of which I have any personal knowledge of the public affairs of Canada,-Canada has been recognized to have this right to govern her own affairs in the conduct of Canadian trade. If she has not had the right technically, she has had that right substantially for a very long time, and that right is so fully recognized to-day that I confess I cannot see what more she requires in that direction. Quite a number of cases come to my mind, but my right hon. friend has cited most of them, in which the right of Canada was recognized, even before we were entrusted with the representation of Canadian affairs by the public men of Canada. The principle has been accepted by the British Government for many years that the British Government would make no treaty having any direct reference to Canadian affairs, without putting into it a proviso that it should not apply to Canada unless the Canadian Parliament should see fit to accept it. There are treaties so broad in their character relating to Imperial affairs, that perhaps you cannot distinguish between the affairs of the Mother Country and those of the Dominion; but wherever there is a distinct and sufficient interest of Canada in any treaty which the British Government are making, the practice has been for many years to insert a clause to the effect that "this treaty shall not apply to Canada unless the Canadian Government and Parliament see fit to accept it". That was a tremendous forward step that was taken many years ago. In addition to that we have the direct representation of Canada in these negotiations, beginning many years ago, in the cases cited by my right hon. friend and coming down to today. There has been a great development along those lines and, as I said a moment ago, I do not see how we can go a step further without breaking the tie.
But in one sense there is no development. My right hon. friend does not quite appreciate the fact that to-day, in one respect, we are exactly where we were fifty years ago. We have the right to be consulted. We have the right to send our own representatives, the ministers of the Government of Canada, to participate in the negotiations. We have these ministers made plenipotentiaries under the sign manual of the sovereign. All that we have to-day, but when we want to make a treaty we are just where we were fifty years ago in all other respects. The treaty is made by His Majesty and is signed by His Majesty's Ambassador.

This week my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) brought forward a treaty that had been made with France. When you examined it, you found it was of no value whatever unless signed by His Majesty's ambassador. That is, we are just where we were fifty years ago as respects our relations with the Empire. There is no progress whatever in that respect. Speaking for myself, I do not want any progress in that respect; I do not want any treaty made with any foreign nation except through the instrumentality of His Majesty the King, acting, however, through the minister responsible to the Parliament of Canada.
There is another thought. Most of what my right hon. friend has quoted from the speeches of public men of former days, especially in relation to the United States, was all based upon an objective. What was it? Better trade relations with the United States. That is what we wanted in those days, and it was in order that we might accomplish better trade relations with the United States that these various speeches were made. Is that our condition to-day? The Canadian people have declared-I am not questioning their wisdom at all-that they do not want "any truck or trade" with the United States, and this House has practically put a seal on a document which says that we do not want "any truck or trade" with the United States. That is the fact. This House has resolved that it does not want any closer trade relations with the United States; the Canadian people have said so. So conditions have changed. If there were times when we needed our public men to go to Washington and discuss all these matters, it seems to me that that time has passed. We cannot go to-day and say to our American friends: We want to make a trade arrangement with you. They would say: No, we are very glad to see you, you are very nice fellows, but you did not want any truck or trade with us, and we now do not want anything to do with you. That is what they are going to say to us in the enactment of the Young Bill at Washington now.
Corning to the more immediate question of the ambassador at Washington, I have expressed myself on that subject on a former occasion, and I do not want to repeat at length what I then said. My view is that this proposal of an ambassador at Washington is not a useful one. My belief is that the interests of Canada can be served by a Minister of the Crown,

after consulting with his colleagues at a Council meeting maybe, taking the afternoon train down to Washington and meeting the authorities in the United States, far better than by any official stationed at Washington who loafs around a great part of his time-and I do not say that offensively, because he will have lots of time in which he will have nothing to do. An ambassador of this country who goes to Washington must go there as a subordinate to the British ambassador. There is no help for it. We are a part of the British Empire. So grave a gentleman as my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) the other day made the preposterous statement that we are now a nation on even terms with the Mother Country. What a ridiculous thing to say! The word "colony" some of us do not like, but practically speaking we are a colony to-day, dependent on the Empire, and we cannot be anything else so long as the Empire exists. I am quite sure that any ambassador that we appoint to Washington, call him what you will, will of necessity have to be subordinate to the British ambassador. I do not think that is a desirable situation. I believe that to-day, if any one of these questions that my right hon. friend from King's has referred to should arise, the Prime Minister or one of his colleagues, after discussing the matter in Council, and ascertaining all that can be learned about the matter, and then taking the afternoon train to Washington to meet the President of the United States to-morrow, is in a far better position to represent the interests of Canada intelligently than any man living outside of Canada and who has very often little to do, because there would be very little for him to do. I press that strongly in the light of my own experience. I am satisfied that this experiment is not going to work out well. It is bound to cause friction between the Dominion and Great Britain. It is utterly impossible to have these two officials there, having due regard to our Imperial relations, without trouble arising between the two. As a mere matter of theory, it is a mistake; and when you come to the practical view, I say that the Prime Minister of Canada could go down to Washington fresh from a consultation with his colleagues, perhaps fresh from Parliament, and deal with the question directly in a far more efficient manner than could any gentleman whom we might appoint, and who would remain at Washington constantly. He would of necessity be a subordinate to the British

ambassador, and I do not think that is going to work out well.
There is another view. It is a minor one, hut I think it is worth mentioning. Washington, I think, is the most expensive city in the world for men in official life, and if we are going to have an ambassador there and want him to be able to hold up his head on even terms with the other ambassadors, we shall have to pay smartly for it. This will only be a drop in the bucket. He is bound to be an expensive luxury.
For all these reasons, and for the reasons I gave when I spoke on this subject on a former occasion, and which I do not wish to repeat now, I am persuaded that experience will show that this is a mistake.


Robert Laird Borden: I rise, not for the purpose of replying to the hon. gentleman, but merely to correct an omission in the chronological statement I was endeavouring to give of constitutional development. I suggest that the negotiations at Washington in 1911 to which my hon. friend has just alluded, illustrate rather an important development. In the speech from the Throne at the commencement of the session of 1911, reference was made to the desirability of more equitable tariff arrangements between the United States and Canada. Then followed in the Governor General's speech this significant passage:
Following the negotiations which took place some months ago between the President of the United States and my Government the results of which were at the time communicated to Parliament, a further conference between representatives of the two countries has been held ' at Ottawa.
In the first place, the hon. gentleman will notice that allusion is made to negotiations between "the President of the United States and my Government." That certainly is a remarkable advance from the position taken on some of the other occasions to which I have alluded.
Then further on, it is stated that there has been a further conference between representatives of the two countries at Ottawa-not a conference between the representatives of the United Kingdom and of the United States, but between the representatives of Canada and of the United States. I think my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's and his colleague, Mr. Paterson, were in effect plenipotentiaries at that time, although there was no formal treaty negotiated. The reason for that, I suppose, was that the arrangement had to be carried out by the reciprocal legislation, ibut I am quite sure that I am within the limits of the truth when I venture to assert that the negotiations on that occasion took place exclusively between the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's and Mr. Paterson, on the one hand, and the representatives of the United States on the other hand, and-that the British Ambassador at Washington took no part therein. I am mentioning this, not by way of argument, but merely as an incident of constitutional development which I should have introduced in its proper place in my summary of events.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend's explanation is substantially correct. Mr. Paterson and I went to Washington feeling that we were going to deal with a tariff matter which was clearly within the right of Parliament. When any official from any part of the world comes to Ottawa to discuss any trade arrangement, he naturally comes to the Government of the day, and it would be our right to make an arrangement with him not in the form of a treaty, but in the form of a general understanding. As a matter of courtesy and as a matter of right we called on the British ambassador at once. He understood the matter thoroughly, gave us his blessing, took us to the President and introduced us, and from that time forward we were absolutely free to conduct negotiations, but always with the full knowledge on our part that if those negotiations should eventuate in a treaty, then unquestionably that treaty would (have to be made by the British ambassador, acting in conjunction, as he no doubt would, with the Canadian representative. That is exactly the case with regard to negotiations in Paris. The British ambassador said to us: "Gentlemen, this is Canadian business, and I know you understand it better than I do. Whenever you want my help I am here to assist you; but it is your own business". And, as a matter of fact, he took little or no part in the negotiations. Of course, we took care to see, as a matter of courtesy, that he was kept informed. But after all, practically speaking, the whole thing amounts to this, that we cannot make a treaty without the ambassador of Great Britain. We cannot be in the Empire and not accept the responsibilities which that involves. I am not saying anything in a controversial sense, but my view is that we have to-day, in the making of commercial treaties, all the power that we ought to have or that is any good to us. The only thing is that we have no voice in

Imperial affairs, but that is nothing for us to complain of; we can have that voice if we want it; we can have representation in the Imperial Parliament if we desire to be represented there, for no one in England is raising any objection. But, so far, it has not suited our purpose to seek such representation, and I do not think that this .House wants it. Anything that we are short of in the way of representation imperially is not due to any action on the part of the Imperial authorities; it is because we have no desire to have that representation. But I do not see that there is anything which we can have in relation to negotiations of treaties which we have not to-day.


Mr. ROWELL:: I have had the pleasure
of discussing this particular matter on two previous occasions in the House, and of making some observations in answer to my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) ; and perhaps I may request the privilege of taking a further opportunity of dealing with the subject. At the same time, I rise to urge upon the Government the very great importance of making this appointment, and making it without delay in the interests of Canada, and of the Empire. I can conceive of no matter of more immediate and urgent importance to us than the question of our relations with our great neighbour to the south, touching a great many questions of common concern at the present time. And I believe that an occasional visit by a Canadian minister to Washington, important and valuable as that may be, will not at all take the place of permanent representation there by a Canadian representative qualified for the post, and constantly protecting our interests and keeping us fully informed of the current of sentiment there. I have said that this is important, and I believe it is urgent.
Turning aside for the moment from the theories and constitutional aspect of the question, and looking at it from the practical standpoint, what is the situation we face to-day? Let me remind you of the actual situation. Here we are, a country stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and touching the United States for the whole distance across the continent, with a common boundary of approximately 3,900 miles. And on the west, we have a common boundary, between Alaska and Canada, of approximately 1,500 miles. So that, as between ourselves and our great neighbour to the south of us, we have a common boundary of 5,400 miles. Our citizens are constantly crossing that boundary into the

United States, and American citizens are coming into Canada, in order to do business and communicate with one another along all the various lines of intercourse that exist between two friendly nations. Not only is there this common boundary and dose contact, but the fact is that we do the largest part of our trade with the United States, we do a larger trade with her than with any other country in the world. I do not wish, in the discussion of this matter, which is one not only of great constitutional interest but also of supreme practical importance, to enter upon any consideration of questions of trade or tariffs. I think my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's hardly did himself justice when he said that this House had declared against any trade with our neighbours to the south.


William Stevens Fielding: "Truck or trade"..


Newton Wesley Rowell: Well "truck or trade". I shared the views of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's in 1911, in regard to the reciprocity agreement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: But, at the same time, this House has never declared itself as opposed to any trade with the United States. There was a difference on a great question of public policy; I took one view and other hon. members of this House took the other. We are dealing, not with the theory of trade, not with any particular made policy, but with the facts of trade; and the outstanding fact to-day is that we do a larger business with the United States than with any other country in the world. As has already been pointed out in this House, the United States dpes a larger business with Canada than she does with all the Central and South American Republics.


Mr. JACOBS:: -put together.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -put together. The United States trade with us a year ago was second only to her trade with Great Britain. I do not know what the figures disclose this year, but I have heard it suggested that they reveal the fact that Canada has a larger trade with the United States than even Great Britain. I am not aware of the precise facts, but, whatever they may be, there is the great fact of this enormous trade, which is bound to go on, no matter what tariff walls may be erected on either side of the line. Two great peoples, of common stock and common ideals, will trade with each other to a large

239E
extent, no matter what tariff policies may be adopted on either side. That is a fact; let us recognize facts and get away, for the time being, from theories. You have, therefore, a common boundary, and a mutual trade, and also naturally and inevitably by reason of our proximity one to the other, a large number of questions constantly arising between us and which require consideration by the respective Governments.
Permit me to say, in passing, that I feel that all members of the House are deeply [DOT] indebted to the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), for the exhaustive research he has made into this question, and the clear and impartial manner in which he has presented the facts covering the whole situation. As I have said, these important questions are constantly arising, and in a moment or two I shall touch upon some of them.
Then there is-this prospect, which I venture to think few serious students of international affairs will deny, that during the remainder of this century-perhaps not within the next decade, but, at any rate, before very long-the centre of the political and commercial activity of the world will pass to a great extent from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Many of the most important and significant political events of the next half century, at least, will be enacted on the Pacific. Now, who are the powers on the Pacific? Canada is more vitally interested in the North Pacific problem than is any other portion of the British Empire. She is more vitally interested in the problems of the North Pacific than is either Great Britain, or Australia, or New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand have a vital interest in questions affecting the South Pacific, but, so far as the North Pacific is concerned, Canada has the greatest interest. Canada and the United States lie on one side, and Russia, China and Japan on the other; and in all the problems that arise affecting the Pacific the people on this continent may find that they have largely common interests. It may be that we shall find that men of common race, language, and ideals are largely interested in the same things; but, whether we are or not, it will be of great importance to us to know what are the ideals and views and policies of our great neighbour to the south of us on questions of international concern relating to the Pacific.
Now what is our present position? According to my hon. friend from Shelburne
and Queen's we have no constitutional right to speak with the people to the south unless we do it by cable across the ocean and through the Government sitting in London.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is not
correct, I said nothing of the kind. I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend-


Newton Wesley Rowell: I quite agree, my hon.
friend did not express it in those words-


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Newton Wesley Rowell: But I think that is the
logical deduction-


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -from my hon. friend's argument. If we are only a colony, if we are only a dependency, we have no right to speak except through London.


William Stevens Fielding: Will my hon. friend
permit me a question? Could not the Parliament at Westminister write the Constitution of Canada of the statute book almost by a single stroke of the pen?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then we shall make
another for ourselves.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I say without any hesitation, no. I say it is clear as any constitutional principle in British Constitutional practice that while the power of legislation is still in the Imperial Parliament, they have no constitutional right to repeal the British North America Act. They have no more right to pass, for instance, a Customs law for Canada than we have to pass a law regulating the running of tramways on the streets of London-absolutely none.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not dispute that
for a moment. But it is not a question of the legal right, we are talking of the power of'Parliament, and the Parliament at Westminister can wipe this Constitution off the slate if it chooses.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend has
followed constitutional development at all, I do not think he will dispute the proposition that legal power is controlled by constitutional right. My hon. friend may say that His Majesty the King has the power to veto every piece of legislation passed by the Imperial Parliament. He has the legal power to do so, but not the constitutional right. If he undertook to veto or refuse his assent to all the legislation passed by the British Parliament, to set at defiance the will of that Parliament, I am afraid, with all respect, he would suffer the same fate as one of the



sovereigns of England did many years ago. In other words, you cannot settle these questions on the basis of legal power, you must consider the constitutional rights. In that respect our constitution differs from the American constitution. It is the great virtue of our constitution that it is flexible, and that it- grows, and develops. It is therefore suitable to meet the needs of a growing, developing country, not only in the Mother Land but throughout all the dominions of the Empire.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Might I ask the hon.
gentleman a question? Speaking of our interests in the northern Pacific, I understood my hon. friend to say that those interests were akin to those of the United States of America. Now in case of a conflict of interests and ideas between the United States and Great Britain, the latter being an ally of Japan, how would Canada stand in the matter?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I did not say our interests were akin, I said they probably would be akin, to those of the United States. If my hon. friend has followed the recent discussion in Great Britain and in Japan, he will recall that not only the British Government, but the Japanese ambassador in London, Baron Hayashi, has made the declaration that even under the existing treaty the alliance has no application to a difference, if one should arise, between Japan and the United States-that such a contingency is not one in which the British Empire would be involved. I think this is a sufficient answer to my hon. friend.
On the question of our status which the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's has raised and on which he has stated his opinion so emphatically, let me quote you the opinion of one of the most distinguished British jurists, Sir Frederick Pollock-and this is not a recent opinion, it is nearly ten years old,-He said:
Leave the conventions alone and look at the facts, and we find the self-governing colonies are, in fact, separate kingdoms, having the same King as the parent group, but choosing to abrogate that part of their full autonomy which relates to foreign affairs. The House of Commons could no more venture to pass a Bill altering the Australian Marriage laws, or the Canadian tariff, than the Dominion Parliament could legislate on London tramways.


William Stevens Fielding: Hear, hear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is the opinion of a distinguished British jurist.


William Stevens Fielding: They would not, not that they could not.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Just let me repeat. He says:
The House of Commons could no more venture-


An hon. MEMBER:: "Venture."


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, "venture." Do not let anybody misunderstand. The Imperial
Parliament has the reserve power of legislation, so to speak-


William Stevens Fielding: Hear, hear.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It has the reserve
power, so to speak. But the use of that power is limited by constitutional convention, and constitutional custom, and by the constitutional rights of the Dominion. The Imperial Parliament has no right to use that power except in accordance with the well-settled principles of our constitution.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does Pollock speak of "the Kingdom of Canada"?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, he does.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, that is the Ewart doctrine.	.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not think it is. However, I do not want to enter into any discussion in this House of Mr. Ewart's views; we are sufficiently concerned in settling our own immediate problems. That was Mr. Mills' view.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not object to that.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That was also Sir John Macdonald's view. He wanted Canada called ''The Kingdom of Canada."


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear. I do not object to that.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: Will my hon. friend read again that part of Sir Frederick Pollock's opinion which had any relation to external affairs.


Newton Wesley Rowell: He says:
Leave the conventions alone and look at the facts, and we find the self-governing colonies are, In fact, separate kingdoms, having the same King as the parent group, but choosing-
That is voluntarily, I draw attention to the use of the word.
-but choosing to abrogate that part of their full autonomy which relates to foreign affairs.


Michael Clark: Does my hon. friend propose to choose differently now?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Let me finish the sentence.


Michael Clark: I am sorry to interrupt.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I want to answer my hon. friend's question but I would like first to finish reading the quotation, I want to make it complete. (Reading)
The House of Commons could no more venture to pass a Bill altering the Australian marriage laws, or the Canadian tariff, than the Dominion Parliament could legislate on London tramways. The sovereignty is a figment. The states of the Empire-


Rodolphe Lemieux: The sovereignty is
what?


Newton Wesley Rowell: He says:
The sovereignty is a figment.
In answer to my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, who says that we do not stand on an equal footing, this eminent British jurist says we do stand on an equal footing. (Reading)
The states of the Empire stand on an equal footing, except that the Government of one of them represents all the rest of the community of nations, and is gracefully permitted, in consequence, to undertake and to pay for maritime defence.
Referring to the point raised by the hon. member for Red Deer-I want to answer it, although it is a little out of the line of my present argument-my submission is:	that just as the needs of the Dominions require that they should exercise more authority in connection with foreign affairs than they have hitherto exercised, they should choose to exercise it on their own account, in co-operation always with the Mother Country. That is exactly the line of our constitutional development. As we have required to exercise a larger measure of power we have exercised it with the full concurrence of the Mother Country; and that is the spirit of the resolution of the Imperial Conference of 1917.
Now, coming back to the practical aspect of the question which I was discussing, I pointed out that according to the theory of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, as I understood it, we had no right to speak with this neighbour-with whom we must continue to deal in ever-increasing measure -on any matters of common concern except through the authority of the Mother Country. Frankly, that is an impossible situation. The fact that we have been steadily dealing with these matters in an indirect and spasmodic manner, as outlined by the right hon. member for King's, N.S., shows that it is an impossible situation. My hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's recog-
152i
nized it was impossible by stating that the thing to do was for a member of this Government to take train to Washington and settle any question that might arise. Now, if it is a good thing to have a Canadian representative in Washington for five days in the year to look after Canadian interests, and if the British constitution will not be wrecked by that visit, I cannot see how it is going to be wrecked by our Canadian representative being there 365 days in the year. If it is in the interests of Canada for him to be there five days in the year, certainly it is in our interests for him to be there 365 days in the year. I would like to commend to my hon. friend some advice given very long ago by Francois de Cal-lieries, a distinguished French diplomat, in a book originally published in 1716, and republished in 1919. This question of permanent representation is thus discussed by him:
Now, if a monarch should wait, before sending his envoys to countries near and far, until important events occur, it will be found that the negotiators sent thus at the eleventh hour on urgent occasions, have no time to explore the .terrain or to study the habits of mind of the foreign court or to create the necessary liaisons or to change the course of events already in flood.
I submit that those words have direct application to the situation before us today. If we are to do our business with our neighbours we must be in constant touch with them, to understand their point of view and to give them the benefit of our point of view, rather than send down an envoy from time to time to settle disputes. Our object should be to so conduct our relations that acute difficulties would not arise. In other \vords, we should endeavour to preserve a good understanding rather than seek to preserve the peace after real difficulties have arisen.
The very facts of the case show the present situation is impossible; and our own experience proves it. This proposal is to put the conduct of- our relations on a much more regular and permanent basis, by having a Canadian representative constantly at Washington. Let me give an illustration of the importance of direct and permanent representation. I am afraid it will not appeal to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, because he thinks in this respect Canada is in error. The question of our voting rights in the League of Nations is of very great moment to us. That question has been under discussion by the Senate and the Congress of the United States for months, but Canada

has never been in a position to make any representation to the American Government, except through the British ambassador. Yet it is of the greatest importance that we should get our point of view clearly before the members of the American Government. What is the object of a permanent representative? It is to maintain good relations and so avoid the danger of questions developing to an acute stage. In my humble judgment it is a misfortune that we have not had a representative at Washington before this question arose. Take the important question of trade that is coming up now in connection with the American tariff. Of course, it is a question for the American people to settle for themselves. But the question affects us very directly, and we should have our representative at Washington just 8S other countries have their representatives there, to keep us advised, in order that our views may be made known to the American Government through the usual channels.
My hon. friend speaks of the expense. With a trade of a billion dollars a year, what is $50,000, $60,000, $100,000 or $200,000? If this country is going to grow and our interests expand we must spend more money than we are spending now on the conduct of our relations with other countries. The department of External Affairs created by Sir Wilfrid Laurier must grow and expand for the protection and promotion of Canadian interests.	.
Let me mention another matter. We have to-day certain questions-


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but as I am interested in that portion of his argument which he is just leaving, I would like to put a question to him before he passes on to his next point.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Certainly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman
says that we should have at Washington a representative to watch our interests and come to some understanding on any vexed questions that may arise between the American Government and our own Government. I suppose that he refers chiefly to commercial questions. Now, suppose our Canadian representative is appointed, and that in dealing with those commercial questions the interests of Canada are in conflict with the interests of the Mother Country, in what position would our representative be if he shares with the British ambassador the responsibilities of the em-

bassy?-because I understand that he will be acting for both Great Britain and Canada. Does not my hon. friend see that a series of conflicts and embarrassments might arise between ourselves and the Mother Land?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not apprehend the
troubles to which my hon. friend referred. The Canadian representative would have no authority to enter into a controversy with the British Ambassador, and I think that the converse also would be true. If any question or difference did arise, that would naturally, properly, inevitably, come back to the Government of Canada and the Government of Great Britain and would be settled between them just as all questions are settled from time to time, by conference and negotiation. Trouble would not arise, therefore, in the way my hon. friend has mentioned.
What are the functions of such a minister? He would take part in the negotiation of specific questions arising between the two governments-the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States-acting upon instructions from the Government of Canada, in the same way as a minister would who went down to deal with a specific matter. But in addition, he watches events; when necessary he makes representations to his own government as to the trend or course of events in order that they may anticipate difficulties; and by removing misunderstanding at the outset he may often prevent what would otherwise become a protracted point of differ ence. Then, he transmits to his government from time to time reports of legislation and executive acts. He keeps the Government here fully advised as to what is being done by the Government at Washington-that is a proper function of a diplomatic representative. He also furnishes such general reports as a diplomatic agent sends home with regard to social, industrial and economic questions that may be of interest to his government. He may negotiate treaties if he is instructed by his government to do so, either alone or assisted by a representative sent by his government to co-operate with him.
May I point out that one of the grave difficulties in connection with our present arrangement is the lack of continuity. Every business man knows that if you have important negotiations to carry on, if you have important relations to maintain, continuity of touch, of interest and of sympathy is of the utmost importance; and to

bring this about a permanent representative is necessary. And then, there is the bearing that the personal touch, personal association, has upon the maintaining of good relations. May one draw a lesson from our experience at Geneva? The position at the close of the Assembly was entirely different from that which prevailed at the opening. We did not know each other at the first meeting; we had not sized each other up, so to speak; we had not learned to appreciate each other's point of view. It was only when we got really acquainted with each other, so far as we could in that brief space of time, that business proceeded smoothly and satisfactorily. So that the establishment of personal relation, of personal contact, is of the greatest possible advantage.
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has suggested that this arrangement might imperil our relations with the Mother Country. One can only give an opinion, but from my reading of our constitutional history and from the facts of our own experience I would come to an entirely different conclusion. My judgment is that it would not impair but would rather tend to improve the relations not only between Canada and the Mother Country, but also between Canada and the United States. That is the last point that I want to emphasize. One of the most important problems in the world to-day, having regard not only to the relations between the different Anglo-Saxon peoples, but to the peace of the world, is the maintaining of good understanding between the peoples of the British Empire and the United States. Providence has placed us side by side with the great American Republic. In the course of our political development we have retained our connection with the Mother Country, and that enables us to understand their view, their attitude, their ideals and their policies on international questions as the people of the United States, I venture to say, do not understand them. We are able to appreciate the point of view of the Mother Country in a way that the people of the United States do not. On the other hand, our close contact and constant intercourse with the American people enables us to understand them and their ideals in a way, I have no hesitation whatever in saying, that the people of the Mother Country do not understand them. One has only to come in contact with the public men of both nations to appreciate the great importance of each trying to understand the other
and to appreciate the other's point of view. Canada has a unique, a providential opportunity to act as a liason between the two; if we fail to take advantage of it we shall lose one of the greatest opportunities that has ever come to us or ever will come to us to assist in maintaining a good understanding between the British Empire and the United States, not only for the benefit of Canada and the British Empire, but for the peace and progress of the world.
I believe that a Canadian minister at Washington, in touch with the American Government, in constant touch with the British ambassador and in continuous communication with his own Government, would be a means of interpreting one nation to the other so that we may march together, rather than work at cross purposes, toward the attainment of the high ideals which, after all, we do hold in common. Many things do arise which tend to irritate us and to disturb our relations, but fundamentally our ideals are common ideals and it should be our God-given privilege to help bring about whole-hearted co-operation among all branches of the Anglo-Saxon world.


Michael Clark: Could my hon. friend give us one or two concrete examples of questions arising specifically between the United States and Canada which would he better handled under the arrangement which he contemplates than they are being handled at the present time?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will give one. The supply of Canadian pulp and paper to the American press became a very difficult and .acute question. In my humble 'judgment, this possible difficulty might have been wholly avoided if we had a Canadian representative at Washington all the time, watching the situation and keeping the American Government fully informed as to our views and the reasons for our policy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it the intention to proceed with this discussion at eight o'clock?


Arthur Meighen: Yes. I had hoped to proceed with the next item if possible.
At Six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at Eight o'clock.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I am sure everybody will agree with me that the committee is indebted to the right hon. member for

King's (Sir Robert Borden) and the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell), for the very excellent and instructive addresses which they gave us this afternoon. I agree with most of what those two hon. gentlemen said; but unfortunately they are, to a certain extent, men of the past in spite of the very eminent position which they occupy in this country, and I should like to know whether my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen), who is Minister of External Affairs and who speaks now for the Government and for Canada, agrees with the position taken by both the hon. member for King's and the hon. member for Durham. We have not been fortunate enough to have a statement from the Prime Minister as to this appointment at Washington. Why is it that the appointment has not been made, and why is it that the item which was formerly $80,000 has been reduced to $60,000? Perhaps next year it will be $40,000, and by a slow process of suicide, to use the expression of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), the Government is going to kill its own child.


Arthur Meighen: I was not able to be in the House during all the address of the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden). I am not quite certain, but I think I was present during all the address of the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell). I did not hear anything in either address with which I did not agree. I did not hear any sentiments uttered that were at all at variance with my views. There may have been something which I did not altogether catch.
As regards the explanation of the reduction, I am always glad, not only to note, but to explain reductions. This year the War Mission at Washington, which was appointed for the purpose stated by the right hon. member for King's, has been discontinued; it has been wound up. Such purposes as remained after the main purpose was gone, did not seem to me sufficient to warrant the continuance of the office and, consequently, there will not be any office until an appointment, is made to this post. That, however, does not explain the difference in the Estimate, because it is intended to make the appointment. What explains the difference is that there was created-I cannot recall just when, but before the last Estimate was passed a year ago-a press bureau in the city of New York. That has been discontinued as a press bureau. It has been transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce.

As time went on, its work developed more along trade channels than any other; its usefulness was manifestly along those lines. I had an investigation made as to its work and a report made to me verbally by Col. Cooper who was in charge, and as a result, I took the recommendation of each and had that bureau transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce. Twenty thousand dollars is deducted on that account.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my right hon. friend give the reason why the appointment has not been made?


Arthur Meighen: I forgot that. I gave it this afternoon to the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). There is one reason and one only, namely that the Government has not been able to decide as to the best man and when I speak of that, I mean available to occupy this very important post.


Ernest Lapointe: There are so many exministers.


Arthur Meighen: That is where hon. gentlemen opposite are wrong. They seem to think that ex-ministers of the Government were standing by with eager eye and open mouth waiting for this plum, but that was a Wholly wrong impression. It is because that impression is wrong that-


Ernest Lapointe: I mean that there are many good men who could be appointed.


Arthur Meighen: That may be, but they may not be ready to accept this responsibility.


Mr. BELAND:: The impression that prevailed this afternoon amongst the members *of the House was that, however interesting the two addresses were, that of the exPrime Minister and that of the ex-President of the Privy Council, one of the objects of the addresses was to qualify for this important post. May I ask, coming back to this item, whether the $80,000 which was voted last year has been expended, and on what?


Arthur Meighen: I should have the deputy minister in front of me. I cannot give the exact figures; I will give them before very long. There would not be more than about half of it expended last year. I do not think there would be that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: For the purpose of sustaining the War Mission?


Arthur Meighen: The press bureau in New York and the War Mission in Washington, under Mr. Mahoney.


Ernest Lapointe: This minister, or ambassador, or plenipotentiary, or whatever he may be, shall be appointed 'by the Crown upon the advice of the Government of Canada, if I correctly understand the statement which was issued last year. It is the Government of Canada that is going to recommend the appointment?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: The gentleman shall not be appointed upon the recommendation of the Imperial Government?


Arthur Meighen: No.


Ernest Lapointe: It is stated that in the absence of the British ambassador our Canadian representative will take charge of the British Embassy and will deal with British affairs. Do I understand my right hon. friend to say that the British Government will trust the administration and direction of their foreign affairs in the United States to a Canadian, in the absence of the British ambassador, without having a word to say in his appointment?


Arthur Meighen: I think so. They have agreed to the proposal as to the appointment on terms, and one of the terms is that. I do not regard that myself as of first importance. I do not know that there would be any probability of difficulty arising due to that, but if it did, there would be no difficulty in making modifications in that regard. I do not anticipate that there would be difficulty myself, because the British Government would be quite certain that any one recommended by the Government of Canada for a post of that kind would be a man of high responsibility and intimate knowledge of the affairs connected with the embassy. They having assented, I see no reason at all why we might anticipate trouble along that line.


Ernest Lapointe: I rise to make my position quite clear in that respect. Any questions I ask are more by way of constructive criticism, because I do not object to the principle. Anything which is a step in the road to nationhood has my full approval. I would like to know whether the, people of Canada will be responsible for the actions of their own appointee when he acts as British ambassador, transacting purely British affairs as distinct from Canadian affairs.


Arthur Meighen: In as much as he is named on the advice of the Canadian people he would be responsible, I think, in the same way as any other ambassador to
his own country. I do not know what his responsibility to Canada would be in respect to matters purely British. It would appear to me that he would owe direct responsibility in that regard more to Great Britain. He is our direct appointee, and for his general conduct he is responsible to us, but if there are matters which he may be called upon to discharge in this contingency which may never arise, matters in which Canada has no interest but which are purely British, it would appear to me that he would be responsible more directly to the people of Great Britain. They are ready to accept that.


Ernest Lapointe: What purpose is
served by this arrangement? Why should it have been agreed that the Canadian representative will act for the British ambassador in his absence?


Arthur Meighen: The idea is to give him rank such as he should have. He is in the position second in authority there, and naturally would be first in authority in the absence of the first in authority. The contingency does not look to me to be one that would probably arise, or arise very often, at all events, and if the British Government is ready to accept it, I cannot see what we have to risk in that regard. For that matter, I do not see what they have; but if there should be any question in the matter, it would be from their point of view rather than from ours.


Ernest Lapointe: There is another matter I wish to refer to. There are certain constitutional authorities, Mr. Curtiss, for instance, who are advocates of Imperial federation, who contend that the Dominion cannot have diplomatic representatives in foreign countries unless there is an Imperial Parliament to which those representatives are responsible, or unless there is complete independence. I do not say that Mr. Curtiss is right in that contention, but it may be that those who believe as Mr. Curtiss does will use this appointment of a Canadian representative as an argument for the creation of an Imperial Parliament. The question of constitutional relations between the various parts of the Empire will be discussed at a conference which it has been decided to hold, but which I believe has been postponed again until next year, and there sooner or later this question will be fully discussed. Can my right hon. friend give us the assurance that this appointment of a Canadian representative at Washington will not at all serve as an argument to strengthen the

position of Mr. Curtiss and those who believe as he does?


Arthur Meighen: I saw in the newspaper this afternoon some comment on what was described as a tall order, but its tallness did not begin to compare with what my hon. friend puts up to me now. I cannot give him any assurance that the appointment of this ambassador will not be used as an argument for an Imperial Parliament or for anything else on earth.


Ernest Lapointe: But would my right
hon. friend himself consider it as an argument for an Imperial Parliament?


Arthur Meighen: My experience of controversy is, although I am not addicted to the habit myself, that controversialists will use almost anything as an argument for almost anything. I answer my hon. friend frankly; I do not think it would be an argument. Wonderful are the constitutional evolutions of the British Empire, and things that great authorities thought would be utterly impossible have turned out to be quite possible, and quite beneficent.


William Foster Cockshutt: It appears to me
that this proposal constitutes one of the gravest departures in constitutional affairs that we have seen in Canada within a generation. Although I allowed the vote to pass last year without saying a word upon it,
I have thought over it a great deal during the year, and I have been condemning myself that I did not on that occasion raise my voice in protest against the proposal.
I am here to-night to say that I agree almost entirely with the remarks of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Eielding) this afternoon as to the appointment of an ambassador to Washington.
I dissociate myself, however from that part of his address that referred to the recently proposed reciprocity agreement, which had no place whatever in the discussion so far as the constitutional question was concerned, and was simply introduced to show that Canada had exercised the rights of a free man to take up trade questions at Washington without let or hindrance from the British Government. Therefore, we have at present in our possession all the legitimate powers that a great overseas dominion could hope to have as a constituent part of the Empire. I consider that this is a very grave constitutional departure, and before it is embarked upon I think it should be debated on every hustings in every county in every province of Canada, so that the 
people of this country may be informed just what this step means and where it is going to lead.
I have listened with very careful attention to the addresses of hon. gentlemen who spoke this afternoon, but to my mind they avoided all the important constitutional issues that are bound up in this question. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, what right has the Dominion of Canada to appoint an ambassador that is not vested in every other overseas dominion of the Empire? Has Canada any constitutional right to appoint an ambassador that we do not allow South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, and all the other parts of the Empire to be partakers in? They have just as much right to apoint ambassadors to the United States or other countries as we have. Furthermore, to appoint an ambasador is to exercise the right of a sovereign power, and it is beggaring the question to say that the man whom it is intended to appoint will be a trade representative. The word used is "ambassador," and an ambassador to a foreign country can be sent only by a sovereign power, so far as we understand the constitutional prerogative. Never has the Dominion of Canada up to this date appointed an ambassador to the United States or any other country. Never has that right been exercised up to this time, and T have not heard that we have received any particular authority from Great Britain to embark upon so important a departure as this. As I view this question, it is another olfshoot of that evil genius, the League of Nations, which we had under discussion last night, and this whole thing has been forced upon us largely by that body. We have chosen to call ourselves a first class power, but we are not a first class power measured by the standards of the world. We may be a first class power insofar possibly as our resources and extent of territory are concerned; but no man can contend that Canada, in the essential sense of the word, is a first class nation; she is a first class power only as part of the British Empire.
The British Empire is a first class Empire, and it is quite good enough for us to remain in, retaining the contitutional status we have now. But to say that Canada is a first class power is to make a declaration that is not borne out by the facts.
A first class power must have very large and strong elements in its constitution, if it is to take its place on an equal footing among the great nations of the world;

and we have not the great essentials. A first class power must have a great army and navy, as well as population and resources. We have the resources, hut we have not the population, nor the army nor the navy; nor can it be contended for a moment that we are in a position to take up the full share of the white man's burden s which must be shouldered by a first class power. I was hoping that the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), had wilfully delayed the appointment of this ambassador for a year; but I am sorry to say to-night that he has rather indicated that such is noc the case, but that he is disposed to.name a man as soon as one properly qualified comes to light. Well, I think that there are plenty of proper men available, so far as that is concerned; but I doubt very much the wisdom of Canada embarking on such an enterprise as is proposed in the resolution. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), has properly said that $60,000 is quite an amount, but it is nothing to What we shall have to pay.
Further, I want to make this other point, that we have no more right to appoint an ambassador to the United States than we have the right to appoint one to France, or Germany, or Belgium, or Spain, or Russia, or any other country in the world. The same power is requisite to appoint an ambassador to the United States as to any of these countries. To say that there is more business carried on with the United States is immaterial. It is not a matter of business, or extent of business; it is a question whether or not sovereign rights are vested in Canada today to make the appointment. I contend that they are not, unless there is evidence to the contrary in the possession of the Government which they have not submitted to the House. I do sincerely hope that the Government will not embark on an enterprise that is going to get us into great difficulties. If we have an ambassador at Washington with equal powers with the British Ambassador, it is not far distant for any one to see that these two officials 'will come into conflict on certain questions. That is inevitable; it is as sure as the sun shines, that there will be questions on which they will not see eye to eye, because no two men can agree absolutely on every point. If that is the case, what will be the , situation if all the Dominions overseas appoint ambassadors to the United States and to all the other nations of the world? I say that this is only the beginning, because if we can exercise the power of appointing one ambassador we can appoint ten or twenty. But, Mr. Chairman, we must have all the constituent qualities of a great nation in order to be able to do that. It is a very unwise step to do anything of the kind and I trust it will not be undertaken without the most serious consideration on the part of the Prime Minister and the cabinet surrounding him.
I have not the means of knowing whether the Cabinet is unanimous on this question, but I for one, from the moment it was mooted, have been absolutely against it. As a rule, I cannot agree with the member for Shelburne and Queen's, but I must say that he has interpreted my view on this question perfectly. To my mind, this is so important a question, and the consequences to which it will lead are of so far-reaching a character, that the people of Canada should be taken into the confidence of the House, and of the Government, and the whole subject should be thoroughly debated in the country so that we may see clearly the significance, that we are at the parting of the ways. I interpret this proposal as a distinct announcement to the world that Canada is going to embark upon nationhood herself, regardless of the old motherland. I cannot interpret it in any other way, and the idle suggestion that there is nothing to fear, that all is plain sailing, does not commend itself to my judgment at all. I say it is the most serious question that could be considered, and it should be taken into earnest consideration by every member of the House and by every citizen who desires to have permen-ent British connection such as we have always had.
Now, what has arisen that has caused us to be dissatisfied with prevailing conditions? Are there any outstanding and burning questions between the United States and Canada to-day that cannot be settled through the ordinary diplomatic channels as provided by the British Government? I cannot see where there are. If it is a matter of appointing trade agents, then let us have trade agents; I am in favour of that, and I should like to have not only one but twenty or thirty trade agents appointed to the United States in all the principal cities. I have never used the phrase "no truck nor trade with the Yankees." I do not use it now, and I think that we ought to have consular agents over there. But a consular agent is a very different person from an ambassador who stands in the other country clothed with the right to speak for all of the people whom he rep re-

sents, and in whose hands are the issues of peace and war. Surely It cannot be contended for a moment that Canada possesses the right at the present time to appoint an official vested with this authority. It cannot be contended that this is our right merely because we signed a document in the League of Nations dissociating ourselves from the other members of the British Empire. The signing of that document does not constitute us a first-class power, and make us a great nation ready to take upon ourselves the full responsibilities of a first-class power. To be a first-class nation we must be ready to spend hundreds of millions of dollars and to show that we can bear our share of the white man's burden in this and in every other part of the world. Canada's position in the League of Nations does not warrant her in separating herself from the Empire as an individual entity, a power with the right to appoint ambassadors in every country. If Canada can do this, then all the overseas dominions can do the same; because it cannot be successfully contended that their rights are not exactly the same as ours. The only thing that can be said is that they do not transact as much business with the United States as we do, but that is not the question at all. The question is a constitutional one: Have we, as part of the British Empire, the right to step out regardless of what the views of the Empire are? I cannot see for a moment that that position can be justified.
Furthermore, if we appoint an ambassador to the United States, the question arises: are they going to appoint an ambassador to Canada? The one, of course, follows as a natural consequence of the other. We have only American consuls in the Dominion of Canada to-day. Surely we are not going to appoint an ambassador to the United States and have them reciprocate merely with consular agents. And every other country to which we might send an ambassador should be under the obligation to have an ambassador in Ottawa. Now, Mr. Chairman, I cannot contemplate that the Government intends to embark on so vast a scheme. Every argument that can be used in connection with this one appointment could with equal force be advanced as regards any other similar appointment that might be proposed for an ambassador in France or any other country in the world. I cannot possibly conceive how the Government can stand up and justify an appointment that will have such far-reaching consequences, without

practically taking a plebiscite of the people of Canada on the question whether or not they are dissatisfied with British connection and desire to embark upon a policy that will, with absolute certainty, lead us away from the Motherland, and land us goodness knows where in a display which we cannot back up by a delivery of the goods. We have not got the goods to deliver. I have great respect for the resources and capacity of the Dominion of Canada, but if our railways have been built fifty years too early, it does not follow that we should appoint ambassadors fifty or a hundred years ahead of time, and that is practically what this amounts to. We are in no position to-day to say that we are a first-class, power with the rights and liberties to appoint ambassadors. If the appointment of a Canadian ambassador has been agreed to, where is the document from the Home Government authorizing it? We have not heard a word on that head up to date. We have not heard a single word showing that the British Government have expressed their consent to the appointment of an ambassador of this kind, which evidently is the thin end of the wedge of separation. If such a document is in the possession of this Government I think it is time to produce it so that we may have all the facts before us. If we have decided to embark on a policy that is going to lead ultimately to separation, why let us know that we may go into it with our eyes open; but do not let us embark upon a policy that is going to lead us into a vast amount of entanglement and difficulty when we have not the wherewithal to back that policy up and to show that we are able to maintain the position that we claim to occupy-that of a great and first-class nation in the world.


Mr. MORPHY:: While I do not agree
with everything the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) has said, I am strongly of the opinion that the item of $60,000 for Canadian representation in the United States is merely a subterfuge to hide something greater. I believe that the House is entitled to be taken into the confidence of the Government upon this item. In view of the fact that the House some time ago abolished titles, or attempted to as far as Canada could operate, this seems to be rather a high-sounding symbol of something similar in the upper strata of Canadian public life. It does not savour of the democratic very much. If the item to provide for the appointment of a Canadian

ambassador it should be twice $60,000, because, if Canada were sending an ambassador to the great nation to the south, the money advanced to him would have to comport with the dignity of his office. He could not possibly maintain an establishment suitable to the magnitude and importance of this country at the capitol of the United States on any paltry $60,000; and he would have to pay his staff in addition to supporting himself and his household. On the other hand, if it is for the purpose of establishing a centre round which will gravitate and operate an organization which will be equal to the consular system of the United States for trade purposes I would hold up both hands for it. When the Estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce were before the House I took occasion to point out, in a very meagre way, the situation as it appeared to me with regard to the great need for Canada at the present time. The need is not to give some man a place for diplomatic purposes; the need is to appoint many men for the benefit of this country in order to enlarge the trade of Canada in every market of the world where it can be enlarged to good purpose and to good effect. We have a sort of system of trade agencies throughout the far off nations of the world, yet although we have 110,000,000 people adjacent to us, and have trade agents in every litle nation and at every little point throughout Europe and Asia, we have not a consular agent or a trade agent, or a trade representative in this 110,000,000 market at our door.
We sold something like $552,000,000 worth of products to the United States last year and we did so without trying. It is a mathematical proposition as to how much we could sell if we were to try. The United States sold us $2 worth of their products for every $1 worth we sold them. How do they do it? They have a most remarkable establishment in this country of consular agents. A people of 110,000,000 think enough of this country of 9,000,000 to send into Canada 92 consuls, vice-consuls and consular agents entirely for the purposes of trade. Upon that proportion of commercial activity, feeling that there is a field for United States trade in this country, they sent into Canada 92 active, trained, competent businesslike trade agents to pick up what trade they could get for themselves. We sent not one man to the United States or spent even a dollar for that purpose. These 92 agents that came to Canada did not come at the expense of the
United States. They sit down here and do the business and they make it pay them. The fees they collected for the viseing of invoices overpays the cost of these 92 agents by very large sums.
Let me explain to those who may not have looked into the matter just how they do it. The principle of viseing invoices is applied by many countries in the world who send out trade agents to other nations. Mexico and Equador charge 3 per cent upon all invoices upon their country; Peru, Bolivia and Guatemala, 2 per cent; France, $2.40 per invoice; Japan, $4; Italy, $3.89; Spain, $12; Norway, $2.70. On that principle the American consular service sits down in Canada and in the last eight years it collected $2,595,326.95 as against a total expenditure of $1,630,823.80. It is made to pay, as the figures show a profit of nearly a million dollars during the years 1913 to 1920 inclusive, out of the pockets of the Canadian people. Now let me put this proposition to the House: If Canada, without trying and without even one consular agent, has a natural trade with the United States running into $552,000,000 a year, what would her trade be if we placed in the United States sixty, seventy or a hundred consular agents? There is probably a false impression as to the kind of goods that pass between the two countries. I would like to lay before the House these facts-that in the twelve months ending March 31, 1920, Canada sold to the United States a considerable quantity of manufactured goods. The percentages, as compiled by the Dominion statistician, are as follows:
Raw Materials, 42.8 per cent.


The CHAIRMAN:: I certainly do not
want to interrupt the trend of the argument of my hon. friend and I think he should be allowed to complete that argument, but I must remind him, and remind the committee, that discussion of the point as to trade commissions, or trade agents, or consular agents in the United States, or any other country is certainly not in order under this item. We have already had a discussion on that subject under item 358 of the Estimates of the Trade and Commerce Department. As I said before, while I do not want to interrupt the hon. member in the middle of his argument, I hope it will not be extended.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I always like to bow to the ruling of the Chair, but I take up the Estimates at page 63 and find " Canadian Representation in the United States " without a definite classification of the repre-

sentatiou, and when the Government has not really been too outspoken as to whether or not they ever would fill the ambassadorial post, I thought as a member I was entitled to object to the item, upon the ground that I did not think that was as good a kind of representation by itself as I would advocate. That is the purpose of my argument, and I think I ought to be allowed to follow it up.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Chair cannot very well reverse the ruling. The hon. member should not consider it unfair when it was stated that he should be allowed to finish the argument which he had undertaken. His objection to the ruling would be perfectly well taken if there was no other item in the Estimates covering the particular object which the hon. member is now discussing; but that is specifically covered by the item " Trade Commissioners and Commercial agents." This applies to all countries.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That item has been
passed, as I understand?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes, it has been
passed.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: And there is no possibility of discussing it.


Georges Henri Boivin: There is a well known rule that the same question cannot be debated twice.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I will follow the ruling of the Chair and take an opportunity on the Budget as my remarks will be somewhat prolonged to give my views on Canadian representation in the United States either alone or in connection with a Canadian ambassador.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before I
make the few remarks I intend to offer, may I ask my right hon. friend whether the Government has changed its mind in the matter of giving this House any correspondence which will throw light on the negotiations between the British Government, the Government of the United States and the Canadian Government with reference to the particular appointment which we have been discussing?


Arthur Meighen: The Government has not changed its mind. I have had the matter carefully looked into by the legal adviser of the External Affairs Department. Inasmuch as the negotiations, or whatever you may care to describe them, took place not only with the United States particularly but also with Great Britain,

it was a tripartite correspondence, and it is not the practice of governments to make public correspondence leading to an agreement or to a covenant; nor have we the right to make it public, because it affects the United States. And it would be just the same if they made it public, which they have not done. I have had the advantage of discussing the subject with the gentleman to whom I refer, and he is very clear -and I am very clear after that discussion-that the Government would have no right to make the correspondence public. Furthermore, there would be nothing gained by doing so as everything is disclosed in the conclusions arrived at and which constitute the consensus ad idem between the parties. They have been made public, but I think it would be better for me to read them anew. This is the statement made to the House on May 10, 1920, which embodies the arrangement:
As a result of recent discussions an arrangement has been concluded between the British and Canadian Governments to provide more complete representation at Washington of Canadian interests than has hitherto existed Accordingly, it has been agreed that His Majesty, on advice of his Canadian ministers, shall appoint a Minister Plenipotentiary who will have charge of Canadian affairs and will at all times be the ordinary channel of communication with the United States Government in matters of purely Canadian concern, acting upon instructions from and reporting direct to the Canadian Government, In the absence of the Ambassador the Canadian minister will take charge of the whole Embassy and of the representation of Imperial as well as Canadian interests. He will be accredited by His Majesty to the President with the necessary powers for the purpose.
This new arrangement will not denote any departure either on the part of the British Government or of the Canadian Government from the principle of the diplomatic unity of the British Empire.
The need for this important step has been fully realized by -both Governments for some time. For a good many years there has been direct communication between Washington and Ottawa, but the constantly increasing importance of Canadian interests in the United States has made it apparent that Canada should be represented there in some distinctive manner, for this would doubtless tend to expedite negotiations, and naturally first-hand acquaintance with Canadian conditions would promote good understanding. In view of the peculiarly close relations that have always existed between the people of Canada and those of the United States, it is confidently expected as well that this new step will have the very desirable result of maintaining and strengthening the friendly relations and co-operation between the British Empire and the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not sure that I caught my right hon. friend correctly. Did he say that I had discussed this matter with him?


Arthur Meighen: No. I consulted the legal adviser of the External Affairs Department, Mr. Christie, with regard to the right of the Government to bring down the correspondence leading to the conclusions between the three governments. His advice is that it is never done, and certainly we could not do it in this instance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was not the correspondence betwen the United States Government and the Government of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: It was a tripartite correspondence, and for that reason the United States Government had to be consulted. We do sometimes bring down correspondence between the Home Government and ourselves; but Mr. Christie has looked through this correspondence, and his conclusion is that there is nothing that we have a right to bring down, and, further, that there would be no advantage in doing so because the conclusions arrived at are all set out in this statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I certainly would not like to pit my own opinion against that of the legal expert of the Department of External Affairs, especially as my right hon. friend is prepared to accept that opinion, but I do think it is an extraordinary thing when this country is about to take a departure in the way of appointing a minister plenipotentiary to another country that not a single document of record is placed upon the table of the House which will establish for all time, beyond any possibility of misunderstanding, the exact terms of the arrangement between, first, the Government of Canada and the Government of Great Britain; second, the Government of Great Britain and the Government of the United States, and third, the Government of the United States and the Government of Canada.


Arthur Meighen: The statement which I have just read is an exact statement of the understanding.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend gives us a statement which he says is the exact statement of the understanding. Of course, we will accept his word for that. On the other hand, it is quite possible we may find later on that either the Government of the United States or the British Government might not wholly agree with my right hon. friend's view as to this being an exact statement.


Arthur Meighen: My right hon. friend on my left (Mr. Rowell) advises me that
this precise statement was also read in the British House on the same day that it was read here.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has it been
read in Congress?


Arthur Meighen: I could not say as to that. The United States was simply consulted as to the arrangement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think unless we have some assurance from the United States that this statement is satisfactory to them, we are proceeding in the dark, at least to that extent. I certainly think this Parliament should have before it in the form of some permanent record communications from the Governments of Great Britain and of the United States that this statement does represent what they are agreed upon as the arrangement to be entered into. But apart from that, taking this statement on its face value, it throws very little light upon the subject, for it tells us very little of what the real powers and functions of this new particular plenipotentiary are to be. We have had him described in this House to-day as an ambassador. I think the term used in the statement is "Minister Plenipotentiary," which is comprehensive enough. At least we ought to have something which will set forth in precise detail what are the rights, duties and functions of this particular appointee.
I do not ask my right hon. friend to take simply my own expression of opinion as to this being the correct attitude. I think it is the public opinion of this country. The press, so far as it has given expression to its views on this important subject, has rather strongly supported the position which we on this side of the House took last year, that more detailed and accurate information should be furnished before Parliament went ahead and sanctioned this appointment. It is interesting to-night to observe that hon. members on the other side of the House are concurring entirely with the view which we of the Opposition took last year when the statement which my right hon. friend has just read was presented to the House. My hon. friend from Perth will recall that at that time we on this side moved the following resolution which, had it been carried, might have avoided a good deal of the discussion which we are having to-night:
The (House desires to record its opinion that before any arrangement respecting the permanent representation of Canada at Washington is consummated, the House should be fully

informed concerning the negotiations between the Canadian, Imperial and United States Governments, and all correspondence and Orders in Council on the subject should be submitted to the House.
Now that is precisely what my hon. friend from Perth has been saying to-night we should have, and is precisely what the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt) has been saying we should have. Yet when I look at the division list I find that at the last session my hon. friend from Perth voted against that resolution.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I was not permitted to finish my remarks; therefore you do not know exactly where I am.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, we shall be glad to hear my hon. friend's further explanation. However, our position to-night is exactly what it was at that time in regard to an understanding of the authority and rights of this particular official.
I said a moment ago that I thought I was expresing the views of the press of this country. I would like to give just one quotation, one that my right hon. friend will recognize as deserving of careful consideration on the part of this committee. No Canadian journal that I am aware of has given more thoughtful consideration to this matter of the appointment of a minister to Washington than the Winnipeg Free Press. The Free Press has published several articles on this subject. I shall read only one, but I think it will be sufficient to show that every question raised in committee this afternoon is, in the opinion of this journal, a proper and correct question to raise. Moreover, while some exception was taken to the views expressed by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, I find that exactly the same questions raised by him are mentioned by this journal as being those on which Parliament should be more fully informed before we finally determine what should be done; among those questions was included that of whether this minister would have the right to sign his own name or whether the British ambassador would still have to sign. The editorial from which I shall quote will be found in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 12, 1920, when this subject was up last year. It reads:
The ap-poinfcment of a Canadian Minister Plenipotentiary at Washington is an interesting innovation about which it will be possible to comment intelligently when more information is available than was supplied in the very guarded statement read in the House of Commons on Monday by Sir George Poster.
 '
This is the same statement that my right hon. friend has read to the House to-night. I shall skip the paragraph that follows and go on:
It is intimated that our Canadian minister will deal with all matters arising between Canada and the United States which are exclusively Canadian in character; the Imperial ambassador will participate in the negotiations only when Imperial interests are involved. Very well; but what 'happens if a disagreement should arise-which might easily happen- between the Canadian minister and the British ambassador as to whether a question is, or is not, exclusively Canadian? Even in. the exclusively Canadian matters about which there is no dispute, will the Canadian minister carry negotiations through to the end ; or will it be necessary, in the final resort, to Call in the British minister to do the actual signing?
Now, that is the point which was raised by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's this afternoon. My hon. friend from Durham took exception to 9 p.m. his remarks. He said the member for Shelburne and Queen's took the position that we could do nothing except through the British Foreign Office; that we had to have action by the British Foreign Office. That is what the hon. member said in representing the view expressed by the member for Shelburne and Queen's.
' Mr. ROWELL: I did not say he said that^ exactly; he did not say that exactly. I said I took that to he the logical deduction from the argument he presented.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, if that is the logical deduction it is evidently a question that is very much in the mind of a journal which takes an independent attitude in regard to this subject and wants to get the light which this Parliament ought to get upon it. The question that the Winnipeg Free Press puts is:
Will it be necessary, in the final resort, to call in the British Minister to do the actual signing? Our representative is to be known as a minister. Will he be accepted as a minister by the . State Department at Washington?
We have had no assurance upon that point. We ought to know whether he will or will not.
Will he be a member of the diplomatic corps, having all the rights, powers, immunities and privileges enjoyed by the ministers of all other countries represented at Washington? Will he be the equal in diplomatic status of, let us say, the minister from Venezuela? Or will his position at Washington be actually undefined with a mere courtesy status? Parliament and the country will peed conclusive answer to these and similar questions; and not until this information is supplied will it be possible to say whether this is a step forward or backward.
Now, if my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's had used that language this

afternoon, the member for Durham would have called him antiquated and referred to him as still holding to the point of view that we have but a colonial status. I put the question to my hon. friend as coming from one of the thoughtful journals of this country and as evidence of the need for precisely the kind of information that is requested from this side to-day. The article continues:
It is asserted in certain quarters that this marks an enlargement of Canadian powers and that it is another step forward on the road to nationhood. ,The Government at Ottawa no doubt believes that this will be the effect of the innovation. But we regard with some trepidation formal arrangements entered into three years after the adoption of a declared policy of equality of status between all the British nations by which it is possible that Canada may accept, ratify, and confirm a status of admitted diplomatic inferiority, formally putting her name to documents that confirm this subordination. If the Canadian minister at Washington is only a camouflaged chief clerk or a commissioner it would be better to have no minister there.
If his position there is by courtesy, if Canada cannot endow her representative with all the powers which other ministers enjoy, then Canada should send no one to Washington until she can vest him with the true prerogatives of office.
Information upon these extremely important points is lacking; until it is forthcoming any conclusive judgment upon the wisdom or otherwise of the Government's action is not possible. But the matter is of great importance and Parliament should regard it as one of its prime duties to see that the matter is fully discussed [DOT] from all angles and in the light of full knowledge.
I ask the pardon of the committee for taking up so much time in the reading of a long extract, but every point raised in that editorial is pertinent to the discussion, and I think the ministry should answer the questions here raised before they ask us to vote, without this knowledge, some $60,000 to establish a position whereby the country will incur vast obligations as a beginning and incur still greater obligations as time goes on.
I should also point out that this is the first departure, or one of the first, that this country has made in what we may call its permanent representation in the matter of external diplomatic relations. To begin our foreign diplomacy by secrecy with respect to the precise nature of understandings arrived at is unfortunate, to say the least, in so far-reaching a departure.
A considerable part of the discussion this afternoon turned on the question of Canada's status. In view of some remarks made from this side it might be inferred without reflection that we held the view
that Canada's status had not changed in many years; that Canada was still in the position which she occupied quite a number of years ago. Well, the whole question of Canada's status in matters of this kind turns upon whether we are thinking and speaking of the spirit or of the letter of the constitution. If we are speaking of the letter of the constitution, or, as my hon. friend for Durham has put it, the legal rights that we have under the constitution, there can be no doubt whatever of the correctness of the view expressed by the member for Shelburne and Queen's this afternoon, that Canada is not a nation in the sense in which that term is used when the full rights of nationhood or, in other words, the rights of a sovereign nation are implied. On the other hand, if it is to the spirit of the constitution that we are looking, or, as my hon. friend for Durham said this afternoon, if we approach the matter from the standpoint of constitutional authority, then I agree entirely with him that we have the status of a nation. It is not a status that we have acquired recently; it is a status that we have had for a number of years, but which has become more clearly defined in recent years, especially during the period of the war. It was mentioned to-day that inasmuch as we could not amend the constitution of Canada without the British Parliament amending it, that was a sign of inferiority. In this connection may I say that New Zealand and Australia have each the right to amend their constitutions without any appeal to the British Government, they are self-governing Dominions. I have no doubt that if we asked the British Government to give us the same right to amend our constitution without referring the matter to Great Britain, we would be given that right. It is a matter, so far as I can see, simply of constitutional development as to whether we take a further step which may give us still more in the way of the status of a nation to outward appearances without prejudicing the unity of the Empire as a whole.	>
There is a matter which, perhaps, the committee will pardon me referring to. I mention it simply because I think it has some value in a discussion of this kind relative to Canada's status and the right of Canada's ministers to act in the name of the Sovereign. I gathered from the remarks of the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell) that he contended that the King of England was also King of Canada,

and that a Canadian minister should have the same right and authority to make a treaty in the name of the King as any minister of the British Government. Let me say that I agree entirely with the point of view he has expressed, and my purpose in mentioning the incident to which I shall refer is to indicate that the British Government has, to my certain knowledge, held that view for some time past. In 1908,1 had the privilege of being appointed one of the delegates, the representative of this country, to the International Conference on the opium traffic which met at Shanghai, China. Before I left for that conference, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was Prime Minister at that time, asked me to proceed to China by way of England and, while in England, to see the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and ascertain whether it would be agreeable to the Government of Great Britain as it was the wish of our Government to have a treaty entered into between the Chinese Government and the Government of Canada with respect to immigration to this country from China, to have an arrangement made with' China similar to the arrangement which we had with Japan. The view which Sir Wilfrid Laurier held at that time was that the question of immigration could be better regulated by means of a treaty arrangement between the two countries than by the form which it both then and still takes of a head tax upon the Chinese. Sir Wilfrid Laurier asked me to ascertain from the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain what view Great Britain would take as regards a treaty on that subject being made with the Chinese Government. The then Secretary Sir Edward Grey, at present Lord Grey, took the position at the time that a minister of the Crown in Canada had as much right to act in the name of the Sovereign as any minister of the Crown in Great Britain, and that a minister of the Crown in Canada might receive from the King in England the same authority to act in the negotiating and the signing of a treaty as could be given to any British minister. I mention this, because I think it is important that the committee should know the view held at a period as early as 1908 by the then Secretary for Foreign Affairs in Great Britain.
As to the question of the wisdom of having a representative of Canada at Washington, I for one feel that it is wholly in the interest of this country to have someone represent us in an official position at

Washington, so that it may be possible for the Government of Canada to be informed from day to day from an authoritative source in regard to matters of concern to the two countries, and ministers of the Crown in Canada acquaint Secretaries of State in the United States with and learn from them their views on matters, of mutual concern. We have many questions of trade, immigration, industrial relations, international relations, on which we have much in common, and as regards which there are many considerations which both governments should take into account. While some years ago, perhaps, a step of the kind was unnecessary, I think that today, as our population grows, as the problems of the British Empire grow, as British ministers have more and more to attend to in connection with their own affairs, it is wholly in the interest of our country to have its own representation.
There is such a thing however as going from one extreme to the other. At the one extreme you have the thought that we should have no representative, but be represented exclusively by the British Embassy. At the other extreme is the idea put forward in the statement which my right hon. friend has just read, that a Canadian minister should take over the Embassy and be in charge of Imperial policy when the British ambassador is not present. I think the last proposal is a great mistake, and I do not think this Parliament should authorise any representative from Canada to assume complete control of the British Embassy at Washington. Once a step of that kind is taken, it may lead to all kinds of complications, embarrassments, and misunderstandings. The best way to preserve friendship and unity between all parts of the British Empire is to avoid, as far as possible, any possibility of complications and misunderstandings. I cannot but fear that if a Canadian minister should, while in charge of the British Embassy, perform any act which might be displeasing to the British authorities one way or another, relations between Canada and Great Bratain might become very strained as a consequence. Moreover, there are questions in regard to which British interests may be one thing and Canadian interests another. In such a circumstance, it is putting a representative of Canada in a most unfair position to have him given charge of the British Embassy as well as charge of Canadian affairs. Moreover, I think it is a fatal position from the point of view of respon-

sibility. No man can serve two masters. If a minister is representing Canada and representing Great Britain, he must be responsible to the two. It is useless to say that the possibility may never arise; it is almost inevitable that sooner or later it will arise. I hope my hon. friends, in attempting to carry out this policy of appointing a minister to Washington, will, at least, reconsider that particular aspect, and let us begin in a modest and natural way. Let us follow the line of evolution and for the time being put our minister in charge only of Canadian affairs. Later on, after he has had considerable experience and we see how the first step works out, we can consider the further step.
In conclusion, I wish to say to my right hon. friend that I was somewhat amused at the reason he gave for no appointment being made to this high office, that there was not a good man available. That is surely very uncomplimentary to the hundred and fifty odd gentlemen whom my right hon. friend has as followers behind him. I think my right hon. friend will find that they are all available if he asks them. It is for him to say whether they are good or not.


Mr. TWEEDIE:: I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt). Once or twice during his remarks, I was almost persuaded that we had severed ourselves from the British Empire. The conclusions at which he arrives would, perhaps, be correct if they had been well founded, but the difficulty with his whole argument was that it was based absolutely on false premises. I see nothing about an appointment by the Dominion of Canada of an ambassador to the United States, nor have I heard it suggested anywhere that an ambassador be appointed by this country, nor does the item in the appropriation in the least degree suggest that. I agree thoroughly with the utterances of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in so far as he suggests that we should have a higher standard of representation by this country in the United States than merely trade agents. We will assume, for the sake of argument, that some serious question other than one of mere trade arises between these two countries and we have only men appoint' ed as trade agents in the city of New York and other cities in that great Republic. Would they have any authority to deal concerning that question with the
Government of the United States? One must realise at once that a man who is appointed simply in the capacity of a trade agent has the duties merely of a trade agent, to look after the commercial interest of our country. The great difficulty in my hon. friend's mind seems to be that if we appoint a representative in this official capacity, we are, by so doing, difting from the Motherland and weakening the ties which exist between Great Britain and the Dominion of Canada. We, however, have that offset by the argument of the hon. leader of the Opposition. His argument is that this arrangement will draw us closer to the British Empire, while the argument of my hon. friend is that it will drive us away from the British Empire. Which of these two arguments is correct? I believe that the argument which has been submitted by the hon. leader of the Opposition is the correct one. I believe that instead of having a tendency to separate ourselves from the British Empire by the appointment of such an official, under the arrangement which has been arrived at between the United States, Great Britain and Canada, we shall be drawing ourselves closer to Great Britain than we ai-e at the present time. We must arrive at this conclusion from the mere fact of the memorandum which has been read to the House by the Prime Minister to-night. If this step were a move towards separation, does my hon. friend for one moment suppose that this House could convince itself that Great Britain would appoint our ambassador to take over the duties of the British ambassador in his absence? I say that this step will simply draw us closer to the British Empire, and if my hon. friend has any doubts along that line he should remove them and retract his words, and support the appropriation which is asked for to-night.


William Foster Cockshutt: Not very much.


Thomas Mitchell March Tweedie: My hon. friend says, "not very much." Would the hon. gentleman severe his relationship with any individual and then expect to have that individual appointed to a position of trust and responsibility on his behalf? This official is being appointed to a position of responsibility because Great Britain realizes the closeness of the ties between the Dominion of Canada and herself. She reposes such confidence in this country, that she has seen fit to extend it to the point where she would allow the Dominion of Canada by reason of closer relationship to participate



with the embassy in Washington in the administration of her foreign affairs in the United States. I have no doubt that my hon. friend from Perth and my hon. friend from Brantford are the very gentlemen who in times past have protested against the injustices which this country has suffered by reason of the manner in which matters affecting Canada have been handled by the British ambassador at Washington. We have had our disputes about the boundary line between the United States and Canada from the East right straight through to the West, and complaints have repeatedly been made that the British ambassador in Washington has sacrificed the interests of Canada to the United States. If we have a representative at Washington in close touch with the British ambassador, as is proposed, we will have the opportunity of presenting our case directly through the British ambassador at the time the negotiations are being carried on, or of having our own representative carry on the negotiations on behalf of the Dominion. I believe that if that system had prevailed in the past, this country would have been the gainer by many hundreds of thousands of acres, if not square miles, of territory which have been lost to us as the result of the negotiations being carried on simply by the British ambassador without Canada having a representative at Washington.
So far from the performance of these acts being an indication of separation from the Mother Land, surely my hon. friend (Mr. Coclcshutt) realizes that the constitutional development of this country, like the constitutional development of Great Britain or any other country has been a matter of slow progress. In the early years of the Dominion of Canada, it was' unthought of that any minister in this country should even negotiate trade treaties much less have any participation whatever in their execution. Great Britain, however, has seen fit to delegate additional power to this country so that now our ministers are able to negotiate these treaties and execute them along with the plenipotentiaries of Great Britain. Can it be argued that because that power has been granted to us, there is any separation by the Dominion of Canada from the Empire? No, it means that our status has changed, and as the leader of the Opposition says, we must look at this matter not in a strict technical sense, but in the spirit of the constitution. We are becoming a greater country, we are becoming more indepenfMr. Tweedie.]
dent, but we are not separating ourselves from the Mother Land. I would be the last man in this House to support the Government in doing anything which would in the slightest degree lessen the close relations which we have with the Mother Land, and this I understand to be the view of the Prime Minister. I have very great pleasure in supporting this appropriation as set forth in the Estimates, for the reasons I have given and I believe it is the duty of every man in this House to support it.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Marquette) :: Mr. Chairman, we have had a very interesting discussion extending now for some hours, and I doubt if there is anything new by way of argument that I can add to the debate. I want at once to express my personal appreciation of the statement given to the House this afternoon by my right hon. friend from King's (Sir Robert Borden). This question of Canada's position in the world and of our taking on new responsibilities is one that is receiving a great deal of attention to-day throughout the country. Many are studying it who a few years ago gave no attention to it whatever, and I am very certain that the information submitted to the House this afternoon by my right hon. friend from King's will be of very great assistance to students of this question in familiarizing themselves with our development along constitutional lines.
Let me say at once that I find myself in very general agreement indeed, not only with the sentiments expressed by my right hon. friend from King's, but with the argument made by my right hon. friend from Durham and with much that was said by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition. I cannot take the gloomy view of this step, by which it is proposed to send a minister to Washington, that my hon. friend from Brantford does. I think if we study the history of this country we shall find this one fact outstanding, that every time we have had an extension of the powers of self-government in Canada, every time we have had an addition to our autonomy as a people, the result has been a closer and a better understanding with the Mother Country. That has invariably been the case. I know that in 1840, when the Act of Union was passed, whereby a large measure of self-government was given to the provinces of Canada, there were those at that time who saw in that step a breaking of the links that bound the inhabitants of this country to the

Mother Land. Again, in 1867, when the great confederation of the provinces took place and when our powers of self-government were again greatly enlarged, there were also those who saw in that another snapping of the ties that bound us to Great Britain. But has that been the result? I believe that if my hon. friend from Brantford had been living and had been in active political life in those days, he would have taken the position then in respect to the enlargement of Canadian autonomy that he has taken to-day in respect to the proposal we are now considering. I say that in all sincerity, because I wish to bear this testimony to my hon. friend's sincerity, that in my judgment, there is not a member of this House who speaks with greater honesty of conviction than does my hon. friend from Brantford.
The vote we have under consideration at the present time is an important one, and I am glad to support it. I shall not traverse the ground that has already been covered by those who have preceded me in this debate, but I might emphasize this: our close relationship with the United States, the immense volume of business we do with that country, the great extent of our boundary line contiguous to that country, the fact that we speak a common language, the fact that we are daily mingling with each other- these considerations, Mr. Speaker, place our relationship with that country on a different plane from our relationship with other countries in the world. It is quite conceivable that the interests of Canada, touching so closely and intimately as they do the life of the United States, not from any lack of goodwill, but from pressure of other business may not receive that careful consideration from the British ambassador at Washington, which they should receive. I think my right hon. friend from King's (Sir Robert Borden), this afternoon stated that Lord Bryce had on one occasion borne testimony to the fact that more than half of the business he had to do with the Government at Washington was Canadian business; and I feel certain that this business can be much better looked after if we have our own minister plenipotentiary at Washington. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cock-shutt), in his remarks this evening, said that the British Government had given no warrant for this appointment. I think the statement made a little earlier in this debate by the Prime Minister-I sent for it in order that I might read it myselfcovers that point very well. The arrangements leading up to the appointment of a Canadian minister plenipotentiary were taken up with the British Government, and the present position in the matter is in entire accord with the views of the British Government and has their approval.
I desire to refer to another point raised by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), in respect of which I am inclined to agree with him. The matter was brought up in the House at the last session, that exchanges of communications which had taken place, leading up to the announcement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce on May 10, 1920, should be placed before this Parliament and this country. Now, I have no use for secret diplomacy, but at the same time I recognize that it is quite possible that our Government might be acting improperly if they divulged these communications without the consent, of the British Government and the Government at Washington or at any rate without first acquainting these governments of their intention to do so. However, I would offer the suggestion to my right hon. friend who leads the Government, that he might very well inquire of the British Government, and of the Government at Washington, whether or not there is any objection to making public any communications that have been exchanged leading up to this understanding; and if the way is clear for giving this information to the Canadian people, if there is no good and valid reason why it should not be disclosed, then I am entirely in accord with the leader of the Opposition in his view that it should be submitted to Parliament and to the country.
I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the step which is about to be taken will lead to good results, but I am inclined to criticise the Government for their failure, so far, to make this appointment. I am bound to say that in my opinion the Prime Minister did not advance a very good reason this evening when he said that no one competent for the position had so far been found. I would suggest to him that he look about him. There are plenty of able men in Canada who can fill the position, and I am sure my right hon. friend, with his ability and his knowledge of men, can quickly and readily find some one capable of taking the appointment, if he sets himself seriously to the task. I should like some information from the Government as to how soon they expect this appointment to be made, and whether they are working

assiduously in an effort to have the position filled. I know that this is a matter of importance to this country, especially at this time. Now that we are in a period of reconstruction after war, when international business is being largely rearranged, the time has certainly arrived when this matter should receive prompt consideration at the hands of the Government, and this appointment should be made without further delay.


Mr. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River) :: As one of the representatives from the middle-western part of Canada, I should like to say a few words on this very interesting question which is now before the House. I think that the hon. member who has just concluded (Mr. Crerar) has expressed the views of Western Canada on this question, and I believe also that the House owes a debt of gratitude to the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) who to-day gave us a chronological history of the development of the question in Canada.
I desire to refer briefly to the speech of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I do so very hesitatingly, because I hold that hon. gentleman in very high esteem and appreciate the difficulty that confronts a younger member who attempts to criticise the remarks of one who has had such a wide experience in the political life of this country as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. I usually listen to him with very great interest and deep respect, but there is one question upon which I have heard him speak on several occasions in this House in regard to which, it seems to me, he does not show that elasticity of mind and that progressiveness of thought which he generally displays on public questions. I refer now to the question of Canada's status, a question which more or less comes within the scope of the subject now before the House. For example, in his speech this afternoon he expressed himself in a manner that rather suggested to my mind that he was almost proud of the fact that Canadian representatives to-day cannot complete treaties on behalf of Canada. He also went on to say that practically we are a colony, and he finished a few moments later by saying that so far as he was concerned he wanted no change in our present condition. I do not think I am misquoting the hon. gentleman; certainly, if I do so it is altogether unintentional. That was my conclusion, [Ur. Crerar.]
at any rate, from the remarks he made, and I think I am stating his position fairly.
Well, Sir, I do not believe that if Canada were really a colony to-day her people would be satisfied that she should remain in that position. Personally, I do not agree that we are, to all intents and purposes, only a colony. I believe that we have progressed probably fifty years beyond the colonial stage. The hon. gentleman proceeded to say that we should be better represented by a minister in Ottawa who could travel from Ottawa to Washington on various occasions, than we should be if we had a representative, who kept in touch with Canadian affairs, residing at Washington. I have been wondering why it would be easier for a minister to travel from Ottawa to Washington and back again, than it would be for a representative at Washington to travel to Ottawa, to consult with the ministers' here, and then back to Washington.
I happened to-day to run across a message sent in 1907 by the Prime Minister of Great Britain to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, when that colony assumed the status of a Dominion. He said:
To-day your island home attains the prouder title of "Dominion."
I believe that the Prime Minister of Great Britain, in sending that message virtually admitted that we also had gone a long distance past the colonial stage and, Sir, I noticed in this morning's Citizen a quotation from Mr. Hughes, the Prime Minister of Australia, than whom, I think, no one will claim to be a more loyal British subject, and he does not agree with the view of my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, or of those who take the position that we are. practically in the status we previously held, and that we must remain so. Mr. Hughes, in this morning's Citizen, is quoted at some length, and among other things he says:
We in the Australian Commonwealth now call ourselves a nation. So we are. But in the same breath we declare ourselves part of the British Empire. These apparently inconsistent declarations combine at once our history and our circumstance.
I believe, Sir, that that shows that the Prime Minister of Australia, a loyal Britisher, a man who was born in the British isles, realizes the fact that we have passed the stage of colonialism and that we have reached the stage, which has been sneered at at times by certain hon. mem-

bers in this House, of nationhood within the Empire. I believe, Sir, that I could quote very many hon. gentlemen who have used the same expression. One very notable example is the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I have read some of his speeches wherein he made the statement that we have become a nation within the Empire. Mr. Smuts, the Premier of South Africa, has used the same expression. I cannot help but think sometimes when I hear the speeches of some hon. gentlemen that they seem to desire that we should remain in a backward state. At such times I cannot help recalling an expression used by the present Prime Minister of Canada, I think it was about three years ago, which expression struck me very strongly at the time. It was the expression that such speeches are a strange mixture of colonialism and imperialism run mad. That was the thought that ran through my head today when I listened to one or two speeches that were made by hon. gentlemen -on the other side of this question.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition made one observation which struck me as worth mentioning, although I do not pretend to have any particular knowledge of. international affairs. He criticised very severely the idea that at times the Canadian representative at Washington, if he were appointed, should take over the duties of the British ambassador. I do not see that there is anything more strange in that than in what happens continually in international affairs. For example: suppose that a war broke out between the United States and Spain. Then the Spanish ambassador would leave the United States and he would hand over his affairs to, we will say, the British ambassador, or to the German ambassador, or to the Dutch ambassador. It certainly would be no more strange, it seems to me, for such a representative of Canada in Washington, for a very short time-it would only be for a short time on any occasion-to handle the affairs of Britain, to represent the British ambasador, as that ambassador on many occasions, and the representatives of other nations, handle the affairs of nations with which they really have no connection such as we have with the British Empire.
Sir, I believe that the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) expressed the opinion of Western Canada when he said that this was a question in which we are interested, and when he further said that this was an idea which he thought would
benefit Canada if caried out in a proper manner.
Sir, the Canadian people took such a proud position in this war as to prove that they are the equals in war of any other people. I do not think that the Canadian people are willing to admit that in peace they are inferior to other people. If we are not to gradually progress along the lines upon which we are advancing, along lines I am bound to confess piloted by the right hon. gentleman who recently resigned from the leadership of this Government, then we would remain in a colonial state which to most Canadians is an unsatisfactory state. We would remain in the position which, even when I was a young boy, was one of humiliation to me. For example, at international conferences when Canadian representatives would take an inferior position as compared with the representatives of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Bulgaria, or Siam, or perhaps some of the South American or Central republics,
I used to feel humiliated. To-day thanks to the efforts of our representatives at the Peace Conference, Canadian representatives have been given a status which is enjoyed by representatives of other nations of the world, and we no longer occupy the inferior position which we did occupy up to very recently at international conferences or gatherings of any kind.
Sir, I do not wish to take any more of of the time of the House except to say in closing, that I believe very sincerely in the idea of having a Canadian representative at Washington-always with the point in view that he is not to tear us away from the ties which bind us to the British Empire; because I do not think that anybody will accuse any of the hon. gentlemen who are piloting this Bill, or who have supported the measure, of any desire to separate Canada from the British Empire. Always keeping that in view, I believe that a Canadian representative at Washington will have infinitely more interest in Canadian affairs. The right hon. member from King's (Sir Robert Borden) said to-day that Mr. Bryce had stated that from two-thirds to three-quarters of the affairs handled by the British Embassy at Washington were Canadian affairs. Why should Canadians hand over their affairs to any appointee of Great Britain rather than have them handled by a Canadian representative always acting in close co-operation witn the British representative? Mr. Chairman, I have very great pleasure, so far as I am concerned, as a humble representative

of the middle west of Canada, in supporting this proposition to have a Canadian representative handle the affairs of Canada in the United States capital.	[DOT]


Mr. McKENZIE:: Mr. Chairman, I do
not propose to take up much of the time of the committee but as previous speakers have deemed it necessary to express their personal opinions in regard to the subject before us I feel that I should state what my own views are. I need not tell hon. gentlemen that I am very proud of being a British subject and a Canadian, and I am old fashioned enough to be prouder of being a British subject than being a Canadian. Although born on Canadian soil and proud of Canadian institutions I was taught from my youth to be prouder of the British flag and all it stood for than anything else that I could claim as my own. Consequently I do not feel any humiliation whatever when I require assistance as a Britisher in the United States, if I call upon the British consul. I do not think that that is in any way belittling my position.
But before proceeding any further with the subject, let me offer my congratulations to the right hon. member for King's County, N.S. (Sir Robert Borden), for the very able and excellent presentation of the case which he' made this afternoon.
I have known the right hon. gentleman for a long time and I know that he will present any subject he touches at all in good shape and as strongly as it can be done before any tribunal that he is addressing. But while congratulating him in that respect I must also congratulate him more upon the tremendous strides he has made in regard to what we can do in Canada and what our status is. Both of us were young men at one time in this House, he of course occupying a higher and more prominent position than I do, but I remember his speeches very well for the last seventeen years. It is not more than half of that period since I heard the right hon. gentleman saying in this House that we could not build ships in Canada-we had not the men, nor the material, nor the brains, nor the capacity to do anything of the kind. If we could attempt such a thing it would take fifty years for us to get into the position of being able to do it, and by that time those of us in the House would be dead and resting in our graves. That was the opinion of my right hon. friend at that time, and he told us that if we wanted to do anything that would attract attention in the great Empire to which we belong the right thing to do was to send i' M r Manion.]
thirty-five or forty millions of money across to the Old Country where we could buy ships, and get the British Government to man them and send them up to the North Sea where they were most needed. Mf right hon. friend is to be congratulated upon the change of heart he has since experienced-such a change of heart that he is now satisfied that not only can we build ships and get the men to man them, not only have we the material but we are so independent of the Mother Country that we can launch out on our own account, have our own army, have our own navy, have our own system of defence, and have our own plenipotentiary at Washington. Perhaps in such a short space of time there never was a greater change in the life history and practice of any hon. gentleman than that which is found in the case of my right hon. friend, and I claim with pride that we both come from the same province.
Now, as to the necessity of this new departure, I do not myself, Sir, see ai'y necessity for it. I submit that every interest of Canada is well looked after at Washington by the British ambassador, and that we avoid a great deal of responsibility and worry as a result. As a dominion at our best we have no power to declare war or peace. If we do declare war upon any country, we cannot back it up, for we have not got the army or the navy requisite for the purpose. I am not belittling our country because we have not the men and the equipment for warlike undertakings-we are not looking for trouble, and we see no necessity for war. But if war conditions should arise, or if we are implicated in a matter which must be settled by war, that war must be declared by the Mother Country, and the British navy and the British army will be behind us. If that condition arose, for instance, with the United States, we would know that it had been brought about through the agency of the British ambassador, that he knew what was developing and was making representations to his Government. But if we are going to cut loose from the wisdom and experience of British diplomacy, and our own inexperienced diplomat gets us into trouble, what assurance have we got that we are immediately goiing to have the British army and navy behind us? Are not those things worth preserving? Is it not worth while to continue the old practice under which we have prospered and are so happy and contented? I feel that there is not the slightest necessity for this departure at

all. Being represented in the United States to-day by the British ambassador, we have behind us all the prestige and power of the British Empire. Are we going to improve our position by severing ourselves from that association and sending a representative of our own to Washington? What will be behind the representative of Canada? We are proud of ourselves, but surely we cannot for one moment say that we can put behind our solitary lone ambassador the strength, force and dignity which we now share as part of the British Empire whose ambassador is our representative.
That is the stand I take, Mr. Chairman. The Canadian people are happy and contented in governing themselves to their heart's content. Why, Sir, we have such freedom of government that to-day we have a Government which we on this side of the House believe is absolutely incapable of governing us at all, but we can revel in a luxury of that kind! Holding these views, old-fashioned if you please, but such views as have stood the test of ages, I would be slow to depart from them and to launch upon any new experiment which in my judgment is absolutely unnecessary.
I yield to no man in my desire for the most absolute liberty for every Canadian consistent with our obligations as citizens of the Empire, but I do not feel that the ties which bind us to the Mother Country chafe us in any way. We are perfectly happy and contented under the machinery created by the British Crown. That being the case, if a vote was to be cast upon this question, I would feel obliged to say that I would vote against it. I may differ slightly with my leader in this matter and with other gentlemen in this House, but this is an occasion when I claim to exercise my own judgment and to express my own views.


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, there has been such a wide divergence of opinion on this subject that for once I feel quite at liberty to follow the example of my hon. friend who has just resumed his seat (Mr. McKenzie) and differ somewhat from my leader. I agree with my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and I wish to associate myself with him in offering to my right hon. friend, the member for King's, N.S., the ex-Prime Minister of this country, hearty congratulations-in which I am sure the committee will join-on his ability to give evidence of a complete restoration to health by an hour and a half's speech in this House.
That speech was a valuable historic survey of many debates of previous years, which I have no doubt will be referred to by future generations in connection with the debate of to-day.
I noted particularly a phrase in the speech which, perhaps, I may be permitted to commend to the consideration of my hon. friend from Brantfoird (Mr. Cock-shutt). There were many quotations of the greatest interest. I was very much struck with the prescience and the farsightedness of men like Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Mills and others of the political fathers who begat us, as to the gradual evolution which was to take place in the institutions of this country. The phrase from Sir John A. Macdonald to which I should like to call the attention of my hon. friend from Brantford was one in which that famous statesman referred to the necessity of Canada gaining an access to the markets of the world and so promoting the extension of her prosperity. We gain access to the markets of the world, I need not tell my hon. friend from Brantford, sometimes to buy and sometimes to sell; and I am glad to quote to him an authority that he would be the last to question in support of views which I never lose a reasonable opportunity of commending to the intelligence' of the House of Commons of Canada.
I was very much pleased at another of the infrequent incursions of my hon. friend from Durham (Mr. Rowell) into the debate. I see rumours in the papers that my hon. friend contemplates retiring from public life. If he had been present I would have advised him to go slowly in that matter, for I think his retirement from the public life of this country would be a very great loss. We are in times of upheaval, and there may be very great changes in the personnel of the next House of Commons. Though I have had my differences and disagreements with my hon. friend from Durham, I should like to be permitted to say across the floor of this House that I do not think Canada can easily dispense with a man who has his record, his fearless courage in support of his convictions, his ability as a debater, and his other splendid qualities calculated to do the highest service in the public life of this country.
Now, may I be permitted to say that we are in a somewhat curious position in debating this subject inasmuch as the proposal which is viewed with so much suspicion by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) emanates, in

the first instance anyhow, from those who cannot be suspected of any weak adherence to the Imperial tie, whereas some of the strongest resistance to the proposal has come from those who are supposed to be suspected in this matter. I do not wish to press the point further than to say that I trust in our approaches to this question and to all the questions that will engage Canada and her representatives in the future so full of anxiety-and I think also so full of hope-that lies immediately in front of us, we shall not cast aspersions upon any sections of political thought in this connection. I am quite sure we ail want to take the step that is in the best interests of our common country and that we are all proud of the record of our soldiers, proud of the flag which floats over us and floats wherever the sun shines.
Now, up to the present, Mr. Chairman, I have not been convinced that evidence has been afforded that the change proposed is going to make for practical benefit along the line on which I directed a question to my hon. friend from Durham at the end of his speech. I asked him for illustrations of questions which would be settled better in the interests of Canada under this new arrangement that is proposed than they are settled at the present time. He gave [DOT]me one illustration, the question about pulp last year. . Well, I never heard that our Government was lax in its duty in regard to that situation. I thought they were active in the matter and that everything that could be done by governmental interference and helpfulness was done to remedy that pulp situation. I cannot share the view so airily expressed by my hon. friend that if we had had a representative of this nature at Washington, the pulp difficulty would have disappeared with any greater rapidity than it did disappear- if, indeed, it has disappeared up to the present moment. I do not find that the illustration carries me very far in this matter, and I cannot myself think of matters in connection with the relationships of Canada and the United States in which we should be immediately helped by the appointment of a minister plenipotentiary.
It is a common enough practice, and I think a somewhat useless one, to speculate upon the ultimate political destiny of this country. Three things are possible. We might unite with the United States. Personally, I feel on very safe ground when I say that that is the least likely destiny for Canada politically. I feel very much inclined for once, in a way, ro become a pro-
IMr M. Clark.]
phet and to say that will not happen, anyhow. We may possibly in the long course of years become an independent country, a sovereign state. That is quite a possibility, but if it does happen it will be, as my right hon. friend indicated this afternoon, by a process of evolution. For my part, Mr. Chairman, I am content for the moment that Canada should remain pretty much where she is. I think the worst foes of the British Empire are those who imitate the little girl who has planted a flower and is always pulling it up to see how its roots are doing. The British Empire is all right; it is in a very healthy condition-and it showed it in the recent events of the world-if people will only leave it alone. It is doing very well, and I think that for an immediate destiny that is sufficient. That is my view; I would leave this process of evolution largely in the hands of the gods for the moment. We have enough to do in the process of reconstruction; enough to do as statesmen; enough to do as members of Parliament; enough to do as individual citizens of Canada, in devoting our fullest attention patriotically to the building up of our own country, the restoration of our national finances and the repairing of the damage which we inevitably suffered by our participation in the great war.
Now, coming to the question under immediate discussion, I recur to the fact that it is by a process of evolution that these changes are to be brought about. Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to say 10 p.m. that if we do take this step we are certainly taking an important step in the direction of a very considerable evolution, according to my view.
I listened very carefully to my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Tweedie) endeavouring to reply to my hon. friend from Brantford-I say endeavouring, because I think he failed to reply to the very considered and firm position which my hon. friend from Brantford took. I think the appointment of a plenipotentiary to a foreign court is a mark of a Sovereign state. That was the position of my hon. friend from Brantford, and I agree with him absolutely and fully upon that question. I am not, aware, Sir, that it has been done in the history of the world except by a .sovereign state; therefore, my hon. friend was upon extremely strong ground, historically and constitutionally, when he took that position. If that be so, while it is very well to talk about evolution, am I not right in claiming that if we take this step we are

not following the process of evolution, but we are getting very near to revolution. I throw that out for the consideration of my hon. friend and his Government. I would say that it is a question which they should put very carefully and seriously to themselves and discuss with very great caution and thoroughness before they go any further in this matter. If we appoint a plenipotentiary to Washington, and our good friends from Quebec come here in strength some day and say: "It is all very well to appoint a plenipotentiary to Washington; we feel that we might do a much bigger business with France, and we have blood relationship with France; we admire old France; let us have a plenipotentiary to France."


An hon. MEMBER:: Why should we not?


Michael Clark: Logically, why should we not? How can that claim be resisted if Quebec comes to this House and presents it, if any other section of the community or of the House of Commons says: "We are a Sovereign state; we have a plenipotentiary at Washington?" My hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) would still be in the humiliating position when he compares Canada as a Sovereign state, with other countries, that his boys would be pointing out to him that while other countries had their plenipotentiaries at Berlin, at Washington and at Paris, we, little Canada, only have a plenipotentiary at Washington, nowhere else; we are still a little country.
May I point out in this connection that this status is a costly affair or it may become a very costly commodity? I have not heard any one except the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), call attention to that point which, perhaps, is the most crucial of all at this particular moment of our history. The entourage of an embassy is one of the finest ways for a nation to spend money that I know of, and if you get ten of them, my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) will need to preach economy more strongly than he has ever done in the history of this country. I should like to impress these thoughts very strongly upon the Administration before they go any further with this business, and I should like to impress them upon my hon. friends opposite who pay income tax. Is that burden sitting lightly upon the shoulders of hon. gentlemen opposite? I know the farmers are paying income tax, and while in the West they do not begrudge it and prefer direct taxation to indirect,
nevertheless they feel the burden of it, and they do not want to incur any of it which is not necessary, especially at this period.
If I talked all night, I do not think I could say any more to make my point of view clearer. The Government should not hurry in this business; they have not the money. I should be glad to be contradicted in that by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry "Drayton). As the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) says, we are doing very well; we are going on very well as a nation. Let evolution have its own course in this matter. Evolution is a very slow thing; it goes on step by step. Do not let us do this by way of a kick or a jump. Let evolution go slowly; do not be in a hurry about this business. We have enough to do, in the face of the coming Budget, to cover the expenses of the nation that are absolutely necessary at the present time, without taking a step which may lead to eight or ten other steps and hurry us into expenditures which would be very serious for the fortunes of this country, or which many of us might regret. There is no hurry. Let that be the last word I drop on the ears of the Administration. There is no hurry in this matter.


Mr. DENIS:: Perhaps I might be excused for rising to speak on this question when I say that I have only a word or two to add to what has already been said. My object in rising is to endeavour to elucidate a certain point, or, at least, to request the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), who will no doubt speak at the end of the debate, to make clear a question which is far from being clear to my mind at the present time. The item now under discussion reads:
Canadian representation in the United States.
It will seem obvious to all who have listened to this debate that there is a considerable divergence of opinion as to the character of the personage who will be sent to Washington to represent Canada. I have heard as many as six designations given of this gentleman. Perhaps there are more, but the notes I have taken give me these. Some have called him a trade agent; others, trade commissioner, others, consular agent, others, consul; others have gone to the length of calling him ambassador and finally some have called him plenipotentiary. It is evident that some of these words have more or less the same meaning; but on the other hand, there is a fundamental difference between a trade

agent and an ambassador or a plenipotentiary, and if the discussion has been so wide on the subject now before the committee, that is because, to a eertain extent, the Government did not see fit at the outset to disclose, exactly and in concrete form, the status and exact functions of the gentleman to be appointed.
I have listened with great pleasure to the addresses made before the committee this afternoon by the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) and the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell). These hon. members, and in particular the hon. member for Durham, have given a clear definition of the functions which will be fulfilled by the person to be appointed at Washington. Unfortunately, these hon. gentlemen are no longer members of the Government, and therefore, their declarations cannot be taken as an official declaration of the Government. I would humbly request the Prime Minister, when he rises to close the debate, to give a clear definition of the functions of the representative of Canada who will be sent to Washington.
Speaking for myself alone, I am in sympathy with the project of sending a representative to Washington. We cannot ignore the fact that our destinies are not independent of those of the United States. If they be independent politically, they are not independent commercially. No one can deny that our destinies are tied up with the destinies of the United States commercially. This assertion is strongly borne out by the fact that we are doing at the present time more trade with the United States than with any other country in the world, and it would be correct to say that our trade with the United States is nearly equal to our trade with all the other nations of the world. The figures are not absolutely exact, but they are sufficiently accurate to render clear my idea. Consequently, taking into consideration the fact, which no one can deny, that we have this powerful neighbour on which we are unfortunately to a certain extent commercially dependent, not a f^ct which we are willing to assume, but a condition which is being imposed on us, we have to cope with this situation , and in order to cope with this situation, which is unique in the case of Canada as regards all other countries, we should be justified in adopting a unique procedure to meet this unique exigency. Perhaps hon. members are too apt to forget that we are actually losing $100,000,000 on exchange with the United States alone each year. We are buying from the United States at the

present time about one billion dollars' worth of goods each year. Now if you take into consideration the fact that in the past year the exchange between Canada and the United States has varied frorr eight and a fraction, the lowest, to nineteer and one quarter per cent, the highest, saj an average of thirteen or fourteen pet cent on our money, it means that on that one billion dollars' worth of goods that we have bought in twelve months we have made a present of $130,000,000 to the United States. How is it that we are making this present? The answer is very simple. We have to give the United States $113 for every $100 worth of goods that we buy from them. Therefore, unless we should admit that our dollar is not worth 100 cents, we are giving a present of $13 to the United States on every $100 worth of goods that we buy from them. These dollars that we pay to the United States will have to be redeemed. Our currency will have to be placed on a par, if it is not on a par now; and the day that oUr dollar is worth 100 cents in the United States, it will appear that we have given this present to the United States. I am not saying this in the way of criticism. It has many times been said that the Government should see that the exchange should be rectified or equalized, and of course, if that object could be secured it would be a very great thing for Canada, but it is a fact that all countries that took part in the war are placed in a similar position, and Canada along with the others has suffered a depreciation in her currency. Therefore, since the conditions as between this country and the United States are exceptional, since we cannot change those conditions, and since we have to trade with the United States, and give them this enormous present, it is worth while making some sacrifice to have a representative in Washington who will look after Canadian interests and see to it that we get the best possible conditions obtainable with respect to our goods, and perhaps also with respect to our money. I am not saying that if we had a representative at Washington he could equalize the exchange between the two countries, or even reduce the adverse exchange against us, but there is one thing certain, and that is that we have everything to gain from having a direct relationship with the United States through a representative of this kind, and we have a lot to lose if we do not have such a representative.

The right hon. the Prime Minister said in the course of his remarks, in a rather jocular way, that he was looking for a good man to send to Washington. I would not presume to offer him advice, hut with the consent of the hon. member for Durham, I might say that I had the advantage of seeing the work that he did at the Labour Conference at Washington in the month of November 1919. I was in Washington myself during the conference, I had the privilege of assisting at its sittings, and I must do my hon. friend from Durham the justice of saying that he represented Canada in a most creditable manner and with distinction to himself and our country. Therefore, if the Prime Minister is looking for a representative-of course, I do not know whether the hon. member for Durham would accept-but if, for the sake of his country, he would accept, I would recommend him to the Prime Minister.
Before resuming my seat, Mr. Chairman, I will sum up in a sentence, my conclusion: in view of the clear definition that the Prime Minister has given of our status, and of the work to be accomplished by this representative, and of the conditions under which he will act, I think the House should be satisfied to vote for this Estimate.


Robert Laird Borden: I should like,
Mr. Chairman, to say just one word in reply to some observations that have fallen from my hon. friend from Red Deer, because it is just possible that he may be under a misapprehension as to what this proposal really amounts to. The minister who is to be sent to Washington will be appointed by a sovereign power. That sovereign power is the King, who represents the whole Empire. Perhaps I could make my meaning in that regard a little plainer if I should point out this analogy to my hon. friend from Red Deer: We made a treaty between Canada and the United States with respect to the control of boundary waters and the arrangements in connection with them. Commissioners representing Canada were appointed under the provisions of that treaty. They represent Canada as distinctly as if they were appointed by Order in Council, but they are appointed by a sovereign power, the King, who appoints them upon the nomination of the King's Privy Council for Canada. The members of the International Joint Commission do not in one sense exercise diplomatic functions, but they exercise certain functions which are very closely allied thereto. I for one cannot see,
and I do not think my hon. friend the member for Red Deer will be able to see, any distinction between the principle upon which the British Empire acts in the one case and in the other. The King, being the King of Canada as well as of the United Kingdom, will see fit to appoint a minister who will be especially charged to concern himself with and to safeguard the interests of Canada in respect of her relations with the United States. That minister will be responsible to the King's Privy Council for Canada and to the Canadian Parliament. Therefore, I cannot agree that the principle of sovereignty is affected more in this case than in the appointment of the Canadian members of the International Joint Commission.
I should like to emphasize what has been said by the hon. member for Marquette, that every advanced step in extending our rights of self-government has led to more or less apprehension. I ventured some years ago to endeavour to trace those steps in a speech which I delivered on the subject, and I pointed out what is absolutely true, that in every case the enlargement of the sphere of selfgovernment in this and the other Dominions has led to closer ties than those which existed before. I am quite sure that the confidence of the Government of the United Kingdom is sanctioning and supporting this arrangement, a confidence reposed in the good sense and canacity of the people of Canada to conduct their own affairs, will strengthen, instead of weakening, the ties that bind us to the Mother Country, and the rest of the Empire; and I venture the hope that in the outcome my hon. friend the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), whom I thank very heartily for his kind reference to myself, will reach the conclusion that this further step in advance is one that will be attended with advantage to the unity of the Empire.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall not attempt to prolong the debate at any length. We have listened to-day to one of the most interesting discussions that have ever taken place in this House. I am the more pleased at what I have heard this afternoon and evening because this is probably the first time that members in this House have spoken their mind freely on the question of the future of this Dominion. Mr. Chairman, before I discuss the point which was so ably taken a moment ago by my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), let me say a word about the item under

discussion. I shall vote in favour of that item. Some years ago I was probably one of the first to state that the time had come for Canada to appoint, not an ambassador or a semi-ambassador, but a representative in Washington, the capital of the great neighbouring Republic. Our interests are so intermingled, our trade with that country is so large, and, besides, there are so many connections in various ways, that nature and sentiment alike compel both countries to seek the closest possible relations. When the question came up a few years ago I said that in my recol-. lection the late leader of the Liberal party (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), to my certain knowledge, had in mind the appointment of a high commissioner in Washington. I do not say that the question was ever broached in Council, but it is a matter of common knowledge that he favoured the appointment of a very distinguished Canadian to that high position. He thought that Canada should be well represented in London, in Paris, and in Washington. Events so transpired that he could not realize his plan, but I say again, with a sense of responsibility, that he had on various occasions expressed the desire that some day Canada should be represented by a high commissioner in Washington.
Mr. Chairman, I do believe that a high commissoner would be more useful than an ambassador at Washington, unless, as stated a moment ago by my hon. friend from Red Deer, we choose to cut the painter at once and proclaim Canada an independent nation; because you cannot have an ambassador in any foreign country unless you exercise that essential power of sovereignty which Canada does not possess. This is the A. B. C. of international law, and it is merely deluding ourselves, it seems to me, to pretend that Canada can under present conditions appoint an ambassador or a minister plenipotentiary to a foreign country. I think that neither the right hon. gentleman from King's (Sir Robert Borden), nor the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), who is Minister for External Affairs, will for one moment contend that Canada can of her own initiative, under the powers that belong to her and which are contained in the Canadian constitution, appoint an ambassador to any foreign country, or a minister plenipotentiary. Now, let us not delude ourselves; let us face realities and not shams. Can we or can we not appoint that ambassador? Can we or can we not appoint that minister plenipotenrMr. Lemieux.]
tiary? Can we or can we not negotiate and sign a treaty without the rightful interference of the Foreign Office in London, or of the British ambassador or Minister-it depends on the status of the country-with which	we are
engaged in negotiating such a treaty? In spite of the boast of my right hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty), that Canada had reached the status of nationhood and could, as soon as she pleased, appoint an ambassador and consuls, the other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce ((Sir George Foster) laid upon the table of the House a Treaty with France, whereon we saw appended to it the signature of the British ambassador in Paris. I read the correspondence of the right hon. gentleman and of the Minister of Justice with the British authorities regarding the signature to be appended to that treaty.
Why all this play at nationhood, when, as a matter of fact, we have none of the powers that belong to a nation unless we solemnly declare that we are a nation and live up to that declaration. This is putting the facts plainly and squarely before the House.	,
But to come back to the question under consideration, I will support by my vote this evening the appointment of a Canadian representative in Washington. Mr. Chairman, we cannot legislate against geopraphy. We have too much business in the United States and our trade operations are too immense to be ignored. I believe that we can foster a broader spirit of brotherhood and a closer friendship between the two countries if we are represented there by a man who, as was said this afternoon by my hon. friend from Durham (Mr. Rowell), could explain to the American authorities our point of view, our sentiments, and even our exigencies in relation to certain questions affecting both countries. My hon. friend from Red Deer spoke of the possibilities of the future. Shall it be the statu quo? Shall it be union with the American Republic? Or shall it be the independence of Canada?
Mr. Chairman, I am speaking for myself. I do not believe that any man in this House dreams of a permanent statu quo; there is a stage of evolution for a nation as for an individual. The fruit must ripen and when the fruit has ripened it falls from the parent tree. I will do nothing to revolutionize, but I am quite willing to evolutionize-to await the destiny of Canada, leaving it in the hands of Divine

Providence that shapes the destinies of men and nations alike. But let me say this to the Government: when the time comes for Canada to take the decisive step which shall lead her to nationhood, I for one shall stand for Canada as a kingdom. The desire was expressed by Sir John A. Macdonald, the greatest of the Fathers of Confederation, that Canada should be a kingdom and that a member of the Royal Family in England should be the King of Canada. I stand by the views of Sir John A. Macdonald on that question. But, Sir,
I warn my fellowmen that if Canada is to avoid the other alternative, that of annexation with the United States, we must, as Canadians, watch carefully the economic situation. To-day the Americans are peacefully invading our prairies. I do not object to them-they are excellent farmers in the West; indeed I believe they are the best farmers in the West together with our own Canadian native-born. They also are invading our cities in the province of Ontario and in the province of Quebec, with their capital, which is flowing in all directions. Therefore, from the standpoint, American capital controls, to a large degree the financial future of this country. And besides-and now I sneak as a Canadian of French descent-English speaking Canada-that is to say eight provinces out of nine, have practically the same laws as they have across the border -eight provinces out of nine speak the same language, uniform system of schools, and-if I read aright in the press and if I judge by theatres, cinema pictures and other productions much the same ideals, the same frame of mind, the same accent and -even Mr. Chairman, the same twang. English speaking Canada in that sense, is becoming Americanized in spite of all.
While we are racially divided-and there are some fools in this country always ready, to kindle the fires of race hatred

if my English-speaking fellowmen are anxious to keep this country British, my advice to them is: treat the French-Cana-dian minority gently and generously. Sir John A. Macdonald followed that course and his friends at the time of Confederation did likewise. Mr. Pope, the father of Senator Pope, also understood it. He was one of the best men that ever sat in this House, although he was not much given to public speaking, and his effort in the form of a certain phrase is well known. After an eloquent speech in which the late Edward Blake charged Mr. Pope with something I do not remember what, in the administration of the Railway Department, Mr. Pope simply rose from his seat and, in his quaint way, said, "Mr. Speaker, there ain't nothin' to it." That was his style of eloquence. Mr. Pope- the Minister of Trade and Commerce knew him well; he was probably in the same Government with him-was a man of judgment, he was one of those David Harums of the Eastern Townships who had lots of common sense, native ability, and industry. Mr. Pope never failed to say to his English-speaking friends, "You wish to keep this country British? Very well, plant French-Canadian colonies here and there across the continent and treat them generously." That is what he himself did in his own county of Compton. All along the border of Vermont he favoured the establishment of French-Canadian parishes and parishes grew, because population grows where you have French-Canadians and all over there you have to-day a strong and healthy Canadian sentiment. Now this advice is given free of charge to my hon. friends. I tell them-it is a wholesome truth I am preahing-if Canada is to remain British, be tolerant with the French-Canadians, treat them generously, not only in their so-called reserve of Quebec, but all over Canada, for they are your equals. Do not bully them. It is the fashion of some of my Englishspeaking friends, because they are in the majority, because they are the conquering race to lord it over the minority. My English-speaking friends are not all of the same frame of mind, I know, but there are too many imbued with that idea of domination. If you want to make this Dominion a country worthy to live in, get the two races united on a basis of equality, grant them their rights and their privileges and you will have a Dominion to be proud of.


Ernest Lapointe: And we must have
good government too.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is the other
alternative, the Imperial Federation scheme, which would bring about, I suppose, a centralized government. Splendid idea! Full of grandeur! But very difficult of realization. Then under that plan, you would have a voice in the affairs of the Empire, but your voice would only be proportionate to your strength in the representation of that federated parliament of the Empire; and it would mean in the long run that your defence- the army and the navy of the Empire

would be controlled by a central parliament in London where you would have but a few votes or a few representatives

to give effect to your views. Then what would happen? A conflict would arise, because Britishers the world over are first of all liberty-lovers, and out of such conflict might come the breakup of the whole Imperial fabric. My hon. friends know their history, they know how the independence of the United States was brought about: it was a case of some such conflict between the Mother Country and the Thirteen Colonies. The same thing would happen in the event of a conflict of interests in that central parliament. As I said a moment ago, the evolution will come slowly and every year Canada will get a broader vision. If you are anxious to maintain that happy state of things, let well enough alone, and above all have a keen respect for the autonomy of the Dominions. Because it is one of the merits of the British system of government that the autonomy of the component parts is absolute and complete, and Britishers themselves grow very restless and sensitive when that autonomy is in question. Make haste slowly, but above all, respect the traditions of all your fellow citizens, be moderate in your views, do not bully the minority, have regard to the failings of the minorities-their prejudices, and thus you will have peace in the Dominion.
The evolution is coming step by step. You cannot arrest it; it is a law of nature. The time comes for a nation, as for an individual, to shape its own destiny. When a young man has lived with his parents until the age of twenty-one, he has to cut the home moorings and start a home for himself. After all, would it not be the pride and the glory of the Mother Country to see the Dominions which sprang form her loins gradually increasing their activities and enlarging their potentialities and having rooted in their respective soils the standards and the ideals of life that have made the Mother Country herself the great nation she is, steer their own course.


Mr. KEEFER:: 
Henri Sévérin Béland: Mr. Chairman, this question is undoubtedly one of the largest and most involved that has been discussed in the Canadian Parliament since I first became a member of it, and at the outset I should like to congratulate the committee for discussing it in such a dispassionate way. We have witnessed to-day an admirable spectacle, that of hon. members discussing a problem not only of Canadian, but of international importance, in a spirit of brotherhood and with a calmness which is highly to be commended.
For a number of years Canada has had a High Commissioner in Paris, but to-day Canada is represented in no foreign country other than France. It may strike one as surprising that Canada, being in the immediate neighbourhood of the greatest republic in the world and having with that republic almost boundless trade relations, never before last year thought of being represented in Washington. At the last session a departure in our political life was announced in the House-that Canada should appoint to Washington a minister plenipotentiary whose duty it would be to attend exclusively to matters arising between Canada and the United States. Our representative or our ambassador or our plenipotentiary should, if I understand rightly the declarations that have been made from official quarters, confine himself to Canadian business. What would be the procedure in the matter of the appointment of this plenipotentiary? I have listened with the closest attention to the speeches delivered on this subject from both sides of the House. I have listened carefully to the declaration made by the last speaker (Mr. Keefer), in his very eloquent address, that this appointment would be made not by Canada but by His Majesty

the King. He even pointed out that His Majesty the King of England could appoint a representative of Canada to Washington without even consulting us.


Francis Henry Keefer: I did not state that; you misunderstand my position. The King can only act in Canada, of course, on the advice of his responsible Canadian minister, just as he can only act in the United Kingdom on the advice of his responsible British ministers. Why? The King can do no wrong. It is the ministers only who can do wrong, by their wrong advice as his advisers.


Mr. BE  LAND@: That the King can do no wrong is an obsolete proposition. It is admitted now by men who are conversant with parliamentary life and institutions, that the King can commit some wrongs. I am sorry if I have misunderstood my hon. friend. I certainly construed his words as conveying the idea that the King, even without the recommendation of the Canadian authorities, could appoint a representative at Washington. Be this as my hon. friend says, I stand corrected in this regard, but how is this appointment going to made? We have listened to different speeches, the purport of which was that the Dominions of the British Empire were on an equal footing with the Mother Country. It has been repeatedly said in this House by hon. gentlemen who sit on the treasury benches, that the nations of the British Empire are now equal in status. I beg to differ from this view. There are in the British Empire certain nations that are on an equal footing, and they are the four Dominions, and above and beyond those four nations there is one supreme and sovereign nation, and that is the United Kingdom. Who will contend for one moment that you can appoint a plenipotentiary to Washington by recommending to His Majesty the King that a man be appointed, without that recommendation passing through the channel of the Foreign Office or the British Government? Nobody will contend that. If my right hon. friend who leads the Government (Mr. Meighen) will say to the committee to-day: "We will recommend to His Majesty the King the appointment of a certain gentleman to fill the important post of plenipotentiary at Washington and this recommendation will go direct to His Majesty without remaining for a day or a week or a month in the office of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs or the Secretary for the Colonies in England," then we will accept his statement, and we will say that

Canada has really progressed in her political status. But my right hon. friend will never say that, because it will not be the case. His recommendation, however worthy it may be, will have to pass through the hands of the British Government. I do r[ot say that I object to that; but I strongly and firmly object to the contention that the Dominions and the United Kingdom are politically on an equal footing, because they are not, and it is ridiculous to contend that they are, as my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queens (Mr. Fielding) pointed out this afternoon.
I am not against appointing a representative at Washington; I favour the proposition most heartily. Why should Canada not be represented at Washington? Canada should be represented at Washington as Canada is represented in France. Such representation carries with it a number of advantages which were presented in a most creditable and instructive manner this afternoon by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell). It carries with it the advantage of being on the spot, the advantage of being in contact with the British Ambassador in Washington every day, the advantage of being in contact with the political personages of the great Capital of the country to the south of us. There are many other advantages which I will not take up the time of the committee to relate; but coupled with those advantages, especially if we appoint a minister plenipotentiary, are many dangers. What dangers? The danger that, even if this representation be confined to purely Canadian affairs, conflicts are bound to arise, perhaps secretly between British interests and Canadian interests. Let us go a few years back in the history of Canada. Who amongst us does not know the fact and incident that, on a certain occasion, Sir John Macdonald, who had been sitting in Washington, returned to Canada and his home disgusted, as he expressed it, at the proceedings there because the Canadian interests had been sacrificed by the British authorities in presence of the Americans? Let us come a little later to the administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier when the Alaskan boundary question was under discussion. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) said a moment ago-and he was supported in that contention, I think, by the hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden).- that every step towards antonomy on the part of Canada, though it first had created alarm, had developed into closer and better arrangements and understandings between

the Mother Country and ourselves. These steps that were taken at the time that Sir John Macdonald sat in Washington, these steps that were taken later at the time of the settlement of the Alaskan boundary question, were at a time when Canada was passing gradually from the stage of colonialism of the stage of autonomy. What was the result? I do not want to bring to the attention of the committee the painful spectacle which was offered in Canada at the time of the Alaskan boundary question, when the representative of Canada, sitting in Washington with the British representative and the American representative, was voted down by the two, the American and the British, when he came back to Canada and held, as I think it was called then, a demonstration of protest in the city of Toronto. I do not say that that will be repeated; but when you say that every step towards greater autonomy for Canada makes only for better understandings between the Mother Country and ourselves I say that this is bound to arise and certainly it will arise if my right hon. friend who leads the Government (Mr. Meighen) carries out his idea that this appointment will be of such a nature that the Canadian plenipotentiary will assume the duties of the British ambassador in the case of the British ambassador being absent. I agree with the proposition of appointing a representative at Washington; I may go so far as to agree that a discussion of purely Canadian affairs be confined as between him and the American authorities; but I want to register my opposition against the Canadian plenipotentiary acting at any time, even for one hour, as the representative of the whole British Empire. I object to that because I see in it many dangers.
The hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) who always speaks eloquently and whom I was delighted to listen to this afternoon, was saying that it was customary between nations that the ambassador of one nation should take over the interests of another nation. That we know very well. During my visit in the city of Berlin some years ago the interests of the British Empire were entrusted to the American Embassy up to the time the United States entered the war, but does my hon. friend think for a moment that the American ambassador in Berlin would subordinate the interests of his (country to the interests of the British Empire? Not for one moment. Then, in this concrete case, the British 154
interests were subordinate to the American interests, and had the British interests come into conflict with the American interests, what would have been the immediate step of the American ambassador? He would have subordinated the British interests to the American interests.
Let us suppose a case. Let us suppose that my right hon. friend's ambassador in Washington assume the duties of the British ambassador. Let us go one step further, and suppose a case of purely Canadian interests coming into conflict with British interests. .Think for a moment of the disastrous situation that would result if our ambassador should subordinate the British interests to the Canadian interests! If these two cases are parallel, if they are to be assimilated, as my hon. friend said this afternoon, then it would be the duty of our plenipotentiary to subordinate the interests of Great Britain to the interests of Canada. What a situation! No, let us go slowly. My hon. friend from Red Deer closed his remarks with that admonition: Do not hurry, go slowly. He is quite right, but he need not have any apprehensions. The appointment will not be made very soon, and there is a good reason for that, Mr. Chairman. My Fight hon. friend the Prime Minister is in the position of a certain man who had two sisters and did not want to make a choice between them. The poet of Montmartre has said-I know if I quoted him in French my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce would understand me, but perhaps I had better translate-"Between the two sisters my trouble is great. It is not to know to which of the two my heart should address its vows. Both of the sisters are worthy that I should love them, and my trouble comes when I consider which of the two I Shall not like." That is the position of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. He has two pretenders to the position, both very worthy, eminent statesmen. They have this afternoon delivered themselves in such a creditable manner that I realize fully-


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon.
friend is alluding to me, I desire to state that he is stating something absolutely without warrant. There is not one word of truth in what he has uttered as regards myself.


William Stevens Fielding: Order. I think my
hon. friend was hasty when he declared there was not one word of truth in what another member has said.


Robert Laird Borden: Concerning
myself.


William Stevens Fielding: My right hon. friend
ought to withdraw that remark.


Robert Laird Borden: I will not withdraw it.


William Stevens Fielding: I ask for the ruling
of the Chair. The right hon. gentleman has said that there is not one word of truth in what my hon. friend from Beauce has said.


Arthur Meighen: On the point of order, it has been held time and again that there must be an allegation of deliberation before it is decided on the rules.


Rodolphe Lemieux: On the question of
being a sister, my right hon. friend is quite right. There is not one word of truth in that.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon.
friend the member who has just spoken, and with less than his customary courtesy-


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am sorry.


Robert Laird Borden: -has stated or insinuated that I am an applicant to the Government of my right hon. friend for the position of Canadian Minister at Washington. I repeat again, there is not one word of truth in that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I accept the statement made by the right hon. gentleman. I am extremely sorry if I hurt the feelings of such an eminent gentleman as the exPrime Minister. Did I say that he was an applicant? I do not remember having used the word, but if I did, it was not by in-, tention. I repeat, he is a worthy Canadian, and he. is a candidate even if he does not wish to be a candidate. In 1917, I was elected without my consent ever being given to being a candidate. That may be the case this time with my right hon. friend. He does not pretend to be the representative of Canada at Washington, but in spite of himself he may have to accept the position, for the sake of Canada, and not to displease his own political friends. Be that as it may, the position of the right hon. the Prime Minister is difficult; we all realize that, and he will postpone the appointment for a very, very long time.


Arthur Meighen: I think it is only just to the hon. member for Durham to say that the hon. member for Beauce is entirely wrong as to him also.
[Hr. Fielding.]


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then nobody will be appointed.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am sure I am quite right in saying that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is in a very difficult position when he has such good material to select from. What I want to point out is that outside of these two hon. gentlemen my right hon. friend has many others from whom he could make a good selection. but my hon. friend from Red Deer need have no apprehension; the appointment will not be made very soon.


Michael Clark: If nobody will take the job, it will never be filled.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I confess that I cannot absolutely agree with my hon. friend from Red Deer. I think that Canada should be represented at Washington. During the war Canada had a worthy representative in Paris in the person of the Hon. Mr. Roy. I understand that in its communications with the French Government the Caadian Government used the services of the Hon. Mr. Roy, very properly, not in a purely political sense, but for looking after many matters in connection with the successful carrying on of the war. Let us have a representative at Washington, but do not clothe the gentleman with these wonderful powers that have been enumerated to-day, and which the hon. member for Durham in particular outlined. Let him be a representative of Canada, just as Mr. Roy was the representative of Canada in Paris, and then I think the people will be satisfied.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry to delay the committee, but I would be doing a little injustice if I did not explain one or two matters. When I was on my feet and under cross examination at eight o'clock by hon. gentlemen opposite, I made a statement with regard to the tri-partite nature of the negotiations leading up to the arrangement, and I read at the close a statement of the precise position the minister plenipotentiary would be in. I refer my hon. friend from Joliette to that. He will find it in ' Hansard, and it clearly and fully answers the question which he put to me in that regard. In my remarks I used the word "correspondence," and from that it might be deduced that there had been what is ordinarily known as correspondence with the United States. I understand from a closer reading of the memorandum, which I had in mind in making the statement, that there is nothing in the way of formal cor-

respondence. There was, however, informal communication with the United States Government as regards the matter, in order that their mind might be known as to the reception of the minister plenipotentiary when appointed. The correspondence such as there is refers to that, and as it does, the principle is involved of disclosing the nature of these communications, which we have no right to do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These informal communications which the Prime Minister speaks of were doubtless had with the previous administration. Has he any assurance that the administration which has succeeded will accept the statement that he now puts before the House as representing the situation?


Arthur Meighen: There has been no
communication at all, so far as I know, with regard to the subject occurred when but there would be no difference whatever regarding a matter of that sort. The Secretary of State in the United States Department would not, on any account, as I understand foreign policy, change his attitude in that regard without at least advising us.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is the third or
fourth time I have voted for this matter; I think it is the third time. Now, I do not wish to ask my hon. friend whether he is going to make the appointment within two weeks or a month. I would ask him, however, in all sincerity, whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint this representative within this fiscal year?


Arthur Meighen: It is not only the intention, but the sincere hope. The reason why this has not been done so far is the reason that has been given-the only reason. To return to the subject with which I was dealing before, the correspondence is fragmentary, in that much of the conversations, as they are described, that took place with regard to the subject occurred when the Prime Minister of the day was overseas and in personal conference. What took place with the United States was much of the same character. There were some telegrams, and I am not sure whether there were letters or not. On careful examination of the telegrams by the legal adviser of the Department of External Affairs, to see whether there were some which we could be justified in bringing down, he decided that there were not. He discusses for a time whether there were two telegrams that might be brought down, but
154i
portions of them were confidential, and he closes his memorandum thus:
To publish a part of the first two telegrams without the rest would be incongruous ; the confidential matter is insepa * rable; the result would be fragmentary and rather meaningless. Accordingly it is submitted that all should be withheld. The public announcement contains the arrangement as reached in the negotiations ;

I would draw attention to the next sentence, because it is expressive of what is a practice applicable not only to this case, but also, apparently, applicable universally to matters of this kind:
-even President Wilson's famous point about "open covenants" did not, according to his own interpretation, require the details of the negotiations of the "covenants" to be published.
So that no country, and not even the late President of the United States, who has pressed the matter of open covenants probably further than it has ever been carried before, has ventured to say that the negotiations leading up to the final result should be published.


Ernest Lapointe: What statement is
the Prime Minister quoting?


Arthur Meighen: I am reading from a
memorandum prepared by the legal adviser of the Department of External Affairs, after carefully investigating whether there was anything which the Government had a right to bring down in the way of correspondence leading to the arrangement. There could be nothing in the world of advantage to the committee in the negotiations; the important question is: what was the final result? The proposal and counterproposal could not be interesting in this case, and could not be of any value to us in deciding whether or not the arrangement, as finally agreed upon, was a proper one. In these matters we must be governed by the practice of governments and by the best advice of those who have given careful and, indeed, lifelong study to the subject.
I have nothing to add to the general debate. It has been taken care of on both sides of the House by those who have given probably more time to the general question than I have. I only want to say that while I do not follow the arguments of hon. gentlemen who oppose the vote, I have not heard any speech on the part of any one who opposes it that does not disclose a sentiment with which I am in full harmony and accord. Indeed, if I may say so, I feel myself in point of sentiment in accord with

those who oppose the vote, but, in point of reason, in sympathy with those who support it. If I thought that the step which this vote contemplates was a step towards withdrawal from the Empire, or a loosening of the bonds that bind us to the Empire, I could bo relied upon to be among the first of those who would oppose it and would consistently do so at all costs. I do not so regard it. Indeed, the reasoning of the member for Calgary (Mr. Tweedie), seems to me to he very impressive indeed. This step is one that should make even better the relations between the countries, because it is a step in the direction of fuller autonomy; it is a step in the evolution of our status as a nation; and each step in the past has been accompanied by progress in strength of the real bond that binds the Empire together.
I cannot follow the reasoning which leads to the conclusion that we must maintain colonial status or else march towards the disintegration of the Imperial structure. That does not appeal to me in any degree. Indeed, the Imperial structure has multiplied in strnegth as the different Dominions of the Empire have elevated themselves step by step beyond the colonial status. Nor do I think that this will be the end of the evolution of the Dominion into nationhood. I cannot conceive that even the relationship that this establishes would be adequately expressive of what the position of this Dominion should be in relation to the rest of the Empire when, say, we have a population here equal to the population of the United Kingdom. All this will take care of itself with the passage of time. What we are doing now is to take a step in relation to permanent representation at Washington, parallel to that which we took in relation to the treaty making power, having representatives of this country really negotiate treaties and advise His Majesty in relation thereto; and paralel to the step we have taken in respect of the International Joint Commission, where Canada virtually negotiates with the United States but where the representatives are representatives of the sovereign power, its head being the King, named on the advice of his ministers for this country. We are simply taking another step akin to those already taken, and this time in regard to our permanent representation at Washington, the capital of the great republic to the south. Nor does it follow, because we take this step in relation to the United States, that it would be even natural for us to take it in relation to other

countries. It may be so, in the course of the long years, we know not when; but our position with regard to the United States differs most substantially from our position in relation to any other country in the world. We are alongside of them; we necessarily have more intimate relations with them, and we have a far vaster intercourse with them of every kind, commercial, diplomatic and all the rest, than we do with any other country. There is no reason at all from which you can argue that because we take this tep in relation to that country we must go on and incur the expense of having diplomatic representatives in the various capitals of Europe or other countries of the world. It has been urged very strongly on the part of one hon. gentleman, the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Morphy) that what we should be doing is to create consular agencies, trade agencies, in the United States instead. Well, something can be said against that particularly from the standpoint of-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I did not say "instead."


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps that is not
necessary to the argument I am trying to make.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I said "in conjunction
with" in order to make it useful.


Arthur Meighen: I have very much
sympathy with that idea myself.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What idea?


Arthur Meighen: With the idea of having, when it can be thoroughly worked out, consular representation there; that is to say for the purposes that we have heard about to-night. But something can be argued against that from a standpoint that cannot be taken against this proposition, in that it may be said that if we have representatives there whose duty it is to do what the United States representatives do here in relation to trade, charging fees for so doing and thereby becoming to an extent an impediment, when we do that we should do it for other countries; otherwise it can be said it would be discrimination against Europe. As regards this proposition, that cannot be argued at all. There Is nothing that leads us into any further step at all because we take this step in relation to the United States. We do it there because of our close kinship, commercially, diplomatically and every other way with that great country, differing wholly in our relationship with other countries in the world.


Michael Clark: How does
my right hon. friend reconcile that argument with the argument we have heard previously to the effect that we are doing it because of our national status? Does not national status relate to every country in the world-?


Arthur Meighen: I do not say we are
doing it because of our national status.


Michael Clark: But others
have said so.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know that they have but at any rate it is a matter of expression. We are doing it because we need it, because it is going to be of service to us.	__


Michael Clark: For trade?


Arthur Meighen: We need it for several reasons; it is not trade alone.


Michael Clark: The Minister
of Finance said the other day that we had plenty of trade with the United States.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think he said that we had plenty of trade with the United States, but do not divert me from my subject. I am ready to discuss trade with the hon. gentleman, I have done so before. We are doing this because we believe we need it. We believe we need this representative in Washington for purposes that are Canadian ; and a better example could scarcely have been offered the hon. member for Red Deer than that proposed to him by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell). If he had to do with the matter referred to as I had to do with it, he would have seen the value of having a permanent representative there. The difficulty in that regard, and it applies to similar difficulties in the future, might well have been avoided had we had a representative at Washington at that time fully conversant with the situation in Canada and with the real reasons that influenced the Government of Canada in relation to that matter. But I do not want to wander from the subject. We take this step not because we are a nation and merely to express our nationhood. We take it for the service it is going to be to us. We take it because it will be a help to us, but it does illustrate the growing nationhood of the country.


Michael Clark: Hear, hear.


Arthur Meighen: It does illustrate the
development of this country as an integral portion of the Empire; it 'illustrates the evolution of this Empire as an Empire.
But it is not merely for the purpose of so illustrating it that we take the step. If it has no purpose and utility it should not have been done. That is all I desire to say.


William Foster Cockshutt: Have we any constitutional right to make an appointment to the United States that is not of equal force with regard to any nation in Europe? Have we any inherent right as a people, or any power, to make that appointment, that we do not possess in the case of other nations?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. The United States as a foreign country is in just the same position as regards Canada as any other country; and if the need arises to do likewise with any other country-if the need arises equally great and equally pressing-why then, of course, we will have the same right to do it in the same way.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not wish at this late hour to detain the committee at any length, but there are two or three views to which I would like to give expression, particularly as reference has been made by several speakers to my own remarks in the matter. In the first place I may be permitted for a moment to emphasize again the rather remarkable situation in which we find ourselves when-in a matter of vast importance, a matter of exceptional importance involving as some say a material change in the status of the country-we are without a scrap of information as to the correspondence that has passed. I do not know any previous transaction that has ever been presented to this House, at all approaching it in importance, without the history of the negotiations being submitted to us. If the right hon. gentleman cannot give us that correspondence, all I can say is that it is a great misfortune, and it is a very strange way to inaugurate a great change in our relations both Imperial and domestic. It is a misfortune that my right hon. friend has to say, "It is a great change, but we cannot tell you how it came about."
There is another curious fact in connection with this matter. The information given us to-day in the very interesting presentation contributed by the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), showed that for many years there has been talk of this. There has been for a long period talk of negotiating our own treaties and incidentally, in many cases, reference has been made and the proposal has been advanced that we should have a Canadian

representative at Washington, but in every case the proposal has been turned down. For thirty years or more this has been talked about, but the judgment of the governments of both sides, and of all parties, and of all the statesmen of the country, after full consideration, has been to turn down the proposition. During those thirty years or more we have at all times been struggling-perhaps I should not say that-but we have been making an effort to bring about closer trade relations with the United States. There have been during this period perhaps some reasons stronger than exist to-day for having somebody to represent Canada at Washington. During all these thirty years the leading purpose of every government has been to try to bring about closer trade relations with the United States, but during all that time every government has turned this proposition down. Now we are taking it up at a time when, to put it mildly, we have less desire to trade with the United States than we ever had during the last half century.
Now I would like to say a word to my much respected friend, the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion). He represented me as saying that I was content with the present situation-I think that is a correct quotation. I do not dissent from that idea, but when my hon. friend implies that to be content with the present situation is somewhat humiliating, and that is the real inference from his remarks, I am going to put a question to him. I am content with the present situation, I plead guilty to that, but will my hon. friend be good enough to tell me what changes he wants?


Robert James Manion: I will answer the question. Before I made that statement I pointed out that the hon. gentleman had described us as a colony-he said we were practically a colony.


William Stevens Fielding: Correct.


Robert James Manion: A few moments later he said, "I am satisfied with the present situation." That is what I was criticising -not our present situation, but the fact that the hon. gentleman had described us as being a colony, and then his going on to assert that he was satisfied with our present situation as being a colony. I went on to say further that if the people of Canada thought we were still a colony they would not be satisfied with that situation.


William Stevens Fielding: I am satisfied with the present situation-that is correct. But the present situation-call it what you like-[DOT] has not been changed. The constitution of Canada is the British North America Act, and amid all this talk of nationality and change of status we have not changed one letter in the British North America Act. There is no change of status for Canada. I grant that in trade, in importance, and in population Canada stands higher than ever before in the eyes of the world, but from the national point of view and from the constitutional point of view there has been no change whatever. Now, my hon. friend for Red Deer took the ground, in his usual forceful way, that nationhood and the appointment of an ambassador necessarily implied the existence of sovereign power. He made that statement very strongly. The right hon. member for King's, N.S., I understood, practically admitted that as correct. "Yes," he said, "you can only appoint an ambassador through sovereign power." But if I correctly understood his argument, he said, "If the King, as advised by the Privy Council of Canada, recommends the appointment of an ambassador, that makes us a sovereign power." I think I did not misunderstand the hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not put it that way.


William Stevens Fielding: Not in those words. The hon. member for Red Deer said that the appointment of an ambassador was the evidence of sovereign power. My hon. friend for King's, N.S., met that by saying, "Yes, I admit that in effect, but if the King be advised by the Privy Council of Canada to make that appointment, that constitutes us a sovereign power." If he did not mean that, then my hon. friend did not meet the argument at all. Why, every day of our lives we do things in the name of the King. Here is a volume of the statutes of Canada, on every page of which you will find, "His Majesty by and with the advice of the Parliament of Canada," does so and so. Does that make us a sovereign power? The King is present in all oui courts; in every official action we use the name of the King. But surely that does not make us a sovereign power. The argument of the hon. member for Red Deer that an ambassador can receive his appointment only frofn a sovereign power is absolutely sound, and it has not been met by my hon. friend from King's.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve made one or two remarks on which I should like

to comment. Speaking of the future, he said, that the time will come when the ripened fruit will fall off. That illustration was given fifty years ago or more by a party in England, sometimes called the Little England party, who held that it was the natural development of these colonies that they should drop off with the ripening of the fruit. But strange to say, with the process of time, though the fruit ripens better than ever before, it does not drop off. Indeed, I think nearly every one will agree with me that the more the fruit ripens the more strongly it is attached to the stem than at any time in our history. I remember a good many years ago in my boyhood days-I am afraid to tell you how long ago it was-when the Prince of Wales, afterwards King Edward, came to Canada, a local bard in my town welcomed the Prince in three or four verses, only one of which I can recall. I am not so sure that it is to my credit to be able to quote it, bat one thing which has been flitting through my mind is the verse in which he was thinking of the possibility of the future. The hon. member for Maisonneuve said, ''We do not know what is going to happen in the future." That is true. It is the present and that portion of the future which is easily visible that we should deal with to-day, and we can only legislate and devise measures for it. This local bard evidently had that thought in his mind when he wrote these lines:
The changes time may bring
Par from our thoughts we fling.
Join we this day to sing,
God Save the King.
That is the true position. That is our position to-day. Changes may come, the . world moves on, and which one of us can say what will happen in the future? But we say as to the things of to-day and as to the things of the early future which are within our vision, that we ought to be content with our present situation as a portion of the British Empire, with all the local self-government we desire, and with, I think nothing to complain of.
I am sorry my hon. friend from Durham has gone, because I would like to have him present while I comment on his speech. I was surprised that so able a lawyer should endeavour to attach qualifications to the power of the British Parliament. My right hon. friend the Minister of Justice on a previous occasion had said, as quoted today by the hon. member for Beauce, that we are now in a position of equality with Great Britain. I was referring to that, and
I asked the hon. member for Durham, "As to the Parliament at Westminster in which we are not represented, has it not the power to wipe out the constitution of Canada-the British North America Act?" My hon. friend from Durham proceeded to argue that, strictly speaking, he did not propose to deny the power, but he said the British Parliament had not the right to do it. He talked a good deal about constitutional right. Well, right and power are not necessarily the same thing. We are constantly called upon to do things in this House which some of us think are not right, and power has to be exercised. In the discussion of our public affairs we on this side of the House, possibly erroneously, at all events in the exercise of our right of independent thought, have advanced certain propositions against the Government. We say that the Government has no right to do certain things. The answer is that the thing is done. They may have power to do it; we may have the right to declare they are wrong. But when the hon. member for Durham fails to recognize the distinction between right and power I think he is begging the question. I do not need to be a lawyer to say,-any one who has knowledge of the British system of Government must admit it-that there is absolutely no limitation to the power of the British Parliament. As one of our constitutional writers has said, "the only thing that Parliament cannot do is to make a man a woman." But in so far as any human effort can be made, the Parliament of Great Britain is supreme.
Now, all this talk of nationhood, of equality with Great Britain is absolutely unwarranted, and it is an impossible condition. I am only going to detain the committee two or three minutes longer while I quote one or two authorities. The hon. member for Durham cited Sir Frederick Pollock, arguing practically that while it was in the power of the British Parliament to do certain things, it would not do them. I am going to read one or two authorities as a contribution to the literature of this discussion. I do not think this time is wasted. I think the discussion to-day as dealing with a very important question has been an illuminating discussion and I think we ought to be pleased, although we differ in some respects, that it has taken place. But in answer to this story of the equality of Canada with other nations. I am going to give a quotation from no less authority than Lord Macaulay. I am not quoting from


Robert Laird Borden: I should like
to say a word in reply to the arguments which my hon. friend has addressed to the committee. I join with him and with other members in appreciation of the spirit in which this debate has been carried on. My hon. friend might well have added one further illustration to those which he gave in the concluding portion of his speech; he might have added that His Majesty the King has absolute power to veto every Act passed by the Imperial Parliament. So far as the power is concerned, it is there; if the King does not assent to an Act of the Imperial Parliament it has no effect. The Act is brought into being, into effective operation, by the consent of the King, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons. If the King sees fit to veto or to withhold his assent, then the Act has no operation. Mr. Asquith said some years ago that the exercise of that power to veto had not been known since the time of Queen Anne, and that the power itself was as dead as Queen Anne. The Parliament of the United Kingdom has legal power to make a tariff for this country. It had power during the war through which we have just passed to pass an Act for compulsory military service in Canada. It had abso-
12 m. lutely no constitutional right to do either of these things. If my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's

will look at the works, recent and otherwise, of Lord Bryce, of President Lowell of Harvard, of Mr. Dicey, of Mr. Anson, and of half a dozen other constitutional writers whom I could name and from whom I could quote if it were worth while, he would find that legal power in the constitution of the British Empire is absolutely limited by constitutional right; therefore when he makes the suggestion that he has put forward here he is quite at sea so far as the opinion of great constitutional writers and of the leading statesmen of the country is concerned. Further than that, when my hon. friend suggests that if there had been no change in the British North America Acts this Dominion would have precisely the same status that it had on the first day of July, 1867, he is absolutely beside the mark. The British North America Act has had its meaning, its scope and its effect modified during all these years, by that very constitutional usage to which I have just now alluded and which has so profoundly affected the methods of government in the United Kingdom. All these things are the mere commonplaces of constitutional history and constitutional law, and I am rather surprised that my hon. friend should have put forward in seriousness some of the suggestions which he has addressed to this committee.
Now, the hon. gentleman has endeavoured to involve me in some dilemma in regard to the answer which I made to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). I said in reply to the hon. member for Red Deer that the appointment of the proposed minister was to be made by the King, who is as much the King of Canada as he is of the British Isles and who acts within this Dominion of Canada upon the advice of the King's Privy Council for Canada. I pointed out further that no one, I suppose, who has given any consideration to the question will deny, that what is called the Canadian section of the International Joint Commission is really a Canadian section. It is called the Canadian section, and it is the Canadian section. It is an international commission and the United States under that treaty are dealing internationally and we are dealing internationally. Does any hon. gentleman in this House suggest the contrary of that? And how are these commissioners appointed? Precisely in the same way in which it is proposed to appoint this minister-by His Majesty the King, acting upon a nomination made by
the King's Privy Council for Canada. Is there any distinction between the two cases? Have I made myself clear to hon. gentlemen in this committee? That is the answer which I intended to give to my hon. friend from Red Deer and that is the answer which I now give to my hon. friend the member for Shelburne and Queen's. So far as sovereign power is concerned, my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, has quoted from Oppenheim, whose authority I recognize. I have quotations under my hand from Oppenheim which show that in foreign affairs considerations may apply which are already recognized in domestic affairs. It has been repeatedly pointed out that the same King acts by the advice of his Parliament in Great Britain, by the advice of his Parliament in Canada and by the advice of his Legislature in every province of Canada. Then is not sovereignty divisible so far as domestic relations are concerned? I should like to tell the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's that there is good ground in the opinion of some constitutional writers, to hold that sovereignty in respect of foreign relations is also divisible in somewhat the same sense. Whether that be true or not there is no question about it in this case, because the minister who is to be charged specially with the interests of Canada in relation to the United States will be appointed by His Majesty the King of the whole Empire and therefore the King of Canada, upon the nomination and recommendation of the King's Privy Council for Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: There is just one illustration that my right hon. friend gave, to which I wish to call attention, because it is one that we can all readily understand. He said that the Parliament of, Great Britain cannot make a tariff for Canada. The Parliament of Great Britain, he said, could not authorise conscription in Canada. My right hon. friend was wrong. The Parliament of Great Britain could do both. Why is it that they did not do both? Because they had, in the exercise of their power, delegated, through the British North America Act, all these powers to the people of Canada. It is an illustration of the power which exists in the Imperial Parliament delegated to this Parliament through the British North America Act.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend is wrong again.


William Stevens Fielding: No, he is not.


Robert Laird Borden: Every constitutional lawyer who has given any consideration to the question knows at once that any such Act, if passed by the Imperial Parliament, would be a repeal pro tanto of the British North America Act and would take effect as such.


William Stevens Fielding: Surely.


Robert Laird Borden: But the reason that that could not be done is the reason that I gave a moment ago, that, in this respect as in other respects which have governed the development and growth of government within the British Empire, legal power is absolutely controlled by constitutional right.


Michael Clark: I have no desire to prolong this discussion; but I just want to say that I am utterly unconvinced by my right hon. friend's comparison between the appointment of an ambassador or a plenipotentiary to a foreign court and the case of an international commission, as it is called. In its application to Canada, it is a domestic affair; it is looking after the interests of Canada in her domestic affairs, and the term "international" is applied to that commission simply because both nations have an interest in the matter that is going on. But when you appoint an ambassador to a foreign court, you take the position of a sovereign state, and I ask my right hon. friend to contradict me if I am wrong when I say that no plenipotentiary or ambassador to a foreign power has ever been appointed except by a sovereign state. He knows very well what the meaning of the term sovereign state is.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that I can make myself any plainer to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) than I have already done. It is apparent,
I should think, that a section of the commission, appointed under a treaty made between two countries foreign to each other, must have another relation and scope than that which he described as purely domestic. Their action is not limited to this country; the commission operates and has jurisdiction in Canada; it operates and hns jurisdiction in the United States. The powers and duties vested in the Commission can only be carried out by the commission as a whole, consisting of two sections, one of them appointed by the United States and the other appointed by Canada through the medium of His Majesty the King acting upon the advice of the King's Privy Council

for Canada. Therefore, I venture to repeat, with all respect to my hon. friend, that so far as my opinion goes, the two cases depend precisely upon the same principle and that if you admit, as you must admit, that the principle is properly applied in the one case, you must, of necessity, also admit that it can be equally applied in the other.


Michael Clark: I am going to ask my right hon. friend-he knows very well-the question: Is Canada a sovereign state? That is the first question. He can answer that question. The second one I want him to answer is this: In case Canada is not a sovereign state, am I right in saying that this is a totally new departure inasmuch as a plenipotentiary or ambassador has never been appointed except by a sovereign state?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has put a question which I shall be very glad to answer. Canada, as one of the nations of the Empire, owes allegiance to His Majesty the King who unquestionably is sovereign in respect of the whole Empire and sovereign therefore in each Dominion of the Empire. In each Dominion he acts only upon the advice of his ministers for that Dominion. Thus, the King is sovereign in Canada, and Canada in respect of its allegiance to the King and in respect of its status as a nation in the British Empire, is sovereign in this essential respect that the King, having regard to the special interest of Canada, has an absolute and perfect right on the advice of his Canadian ministers to appoint a plenipotentiary to concern himself specially with the affairs of Canada in relation to any foreign country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and expenses, passport office, $40,000.
Arthur Meighen: I move to reduce this
item by $10,000. It has already been reduced by $25,000, so that this will make a $35,000 reduction. The passport business has kept up very well, but the indications are such that we believe $30,000 will be sufficient.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Item as amended, agreed to.
Amount required to pay consular officers abroad for services. $300.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Who gets this?


Arthur Meighen: This is to pay telegrams and incidental expenses in case there

is trouble abroad regarding Canadian citizens, and we have to have the service of a consul.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries and expenses of the Paris agency, 542,500.
Henri Sévérin Béland: What is the salary of
Mr. Roy?


Arthur Meighen: $12,000 and $2,500 living allowance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Allowance to Mr. W. J. Stewart, chief hydrographer for services performed under Order in Council of the 19th October, 1912, in relation to questions under consideration by the International Joint Commission during the year 1921-22, $1,000.
Frank S. Cahill: Does this gentleman get
a salary from any other department of the Government, and how much?


Arthur Meighen: He gtets $4,000 as
chief hydrographer in the Naval Service Department.


Frank S. Cahill: Has he only the two
positions? Would it not be possible for the Government to get these gentlemen all under one salary so that we would not be paying them in different sums from different departments from time to time?


Arthur Meighen: I think it would be better myself. In fact, we have had several put in that position. This one has not been as yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-Amount required to meet expenses of thte Lake of the Woods Control Board, $4,500.
Arthur Meighen: Last year the amount was $10,000. This is the board that has been acting all along under Order in Council of the Ontario Government and of this Government. Hereafter, if the Bill passes that is now before Parliament for its third reading, and the Ontario Bill passes, the Board will operate under statute.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil government

External affairs-salaries $64,625; contingencies, $46,000.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Who is the legal adviser?


Arthur Meighen: Mr. L. C. Christie.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Judging by the memorandum he submitted to the Prime Minister with reference to the correspondence exchanged between the Imperial Government and the American Government, and his
reference to President Wilson of the United States, I should imagine him to have a very keen sense of sarcasm.
Mr, MEIGHEN: I did not observe that.
I think I must have a dull sense of perspicuity. I admit that he has a very keen sense of humour.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Who is the assistant deputy head?


Arthur Meighen: W. H. Walker.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I see "allowances for private secretaries, $1,200." By whom are these secretaries employed?


Arthur Meighen: I am the only one in the department that has a private secretary that I know of.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government - High Commissioner's Office-salaries, $24,930 ; contingencies, $69,586.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Why should we pay the income tax on the salary of the High Commissioner?


Arthur Meighen: That is the income tax he pays in Great Britain.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Do we pay the income tax on all our officials who reside abroad?


Arthur Meighen: I think a special case is made of this, for the reason that the High Commissioner's salary is really absurdly low. I do not think it covers one-half of his outlay.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: He has been making a profit on it recently by reason of the exchange.


Arthur Meighen: I would like my hon. friend to have a talk with him.


Ernest Lapointe: I would like to ask one of those questions that are rather unpleasant. Two years ago I called the attention of the committee to the fact that when I was in London I went into the High Commissioner's office with two other men from the province of Quebec. We took the trouble to address ourselves in French to everybody there to see if French was understood by anybody in the office. Everywhere else in London we had heard French spoken, and the High Commissioner's office was the only place where nobody could speak or understand French. I thought that was a pity, and I still think so. When I brought this matter up before, the Minister of Trade and Commerce was leading the House and he admitted that this was certainly a grievance, and that it should be

redressed. I desire to know whether it has been redressed.


Arthur Meighen: I would be surprised if that was the ease now. The High Commissioner himself can speak French, I understand. 1 was not here when my hon. friend brought the matter up before. The condition he complains of may have been redressed since. They would not have much occasion for French in London. I doubt if Mr. Roy's staff in Paris can speak English; there would not be very much need for them to know English.


Ernest Lapointe: Oh, yes, they can. Does my right hon. friend admit that this is a grievance, and that there should be somebody in the High Commissioner's office in London able to speak French, which is one of the official languages of this country?


Arthur Meighen: I would not admit it is a grievance, because I am not sure that it exists. It may have been remedied since. I would think it would be much better to have one, or even more, employees who could speak French.


Ernest Lapointe: I will come back again next year with this question.


Mr. PECK:: Is it not possible to have more Canadians on the staff of the High Commissioner's office? I went round there once or twice myself and I thought they looked upon me as an interloper. When I wanted to get in a man asked me, "Have you an engagement with the minister?" I said, "No, I have not." "Well," he said, "I do not think you will have much chance for a while." I said, "Won't I? You just take this card in," and I got in after a while. Why should a representative of a democratic country have to go hat in hand through a lot of flunkeyism to see our High Commissioner? This would not be the case if we had more Canadians on the staff.


Arthur Meighen: I am informed that the only reason is economy. The assistant, Mr. Griffith, is a Canadian. He is the chief executive officer there. Outside of him, they employ men who are right on the ground, because it would cost a great deal more to get them from Canada and change them every once in a while, as they do.
Mr. GUTHRIE There are some more or less non-contentious items in the Militia Estimates which it would he convenient to discuss.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I suggest to my right hon. friend who leads the Government, and to the Minister of Militia, that for the last three evenings we have been here until 1 o'clock, and now, as we have had an excellent day with a splendid discussion free from those animosities that at times creep into debate, we might very well call it a day's work and go home so that we might come back refreshed for tomorrow's labours?


Arthur Meighen: The suggestion is not unreasonable, but I understand that there is a desire on the part of some members on either side to have certain items discussed, and I do not think it would take very long.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I want to be as courteous as possible, but I do not know that one or two members on either side of the House should inconvenience the whole House for their satisfaction.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: It would not take more than two minutes.


Arthur Meighen: Would the hon. member object to five or ten minutes?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No.
Militia and Defence-Customs dues ?40,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What does that cover?


Hugh Guthrie: It is merely a cross entry. When we import goods from the United States or England for manufacturing purposes we pay the ordinary customs dues. This is really a cross entry from one department to the other.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What class of goods does it cover?


Hugh Guthrie: Highland uniforms and goods for the manufacture of munitions.


John Flaws Reid: Can these goods not he procured in Canada? My hon. friend is an advocate of the purchase of "made in Canada" goods. Why does he go outside of Canada to get these goods?


Hugh Guthrie: There are some of these things that cannot be procured in Canada, such as heavy ordnance, which is all obtained in Great Britain. That is the largest item. Then there are tartans, which we cannot procure here.


John Flaws Reid: Are they not made in
Canada?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not believe they are.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Dominion Arsenal, Lindsay, $243,300.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: What is the explanation of this?


Hugh Guthrie: This item is less than last year's, when it was $258,000. We have reduced it to $243,300 and the Dominion Arsenal at Quebec has been reduced by $100,000. Last year we closed both arsenals for from three to four months for purposes of economy, with a saving of about a quarter of a million dollars. Our stock is consequently considerably lower than it should be under ordinary circumstances and we should like to recover what we lost last year by closing down. At the same time, we have reduced the vote substantially in each case.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is, for the manufacturing of munitions?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: How many men are employed in that arsenal?


Hugh Guthrie: There are 150 men employed at Quebec, and 110 at Lindsay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Engineer Servioes, $600,000.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Will the minister explain where the ordinary repairs and works are carried on for which I see we have to pay the sum of $465,000?


Hugh Guthrie: That includes work done in eleven military districts in Canada, comprising repairs to armouries, barracks, rifle ranges, and all the works in connection with the Militia Department.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: You have also another item for maintenance of drill halls.


Hugh Guthrie: That is for light, heat, water, telephone, etc.	-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What is the item of $50,000 for, in connection with the Quebec walls? Is this matter to be transferred to the National Battlefields Commission?


Hugh Guthrie: This is not the ancient
wall of the city of Quebec; this is for repairs to the walls of the citadel itself. The Estimate for what are known as the ancient walls, which we propose to hand over to the commission, is between $25,000 and $30,000, but it does not appear in this vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grants to Associations, $125,000.	>
John Howard Sinclair: Please
explain this item?


Hugh Guthrie: It is to provide grants to rifle associations, military institutes, service associations, and efficient bands of active militia. It is An increase of $20,000 over the Estimates of 1920-21, due partly to proposed increase in the rate per capita for local rifle associations, and partly to the fact that no deductions can be made, as'were made in the Estimates of 1920-21, on the ground that rifle associations had not completed their organizations. This year they will have completed the organizations. In regard to bands, owing to the efficiency of these bands and the increased cost of instruments, music and equipment, it is proposed to pay a maximum of $180 to each battalion that has a band. To the Governor General's Foot Guards, there is a special annual grant of $548. The Estimate for this regiment's band was approved by the Militia Council on August 7, 1919, and is now asked for. This is an exceptionally efficient band and is frequently called out in connection with various functions in the capital. The total amounts for bands is $25,028, an increase of $2,028 over last year. The Estimate for military institutes is as follows: Canadian Military Institute, Toronto, $1,400; Western Military Institute, Winnipeg, $1,400; Cambridge Library at Halifax, $300; R.M.C. Club, Quebec, $200; additional institutes to be provided for, $1,700. This is the same amount as voted last year.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: With reference to these
military institutes, I do not know anything about the other provinces, but I have been around Quebec for years and I am not aware of the R.M.C. Club. I do not object to the $200, but I should like to know whether the other clubs are as famous as this one.


Hugh Guthrie: This is a club consisting of members of the Royal Military Colleges for purely educational purposes, not social purposes. It is made up of extra cadets. They meet periodically and they supply themselves with military literature They have their discussions and I think, in some cases, their lecturers. The grant is for purely educational work, and has, I believe, always existed^ The one in Toronto and the one in Winnipeg are much the same institution. The one in Toronto has now been established for a very long time. While I am not familiar with the interior working or economy of it, I have been informed by very many people, who should know, that it is one of the most capable instructional schools that we have in the province, and my report of that

/
in Winnipeg is the same. I know that a tremendous number of officers take advantage of the course in both these institutions.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: To whom is instruction
given?


Hugh Guthrie: To officers, and noncommissioned officers have the use of the library and of the lectures.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to understand the difference between this item and No. 88: Allowance to active militia. We passed an item of $120,000 for allowance. There seems to be something of the same character here. How do these differ from one another?


Hugh Guthrie: 
Cyrus Wesley Peck: Is there a grant for pipe
bands?


Hugh Guthrie: I am informed they get precisely the same, $180,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: In respect to the rifle
associations to which the minister has referred, are any of them civilian organizations ?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, prior to the war civilian associations were recognized and considered and grants made to them, but since the war the civilian associations have not yet been revived. I expect that a number of them will be revived during the course of the coming summer, and, of course, they are entitled to use, and do use, the military rifle ranges where they exist. The grants to the associations included in this vote are-Dominion Rifle Association, $35,000; the Provincial Rifle Associations, $13,600; University Rifle Association,

$1,000; and local rifle associations, whether civilian or belonging to military units, $40,000.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: May I ask the minister
what conditions are required of these rifle associations, whether military or civilian, before they obtain a grant?


Hugh Guthrie: The civilian rifle association before it is entitled to a grant must-have a membership of fifty. There is a membership of fifty required in the military unit too, I understand. In the military service the ammunition for rifle practice is issued free of charge; the civilian associations receive it at very much reduced charge.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Are there any regulations with regard to the place where the shooting is to be carried on, the season of the year, supervision and so on?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, there are established regulations which have been in force for a number of years-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What about supervision?


Hugh Guthrie: -and then the grant is paid on a report from an inspecting officer.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The inspecting officer of
the district, I presume, in which the shooting is done?


Hugh Guthrie: It is the local district
officer where the association is that makes the report.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maintenance, $200,000.
Hugh Guthrie: This is the maintenance of our military properties which are provided with fuel, light, water, telephone, rents and sanitary services in connection with the buildings. There are also armouries, store rooms, and rifle ranges owned or rented by the Government, except those of the Permanent Force. I think the item has been at this figure for a considerable time.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: This has nothing to do with the salaries of caretakers, etc?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Does the drill hall in Ottawa belong to the Permanent Force?


Hugh Guthrie: The buildings and
barracks of the Permanent Force are not included in this vote.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Are there any drill halls, armouries, and rifle ranges which belong exclusively to the Permanent Force in Canada ?


Hugh Guthrie: The buildings occupied by the Permanent Force are known as barracks, and the armouries and drill halls are for the use of the militia units.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is there another item for that purpose? If so, where do we find it?


Hugh Guthrie: I am informed it is in the vote of six and a-quarter millions for the Permanent Force. Item N >. 102, a little farther down, includes the upkeep of barracks.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ordnance arms, lands, $75,000.
Thomas Alexander Crerar: The ten minutes has now run into fifteen.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Too much is plenty.


Hugh Guthrie: Might I ask my hon. friends to consider this one item? It is desired that items 101 and 102 should stand over anyway, but I think we should pass the present item. It is $25,000 less than last year.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: This is for ordnance
arms, lands, etc. A little further down in the list appears an item for warlike stores. There may be some discussion and I think the minister should really let the item stand over.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, I have no objection. If my fion. friend desires to discuss this I will move that the committee rise and report progress and beg leave to sit again.	-
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, the House adjourned at 12.50 a.m., Friday.
Friday, April 22, 1921.