PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor General) presented the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges' and Elections.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe) presented the first report of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the Printing of Parliament.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Beauce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 117 to amend the Maple Products Act, 1920.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor General) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 118, to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. M. MOW AT (Parkdale) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 119, an Act respecting Armistice Day.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. A. M. GRAHAM

Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Has the Civil Service Commission been requested to appoint a superintendent for the Government dockyard in Sorel? If so, when?
2.	Why has the appointment not been made?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to fill that vacancy in the near future?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Yes. October 30, 1919.
2.	After widely advertising the position on three separate occasions, viz., in November 1919, December 1919 and June 1920, the commission failed to secure even one candidate who in the opinion of the commission and of the department had the necessary qualifications. This was reported to the department and the reply was received that as the shipyard was engaged only in repair work, and there was no immediate likelihood of any new construction being undertaken, the matter of ap-' pointing a superintendent to be left in abeyance for the time being.
3.	Under consideration. Mr. Louis La-couture, who has been employed in the yard for some years, is performing the duties of acting superintendent very satisfactorily.


MR. JOHN SHERIDAN
*Mr. LEGER:: 1.	Did John Sheridan, who was a candidate in the last provincial election held in the province of New Brunswick on the ninth day of October, 1920, tendier his resignation as Indian Superintendent for the North Shore district of said province before the date of said election?
2.	I so, what was the date of his resignation?
3.	Was his resignation accepted by the Government?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	September 27, 1920.
3.	No action was taken by the department.


BLOOD INDIAN RESERVE
*Mr. MOLLOY:: 1.	Is it true that 1.5001 Blood Indian cattle died of starvation during the winter of 1919-20 ?
If not, what was the exact number of losses?
2. How many Blood1 Indian cattle were counted and recorded at the spring round-up of 1919', including the spring calves?
3.	How many surviving cattle were recorded at the spring round-up and counting of 1920, excluding the spring calves?
4.	How many Blood Indian work horses were reported to the department as having died of starvation during the winter of 1919-20?
5. How many Indian horses, other than work horses, were reported to have died from the same cause during the said period?


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: 1.	No; the loss was 18 per cent, or 586 head.
2.	3,277, including calves. Of this number 586 died, 596 were sold and 786 were killed for beef.
3.	1,309, exclusive of calves.
4.	250, approximately.
5.	350, approximately.


RAILWAY SECURITIES-PROVINCIAL GUARANTEES
*Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	What was the total amount of securities guaranteed for railways by the Government of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island?
2.	Has the Dominion paid any interest on coupons on any of the above mentioned securities-in lieu of the provinces?
3.	If so, what amount has been paid, to what provinces and what amount in each case?
4.	Have any of the Provinces paid any interest or coupons on securities guaranteed on the railways within their boundaries?
5.	If not, why?
6.	Is it the intention of the Dominion Government to saddle Canada with these provincial obligations?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	See page X et seg. of Railway statistics for the year ended June 30, 1919 (Sessional Paper No. 20B, 1920).
2.	Yes.
3.	Payments of interest coupons . have been made on Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Bonds, as follows:-(a) Guaranteed by province of Alberta, $295,755.50; (b) Guaranteed by province of Saskatchewan, $1,155,755.72.
4.	Not a matter of Dominion Government record.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	The Government has decided, having in view the present situation of the Grand Trunk Arbitration, not to pay interest presently due (May 1) on Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Bonds referred to in answer to question No. 3.


REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE
Mr. TRAHAN:: 1.	Referring to the statement published in the Canada Gazette, on April 9, 1921, stating, that in the assets of Canada, there is an amount of ?178,0S4,961.17, under the heading of ''Other Investments," what is the list of these investments?
2.	What are the investments which are considered as "non-active," and which amount to $340,387,202.05?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.
Canadian Northern Railway
loan account 191 &	$ 15,000,000 00
Canadian Northern Railway
loan account 1914	 10,000,000 00
Canadian Northern Railway	^
interest account	 5,294,000	02
Canadian Northern Ontario
Railway	 2,396,099	68
Canadian Northern Railway.
Acquisition of capital
stock	 25,000,000	00
Canadian Northern Railway. -
Appropriation Act 1919 .	35,000,000	00
Canadian Northern Railway.
Legislation 1920	 48,611,077	00
Canadian Northern Railway.
Legislation 1918	 25,000,000	00
Canadian Northern Railway.
War Measures Act.. ..	4,731,522	64
Canadian Northern Railway.
Purchase of capital stock. 10,000,000 00 The Central Canada Loan and Savings Company. ..	250,000	00Consolidated fund investment account	
265,589	53Grand Trunk Railway Company. Legislation 1920 ..	26,101,280	67
Grand Trunk Railway Com-' pany. O. C. September 29,
1919	 554,800	00
Grand Trunk Railway Company. Temporary loan at
6 per cent		593,733 33
Grand Trunk Railway Company. Redemption account	 4,866,666	67
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Prairie section loan
account	
10,000,000	00Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Loan account 1913. .	15,000,000	00Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Loan account 1914.	6,000,000	00
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Investment account. 33,093,333 23 Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Appropriation Act
1918		7,471,399 93
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Guaranteed interest by Dominion of Canada..	5,146,444	37
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Interest account guaranteed by Grand
Trunk Railway	
534,658	32Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Loan account 1917. .	5,038,053	72Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Interest account ..	7,081,783	45Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Receiver account ..	26,371,447 94Housing scheme.	BritishColumbia	
1,361,500	00Housing scheme. Manitoba.	1,580,000	00


REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Housing scheme. New
Brunswick	 1,220,000	00
Housing scheme. Nova
Scotia	
600,000	00Housing scheme. Ontario . .	8,750,000	00Housing scheme. Quebec . .	1,071,700	00
Huron and Erie Mortgage
Corporation	
1,500,000	00Italian Government	
6,003,301	20
Loans to banks, Finance
Act, 1914	
78,582,875	00Montreal Harbour Commission	
28,500,000	00Montreal Turnpike Trust. .	133,255	92National Trust Company..	300,000	00
Province of Manitoba, loans
to farmers	
500,000	00Province of Ontario, loan..	2,000,000	00
Province of Saskatchewan,
loans to farmers	
1,000,000	00Quebec Harbour debentures.	11,133,550	58Sundry banks call loans ..	2,170,000	00St. John Bridge and Railway Extension Company.	433,900	00Three Rivers Harbour debentures.. . '	
81,760	97Vancouver Harbour Commission	
857,900	00
The Victoria Loan and
Savings Company	 100,000	00
Waterloo County Loan and
Savings Company	
200,000	00Victoria Shipowners Limited	603,327	00
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Northern Railway
loan account 1916	 15,000,000	00
Canadian Northern Railway
loan account 1914	 10,000,000	00
Canadian Northern Railway
interest account	 5,294,000	02
Canadian Northern Ontario
Railway	 2,396,099	68
Canadian Northern Railway.
Acquisition of capital
stock	
25,000,000	00Canadian Northern. Appropriation Act 1919	
35,000,000	00Canadian Northern Legislation 1920	
48,611,077	00Canadian Northern. Legislation 1918	
25,000,000	00
Canadian Northern. War
Measures Act	 4,731,522	64
Canadian Northern. Purchase of capital stock.. 10,000,000	00
Consolidated fund investment account	
265,589	53Grand Trunk Railway Company. Legislation 1920 . .	26,101,280	67

Grand Trunk Railway Company. O. C. September 29,
1919	 454,800	00
Grand Trunk Railway Company. Temporary loan at
6 per cent	
593,733	33Grand Trunk Railway Company. Redemption account	
4,866,666	67
Grand Trunk Pacific. Prairie
section loan account ..	10,000,000	00
Grand Trunk Pacific. Loan
account 1913	 15,000,000	00
Grand Trunk Pacific. Loan
account 1914	
6,000,000	00Grand Trunk Pacific. Investment account	
33,093,333	23Grand Trunk Pacific. Appropriation account 1918	.	.	7,471,399	93Grand Trunk Pacific. Guaranteed interest by Dominion of Canada	
5,146,444	37
Grand Trunk Pacific. Guaranteed interest by Grand
Trunk Railway	 534,658	32
Grand Trunk Pacific. Loan
account 1917	
5,038,053	72Grand Trunk Pacific. Interest account	
7,081,783	45Grand Trunk Pacific. Receiver account	
26,371,447	94Quebec Tunrpike Trust	.	.	20,000	00Quebec Harbour debentures.	11,133,550	58Three Rivers Harbour debentures	
81,760	97
Mr. TRAHAN:: Referring to the statement of revenue and expenditure published in the Canada Gazette, on April 9, 1921, will the Government give a list in detail of the revenue accounts amounting to $34,316,920.22, mentioned in the said statement under the general heading "Other Revenue Accounts" ?


Right Hon.   S@: Interest on investments.. .. $22,942,845.57
Patent fees	 395,440.24
Casual	 3,084,370.95
Ordnance lands	 8,756.03
Pines and forfeitures	 441,232.89
Premium, discount and exchange	 629,796.63
Mariners' fund	 70,451.90
Electric light inspection.. ..	129,334.05
Steamboat inspection	 64,102.96
Gas inspection	 64,674.80
Weights and measures		252,053.95
Cullers' fees	 2,070.15
Law stamps	 6,430.50
Penitentiaries	 117,871.51
Insurance inspection	 89,132.03

Fisheries	 291,678.50
Canada Gazette	 19,270.32
Superannuation fund	 14,856.79
Lighthouse and coast service	544.00
Dominion steamers	 4,054.10
Military college	 67,902.76
Civil Service examination	fees-	1,738.00
Dominion lands	 3,806,26^2.67
Militia pensions revenue.	.	.	.	100,354.19
Inspection of staples revenue	 1,328,325.24
M. Police officers' pension
revenue	 5,822.49
Chinese revenue. . .	  377,547.00

Railways and Canals collection	r 38,988,962.52
Trade and	Commerce	 1,948,879.92
Naval Service	 2,544,213.91
Labour	 503,093.37
Superannuation No. 3 (Vote
90)	 65,698.97


$121,806,075.83 PUBLIC DEBT
Arthur Trahan: What are the accounts which compose the sum of $55,990,997.69 mentioned under the heading " Non-Active Miscellaneous and Banking Accounts," in the statement of the public debt published in the Canada Gazette of April 9, 1921?


Arthur Trahan: Referring to the. statement of revenue and expenditure- published in the Canada Gazette, on April 9, 1921, will the Government give a detailed list of the expenditure accounts amounting to $121,806,075.83, mentioned under the general heading "Other Expenditure Accounts"?


Right Hon.   S@: Railway Equipment	$55,636,785.06
Southern Alberta Land Company	 354,212.63


Right Hon.   S@: Charges of management. . . . $
Sinking funds	
Premium, discount and exchange	
Civil government	
Administration of justice...
Legislation	
Penitentiaries	
Immigration	
Health	
Superannuation	
Militia	
R. N. W. Mounted Police.... Railways and Canals Consolidated Fund	
Mail subsidies	
Ocean and river service. . . . Lighthouse and coast service
Superannuation No. 4	
Steamboat inspection	
Fisheries	
Mines and Geological Survey
Scientific institutions	
Subsidies to provinces	
Indians	
Government of the N. W. Territory	
Miscellaneous	
Government of the Yukon
Territory	
Customs	
Excise	
Weights, measures, gas and
electric light	
The Air Board	
Public Works collection.. ..
166a
838,877.04
2,627,114.09
49,237.06
8.439.895.59 1,650,867.30 2,063,445.48 1,085,409.36 1,489,001.15
500.781.98
462.754.98 8,027,139.42 3,139,128.24
2,415,515.61
839,151.42
1,651,899.00
2,350,819.85
23,526.92
95,821.76
1,149,974.06
584.627.50 535,697.25
11,490,860.48
2,099,624.40
4,775.25
15,943,575.08
178,043.87
4,538,562.18
1.512.542.60
391.293.51 699,923.50 875,341.21


DOMINION NOTE ISSUES
Arthur Trahan: Referring to the statement regarding circulation and specie, published in the Canada Gazette of April 16, 1921, to the effect that approved securities have been deposited under the Finance Act of 1914, to guarantee Dominion Note Issues, what are the amount and nature of each of these approved securities and by whom have they been given?


Right Hon.   S@: Demand notes of commercial houses endorsed by the banks to the order of the Minister of Finance. 3,202,000.00 Canadian Northern Railway notes endorsed by the banks to the order of the Minister'of Finance. 15,207,337.59
Total	$151,396,664.06


ACCOUNTS WITH GREAT BRITAIN
Mr. TRAHAN:: 1.	Has the Dominion Government finally settled accounts with the Government of Great Britain?
2.	If so, at what date?
3.	What was the result of that settlement and what is the amount due or acknowledged as due, either by England to Canada or by Canada to England?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	No.	i ] '
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Balance due Dominion of Canada as of March 31, 1921, $144,408,746.63. This amount is exclusive of certain outstanding items unadjusted and charged up, such as Rail Shipments and incidental costs, the requisition >of ships of Canadian Register, and adjustment as to rate of exchange, etc.


REPAYMENT OP GOVERNMENT LOAN
Mr. TRAHAN:: 1.	Did the Government repay, at date of maturity, the twenty-five-million-dollar loan due on April 1 last?
2'. If so, how has the settlement of this loan or debt been financed by the Government?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	By shipping to New York "free" gold purchased from time to time from Canadian miners and paid for in cash out of ordinary revenue $19,500,000; balance provided for by flotation of temporary treasury bills.
EUROPEAN CREDITS Mr. TRAHAN:
1.	How many European countries are indebted to Canada?
2.	What is the amount due by each respectively, both as to capital and interest?


Hon. Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	5, as at March 31, 1921:
2. _*
Name of Principal amount	Interest
Country	Due	DueItaly $ 6,003,301.20 None France	5,648,726.60	NoneBelgium	6,291,225.64	NoneRoumania	20,571,227.23 $1,475,234.96 asof April 1,1921 Greece	7,478,953.39 $ 153,915.63 as
of Dec. 31,1920


MR. G. M. MURRAY
Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: 1.	(a) Was G. M. 'Murray, of 709 Yonge street, Toronto, loaned to the Government in 1919 or 1920? (b) If so, for how long and by whom?
2.	Did the Government pay the said G. M. Murray any salary, living allowance or expenses during the said years? If so, how much?
3.	What services was he performing for the Government?
4.	Is this the same G. M. Murray who was at one time secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association ?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	(a) Mr. G. M. Murray, then secretary of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, was a member of the Canada Registration Board. Mr. Murray was appointed as representing the employers of Canada, precisely as Mr. Tom Moore was appointed as representing the workers of Canada and Mrs. A. Plumptree was appointed as representing the women of Canada, (b) March 4, 1918, to November 18, 1918.
2.	Mr. Murray served as a member of the board without remuneration, but received a living allowance of ten dollars per diem when engaged on the work of the board and away from home, together with actual travelling expenses incurred in the service of the board.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- TOURIST CAMPAIGN
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 
Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Consider that as a result of campaign many tourists have been attracted to Baie des Ohaleurs district, and as good results expected for the coming season.
4.	Canadian National Railways passenger train service will be the same as last year

with an improved service, however, to be given by a sleeping car to be attached triweekly to the Ocean Limited tor operation between Levis and Canrpbellton.
Freight service of the past has been adequate and no change contemplated.
Have no information as to Quebec Oriental and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railways.
5.	See answer to No. 4.


GASPE PENINSULA TRAIN SERVICES
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure) :: 1.	Has any rolling1 stock of any description
been leased or sold within the last year to the Quebec Oriental or Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railways? If so, of what description?	.
2. Has the Management of the Canadian
2. Has the management of the Canadian National Railways been asked to put a Pullman car service between Montreal and Gasp6 during the summer months? If so, is it the intention to do so this year?
3.	Has any action been taken on the report and recommendations of the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners to improve the railway service on the Quebec Oriental and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railways?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Canadian National Railways recently rented to the Quebec Oriental Railway two coaches and one baggage car.
2.	The General Manager of the Quebec Oriental Railway spoke to the officers of the Canadian National Railways about operating sleeping car service between Montreal and Gaspe, but it was decided that such arrangements could not consistently be made.
3.	Neither the Government nor the management is in a position to deal with service on railways not included in the Canadian National system. Service on such railways is, however, subject to the jurisdiction of the Dominion Railway Board.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY
Mr. MacNUTT:: 1.	How much money has been expended in connection with the building of the Hudson Bay railroad?
2.	How much money 'has been expended in connection with the Hudson Bay railroad terminals?
i3. What is the estimated amount required for the completion of the Hudson Bay railroad, including terminals?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1 and 2:
Hudson Bay Railway... .$14,284,552.62
Hudson Bay Railway-
Port Nelson terminal..	6,305,891.71

3. It is not possible under present unsettled conditions with respect to material costs, transportation and labour, as well as limited supplies of necessary materials, to estimate accurately the amount which would be required to complete the work. Using original estimates of cost and prewar prices $8,410,000 would he required. Under present conditions the cost would be probably double that sum.


EMERGENCY APPROPRIATION FOR UNEMPLOYED
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	What is the amount claimed by or pai*d to the different cities in virtue of Order in Council number 139, known as the Emergency Appropriation for the Unemployed?
2.	What are the names of the cities which have made such claims or to which such moneys have been paid?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1. Total amount expended to Saturday,
April 23, 1921:
Municipality of Amherst, N.S.$	830.54
Municipality	of	the	city	ofMontreal, Que	,	3,811.03Municipality	of	the	city	ofWinnipeg, Man	
51,003.49Municipality	of	the	city	ofMoose jaw, Sask	
7,505.10Municipality	of	the	city	ofSaskatoon, Sask	
1,320.37Municipality	of	the	city	ofRegina, Sask	
10,540.24Municipality	of	the	city	ofNew Westminister, B.C	
112.30Municipality	of	the	city	ofVancouver, B.C	
49,457.00
Municipality of St. James,
Man	 847.47
Municipality of West Kildonan, B.C	 316.43
Municipality of Burnaby, B.C. 140.00 Municipality of Nelson, B.C...	105.51
Municipality of Prince Rupert, B.C	 1,558.45
Municipality of the District of
S.	Vancouver, B.C	 5,519.28
Municipality of Cumberland,
B.C	  26.21
Total	$133,093.42
2.	Answered by No. 1.
CIVIL SERVICE REORGANIZATION Mr. MCDONALD:
1.	Were any members of the firm of Griffen-hagen Associates formerly employees of the Arthur Young Company?
2.	If so, how many, and what are their names?

3.	Have the Griffenhagen Associates furnished the Government with any progress reports or recommendations on their work so far?
4.	If so, have these reports been made available to the House and to the service? If not, why?
5.	At what monthly rate were the Griffen-hagen Associates paid under their contract with the Government for reorganization work?
6.	What has been the total cost of their services up to the time w'hen the cancellation of their contract became effective?
7.	When did, or does the cancellation of their contract become effective?
8.	Is it the intention to retain any individuals of this firm or of their employees, either by taking them into the Canadian Civil Service or otherwise? If so, what remuneration will they receive and will the position be opened for competition?
9.	Have any representations been made by any Civil Service organization as to the reorganization of the service by the service itself?
10.	If so, what consideration has been given these representations, and by whom?


Right Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Nine, as follows: W. G. Bailey, F. 0. Everett, R. E. Goodell, W. A. Grove, C. Gusler, G. E. Jaquet, P. J. Nelson, H. J. Reber, C. M. Tipton.
3.	Yes. These reports have been made to the Sub-committee of Council and to the Council, and have been aated upon by .both.
4.	When and as approved, they are made known to the heads of the departments and the Civil Service Commission who co-operate in effecting the organization thereby sanctioned.
5.	$10,000 per month.
6.	$114,008.15.
7.	April 3, 1921.
8.	Yes. The Sub-committee have secured the services of certain of these employees on temporary, basis for such time as may be necessary to effectuate the reorganization already begun in the Departments of Post-Office, Customs' and Inland Revenue. The remuneration is based on the payments made under the former contract.
9.	Yes.
10.	Full consideration has been given to these representations by the Sub-committee and by Council itself.


INCOME TAX-INSTRUCTIONS PRINTED IN FRENCH
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Is the Government aware of the fact that the public is unable to secure French copies of booklets of instruction, such as are issued in the English language, on the manner in which income tax returns are to be prepared?
2.	If so, is it the intention of the Government to remedy this state of affairs without delay and to supply French booklets to persons asking for same?


Right Hon.   S@: Instructions to have 100,000 pamphlets "Income Tax Information and Instructions" printed in French were given on February 15, 1921, and these pamphlets are now being supplied to the various Districts.


PIERREVILLE POSTMASTER
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Who was postmaster at Pierreville, in the county of Yamaslra, until recently?
2.	Is it true that he has been discharged?
3.	If so, at whose request?
4.	For what reason?
5.	By whom has he been replaced, and upon what recommendation?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Sophie G. Boucher.
2.	Yes.
3.	On a charge made by citizens of Pierreville that she had allowed outsiders to handle mail contrary to regulations. The postmistress admitted the charge.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Temporarily by J. Simeon Letendre. The permanent appointment will be made by the Civil Service Commission in the usual way.


Hon. Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is the Government aware that Mrs. Boucher, mother of Mr. Amie Boucher, N.P., Liberal candidate in the County of Yamaska, Quebec, has just been dimissed as postmistress of Pierreville after twenty-five years of service?
2.	If so, has aay investigation been held?
3.	Who recommended the dismissal of said postmistress?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes. .
2.	Yes an investigation has been held. The postmistress admitted the charge.
3.	The Postmaster General, for cause.


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Is it a fact that the Government has dismissed from the service Madame Boucher, postmistress at Pierreville, county of Yamaska, Quebec?
2.	How long has Madame Boucher occupied this position?
3.	What was the reason for such dismissal and upon whose request was it made?
4.	Is the Government aware of the fact that Madame Boucher is the mother of Notary A. Boucher, liberal candidate in the county of Yamaska?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: 
GEORGIAN BAY CANAL
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has any promise, written or- oral, been made by any member of the Government that the construction of the Georgian Bay Canal would begin before the next general elections?
2.	If so, was it agreed that the work would start in the province -of Quebec?
3.	What is the estimated cost of that construction?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:: 1.	No.
2	and 3. Answered by No. 1.


GRAIN INQUIRY
Mr. MOLLOY:: Relative to the general grain inquiry shortly to be undertaken by Judge Hyndman and Messrs. Staples, Haslam and Goldie:
1.	Has R. A. Bonnar, K.C., of Winnipeg, been engaged as counsel for the commission? If so, what is his remuneration?
2.	What remuneration will be paid each of
the commissioners?	.
3.	Has a secretary of the commission been appointed? If so, who is the appointee and what remuneration will he receive?
4.	Has the Government made any estimate of what this commission will cost the country? If so, what is the estimate?


Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN :: 1.	The Government has no information.
2.	No remuneration has been fixed. _
3.	The Government has no information.
4.	No estimate has been made.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: 1.	What is the total number of enlisted men at present in Military District number 12?
2.	What percentage of the established strength of the Militia units for Military District number 12 has been actually enlisted.
3	How many are employed in headquarters
staff of Military District number 12, and at what annual expenditure?	.
4.	What is the total expenditure for salaries and allowances in Military distrit number 12:, for the last year?
5.	What is the total expenditure for Militia purposes for the past year in Military District number 12 ?



INSURANCE ACT-PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve-Gaspe) :: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) if he intends to proceed with his resolution to amend the Insurance Act. I just wanted to tell him that there is very strong objection throughout the country to some features of the proposed amendments.


Right Hon.   S@: There has been a good
deal of misapprehension throughout the country, I think, as to the nature of the proposal. With a view of removing the misapprehensions and composing the different difficulties that have been presented, a meeting will take place in Ottawa this week, when representatives of the various interests are coming together with a view of seeing whether the matter cannot be adjusted.



THE INCOME TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: Yesterday the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) asked a question, which I see on Hansard, in connection with filing income tax returns. I am sorry I was not able to be present at the time so as to answer the question. There is no proposal to change the date on which the returns are to he made. There is, standing on the Order Paper, a Bill which is calculated, in the first instance, to remove a number of difficulties which apparently exist at present as to the real meaning of the income tax law. In other words, we are bringing down a Consolidation Bill. In the next instance, the penalties in connection with non-payment will be very materially ameliorated; but there is no intention of changing the method of getting information, nor the method under which the first billing is to be made.


Mr. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo) :: Will the proposed legislation apply to the returns for the year just passed or for this year?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: It will apply to any one who has been put in any position of hardship, because, after all, laws should be obeyed. Therefore, it will apply to them for the returns which we would -expect to get on April 30.


Arthur Trahan: May I call the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that the various forms for income tax returns have apparently not yet been distributed? I have gone to the post office at Nicolet in order to get a form for the purpose of making my return, and the postmaster informs me that, notwithstanding numerous requests on his part, he has not yet received a single form, either in English or French or bilingual. In view of this fact, would it not he proper to grant a further delay for filing returns?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am much obliged to the hon. member for drawing my

attention to this state of affairs at Nicolet. I am surprised to hear of it, and I hope no other places are in the same plight. A very large number of forms were printed and were sent out to the proper places from which distribution should have been made, and I cannot understand why forms have not gone to Nicolet. I will make inquiry this afternoon by wire. In connection with the other question raised by my hon. friend, I do not think he will find the department will wittingly punish anybody for a wrong that is not his, but a wrong on the part of the department.
. Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve): Are the instructions in regard to the income tax being sent in both languages to postmasters?


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are being sent out in both languages. If they have not been, I will look into the matter.



POST OFFICE HOLIDAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Mont-morency) :: I am in receipt of a letter from certain post office employees of the city of Quebec informing me that the inspector of their district has received a communication from the minister at Ottawa to the effect that employees of the department will not have the benefit of holidays on Ascension day, Immaculate Conception, All Saints and Epiphany. I should like to know if the order was sent by the minister to the department.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This is not such a
question as ought again to be considered on the Orders of the Day. It affects a matter of policy of the Government that can be dealt with more advantageously either on a motion for Supply, or in Committee of Supply, or by putting a question on the Order Paper.


Pierre-François Casgrain: As Ascension day
cqmes next week, it is essential that those people should know what order was given by the department.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot see that any public interest will suffer even if those employees do perform extra service.



SUPPLY-PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) for Committee of Supply:
[u'Alluding to an earlier question by my hon. friend (Mr. Parent) as to the chief engineer of the department, I agree with his views as regards the fitness of a larger salary for that position, and I am -sure he will be gratified to know that an application for an increase in this salary is now before the proper authorities, the Civil Service Commission, so as to bring the salary of the chief engineer up to a more fitting figure, although, perhaps, not to the figure that I myself would like. As I said earlier in the evening, my experience is that of others; I would like naturally to have a free hand in the department, because I think I could get good results. Still, that is not the law of the land, and the department must be operated through the regular channels. Matters relating to the staff must be certified to and passed by the Civil\n1701\t;\tf:\nService Commission, and in that law, of course, every one must concur.\nWith the latter part of the remarks of the hon. member for Russell, I could not, perhaps, be expected to agree. But I am grateful for his first observations. I think his suggestion is an excellent one, and personally I have no objection to moving that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. At the next sitting, I shall be prepared to refer more particularly to the matter to which the hon. member for Russell has alluded.\nProgress reported.\nOn the motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 1.10 a.m. Thursday.\t\u201e\nThursday, April 28, 1921.']
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some diffidence to address the House, because I found it necessary not long ago to try its patience with a pretty long speech. I do so, however, to-day for two reasons, first because I take a very keen interest in the subject which has been set for discussion, and in the second place, because I had a considerable part in the negotiations which led to the resolution of 1917. That resolution has been placed recently on the pages of Hansard, but for purposes of reference I desire to quote it again. It reads:
The Imperial War Conference are of the opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and 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 readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government and complete control of domestic affairs, should 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 may determine.
It may be worth while, in discussing the approaching conference and the representation of Canada at that conference, to consider for a little the conditions out of which our present status has arisen. The British Empire is, after all, a very modern organization in respect of both its vast possessions and the methods by which it is governed. I am informed by the Dominion statistician that the population of the British Empire, at the time of the Congress of Vienna in 1814, was computed to amount to 62,558,650 persons, and that at the present time it is estimated that the population comprised within the boundaries of the British Empire is no less than 445,388,500 persons. I do not offer any figures as to area, but I believe the area of the Empire during that period has increased very much in proportion to the increase of population. But it is as to the constitutional development within the Empire that I wish chiefly to speak, and I desire to emphasize the point that since the beginning of the nineteenth century constitutional development has been as marked in the United Kingdom as in this country. During

the reign of the Georges, the Government of the United Kingdom was, in form, but not in reality, based upon representative institutions. Only a small portion of the people were represented in Parliament. The majority of the seats were under the control of an oligarchy, most of whom had seats in the House of Lords. The Government was indeed responsible to Parliament, but Parliament was not representative of the people. It was under this system that the American revolution took place, and I hope that our friends of the great neighbouring republic will sometimes remember that the Parliament of the United Kingdom at that time was not by any means representative of the nation. It is, perhaps, a tribute to the respect of the British people for law and authority that these anomalous conditions continued as long as they did; and doubtless that continuance was in some measure due also to the fact that from the middle of the eighteenth century to 1816 the Empire was very frequently involved in war. As a matter of fact, democratic government did not come into effect in Great Britain until after the Reform Bill of 1832. It was then supposed that the reform thus effected would be final, but it was followed by the reform enactments of 18671868, by those of 1884-1885, and finally by that of 1918. Up till 1834 in Great Britain ministers were regarded rather as servants of the Crown than of Parliament. Peel took office after Melbourne, in 1834, in the belief that Melbourne had been dismissed, and thus recognized his acquiescence in the constitutional principle that the King had the right to dismiss his ministers at pleasure. The events which followed Sir Robert Peel's acceptance, of office marked a new departure in that respect. It is perfectly clear that the King has the constitutional right to dismiss his ministers, not at pleasure but only in the interests of the State, and only when the grounds for dismissal can be justified to Parliament, or to a new Parliament after dissolution.
Now from 1791 we had in Canada, for more than fifty years, representative institutions on a broader basis than those of Great Britain, as the franchise was wider and more evenly distributed, but we had not responsible government. It is curious that the struggle in Great Britain was for representative government and in Canada for responsible government. In both cases the reform was not effected without disorders. From 1830 to 1832 there were
serious riots in Great Britain. In truth, the Reform Act of 1832 effected a political revolution in Great Britain, but, fortunately, without civil war.
We had the beginnings of responsible government in Canada in the late forties. Lord Durham's report laid the foundation, but some limitations which he advocated were soon swept away. The task was not accomplished without difficulty. British statesmen were convinced that responsible government was entirely unsuited to the colonies, and could not safely be applied to them. They freely predicted, and were perfectly sincere in their belief, that the grant of responsible government to the North American colonies marked the first stage of a movement which would speedily and inevitably bring about the disintegration of the Empire. It has had precisely the contrary effect, and the reason of this seems to me very plain. If there are errors in an administration controlled by the people of a country, the remedy lies in the hands of the people themselves, but if there are errors in an administration controlled by the Governor or by the Colonial Office, the criticism turns upon the Governor, as an Imperial officer, or upon the Colonial Office. Naturally, this tends to weaken the tie which unites the colony to the Mother Country.	,
I should like to emphasize the point that the movement for responsible government in Canada is the basis of the present constitution of the Empire. A group of free democracies, enjoying complete powers of self-government in their domestic affairs, and acting in close association with the Mother Country, has proved during the late war that unity is strongest when it is based upon freedom and autonomy. It is not unworthy of remark that the initiative in this movement came from the statesmen and people of this Dominion, and that their point of view has been fully recognized in Great Britain. I venture to observe, in passing, that the case for conferring upon the British colonies in North America complete powers of self-government was nowhere put forward more strongly, more forcibly, and more eloquently than in the four famous letters written by Joseph Howe to Lord John Russell in the summer of 1839.
To contrast for a moment the outlook of British statesmen in 1839 with the outlook of their successors in 1907, on April 14, 1837, Lord John Russell, speaking as Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the House of- Commons, thus expressed his views:

The'case, as it is brought before the House, is this. The House of Assembly of Lower Canada have asked for an elective Legislative Council, and for an Executive Council, which shall be responsible to them, and not to the Government or Crown of Great Britain. We consider that these demands are inconsistent with the relations between a colony and the Mother Country, and that it would be better to say, at once, "let the two countries separate," than for us to pretend to govern the colony afterwards.
The resolution, which he then supported, and which was passed by the House of Commons, contained the following paragraph :
JResolved, That, while it is expedient to improve the composition of the Executive Council in Lower Canada, it is inadvisable to subject it to the responsibility demanded by the House of Assembly of that province.
Let us for one moment contrast with that the words and the action of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman seventy years afterwards, on May 10, 1907, when he said this:
Let us see what is that most significant event of the past year which has rung through the world and astounded the world. It is the establishment of complete self-government in the Transvaal, and the constitution of a freely elected government, at the head of which is a man who perhaps was the ablest and most successful soldier of those who led the Boer people in the determined war against us a year or two ago. I believe in my soul and conscience that in the whole history of our country there has- never been a finer example of true British policy or of grander achievement.
I shall not attempt to trace, although it would be interesting to do so, the various steps in the development of full autonomy-in this country and in the other dominions. Those steps have been gradual but certain, and the great statesmen of both political parties in Canada have contributed to the progress through which we have reached our present status. I speak only of those who have passed away. There were others, but I allude especially to John A. Macdonald, George Brown, Alexander T. Galt, Georges Etienne Cartier, Edward Blake, Charles Tupper, John S. D. Thompson, and last, but not least, Wilfrid Laurier. I believe the present Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) will stand as strongly for our full autonomy and all our constitutional rights as any of his predecessors.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does not the right
hon. gentleman forget one name, that of Sir Louis Hippolyte Lafontaine?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I am speaking only of those since the commencement of Confederation. I remember the eminent services of Baldwin and Lafontaine, of course, and I am glad of the reminder of 
my hon. friend; but I was referring especially to the development which has taken place since the foundation of this Confederation in 1867.
Now, as to the methods of consultation. The Imperial Conference received its present form in 1907. It sits under the presidency of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and, in his absence, under that of the Golonial Secretary. It was initiated under the name of the Colonial Conference in 1887 for the purpose of consultation. That consultation was originally between the Colonial Secretary and the governments of the Dominions as subordinates; but the Conference now exists for consultation between the government of the United Kingdom and the governments of the Dominions on the basis of equal rights and equal status.
Under some vague theory of trusteeship, the Government of the United Kingdom conducted for many years the more important questions touching the foreign relations of our Empire. I should remind the House, however, that these did not include everything that might be classed within the term "foreigfn relations,." A brilliant Australian, Mr. H. Duncan Hall, has pointed out this consideration in his recent work, "The British Commonwealth of Nations," from which I desire to quote a passage. After speaking of the control of the British Government in respect of the higher questions of foreign policy, he says:
But this does not mean that the Dominions had no control over their foreign affairs generally, nor that they had no effective foreign policy m the wider sense of the term. Over the complex: of every-day [DOT] international relationships, they had almost as much direct control as 'the people of the United Kingdom. Above all they had control over the two questions which more and more are becoming for all countries the burning centre of foreign policy,-trade -and immigration. They framed their own tariffs, negotiated their own commercial.- treaties, and enacted and administered their own immigration laws. In the light of these facts, and of the existence of Dominion armies and navies, the saying already quoted that the Dominions had no kind of "political control of the policy which involved them in peace or war" seems to miss the substance and to strike at a shadow. At least, they had control of the issues which lead them and the rest of the Empire to the very brink of war, only requiring the seals of the British Foreign Office to thrust the Empire formally over the edge.
Indeed, in certain respects, the control exercised by the Dominion over its ordinary international relationships was more effective than that exercised by the normal type of formally independent state. The institution of the Imperial Conference had destroyed the very real danger that the Colonial Office (which, with the growth of Responsible Government, tended more and more to be restricted to the performance of

the Foreign Office functions with regard to the Dominions) would become a bottle-neck through which all communications between Great Britain and the Dominions would be forced to pass. The development in the Empire of the method of conference between Cabinets, enabled the ministers responsible for those Government Departments which were largely concerned with international relationships, to discuss the best means of dealing with these questions, to decide upon a common policy, and to agree to a concerted action necessary to carry that policy into effect. The existence of this machinery gave to a Dominion a more effective control over most of its external relations than an ordinary ungrouped state could hope to exercise.
But there are, of course, the higher questions of foreign relations hitherto determined by the British Government as to which the Dominions in the future must have a recognized voice and influence. By what method shall this be accomplished? To that question, the Constitutional Conference, as provided by the resolution of 1917, must address itself. I am not so unwise as to hazard any prediction as to the precise method which will be adopted. I am, however, of those who believe that the voice of the Dominions will exercise an important influence upon the great questions which affect our foreign relations. Moreover, I am confident that this influence will be so exercised as to assist in the avoidance of treaties or understandings which might involve the Empire in war. Indeed, at the present day, I think Great Britain might hesitate to engage in war against a strong public opinion in either Canada or Australia. Further, the voice and influence of the Dominions should tend more and more to turn the attention of British statesmen to the enormous task which confronts the Empire in the governance and development of the vast possessions which are included within its limits. I speak entirely for myself in the observations which I am addressing to the House, but I may say that personally I should regret to see the Empire engage in difficult commitments, whether in Eastern Europe or Western Asia, or elsewhere. We have quite enough, and perhaps more than enough, on our hands at present.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I regard the
effectual exercise of voice and influence by the Dominions as highly important and even essential, for this among other reasons: If the British Empire should be involved in a serious war, each Dominion must take its reasonable part in the common defence or withdi'aw and become an independent state. A self-respecting
people could hardly enjoy the advantages of union with other parts of the Empire during peace and take no responsibility for the common security in time of danger or trouble. If we exercise no voice or - influence we are committed either to ignominious withdrawal from common responsibilities, or to take part in a war as to the cause of which we have had no voice, although our united influence might have prevented its outbreak.
The genius of thd British people does not lend itself to violent or sudden changes; rather it proceeds cautiously step by step, and as the need arises. The Imperial War Cabinet, so-called, served its purpose sufficiently well during the war. It consisted of the British War Cabinet and the Prime Ministers of the Dominions, each Prime Minister being, of course, responsible to his own Parliament. In reality, the Imperial War Cabinet was the development of the committee on Imperial Defence in which, rather than in the Imperial Conference, questions of defence and foreign relations had been discussed between Great Britain and the Dominions for several years before the war.
Hon. gentlemen who have made themselves acquainted with this subject will recollect that at the Imperial Conference of 1911 there was a meeting of the Committee on Imperial Defence which the Dominion Prime Ministers attended and at which vital questions of foreign policy were fully disclosed and discussed. Mr. Asquith, in the concluding stages of the conference, spoke of the Dominion ministers as having been admitted to the Arcana Imperii.
The status of Canada at the Peace Conference, and afterwards in the International Labour Conference at Washington and in the Assembly of the League of Nations at Geneva has already been discussed, and I shall speak of it only for a moment. Much ingenuity and logic have been displayed in pointing out the anomalies of the situation, and in declaring that nothing has been accomplished in advancement of status. The best answer can be given by reference to the high position which Canada took, through its representatives, at Washington in 1919 and at Geneva during recent months. There has been much alarm that the representatives of Great Britain and the Dominions did not on these occasions always see eye to eye on minor questions. There would be much ground for criticism, and even regret, if the result had been otherwise. We should be in an utterly false position

if we were expected to re-echo on all occasions the opinions of the representatives of the United Kingdom: Our points of view are not always the same for our conditions differ. On essential questions of policy I agree that there should be a united front -expressing the view not of the United Kingdom alone but of the whole Empire- established by previous conference and consultation.
There are those who are apprehensive of the consequence of the possession of wide powers whether by the Mother Country or by the Dominions, and they would do well to remember that the constitution of the British Empire (if it can be called a constitution) is based largely upon usage and convention. It would be practically impossible in any of the five democracies of the Empire to carry on government effectually if every instrument of government continually exercised its powers to the utmost extent. I venture to quote (it has often been quoted by constitutional writers,) the famous passage in the introduction to the second edition of Bagehot's English Constitution :
Recent discussions have also brought into curious prominence another part of the constitution. I said in this book that it would very much surprise people if they were only told how many things the Queen could do without consulting Parliament, and it certainly has so proved, for when the Queen abolished purchase in the army by an Act of prerogative (after the Lords had rejected the Bill for doing so), there wag a great and general astonishment.
But this is nothing to what the Queen can by law do without consulting Parliament. Not to mention other things, she could disband the Army (by law she cannot engage more than a certain number of men, but she is not obliged to engage any men) ; she could dismiss all the officers, from the General Commanding-in-Chief downwards; she could dismiss all the sailors too ; she could sell off: all our ships of war and all our naval stores ; she could make a peace by the sacrifice of Cornwall, and begin a war for the conquest of Brittany. She could make every citizen in the United Kingdom, male or female, a peer; she could make every parish in the United Kingdom a "university" ; she could dismiss most of the civil servants; she could pardon all offenders. In a word, the Queen could by prerogative upset all the action .of civil government within the government, could disgi ace the nation by a bad war or peace, and could, by disbanding our forces, whether land or sea, leave us defenceless against foreign nations. Why do we not fear that she would do this, or any approach to it?
Of course it would have been quite unconstitutional, as other writers have pointed out, for the Queen to do any of these things except on the advice of her ministers. Bagehot goes on to enumerate the checks which, in his opinion, prevent the arbitrary

exercise of such powers. The real check, however, is to be found in that powerful force which we somewhat vaguely term "public opinion," the strong, perhaps the overwhelming sentiment of the majority of the nation. Indeed it is that powerful force which maintains law and order within the borders of each democracy. There is the authority of the law and behind that the police force and the military force, if you like, but behind all these is the irresistible force of public opinion. In like manner the peace of the world must depend upon the public opinion of the world. Upon the force of that opinion must be based in the last analysis any such organization as the League of Nations or other international institution designed to preserve the world's peace.
As to the other subjects mentioned in the agenda which have been brought to our attention by the Prime Minister I shall say very little. It does seem to me that unless there are unexpected and unforeseen developments the occasion is altogether inopportune for considering the problems of Imperial defence or the responsibility to be undertaken by the various parts of the Empire in that respect. Surely we have not undergone untold sacrifices merely to learn that there is to be no respite from the intolerable burden of armaments. Much depends upon the attitude of the United States towards essential cooperation for reduction of armaments and for ensuring the peace of the world.
I am confident that such co-operation will not be witheld whatever may be the final decision of that great country with respect to the Covenant of the League of Nations. The movements for the determination of international differences by peaceful methods have been more important and more marked in the United States during the past quarter of a century than in any other country.
Through the vast improvement and development of means of communication each nation is the neighbour of every other. No nation can sit apart. The sufferings entailed by the late war extended beyond the boundaries of belligerent nations and seriously affected even neutral countries. Moreover the horrors of war have been unspeakably increased by the increasing use of more effective implements of destruction, including chemical devices of the most terrible and devilish character. The next war, if one should be permitted, will surpass in its horrors even than from which we have just emerged.

I believe that Canada has the highest opportunity for development, influence and usefulness in every sense, as a nation within the British Empire. For many years we have claimed to be a nation. On that subject I might quote here the words of a great Canadian, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Speaking in this House on the Imperial Conference of 1907, he said:
There .were many who -believed that these relations should be based upon the principle that the young daughter communities should be simply satellites revolving around the parent State, but others there were who held- and in my estimation rightly held-that the proper basis of the British Empire was that it was to be composed of a galaxy of nations under the British Crown.
Later, on February 3, 1910, speaking on the Naval Service Bill then before the House of Commons, he said:
This policy is in the best traditions of the Liberal party. This policy is the latest link in the long chain of events which following the principles laid down by the reformers of the old times, Baldwin and Lafontaine, step by step, stage by stage, have brought Canada to the position it now occupies, that is to say the rank, dignity and status of a nation within the British Empire.
We cannot assume or accept the status of nationhood without accepting also its responsibilities. I earnestly hope that the burden of providing for defence will be much less in the future than in the past. The expenditure imposed by past wars in all countries is both outrageous and grotesque. But, whatever the burden may be, I believe it will be less upon this country as a nation of the Empire than if we stood separate as an independent nation. I shall not weary the House with statistics, but if one examines the expenditure for military and naval purposes of such countries as Argentina, Spain, Sweden and Holland in 1914, one can realize the truth of what I suggest.
Finally, I hope that as in Great Britain questions of foreign policy have been elevated above the sphere of party controversy, so in this country our relations to Great Britain and to the other nations of the Empire will not be brought within the region of our party divisions.
No important step can be taken in constitutional change without the approval of Parliament; no such step should be taken without the fullest consideration and without the fullest discussion in Great Britain and in the Dominions. No such change can be effectual unless it carries public opinion in all parts of the Empire that may be
affected. The influence of the British Empire in the centuries which are behind us has been an influence for good,-perhaps the greatest influence for good that the world has known. Its constitutional development has been based upon principles not unlike those which inspired the men who framed the Covenant of the League of Nations. If we can make good such methods of consultation and co-operation as will preserve to the Mother Country and to each Dominion its full and perfect autonomy, and enable them to exercise a united influence for the peace of the world and for the advancement of humanity, we shall have accomplished a great task.
During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, British statesmen and publicists probably concentrated their attention more upon questions of purely European concern than upon the affairs of our Commonwealth of Nations. More attention was perhaps given to the governance of the Balkan States than to the Government of this vast Empire. Fortunately that condition has passed away.
I believe the whole Empire owes a debt of gratitude to the young men who associated themselves in what is known as the Round Table Group, for their fine service in arousing public interest to the importance of the question with which we are concerned-to-day. I do not agree with the conclusions which they have reached, because I believe that the security and permanence of the Empire are to be found in the association of its democracies upon a basis of autonomy, liberty and co-operation rather than in Parliamentary federation. The system for which I stand, and upon which I
4 p.m. base my hopes for the future, has been tested to the utmost during the years of the war, and the whole world bears witness to the truth that it has not been found wanting. It represents the strength of five democracies, all possessing representative institutions and responsible government, each enjoying full autonomy and liberty in its domestic affairs and all united in effective co-operation for the progress, development and security'of the whole.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition) :: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members will re-echo the sentiment of the right hon. member for King's N.S. (Sir Robert Borden), when he expressed the hope that in the discussion of matters pertaining to Imperial rela-

tions and foreign affairs this House will follow the well-established practice of the Motherland of raising such discussions above the plane of party division and party controversy. May I at the outset, as evidence of my belief in the wisdom of such a policy, say that I think so far as the views expressed in the very able and exhaustive address to which we have just listened are concerned, hon. members irrespective of party affiliations will find themselves much more in agreement than in conflict? Particularly do I think we will all agree that as to the constitutional development of the British Empire my right hon. friend is right when he says that it is founded upon the rock of responsible self-government, and that in this allimportant phase of constitutional development within the Empire Canada has certainly played the leading part. I think also, Mr. Speaker, we will be in accord with the opinion expressed by my right hon. friend when as regards the forthcoming conference of Prime Ministers he said that this is not the opportune moment to try and arrive finally at any settlement of some of the very important questions which are set forth in the agenda.
I shall not attempt to discuss the many questions relating to external relations and constitutional rights and obligations which arise out of the speech of my right hon. friend, rather shall I confine what I have to say to the immediate question which is before us for consideration this afternoon. My purpose really is to make sure that the House appreciates accurately the position which the representative of Canada will be expected to take at the forthcoming conference. The reason that I dwell particularly on the importance of an accurate understanding is that unfortunately in the statements which we have had placed before us of the purposes of this conference there is a good deal that is indefinite and, What is still more unfortunate, ^ not a little that is inconsistent.
My right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), in presenting to Parliament on March 4 last the matters which would be considered at the forthcoming conference, gave the following statement to the House in reply to a question which was asked by the hon. member for Chambly and Ver-cheres (Mr. Archambault). The reply will be found at page 595 of unrevised Hansard:
The agenda for this meeting of Prime Ministers has not yet been settled, but it is expected that among the subjects for discussion will be

the question of the renewal of the Treaty of Alliance with Japan of the thirteenth July, 1911, and the question of naval policy based upon the principle of co-operation; while there will doubtless be a review and consultation Upon the general course of the foreign policy of the Empire.
The House will observe that in that statement the Prime Minister mentioned as one of the questions to be taken up the question of "naval policy based upon the principle of co-operation." The day before yesterday my right hon. friend gave another statement to the House of the matters which would be discussed at the forthcoming conference. From that statement it would appear that naval policy will not be considered one way or the other, but that the conference is rather in the nature of a preliminary meeting simply for the purpose of discussing in a general way matters relating to an Imperial Conference to deal with constitutional developments within the Empire, to be held at some subsequent date. His statement will be found at page 2592 of ITansa: J and is in the fo'bwing words-
The proposal was made and accepted last October-	*
That is to say, the proposal for a conference of Prime Ministers of the British Empire.
[DOT]-on the basis that the June meeting would be of a special and preliminary character having in view the necessity of discussing-
(1)	Preparation for the special Consitutional Conference contemplated in Resolution 9 of the Imperial War Conference of 1917 to be held at a later date, this preparatory discussion to include such questions as the meeting place, date, composition and agenda.
At the same time it was considered that the June meeting would afford an opportunity for discussing certain other matters of common concern which are of an urgent or important nature, such as-
(2)	A general review of the main features of foreign relations, particularly as they affect the Dominions.
(3)	The question of the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, which is indeed only a part of the general subject of foreign relations, but which is especially urgent since under the terms of the Alliance a decision should be reached this year.
(4)	Preliminary consideration, preparatory for the proposed Constitutional Conference, of some working method for arriving at a common understanding as to policy in such external affairs as concern all parts of the Empire.'
*Since that time various other subjects have been suggested for inclusion in the agenda of the June meeting.
I shall not trouble the House by taking up the other subjects, but I wish to draw the attention of hon. members particularly to the fact that the statement given by my right hon. friend two days ago of the

subjects which he regards as the ones likely to come up for discussion has no reference to the question of naval policy based upon the principle of co-operation. It would appear, therefore, that there has been, in the interval between the making of these two statements, some discussion or further consideration by the Government, and possibly conference with members of the Home Government, with regard to this matter. I would ask my right hon. friend whether he intends to lay on the table of the House any of the eorespon-dence that has taken place between our Government and the Home Government with reference to this conference, and at the same time I should like to express the opinion that in a matter so important as that of a conference on inter-Imperial relations the Hguse should have the fullest information which it is possible for the Government to give. Perhaps my right hon. friend, when he speaks, will intimate whether any correspondence will be brought down, in order that hon. members may have it before them for their consideration of this matter.
Prom the latest statement made by my right hon. friend it would appear that the Conference of Prime Ministers in June is to be preliminary in its character and for the purposes of discussion only-not for the purpose of arriving at final conclusions in regard to any of the matters that will come up for consideration. If I am mistaken in this, I hope my right hon. friend will make it perfectly clear in what particulars the conference intends to go beyond that limit. We understand, as the matter has been presented to us, that the conference will in no way have power to decide finally any of the questions set forth in the agenda, but rather that it is to give the Prime Ministers of the different parts of the British Empire an opportunity of conferring together and discussing these matters: when they return to their respective countries they may make such representations to their colleagues and to their parliaments as they deem wise:	We
understand that in representing Canada at this conference my right hon. friend will in no way commit this Parliament or this country ydth respect to any of the subjects that are upon the agenda.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that there is further reason why we should be perfectly clear in our understanding of the scope of my right hon. friend's authority, in that there appears to be a difference of point of view as to the purposes of this conference as set forth by different personages who will attend. For example, the Prime Minister of Great Britain has given out a public statement from which it would appear that, in his view the Conference is to go very much beyond the scope of any preliminary conference for purpose only of discussion. In the Montreal Star of February 16, 1921, and in other Canadian papers of the same day, will be found a despatch from Great Britain in the following words:
Mr. Lloyd George speaking in the House last evening declared that it was too much to ask of these small Islands that they undertake the whole burden of the defence of a gigantic Empire in every sea, and that at the forthcoming conference of Prime Ministers of the Dominions in London the whole problem of Imperial Defence must be considered. There must be, the Prime Minister went on, co-ordination not only between the various services, but between the several parts of the Empire. Mr. Lloyd George stated that the Conference of Empire Premiers to be held in London in June will be the most momentous event in the history of the Empire.
Now, if that is a correct statement of the purposes of the conference, it is wholly at variance with the one which has been made by the Prime Minister of Canada. My purpose in rising, Mr. Speaker, was primarily to have it made clear to the House what, according to the view of my right hon. friend, is to be the scope of the conference which he is about to attend.
There is a further reason for emphasizing this point. Within the last few days the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Right Hon. Winston Churchill, has also expressed his view in public as to the scope and significance of the conference. I shall not quote what Mr. Churchill has said, but I should like to remind the House that he has referred to the forthcoming conference as a Cabinet meeting:	"Imperial
Peace Cabinet " is the designation which Mr. Churchill has given to the proposed conference of Prime Ministers in England. Well, if it is to be an Imperial Peace Cabinet we should know what authority it will have to act in the name of the different parliaments that will be represented by the Prime Ministers who will attend the conference.
In order to make perfectly clear our understanding of the matter I should like to say that we accept piy right hon. friend's view in the language in which he presented it to the House in his last statement, namely, that the conference is one purely for the purposes of discussion and preliminary to an Imperial Conference to be held at some

subsequent time; also that the subjects to be discussed will be those which he has set forth, but that no decision in any way binding this country will be reached.
On March 4 my right hon. friend made the following statement in answer to a question that was asked:
Necessarily any proposals resulting from the Conference and affecting Canada must be subject to the approval of the Canadian Parliament.
We understand that .that is the position my right hon. friend will take With regard to any public matter which may come up for consideration. The whole question might be left there were it not for one sentence which appears in the last statement my right hon. friend made to the House. He said that the first four questions would be the most likely ones for the purposes of discussion and that in the view of the Canadian Government it was hardly likely that more than the first four would be closely discussed. But he added:
Circumstances may develop which will render conclusions desirable on some of the other subjects.
That language is capable of the interpretation that my right hon. friend believes, that some questions may come up, including the question of military, naval and air defence, Which is one now relegated to a second place-questions on which it may be necessary to come to some definite conclusion. If there is any doubt in my right hon. friend's mind as to the scope of his authority or as to the scope of the conference itself he should not leave Canada without clearly understanding that there are at least two or three important considerations on which this Parliament will be unanimous. One is that no change in constitutional relations should be considered in any final, binding or other way at this preliminary conference, also that Canada should not in any way be committed to additional financial obligations on the score of military, naval or air defence. I think these are matters on which hon. members .of Parliament will feel at one. In order therefore that my right hon. friend's hand -may be strengthened when he goes overseas, I propose with respect to these considerations, to move an amendment which I hope he will feel he can accept as an expression of the unanimous opinion of this Parliament in regard to his authority at the conference.
I would not move this resolution if I thought my right hon. friend would be right in assuming it as in any way intended as an expression of want of confidence in TMr Maakenzie King.]
the Government. The language is such that, on the face of it, every hon. member will see that the purpose which I have in mind, is simply that of making perfectly clear the scope of my right hon. friend's authority and of strengthening, as I have said, his hand in regard to any matters that may come up at the Prime Ministers' Conference. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Queen's and Shelburne:
That all the words after the word "That" to the end of the question be left out and the following be inserted instead thereof:
"the House, while recognising the propriety of Canada being represented at any Imperial Conference or Conference of the Prime Ministers of the Empire that may be called, desires to record its opinion that at the coming conference no steps should be taken in any way involving any change in the relations of Canada to other parts of the Empire; and that, in view of the present financial position of Canada, no action should be taken implying any obligation on the part of Canada to undertake new expenditures for naval or military purposes."


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, it was not my
intention, certainly it was not my desire, to take part in this discussion until I had had the advantage of hearing the opinions of as many hon. members as desired to speak, with such suggestions as they had to offer of help to any member of the Government who would represent this country at the forthcoming Conference of Prime Ministers. But in view of the rather extraordinary, certainly most unprecedented, step which the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has taken in seizing advantage of a special opportunity given for discussion of a subject such as this, to move an amendment to Supply, I think ' the position of the Government in relation to that amendment should at once be made known. I speak, I think, the undoubted fact when I say that the practice of having discussion preliminary to the visit of a representative of this country to a conference of the Prime Ministers or other representatives of the Dominion and of Great Britain has not heretofore been observed. I, at least, do not remember hearing myself or having read of a discussion in the House specially set, looking to anything in the way of direction or in the way of restraint upon a representative who would speak at such a conference for Canada. When I say that, I do not mean to imply that the example that we are setting this afternoon so far as discussion goes, is not a good example. Had that been my judgment or the judgment of the Government, it would have been our duty to say so rather than to fix

a date and to invite discussion. On the contrary, I think the example of giving an opportunity for discussion this afternoon and of having Parliament informed in advance as to the particular purpose of the discussion is a valuable one. It seems to me that much good can result from a free interchange of views between various members of the House from all sides, and particularly that good can result when we have in mind the special character of some of the subjects that must be reviewed at the conference this June. Indeed, the Government has been of opinion that very little progress can be made along the lines of solution of some of the questions that we must review, until the fullest opportunity for discussion in Parliament has been given, involving as it does, a very considerable passage of time, because the discussion of one day, or one week, or one month would not be of much value, but also that little can safely be done until there has progressed throughout the whole country such study of the question as will lead the representatives who go overseas and indeed those who stay within this House in no doubt as to what would be acceptable to the people of this country in the way of decisions by Canada. That much, I think, can be accepted; at least, I submit that as the expression of my opinion.
But the occasion is seized to move an amendment to Supply, designed to place some restraint, whatever it may be, upon the hands of the Dominion's representatives going to a conference of the Prime Ministers of the Empire. I venture to suggest that not only has no such thing been done with reference to other conferences of a similar kind that have been held in years gone by dating back some twenty years, but no such step has been taken preliminary to the taking part in such conference of representatives of other Dominions of this Empire. Why is such a step inadvisable? I answer first of all, and I think, if I went no further, the answer would appeal to the House as conclusive- because such action is out of harmony with the whole principle of conference. A conference is held in order that conditions present in the various Dominions represented there may be disclosed and fully made known before the representatives of all, in order that facts that may not be known to others and that are known to some, the importance and the proportions of which may not be fully understood in certain parts of the Dominion, but are understood in others, may be stated and
measured in order that the views that are held in some portions of the Dominion as being of great consequence and in others as being of less importance, may all be brought together and the whole situation canvassed, and such conclusions reached as seem to be possible to the whole and for the advantage of all. That is a definition that I modestly advance as expressive of the very nature of conference itself. Such being the purpose and the object of conference, we are taking, in my judgment, a false step if Parliament takes any action designed to map out the course which the representatives of this country should take as to specific subjects which will be under discussion and review. Let me follow this out a little further. Suppose the action which we are asked to take this afternoon, and which we are requested, I fear with some satire, to assume is in no way intended to embarrass the Government, but rather to be of assistance to the Government in this great task- suppose the action we are asked to take this afternoon is to become a practice to be followed by the other Dominions, and that it is to be pursued not only as to the special subjects enumerated in the amendment, but as to other subjects (because if we are right in directing as to one we are right in directing as to another); suppose that is to be followed to its logical conclusion, in Australia, in New Zealand, in South Africa, in Newfoundland, in India, in Great Britain, and that the delegates go to the conference directed by their governments along certain lines, or along all lines, then why do they go there qt all? What is the conference for? Has not the conference been blasted at the hour of its conception? Indeed, the step we are asked to take this afternoon is the first step towards making the consultative and conference principle of no value at all in the promotion of the common interests of the Empire.	*
The hon. leader of the Opposition asks me not to accept his amendment as a motion of want of confidence in the Government. Well, if the hon. member has confidence in the Government, and especially in the Prime Minister as regards this conference, I do not know why the motion is advanced. But next, a motion in amendment to Supply is, prima facie, a motion of want of confidence. I was interested some days ago in hearing the result of the researches of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) in an effort to persuade Parliament that a motion to adopt



[Stage Direction]
the old reciprocity pact of 1911, in amendment to Supply, was in no way intended as a want of confidence motion. He had succeeded in digging up actually two amendments to Supply since Confederation that had not been taken as motions of want of confidence in the Government-two in fifty-four years. Consequently, it does not need to be argued to be impressed that a motion in amendment to Supply, prima facie is a motion of want of confidence. But much more is it so when coming from the leader of the Opposition, it seeks tc place manacles on the hands of a representative of this country going to attend a Conference of Prime Ministers of the Empire. But aside entirely from the question of whether it is or not, surely it is not the part of wisdom for this House to start upon a course which, if fo'.'owed, will destroy the only line that we can take as separate dominions in association with Great Britain to promote our common concerns, and make possible our continuance as an Empire on the basis on which we now stand.
While I am on my feet I will have something to say, because I could not do so later, as to how this conference comes to be called^ and the subject matters that will there be reviewed, I shall as well attempt to distinguish it from other conferences that are in some respects similar. As I do so, I will make reference to the questions put to me by the leader of the Opposition who has just sat down.
In the Imperial Conference in 1917-I am pretty sure it was the Imperial Conference and not the Imperial War Cabinet -a resolution was adopted to this effect; that the subject of any necessary readjustment of the constitutional relations of the various Dominions to each other and to the Mother Land was a subject of such importance and complexity that its consideration should be deferred to some special conference to be held succeeding the war, and that whatever was done should be in full recognition of the autonomous powers of the Dominions, should in no way be any subtraction from any of those powers, and further, should recognize the rights of the Dominions to an adequate voice in determining those features and principles of foreign policy in which the whole Empire is concerned.
Perhaps, before I go further, I should endeavour to distinguish the various conferences that have been held, so that the House will not be in doubt as to what has

constituted the one class and what the other.
The Imperial Conference is the first. That has been held periodically since before the commencement of this century. In 1907 a resolution was adopted by that conference, Resolution No. 1, providing that that conference should be called regularly every four years. That is a conference of representative ministers of the various parts of the Empire and of Great Britain. The president of the conference is the Prime Minister of Great Britain, but the conference is called at the instance of the Secretary for the Colonies, and the mechanism, the secretariat of the conference, is under the latter's supervision. As a matter of fact, he usually presides, in his capacity of vice-chairman of the conference. The subject matter that has been discussed from time to time at the Imperial Conference has had to do with the concerns of the Empire as an empire, concerns in which each portion was interested, concerns which might possibly be referred to as domestic concerns of the British Empire. It had not to do with questions of foreign policy.
During the war there developed what was known as the Imperial War Cabinet, a name to which some exception might be taken on the ground that it indicates really more than the assembly actually was. Exception, by the way, was taken to the name on the part of the late leader of the Opposition, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was of opinion that "council" would be a more appropriate term than cabinet. The Imperial War Cabinet developed during the war. It was a meeting of the ministers of the British Government, such as were selected, and of the ministers of the other governments of the Empire, and therefore as regards composition was virtually the same as the Imperial Conference itself. Its chairman was the Prime Minister, of Great Britain. The Secretary for the Colonies had no special relation thereto. It was called by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and the subject matter that was taken up and reviewed by the War Cabinet differed essentially from the subject matter that came before the Imperial Conferences. The War Cabinet had to do with matters of high policy, with matters affecting foreign affairs and particularly with matters related to the united prosecution of the war on the part of all branches of the Empire. So much for that. I should say that one subject relating to foreign affairs was taken up earlier in which Canada had a hearing, namely the renewal

of the Japanese Alliance in 1911. In respect of this the representative of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, had a voice. But that voice was expressed, not at a meeting of the Imperial Conference, but at a meeting of the Committee on Imperial Defence, which was quite another body. In passing, I may say that provision was made by the Imperial War Cabinet whereby any of the British Dominions might have a minister of its Government present at all sessions of that Cabinet, between its plenary sessions, dealing with war matters. But inasmuch as that privilege was never taken advantage of, there is no need to do more than refer to it now. At The Peace Conference at Paris the ministers from the various Dominions-I believe the prime ministers of all were there-considered that it would be necessary for them to meet in order to make certain arrangements and have certain discussions which, in their judgment, would be essential before the Constitutional Conference, contemplated by the resolution of the Imperial Conference of 1917, to which I have alluded, should be held. Though an attempt was made then to fix a meeting place and decide upon a time, no success was achieved, and it was only last October that, in a confidential message received from the Prime Minister of Great Britain, it was suggested that, as other prime ministers could conveniently be present in June, Canada should be represented by its prime minister at a conference to be held in Great Britain in that month.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Does the Prime Minister state that it was agreed that the prime ministers should meet prior to the Constitutional Conference?


Arthur Meighen: I do not think I said it was agreed. What I said was that at the Peace Conference it was thought that there should be a preliminary meeting.


Ernest Lapointe: Was there any written agreement?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know of any document; this is the report given me by one of the secretaries. However, they were not able to arrange a time. The point is not of consequence, at any rate, because nothing effective was done until this communication of October last, to which I have referred. In that communication the Prime Minister of Great Britain mentioned certain subjects that should be reviewed. Those subjects, on the basis of which a favourable reply was sent, were the subjects delineated as numbers 1, 2, 3 and
4 in the more complete notification which I gave the House on Monday last. Those were the matters referred to in that communication which was marked either secret or confidential by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, but in reference to which I am justified in the statement I now make. Acquiescence was given to request. Subsequently, other subjects, not simultaneously, were suggested by Great Britain, as also one by Australia and one by India, and these appear in the statement which I gave the House on Monday. The subject referred to by the leader of the Opposition (Mr, Mackenzie King),-that is, naval, military, and air defence, or defence generally-was not included in those mentioned by the Prime Minister of Great Britain in his communication of October last. It was, however, included in a subsequent communication and therefore was referred to by me in the answer I gave the hon. member for Chambly-Vereheres (Mr. Archam-bault), which answer was alluded to by the leader of the Opposition. At that time it had been one of the subjects suggested and therefore was correctly mentioned. It was simply one of those that had been put forward as proper subjects for discussion, and the position that Canada takes with regard to it, as with regards to all others, was stated for the first time in the announcement I gave the House on Monday.
Such is a general review of the history of the whole matter. One would gather from the speech of the leader of the Opposition just now that the subject of naval, military and air defence was not mentioned at all in the communication I made on Monday last. As a matter of fact, it was. It comes, I think, as No. 7 in the list of those then presented, the first four of which are those first mooted as subjects for discussion, the remainder being suggestions that since have been made to the Government of Canada.


Mr. FIELDING:: Referring to the programme contained in the several statements submitted, would it be convenient to divide the list into three parts: First, what portion was proposed by His Majesty's Government of Great Britain? Second, what portion was suggested by other parts of the Empire? And last, but not least, what proportion of the proposals came from the Government of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: I think I can make that division now. All the subjects have been proposed by Great Britain, except No. 5, which came from Australia, and No. 6, which was proposed by India.


William Stevens Fielding: None by Canada?


Arthur Meighen: No. That answer I think, is contained in the statement I gave on Monday last. If it is, my hon. friend can depend upon it as being absolutely correct.


William Stevens Fielding: I am content; it is quite satisfactory.


Arthur Meighen: That is the record of the proceedings so far.
The question then arises: What are really the four first topics? They were not put forward, I may say, as four; they were put forward in such a way that the four are undoubtedly included in those suggested in the communication of October last. What is really the nature of the subjects to be closely discussed, contained in the first four articles, as stated to the House on Monday? The first-I may not have them in order- is this:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister will pardon me. When he comes to No. 2, will be explain the difference between it and No. 4?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I will. No. 1 is as follows:
Preparation for the special Constitutional Conference contemplated in resolution 9 of the Imperial War Conference of 1917 to be held at a later date, this preparatory discussion to include such questions as the meeting place, date, composition and agenda.
There is a great deal included in that one subject. The date, first of all is of importance. It is quite within the range of possibility that the meeting might be held too soon; and it is equally possible, one must presume, that the meeting might be held too late. In my judgment, it is held too soon if it takes place before public discussion and public opinion have sufficiently advanced in the Dominions to enable their representatives to confer intelligibly with relation to what may be acceptable to the countries from which they come. As to the place of meeting, it is well known that this city, Ottawa, has been proposed as the proper place, it being the capital of the senior Dominion of the Empire. And there is much to be said in favour of that suggestion. But very great importance attaches to the question of the composition of the various committees,-not so much the question as to who shall be represented, as the question, what shall be the nature of the representation?
In this connection it will be recalled that the then Prime Minister of this country-
[Mr. Meighen.1
now the right hon. member for King's- suggested-I think in 1917 but I am certain in this House later in reporting the proceedings of 1917 and 1918-that the delegations of the various Dominions, at least that of Canada, should be so chosen as to afford' representation to each important political party in the country. If the composition were to be decided on that basis an important if not a novel step would have been taken, and it is well worthy of discussion whether that should be the basis of composition at any conference so to be held. Then, as well, the entire agenda of the conference must be reviewed, and it is only when one comes in close contact with these questions that he realizes fully how important-yes how difficult-is the task of setting out agendae in order to get the best results and-if I may so express it-the least injury therefrom.' That is subject No. 1.
Subject No. 2 is:
A general review of the main features of foreign relations, particularly as they affect the Dominion.
I had better read with that, in order to make the distinction as I go along, subject No. 4:	[DOT]
Preliminary consideration, preparatory for the proposed Constitutional Conference, of some working method for arriving at a common understanding as to policy in such external affairs as concern all parts of the Empire.
I think it is reasonably clear what the difference is. The first is this: Is it not possible to lay down such principles of foreign policy in matters that affect the whole Empire as will appeal to all portions of this widely scattered Empire, appeal to peoples composed of different elements in very widely scattered communities-appeal to them as not only right in the ethical sense but as sound principles for the whole Empire. If there is to be discussion on that I think this will appeal properly to all-that whatever they be, they be in their nature broad and simple easily intelligible so that all will understand. If they vary from that in being at all intricate or complex then it seems to me in that respect they will be defective. That is subject No. 2, but that concerns only what can be done now. It will easily be apparent that that is wholly different from planning out some working arrangement so that developments from time to time may be followed by the Dominions as well as by the Mother Land, whereby the Dominions can have their voice from time to time in such moves of public policy, or rather in the application of such prin-

eiples of public policy as may have previously been mutually agreed upon. That is how I would express the meaning of No. 4, and from that expression it will easily be seen that it differs most substantially from No. 2. The only one left is No. 3:
The question of the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, which is indeed only a part of the general subject of foreign relations, but which is especially urgent since under the terms of the Alliance a decision should be reached this year.
That is a subject of great and definite moment. It is, of course, merely one phase of the general question of foreign policy but it is of such immediate import that justification at once appears for setting it out by itself. The Anglo-Japanese Alliance-differing of course from the Commercial Treaty with Japan; that is a wholly different matter-dates back, I think, to 1902. It was renewed at least once and again renewed in 1911-the assent of Canada thereto being given to it in the Committee on Imperial Defence, by the Prime Minister of Canada at that time-renewed in 1911 for a period of ten years, and expires on July 13 this year. If it goes beyond July 13, then one year's notice must be given by either party of the denunciation of that treaty. The subject of the renewal or non-renewal of the treaty, or its modification, has naturally been under consideration at the hands of the British Government, and if there is one Dominion to which, more than another, the question of the renewal is of importance, it is to the Dominion of Canada. I say that with particular reference to the relationship this Dominion bears, and must always bear, as a portion of the British Empire standing-* if I may say it-between Great Britain on the one hand and the United States son the other. I need not enlarge upon how serious, or even how momentous, is the deliberation that must take place as regards the question of the renewal of that treaty. The importance of it arises from the interest of the United States therein, and the interest of Great Britain and of Australia and other parts of the Empire; but the importance of it to us arises, in a very great degree, out of the very great interest of the United States in the renewal or the non-renewal thereof. I need scarcely suggest that the House will not expect any expression of opinion from me as to what the attitude of this country should be in this matter. To give an expression of opinion now would be inconsistent not only with the very nature of the conference, but it seems to
me would be rather detrimental than helpful to the solution of the question of the renewal of the treaty.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer) :: Could my right hon. friend state broadly what is the affect of the alliance between Britain and Japan?


Arthur Meighen: The purposes of the
alliance were, I think, four in number: First, the preservation of peace in Eastern Asia and India; second, the mutual protection of the respective interests of the high contracting parties in the same sphere -in eastern Asia and India; third, the maintenance of the integrity of China, and the maintenance of that integrity in such a way that equal rights as to trading should be given to all countries; fourth, there was as there usually is, a mutual obligation on the part of each country to go to the assistance of the other in the event of war; fifth, there was a saving clause, one at least-I am speaking now from memory, but this one did exist

that in the event of a Treaty of Arbitration existing between one of the high contracting parties and a third power the obligation for assistance in war should not apply in case of a conflict between that high contracting party and that third power.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: Is it not a fact that the obligation of one of the high contracting parties to come to the assistance of the other would only arise in the event of a third or fourth power intervening?


Arthur Meighen: I think not.


Ernest Lapointe: Before my right hon. friend leaves the question of the Japanese Alliance, may I ask him if it is his intention to insist that a clause be inserted in the treaty, if renewed, of the nature of the clause which was embodied in the British-French War Treaty, that it will not be binding upon Canada without the approval of the Canadian Parliament?


Arthur Meighen: The very fact that we are called to a conference that reviews that subject indicates that Canada has the right of assent or non-assent. As to the extent to which we are bound in case war actually takes place, that is another question. We have the power of approval or disapproval. The question of what results from either course I do not propose to enter upon now.


Ernest Lapointe: The treaty will not be binding upon us without the approval of the Canadian Parliament?


Arthur Meighen: I say we have the power of approval or disapproval. Anything that I might say as to how far it is binding or how far it is not binding if we do not approve would be very easily misconstrued, because there are innumerable circumstances that may follow. But the general power of approval or disapproval involves that if we do not approve, then so far as it is not possible to be bound as part of the Empire we are not bound.


Ernest Lapointe: Why was such a clause inserted in the British-French Treaty if it was not necessary?


Arthur Meighen: There may be such a clause in that treaty; but my hon. friend seems to think that I should be prepared to make a statement as to what conclusions should be reached after the conference. I presume if there is such a clause in the British-French Treaty it might be appropriate to insert one if a similar treaty is made in this case.


William Stevens Fielding: There seems to be some question as to the terms of this alliance. Does my right hon. friend remember whether those terms were laid before Parliament and are to be found in our sessional records?


Arthur Meighen: I do not remember as to that. Now, I have given a review of the first four subjects.
Coming to the later ones that have since been suggested, there is considerable importance attaching to very many of them. Importance undoubtedly attaches to the question of wireless communications; to the question of reparations to the question of an Imperial statistical bureau; to the question of naval, military and air defence -great importance indeed; also to the question of the improvement of communications by land, sea and air. The same may be said as to other questions, but they have not appeared to me as of such urgency at the present time on the one hand, or as having advanced so far in their
5 p.m. solution on the other, having regard to world conditions generally, that it is necessary to take them up in extenso at this forthcoming conference. The questions advanced by the hon. leader of the Opposition would indicate that I should give some reasons for my opinion in this regard, especially in respect to the subject of military, naval and air defence. Why is it I consider it is not urgent that this should be reviewed at the forthcoming conference? Well, I do not say that it
fMr. Lapointe.]
should be reviewed, but so far as information has come to me, unless there are developments between now and the time of meeting or unless something is advanced beyond what my present information is, there does not seem any urgency for its discussion. I say that with all the more reason because that has been a subject, which being in a large degree domestic as regards the Empire, has always been reviewed at Imperial conferences, and not at Imperial cabinets or at meetings of prime ministers, because any conference of prime ministers is in all its essentials a continuation of the idea of an Imperial cabinet. It more properly belongs in my judgment to discussion at an Imperial Conference rather than at a meeting of prime ministers.
But there are other reasons. As indicated in the speech of the right hon. gentleman who represents King's, N.S., and whose knowledge of and association with these problems is much vaster and more intimate and more valuable than mine, the condition of the whole question of armaments the world over is such at this time that it seems to me little progress could be made in the way of conferring between parts of an Empire as to just what the armament programme of that Empire should be. In my view each country would do well to leave the door open to take such steps as circumstances that may develop will render necessary, and such as may seem to grow logically out of the solution of the major question-whether we are going to have some understanding as to the reduction of armaments or whether we are not.
Then it also appears that a statement of principles in this regard, in so far as principles could be arrived at in conference, was made following the conference ,of 1918, and is embodied in the declaration which was read to this House last session. I will read it again. This memorandum was presented by the then Prime Minister of Canada, the right hon. member for King's, N.S., to the Prime Minister of Great Britain on August 15, 1918:	.
The Dominion ministers, having- considered the Admiralty Memorandum of May 17, 1918, on the Naval Defence of the British Empire, which was circulated to the Imperial War Conference, 1918, submit the following conclusions and observations:
1.	The proposals set forth in the Admiralty Memorandum for a single navy at all times under a central naval authority are not considered practicable.
2.	Purely from the standpoint of naval strategy the reasons 'thus put forward for the establishment of a single navy for the Empire

under a central naval authority, are strong but not unanswerable. The experience gained in this war has shown that in time of war a Dominion navy (e.g. that of Australia) can operate with the highest efficiency as part of a united navy under one direction and command established after the outbreak of war.
3.	It is thoroughly recognized that the character of construction, armament and equipment, and the methods and principles of training, administration and organization, should proceed upon the same lines in all the navies of the Empire. This policy has already been followed in those Dominions which have established naval forces.
4.	For this purpose the Dominions would welcome visits from a highly qualified representative of the Admiralty who, by reason of his ability and experience, would be thoroughly competent to advise the naval authorities of the Dominions in such matters.
5.	As naval forces come to be developed upon a considerable scale by the Dominions it may be necessary hereafter to consider the establishment for war purposes of some supreme naval authority upon which each of the Dominions would be adequately represented.
All that looks definitely to the future there is No. 5; the rest is a statement of most highly important and easily understood principles. No. 5 looks forward to what may be done, but a perusal of it will show that the time nas not come, so far as Canada is concerned, when any definite step contemplated therein need be taken. On that account it would occur to me that there is no need of haste in this regard and that the situation may well be allowed to develop. It is for these reasons that in the judgment of the Government of Canada-because it is that judgment alone that is expressed in the seatement given to the House on Monday-the question of military, naval and air defence may justifiably be placed where it there is placed. I have now gone over hastily the various subjects. Let me only add this: that expressions of opinion or suggestions that will be of assistance to the representatives of Canada or the representative of Canada at this forthcoming conference are welcomed and wholly welcomed. Nothing could be more serious than that any step should be taken which, though in no way binding, would be out of harmony with public opinion in this country. While I say that, I want to affirm again that it is essential, if conference is to be conference and if good results are to accrue, that the Prime Minister should go with the best judgment he has as to pu/blic opinion, with his opinions as mature as he can make them as to what steps he should take, but nevertheless with an open mind and unrestrained as to what should mutually be agreed upon (after hearing the views of all others at the conference)
subject to the decision and ratification of the parliament from which he comes.
Now, let me say this. The leader of the Opposition asks me to be very clear and to leave Parliament in no doubt as to whether anything can be done, as he expresses it, "of a final, binding or other nature" unless ratified. Well, I can speak as regards the "final and the binding," but I am not sure that I can speak as regards the "other", until I know what the "other" is. Nothing can be done of a final and binding nature-nothing whatever. This stands to reason, because this is a conference-this is not an executive. Even the War Cabinet was not an executive; it was a consultative body and nothing more. In that relation I would suggest that hon. members opposite, anyway, read the comments of the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the objects and nature of the War Cabinet and on the desirability of some such body meeting periodically, even from year to year. It was a consultative body, this is a consultative body-a body whereby the various units that compose the Empire can meet, get each other's opinions, learn each other's conditions, then come back to the parliaments from which they are sent and, in the light of the information there gained, in the light of the impressions there driven home upon them, in the light of knowledge as to conditions, not only in' their own country but in the world at large, make such recommendations to their home parliaments as to them seem best suited to meet the need. That will be the nature of this conference, and in that respect it is on a parity with conferences held before, whether Imperial conferences or war cabinets. I can give the assurance, with all the emphasis that I can command, that no step whatever will be taken binding this country-indeed, no step can be taken, whatever might be the will of the representative of Canada, which would have force or effect before ratification by the Parliament of this Dominion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right
hon. friend has omitted to make any reference to the correspondence. I asked him if he would state whether the House would be furnished with copies of any correspondence which had taken place.


Arthur Meighen: Well, in answer to
that I can say this: The question of the bringing down of correspondence leading to conclusions is a question the proper disposition of which I think every parliament in the world understands; I know this parliament does. No one will understand
t

it better than my hon. friend from Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux). He will recall that when he was instrumental in arriving at certain conclusions with Japan he and his government distinctly refused to bring down correspondence covering the negotiations leading thereto. What is the reason for the adoption of this principle? It is because if negotiations, proposals, counterproposals leading to conclusions, are to be divulged, then in a succeeding case there will be no proposals or counter-proposals because the countries will not make them. It is essential if there is to be success that the seal of secrecy shall be maintained. It is sometimes possible that certain papers can be brought down with the consent of all concerned. So far as I am concerned, at the moment I cannot recall anything signed by this country or signed by any representative of this country which, if the other correspondence could be brought down, could not be brought down as well. But these are marked by the senders as secret and confidential and are held as such-usually permanently held as such; sometimes held as such subject afterwards by consent to be disclosed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, I intend to address the House only for a few moments. As has been said by the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) this question is above party politics and it should be approached from the broadest point of view. I therefore speak this afternoon not as a party man but as a Canadian, as a British subject in Canada, on this all-absorbing question of our relations with the Mother Country, in view of the coming Conference of Prime Ministers to be held in the month of June.
I cannot understand how the Prime Minister can object to the motion offered by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). It is couched in very moderate language and should be accepted by the Government as a friendly advice in connection with the conference which the right hon. the Prime Minister will attend as Canada's representative. The question of our relations, Mr. Speaker, with the Mother Country and with the other parts of the Empire is perhaps the most important question from a national standpoint affecting as it does the powers of the Canadian Parliament and, above all, the rights of the Canadian people. The Prime Minister should be grateful to this Parliament if it chooses to back up the attitude he will take at the conference by 
setting forth its considered opinion with respect to certain vital matters.
I listened with great pleasure to the chapter of constitutional history given to the House this afternoon by the right hon. member for King's. In my judgment the right hon. gentleman has practically graduated to the coming ministry of foreign affairs for Canada. His remarks were certainly very interesting, and I am pleased to note that since he has been out of office he has been most generous toward his late great opponent,-I have reference to his immediate predecessor. He has been generous enough to associate the name of Laurier with the makers of Canada, with those statesmen who since 1841, were so intimately connected with our constitutional development. Let me reciprocate the thought and say at once that he himself has made some history during the last few years and that in his capacity as the representative of Canada he has done us great service. But let us be frank about these Imperial conference or Imperial cabinet meetings. Let us be candid about all such gatherings in London: they, are in a sense much more sentimental and academic than practical. But, they would be dangerous if we did not, as we intend to do to-day, clearly define the attitude which should be taken by Qur representatives and map out the scope of their mandate. Speaking for myself, and, I am sure, for the majority in this House, I am proud that Canada in June next shall be represented by the right hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of Prime Minister of this Dominion (Mr. Meighen). It is fitting and proper that such conferences should be held from time to time in order to demonstrate to the whole world the moral power of the British Empire. We may be asked at the outset: What is the status of Canada? I may answer at once that pur status has not been altered by recent events. As I have had occasion to say before, it matters not what has been the' effort of Canada during the last great war, it matters not what part Canada might have taken at previous Imperial War Cabinet meetings, there is but one country in the Empire which fully possesses her Sovereignty, and that is the United Kingdom. Canada is indeed a great Dominion, vested with the fullest powers of self-government, but she is not sovereign. As the right hon. gentleman stated a moment ago, self-government has been acquired gradually from year to year, from decade to decade: First of all, Canada was a Crown

colony, and as such her public works, for instance, were under the direction of engineers of the home Government. The Rideau canal, in Ottawa, the Lachine canal near Montreal and all the public works which were started under the Union, were built under the direction of engineers sent out by the home Government. Our post office for many years was managed from London, and our own tariff was prepared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. gentleman a moment ago, as he was mentioning the names of Lafontaine, Baldwin, Macdonald, Cartier, Blake and Laurier, cited also the name of Sir Alexander T. Galt. If Canada is sepecially indebted to any man for having many and many years ago asserted the rights of this country to her fullest fiscal autonomy, that gratitude is due to the late Sir Alexander T. Galt, a son of old Scotland, who settled in the Eastern Townships and who was for many years the trusted representative of the English-speaking minority in my province. It is well, now that his life has been recently published, that I should quote the words of Sir Alexander T. Galt, when he was claiming from the home Government that right which we have now of making our own tariff and even of taxing British goods. He said:
Self-government would be utterly annihilated if the views of the Imperial Government were to he preferred to those of the people of Canada. It is, therefore, the duty of the present Government distinctly to affirm the right of the Canadian legislature to adjust the taxation of the people in the way they deem best-even if it should unfortunately happen to meet the disapproval of the Imperial ministry. Her Majesty cannot he advised to disallow such acts, unless her advisers are prepared to assume the administration of the affairs of the Colony, irrespective of the views of its inhabitants.
The Imperial Government are not responsible for the debts and engagements of Canada, they do not maintain its judicial, educational, or civil service, they contribute nothing to the internal government of the country, and the provincial Legislature, acting through a ministry directly responsible to it, has to make provision respecting all these wants ; they must necessarily claim and exercise the widest latitude as to the nature and extent of the burthens to be placed upon the industry of the people. The provincial Government believes that His Grace must share their own convictions on this important subjeot, but as serious evil would have resulted had His Grace taken a different course, it is wiser to prevent future complication by distinctly stating the position that must be maintained by every Canadian administration.
Sir, we do not enjoy Sovereignty; but as I stated a moment ago, we have the fullest powers of self-government, as boldly asserted in the fifties by the late
finance minister of the Canadian Government, Sir Alexander T. Galt. His principles apply to-day with equal force as they did in those days in regard to the tariff question. The right hon. gentleman, when attending the conference, can very well repeat after Sir A. T. Galt: " selfgovernment would be utterly annihiliated if the views of the Imperial Government were to be preferred to those of the people of Canada." The leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) is only expressing, in a few concrete words, the broad principle ' asserted by Sir Alexander T. Galt sixty years ago, by stating:
That the House, while recognizing the propriety of Canada being represented at any Imperial Conference or conference of the Prime Ministers of the Umpire that may be called, desires to record its opinion that at the coming conference no step should be taken in any way involving any change ip the relations of Canada to other parts of the Empire ; and that, in view of the present financial position of Canada, no action should he takem implying any obligations on the part of Canada to undertake new expenditures for naval or military purposes.
No conference of Dominion Prime Ministers, no Imperial statesmen can object to a direction given to the right hon. gentleman by the representatives of the Canadian people in Parliament assembled. The powers which we constitutionally possess cannot be abridged by any conference, by any imperial cabinet outside of this Parliament which the proper forum and the expressive power, limited though it may be, by the British North America Act.
My right hon. friend, who applauded a moment ago the name of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and who will, I am confident he inspired by his policy in this Imperial Conference, might well adopt the words which were uttered by the great Canadian statesman at the last conference which he attended in 1911, and which brought to him encomiums of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Asquith, when he said of Sir Wilfrid that he indeed was the Nestor of that conference. You will remember that Sir Wilfrid Laurier proclaimed on that occasion that Imperial unity, in which he believed, should be based on full local autonomy. The principle of autonomy in Canada, as in Australia, South Africa, Newfoundland and New Zealand, is the keystone of the whole Imperial structure.
The right hon. gentleman a moment ago enumerated academic questions which, as I stated, can well be brought up, without any special direction to be received from this Parliament, at the next Imperial Conference; for instance, such questions as

that of cable and postal rates, of wireless, of copyright, of an Imperial Statistical Bureau, of the renewal of the Japanese Treaty. I wish to state at once in answer to what my right hon. friend suggested a moment ago, that certain correspondence must be regarded as strictly confidential. I quite agree with him that correspondence respecting the relation of one country to another, that is to say, affecting two foreign countries, must be regarded as strictly confidential. At the Foreign Office in Great Britain they would not allow even a minister of one of the Dominions to have access to some of the documents which are on the shelves there. But as regards correspondence that affect only the relations between the Mother Country and Canada, for instance, while a portion of them may be considered confidential, others can . properly be laid on the Table. I am surprised that we have not had laid on the Table of the House the correspondence between the Canadian Government and the Home Government as regards the preparation for the coming Conference in the month of June; as to who took the initiative, what were the suggestions made, without, of course, involving any matter of foreign policy; who is so particularly insistent that the right hon. gentleman shall leave Canada at the present time, when the financial situation is so involved here, and go to the other side to discuss Imperial problems? I say that the right hon. gentleman might well have laid that correspondence on the Table. However, I shall not dispute with him over the absence of the papers.
At the coming Conference, personally I do not object to the discussion of trade matters, although Canada is acting towards the Mother Country in her own way as regards the framing of tariffs. Long ago Canada cut her moorings with the Home Government on fiscal matters. We tax the goods of the Mother Country as we see fit. True it is that Canada, a few years ago, on the initiative of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) gave the Mother Country a Preference. I do not object to that question being debated at the coming Conference; perhaps the preference might be extended to some of the other dominions, always bearing in mind, of course, that in all these matters of trade, Canada is absolutely free to act as she pleases. For my part, I would not object to increasing the British preference. My right hon. friend, however, must not forget that he will meet at that Conference,
[Mr. Lemieux.l .
at the head of the table, the present Colonial Secretary, the Right Hon. Mr. Winston Churchill, who has established a tradition for himself on the question of the British preference. It will be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that when a trade preference was granted to Great Britain by Canada, a statesman in Canada and another in Great Britain at once took up the cudgels in favour of a reciprocal preference. Mr. Chamberlain was the apostle of that idea in Great Britain, and I think my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce was its eloquent advocate, not only in Canada, but even in Great Britain. He will remember the answer given by the Right Hon. Mr. Winston Churchill, who will preside at the conference when it meets in London in June next.


Arthur Meighen: I do not want my
words to affect anybody, but the gentleman who will preside at the conference will be the Prime Minister of Great Britain. He presided at the Imperial Cabinet. In his absence, the Prime Minister of the senior Dominion presided.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I accept my right hon. friend's correction. Certainly, however, the Right Hon. Winston Churchill will be present. In fact, I understand that the Conference has bieen summoned at his special request, and already, The Thunderer, the London Times, is cautioning the public against the enterprising nature of Mr. Winston Churchill. Mr. Churchill took a very drastic attitude on the reciprocal preference some ten years ago. He proclaimed that if the dominions were going to exact from the Mother Country a reciprocal preference, he, having regard to British interests exclusively, would bang, bar, and bolt the door. So my right hon. friend should not be afraid of getting moderate instructions from the Canadian Parliament before he meets a gentleman who has used such-shall I say?-violent language in reply to the agitation started in Canada by my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and in England by the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain.
I now come to the question of defence. Indeed, do not all these questions revolve around our share of Imperial defence both on land and sea? Why all these shams? Let us meet boldly the issue which presents itself as between the Dominions and the Mother Country. The whole object of these Conferences, and of these frantic appeals made by certain people in the

Mother Land to the Dominions, is to draft a binding agreement on the question of Imperial defence on land and sea. Read Mr. Curtis' book; read the speeches of that most eminent of Imperalists, the late Mr. Joseph Chamberlain; follow closely his last great campaign after the Boer War; scan the reports of the various conferences at which he presided when the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and other Dominion statesmen were convened in London and you will at once realize that the paramount question at issue is that of defence. Mr. Chamberlain put it in a very blunt way. In his mind the i only question, Mr. Speaker, was whether or not the weary Titan, old John Bull, should carry the load alone, or should the Dominions share the burden of expenditure? That is the issue. Why should we evade it? Why should we not face it, discuss it, without equivocation and take a firm stand upon it, either for or against? Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that on such an issue, which involves not only a tremendous expenditure, but indeed the very future of Canada, the hands of the right hon. gentleman should be strengthened by an expression of opinion of the Canadian Parliament? Should he not be instructed that he must not bind the future of this country at that Conference unless the Canadian Parliament has passed final judgment on any issue?
Mr. Speaker, let me say to the school which is perhaps less represented in the House of Commons than it is in the various organizations throughout the land, in the round clubs for instance, that Canada has done nobly her part in the last great war. She has every right in. the world to be proud of the splendid share she took in that world conflict. There was no necessity for any binding agreement with the Mother Country in 1914. Parliament, immediately after it was summoned, decided that Canada should give to the Mother Country, not only her moral support, but the best that was in her. She gave her sons, 500,000 of them, and 60,000 of her bravest now sleep their last sleep in Flanders' Fields. Many thousand of the boys are now with us crippled, wounded for life. We are engaged in the process of civil re-establishment and we are morally obliged to support not only the widows and orphans of our dead, but also the. unfortunate men who have returned incapacitated. Mr. Speaker, Canada has done her share, and if there is a timorous minority in this country, or in Great Britain which is anxious to embalm in black and white some agreement by
which Canada should take part in the wars of the Empire, let that minority read the history of the last six years, and it will find in that history an adequate answer. After the war, Canada took part in the Peace Congress; she subscribed to the Versailles Treaty. Canada, as a result, is now represented and has a voice in the League of Nations. What is the object of the League of Nations? Is it to increase armaments, or to promote war? The very contrary. The object of the league is to put an end to all wars, and to settle by way of arbitration all disputes arising between nations. It is intended to usher a new era, the era of disarmament, which in the past the great powers of Europe should have endeavoured to bring about. Therefore Canada should shun all offers that are made to embark her in a new race towards armaments. In that connection I am somewhat at a loss to understand my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen). He seems to believe that no final decision will be arrived at by that conference. Of course, I accept his word. But, on the other hand, the cables from the other side every morning and evening remind us that this conference will be the most important in the history of the relations of the Mother Country with her Dominions. Mr. Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister, is reported on the 15th of last month as follows:	[DOT]
The defence of the Empire was a great problem, which ought to be an Imperial concern. It was too much to ask small islands to undertake the defence of this gigantic Empire in every sea. At the forthcoming conference of the Prime Ministers of the Empire, the whole problem of Imperial defence would be considered. There must be co-ordination, not between the various services only, but between the several parts of the Empire.
Sir, this is a concrete proposal, it is a large order; it is a definite programme, and we have a right, it seems to me, to caution the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), in the discussions that will arise. He may tell his colleagues at that conference that he may hearken to them, he may even offer advice. But, Sir, not until that advice has been backed up by public opinion in Canada, and has been ratified by the Canadian Parliament, can it be anything but advice and tentative suggestion. Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend, I am sure, will not forget to inform the Home authorities and the members of the conference of the present financial situation of Canada. Our national


Rodolphe Lemieux: You forget 1837.


Mr. ROWELL:: 1837, the Rebellion. That was before we got responsible government under Lord Elgin during the Baldwin-Lafontaine administration. It was in a "seven" year anyway.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, a lucky number.


Newton Wesley Rowell: 1867, Confederation;
1887, the first Colonial Conference-the first occasion on which the representatives of the Dominions were called together for consultation with the representatives of the Motherland on matters of common concern to the whole Empire; 1907, provision for a permanent Imperial Conference meeting every four years, with a fixed secretariat and a definite class of subjects for consideration; 1907, the first meeting of the Imperial War Cabinet and the passage of the resolution, to which reference has already been made, providing for the calling of this constitutional conference.
As the resolution referred to by the Prime Minister this afternoon is the authority under which this constitutional conference is to be called, I shall read it to the House. It was passed at the Imperial War Conference in 1917, and is in these terms:
The Imperial War Conference are of opinion that the readjustment of the constitutional relations of the component parts of the Empire is too important and intricate a subject to he 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 readjustment, while thoroughly preserving all existing powers of self-government, and complete control of domestic affairs, should 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 may determine.
It is the conference authorized by this resolution which is referred to in the agenda submitted by the Prime Minister to the House, and the conference of Prime Ministers will give preliminary consideration to the question of the calling of this conference. It is not without importance for us to recall that this resolution was submitted to Parliament by the then Prime Minister in 1917 on his return from the Imperial Conference of that year, and the resolution was then discussed, members on both sides of the House taking part, including the late distinguished leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. So this resolution, indicating the lines along which our constitutional development is to proceed, has been before the people of Canada for the past four years, people of Canada for the past four years,

and so far as I am aware no objection has been made to the principles expressed in the resolution.
The right hon. member for King's this afternoon referred to the importance of the Conference of 1907 which established the Imperial Conference on a permanent basis. I just wish to read a brief extract from an article published in the Round Table magazine shortly after the holding of that conference, which indicates the importance and significance of the great step taken in the year 1907:
This resolution established the status of the Dominions as national entities, entirely distinct from that which inhabited the British Isles. It recognized that the basis of Imperial organization was the co-operation of five nations, not the centralization of power in the hands of the British Government as an Imperial Parliament. It finally destroyed the older conception of Imperial development, as a gradual reunion of the colonies with the Mother Country through representatives in either of the British Houses of Parliament.
I submit that is a very clear and admirable statement of the effect of the resolution of the Imperial Conference of 1907.
I do not intend this evening to enter into a discussion of the question of Canada's status. I only wish to follow this particular resolution -by a statement published in the report of the Imperial War Cabinet in the year 1918. This statement is of importance to us because it is not our statement, but that of the Imperial Government itself in the official publication of the proceedings of the War Cabinet. It reads as follows:
The common effort and sacrifice In the war have inevitably led to the recognition of an equality of status between the responsible governments of the Empire. This equality has long been acknowledged in principle and found its adequate expression in 1917 in the creation or, rather-, natural coming into being of an Imperial War Cabinet as an instrument for evolving a common Imperial policy in the conduct of the war. The nature of the constitutional development involved in the establishment as a permanent institution of the Imperial Cabinet system was clearly explainedi by Sir Robert Borden in a speech to the Empire Parliamentary Association on June 21, 19'18.
The report then quotes with approval an extract from an address made by the former Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), before the British Empire Parliamentary Association-a statement which is in accordance with that made by him to the House to-day as well as other statements made by him to this House on former occasions-with reference to our present constitutional position. The result of this development, Mr. Speaker, cannot be bet-

ter illustrated than in the contrast presented between the conditions in 1911 and in 1921. In 1911 the Prime Minister of Canada and the prime ministers of the other Dominions were admitted to a meeting of the Committee of Imperial Defence, where for the first time in the history of the Dominions, a British foreign secretary reviewed before the prime ministers of the Dominions, the various aspects of British foreign policy; they were initiated, as Mr. Asquith pointed out, into the very heart of the secrets of the foreign policy of the British Empire. That was an entirely new departure-as Mr. Asquith said a departure of great constitutional significance. But when we compare that position in 1911-the Prime Minister invited in as a favour, so to speak, to sit with the Committee of Imperial Defence and to hear a review of foreign policy-with the position in 1921-the Parliament of Canada exercising its proper and legitimate functions of discussing questions of foreign policy affecting the whole Empire -we have the best possible evidence of the development in our status during the past ten years. When the Prime Minister of Canada meets with the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the prime ministers of the other Dominions in London he does so, not as the representative of a subordinate power in the presence of a representative of a 'superior power, but on an absolute equality with the Prime Minister of Great . Britain and the prime ministers of the other Dominions of the Empire.
Some question has been raised as to why this conference should be held and why a constitutional conference is necessary. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that such a conference is necessary, not to frame any new written constitution-I think it would be a misfortune if any constitutional conference undertook to frame a written constitution for the British Empire. The strength of our constitution may be what some would consider as its weakness. The strength of our constitution is that it is not written, therefore it has all the flexibility necessary to meet changing conditions as they arise from time to time in the different stages of the development of the Empire. But such a conference is necessary to put at rest all this discussion about the status of the Dominions. Why should we be discussing in this Parliament, why should they be discussing in the Australian Parliament, why should they be discussing in the Parliaments of New Zealand and South Africa, the question of the status of
the Dominions? The Constitutional Conference should not create for us any new status, but by a declaration in which all the governments of the Empire join, they should recognize our present constitutional position and the constitutional position of all the Dominions as being equal in status with the Mother Country as self-governing nations of the British Empire.
Another reason why we should hold that constitutional conference is that coupled with such a declaration of status-and, in my humble judgment, made at the same time-should be an outline of plans for consultation and co-operation between the Mother Country and the Dominions in matters of common concern to the whole Empire. Plans which while fully preserving the freedom and self-government of the Dominions, would ensure the strength and security.of the whole. For I feel quite sure that'members of this House stand for two principles, first, for the full equality of status of the Dominions with the Mother Country as self-governing nations of the British Empire, and second, for preserving the strength and unity of the Empire as a whole.
What should be the procedure at the conference? May I venture to offer one or two suggestions? First, as to the programme. I doubt if the programme should cover any more than the working out of the two problems I have mentioned, one the declaration respecting the existing status, and the other, plans and methods of co-operation in connection with foreign affairs of common concern to the whole Empire.
The question of representation is not without difficulty. I am inclined to share the view expressed by the hon. member for King's when he discussed this matter in the House on a former occasion, namely, that it would be desirable in this constitutional conference not only that the Government should be represented but that the Opposition of the day, the different interests represented in the House of Commons, should have representation in the conference. That, of course, could not be done by one country unless done by all countries, but my reason for supporting that view is the one given by the hon. member for King's last year, that in matters affecting our constitutional relations we should proceed as a united people rather than divided on party lines. As regards the date and place of meeting of the constitutional conference, I have no suggestion to make, except to express an

earnest hope that the conference will be held in the Dominion of Canada. I think it will be a real advantage, not only to the Mother Country, but to Canada and all the other portions of the Empire, if this conference affecting the future relations of the Empire is held in one of the Domijiions, and Canada, as the senior and the largest Dominion, would have the first claim to that conference.
The next matter on which I wish to make a few observations is in reference to military, naval and air defence. The one aspect of the matter, which apparently, to judge from statements that have been made in Great Britain, is likey to assume the greatest importance if the subject comes up for serious consideration, is that of naval defence. In that respect, I wish to express my entire concurrence with the view presented by the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) and with the view presented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) this afternoon, that the time is not opportune to take up and deal with that important problem. I desire to give very briefly my reasons for that conclusion. Lest any hon. member should misunderstand my position on the general question of naval defence, I have no hesitation in stating it to the House, and I do not desire to depart, by even the change of a word, from the statement of policy which I made at the Montreal Reform Club on November 11, 1911.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Good old days. '


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not change my
principles. This is what I said:
In the matter of naval defence the time for talking is past, the time for action has come. We should he ashamed to permit the people of Great Britain-financially burdened as they are and must continue to be in working out great measures of social reform for the benefit of the masses of the people-to not only bear their own burden of naval defence, but to bear ours as well. Our action should be adequate, commensurate with our ability and our share of the burden. Our policy should not be the product of a momentary enthusiasm or of unworthy fear, but as part of a permanent and well-considered plan whereby Canada will undertake her share in the defence of the Empire. Let our policy not be formed by or shaped in response to the spirit of militarism. Our navy is not for aggression, but for the defence of our coasts, and the protection of our trade routes : for the maintenance of the traditions and ideals for which our British system of Government and our flag stand.
If conditions to-day were the same as they were in 1912, that is exactly where I would stand to-day. But I agree with the view presented by the right hon. member

for King's and the Prime Minister, that as a result of the great war a radical change has taken place in the situation. The cause of apprehension at that time was the existence of the German navy. That navy has ceased to be. Under the provisions of the Treaty of Peace, not only has the German navy ceased to be, but Germany cannot build a new navy. Her right to build is absolutely limited and defined by the terms of the treaty. Any menace that existed from Germany and the German navy has been removed as a result of the war. Not only has that been removed, but in the terms of the treaty itself, provision has been made for the limitation of armaments. I want to draw attention to a provision that I rather fear that some of the signatories to the treaty sometimes forget. Part V, military, naval and air clauses, states:
In order to render possible the initiation of a general limitation of the armaments of all nations, Germany undertakes strictly to observe the military, naval and air clauses which follow.
In other words, the signatories to the Treaty, in laying the foundation for the clauses strictly limiting the strength of the German military, naval and air forces and in imposing similar limitations on all the other former enemy States, gave as a basic reason the possibility of initiating a general movement for the world-wide limitation of armaments. The matter, however, does not rest there. When they framed the Covenant of the League of Nations, they incorporated a special article dealing with this very matter. Article 8 of the covenant provides:
The members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations.
The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments.
' Then the Financial Conference meeting in Brussels in August last and studying the financial conditions, particularly of the countries of Europe, a conference representing all nations members of the league, placed on record their solemn conviction that the rehabilitation of the finances of Europe, and the restoration of the economic conditions of the world, could not be brought about unless there was a substantial limitations of armaments, and a large reduction in the budgets for maintaining armed forces. Therefore, we have the terms

of the treaty; the Covenant of the League of Nations and the recommendation of the Brussels Financial Conference, all to one effect, the importance and urgency of the limitations of armaments. I submit to the Government, as we are signatories to that treaty, as we are members of thte League of Nations, it is the bounden duty of the Government to exert its influence to the utmost, to see that every honest effort is put forward to carry out the intention of the treaty, the provisions of the covenant and the recommendation of the Brussels Financial Conference, to secure a worldwide agreement for the limitation of armaments.
I may be told that everybody is in agreement with this idea, and that the only difficulty is that certain important states are outside the league at present I recognise the difficulty created by very important States being outside. I recognise there can be no general and world-wide agreement for limitation of armaments which does not include the great nation to the south. I believe they have a unique opportunity of taking the leadership in this matter. But it would he mere hypocrisy for one to stand up here and say that he believes that all the people in all the other nations are in favour of the limitation of armaments. I do not believe they are. I believe there are militarists in every nation, who do not believe in the limitation of armaments, who believe in the sword as the method of settling international disputes and who want to maintain large armies in order that they may settle their disputes in that manner and wherever the spirit of militarism exists it is a menace to the peace of the world. I stand here to urge upon the Government to put forward every effort in their power to see that states, parties to this covenant, should endeavour to reach a solution of this problem before we are called upon to consider the other question of what share we shall take in the defence of the Empire. Should all efforts fail, should it be impossible after every honest effort has been put forth to secure such an agreement, and it appears that no agreement is possible through no fault of the British Empire, or any part of the British Empire, but because other nations will not co-operate and will still maintain the right to settle disputes by the sword, I do not hesitate to say that Canada (should be prepared to protect her own coasts and her own trade, and thus undertake her legitimate share in the naval defence of the Empire. But that situation cannot arise before this conference, and therefore I believe that Canada's position at the conference should be that we are not prepared to consider any further steps towards increasing our naval or military burdens or adding to our naval or military strength until we are satisfied that these other efforts are without avail. I am in hopes that they will not be without avail. It would be a confession of the bankruptcy of modern statesmanship, it would be a confession to the failure of our Christian civilization, if after the loss and suffering and horrors of this war the statesmen of the world could not get together and agree to reduce the armaments of the world, and free men for productive employment. No question of naval policy arises. The question of policy was settled, and settled, I judge, in accordance with the view of this Government at the time of the Imperial War Conference in 1918. The Prime Minister has read to us this afternoon the conclusion reached by the Prime Ministers of the Overseas Dominions at the Imperial Conference of 1918, and I understood him to give his endorsement to that policy. That policy has not been questioned and when the time comes, if it ever should come, that we should take further steps to increase our naval forces we already have a settled policy and defined lines along which such development should proceed.
Turning from the questions relating to our inter-imperial relations to those relating to our international relations, one passes into a field of greater difficulty. What plans should be adopted to secure unity in foreign policy in matters affecting the whole Empire is a question for the Constitutional' Conference. It cannot be settled finally until that conference is held. However, as the agenda does suggest some preliminary consideration of the question, may I venture to submit to the Government, with great deference, certain lines along which, from our Canadian standpoint, Imperial policy in foreign affairs might proceed.
May I say first, Mr. Speaker, that I entirely agree with the view presented by the Prime Minister himself, that the policy should be to pursue certain general and well understood lines of action. If we are to have a policy on international affairs, affecting the Empire as a whole, it must be a policy which all the states of the Empire can understand and follow. It therefore must



[Stage Direction]
pursue certain general and well understood lines.
The first question that will arise, and it arises on the very threshold of the consideration of this problem is this: Shall the foreign policy of the Empire in the future be based on the old ideas of international relationships preceding the war, or shall it be based on the new conception of international relationships subsequent to the war? Shall it be based on the old idea of the balance of power, secret alliances and treaties, or on the new conception, embodied in the League of Nations, of international co-operation with every other nation of the world that is prepared to be friendly? I respectfully submit to the Government that the Empire policy should follow the new, and should eschew the old. There is no hope for this new policy unless the British Empire gives a lead. If it does give a strong lead in support of the new policy as against the old, there is reasonable hope, I venture to think, that the new policy may ultimately prevail; perhaps not at once, for it takes time to work such a revolutionary change.
The second is that there should be a distinction drawn as clearly as circumstances will permit, between questions that are of interest alone, so to speak, to one Dominion alone or to the Uuited Kingdom alone as distinguished from questions of high policy that are of interest to the whole Empire. Let me illustrate what I mean by questions of interest to one Dominion, and one Dominion alone. Take the questions that have arisen from time to time and are arising to-day between Canada and the United States, questions which we take up indirectly in some cases, more directly in others, and which we settle ourselves with the United States, questions which I hope in the very near future we will take up directly all the time through a Canadian minister at Washington. The settled policy of the Empire to-day is that on these questions exclusively affecting Canada, our view is accepted; and the matter is not dealt with from London, it is dealt with from Ottawa, London being informed of our conclusions. Now a distinction should be drawn between questions of that class which relate exclusively to one of the Dominions or to the Mother Country, and questions of high Imperial policy affecting the whole Empire. Dealing with the latter class, because those are the questions that are to be considered when the time comes for action, may I suggest certain lines
TMr. Kowell.]
which I venture to think it would be in the interests of the whole Empire to follow. It may be said that a number of these lines of policy are already being followed. I am not going to argue whether they are or not, but I think they should form part of any recognized policy of the Empire as a whole.
First, that the Empire has no territorial ambitions or aggressive intentions. I share entirely the views expressed by the hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) in reference to western Asian commitments.
Second, we should stand for the settlement of all international disputes by peaceable means. Whatever other nations may do, the British Empire as a whole should stand before the world for that great principle of international policy, viz: the settlement of all international disputes by peaceable means.
Third, to that end, and in order to aid in carrying out that policy, the British Empire should give its whole-hearted support to the League of Nations or a League of Nations-I am not now dealing with the form, but with the substance-for the preservation of the world's peace by providing a substitute for war as a means of settling international disputes. They should also give strong support to the establishment of a permanent court of international justice. I shall not discuss this question now, as it will come up for discussion on the Bill which the Minister of Justice has before the House.
Fourth, the British Empire should give leadership and genuine support to the movement for the limitation of armaments, endeavouring to secure the co-operation of the United States. I venture to think that this question is so important that, while the United States might properly take the leadership in it, if the United States does not take such leadership the British Empire should.
Fifth, we should refrain from any special or exclusive alliances with other states. We should stand in the League of Nations as the friend of every state that honourably observes its obligations and seeks to keep the peace.
I do not believe that it is humanly possible for an organization like the League of Nations to accomplish the great purposes for which it was formed, if important members of the league form offensive or defensive alliances outside the league. If one group of important states form a so-called defensive alliance, the inevitable result will be that other states will group together in similar, so-called defensive

alliances, with a consequent weakening of the moral authority and strength of the league, and a reversion to the old principle of the balance of power from which we had hoped that the war had largely freed us.
Sixth. We should endeavour to promote international co-operation in matters of common concern to the nations and thus avoid causes of international friction, promote international friendship and the general well-being of humanity.
The League of Nations already provides machinery for that international co-operation.
I now come to a matter that is of more immediate concern to Canada, and on which I hope I shall carry the judgment of the House, even though I do not carry the judgment of all outside of the House. I shall first state the principle and then give my reasons for it.
Seventh:	The recognition of Canada's
special interest in all important international questions arising between the British Empire and the United States.
Our geographical position, the volume of our trade, our hope that in the lifetime of many here, we shall be a nation, ' not of ten or fifteen millions, but of twenty-five millions of people,-all these circumstances render the question of international relations between the British Empire and the United States of supreme concern to Canada, indeed, of more vital moment to this country than to any other portion of the British Empire. I think, in view of our relations with the Mother Country and with the United States, it is just as much in the interests of the Empire as it is in the interests of Canada, that the Empire as a whole should recognize Canada's special concern in all important international questions between the British Empire and the United States.
Eighth:	I respectfully submit to the
Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), that he would not be going beyond what is both in the interests of Canada and of the whole Empire, if he would urge as a further principle of policy though it is but a deduction from the last, that no question of real importance arising between the British Empire and the United States should be settled without consultation with Canada. We cannot render this service effictively until we have a Canadian minister resident at Washington, but when we have a minister resident there, in touch with the American Government and the British ambassador, it can be done. Even though it may be repeating what has been
said more than once I reiterate, from the knowledge that has come to me during recent years, that we do understand the British statesmen and their point of view vastly better than the people in the United States understand them, while, at the same time, we understand the American point of view very much better than the British statesmen do, and the greatest hope for permanent cordial relations and the best possible understanding between the British Empire and the United States lies in Canada's acting as an interpreter and mediator between the United States and the Empire; Canada can render a very real service to the whole Empire in that capacity.
Ninth; If the question is of purely Canadian concern, the present well settled practice is to accept the Canadian view as to its settlement. This principle should be extended, perhaps not immediately, 'but certainly eventually, to cover questions in which the clear and paramount interest is Canadian. It is going much further than we have gone before, but I believe it is a right and sound principle and one which we should recognize in the foreign policy of the Empire. It is in the light of these principles that I propose discussing the other questions to which I have referred namely, German reparations and the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.
It does not require any particular knowledge of conditions in Europe to-day for everyone earnestly to hope that a just and reasonable settlement will be secured of the most important and difficult matter of reparations. It now appears from the correspondence which has passed that the United States is likely to take part in the further negotiations, and I venture to believe that in that probability lies the hope for an early and just settlement. Mr. Speaker, my firm conviction, is that, as a result of the crimes and horrors of the war, the blood of Europe is still too hot to secure a fair, just and permanent settlement of the question, and I think it is all to the good that the United States should participate in the negotiations, because she is able to take such a view as we in Canada would take, an absolutely just view from the standpoint of Germany, and, at the same time, a view wholly sympathetic with the Allies.
In order that we may understand the present situation, it is necessary that we should recall something of the history of the reparations question. Unless a settlement is reached no one knows where this affair will end, and so I propose asking the indulgence of the House for a few minutes
[Stage Direction]
while I outline the history of the matter. On October 6, 1918, the German Government, through its Chancellor, applied to the President of the United States to take steps for the restoration of peace. In the note, the following appears:
The German Government accepts as a basis for peace negotiations the programme laid down by the President of the United States in his message to Congress of January 8, 1918, and in his subsequent pronouncements, particularly in his address of September 27, 1918.
Now, I think I may safely say that the majority of the Canadian people thought that peace at that time was premature. I think the majority of the Canadian people were of the opinion that it was not in the interests of permanent peace that a settlement should be negotiated while Germany was still in occupation of territories in Prance and Belgium. That was my own view at all events; and I expressed that view at the time. May I repeat what I then said. Speaking in the city of Hamilton on October 14, 1918, I used this language :
When the German Chancellor asks us to-day: "Is it peace?" our answer should be: "What hast thou to do with peace, so long as the crimes and barbarities perpetrated by Germany in this war are neither repented of nor punished?" The future peace and security of the world demands one or the other.
Repentance means confession, restitution, reparation. When Germany confesses her crimes and makes full restitution and reparation then there may be peace. If she will not, then the war should go on until just punishment has been me meted out to her for her crimes.
' Referring to the continuance of the war, I said:
The justification, and the only justification for continuing this terrible struggle is that it involves not only the future of our Empire, but issues vitally affecting the future welfare of humanity. This war is settling questions of the sanctity of international agreements, without which there would be world-wide anarchy ; if the right of small nations .o independent existence, without which civilization would be impoverished and permanent peace would be impossible ; of the right of free democratic government to its place in the world without which human liberty would have no real value for us, or whether right or might shall be the controlling factor in international relationships; and of whether the Christian or the Pagan conception of individual and national character shall dominate the world.
We must see that these question are settled, and settled aright before we sheathe the sword which we have so reluctantly drawn. May I speak my own thoughts when I say that I do not think we should sheathe the sword until Germany, Austria and Turkey follow the example of Bulgaria, and unconditionally surrender? We have sacrificed too much already to stay our hand until the result is decisive.
An hon. MEMBER:: Who said that?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I said that and nothing
that has come to my knowledge since leads me to conclude that I took a wrong view of the situation at that time. I believe that was the general view of the people of Canada but the fact is that the powers principally concerned, and who had the right under the conditions to decide whether those terms should be accepted or not, decided to accept them and in the note of the Allied Governments to President Wilson of November 5,1918, the following appears:
The Allied Governments have given careful consideration to the correspondence that has passed between the President of the United States and the German Government. Subject to qualifications which follow they declare their willingness to make peace with the Government of Germany on the terms of peace laid down in the President's address to Congress of January 19, 1918, and the principles of settlement enunciated in subsequent addresses.
Now what are the two qualifications? One relates to the freedom of the seas; the other relates to reparations.
Further, in the conditions of peace laid down in his address to Congress of January 8, 1918, tlhe President declared that the invaded territories must be restored.
What are the provisions of the President's address on this question? They are set forth in points VII, VIII and XI of the 14 points:
VII. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored without any attempt to limit the Sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations.
A similar provision in regard to France is found in VIII, and a similar provision in reference to Roumania, Serbia and Montenegro in XI. Referring to these provisions the Allied note continues:
The Allied Governments feel that no doubt ought to be allowed to exist as to what this provision means. By it they understand that compensation -null be made by Germany for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allies and their property by the aggressions of Germany toy land, toy sea, and from the air.
These notes formed the basis upon which the armistice was signed and upon which Germany laid down her arms. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Germany knew the obligation she was undertaking when she made that proposal. She knew the obligation she was undertaking when she acepted it, and Germany should pay, and I believe can pay, every dollar which that obligation imposes upon her. But the matter did not rest there. When the Allied powers in Paris submitted the Peace Treaty to Germany they added to what Germany should pay under that clause, as I read it,

the obligation to provide for the pensions of all soldiers in the Allied and associated armies on the basis of the pensions of France; they also added to that the obligation, that Germany should pay all the amounts paid out by the respective governments for separation 9 p.m. allowances during the whole period of the war, on the basis of the amounts paid by France. The net result was that they imposed upon Germany an obligation beyond what they themselves believed Germany could pay, and therefore they provided that while these amounts should be fixed by the Reparations Commission that Germany should be heard as to her capacity to pay. Germany has the right to show that this amount is beyond her capacity to pay and that the total should be reduced accordingly. The uncertainty that exists to-day, the inability to fix-by a judicial tribunal, a fair arbitral commission or by the Commission on Reparations,-the exact amount of Germany's obligation, grows out of the form in which the treaty was made.
I have no information as to what Germany is able to pay, and I have no intention of expressing any opinion on the matter. But her obligation under the settlement as I have outlined it was to make compensation for damages to the civilian population and to their property. I am informed that the total amount that Germany can pay, the total amount she may be called upon to pay, will not exceed the amount necessary to fairly carry out this obligation. I do not know whether that is correct or not but I am assuming for the purpose of my argument that it is correct, and therefore there will be no injustice-to Germany in the amount she is finally called upon to pay. If that be so then what is our position and what should be our share. If the total amount paid by Germany is not more than sufficient to restore the devastated areas, and to make compensation to the civilian population, then, if Canada takes more than it is necessary to recoup us for our ships sunk at sea or other damage to civilian population, we are taking something which Great Britain or the other Allies need in order to restore their devastated areas and to compensate their civilian population. I amspeaking only for myself but I do not wish to leave this House without putting on record my conclusion on this important matter, a conclusion which is the result of careful consideration. I hope the Government of Canada will not, in the division of the amount which comes to the British
Empire, take more than that which the Minister of Justice-and I am prepared to leave it to him-will advise that Canada is entitled to receive under the terms of the settlement under which Germany laid down her arms, and if more should be allotted to us the additional amount should go to Great Britain, or the peoples that have suffered more, for the purpose of restoring the devastated areas and repaying the civilian population.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has had a noble record throughout this war. The manner in which the Dominion entered this struggle, the manner in which she aided in carrying it through to a victorious conclusion, with no selfish objects to gain and no selfish purpose to serve but solely to help to overthrow militarism, preserve the British Empire, and restore the peace of the world, has given her a position of real moral leadership on this continent. Her prompt acceptance of the Treaty of Peace and of the covenant of the League of Nations, and the manner in which she has evidenced her willingness to co-operate with all other states to provide a substitute for war as a means of settling international disputes has strengthened her claim to moral leadership. And I covet for Canada that in this matter of reparations she will take the position that she will not ask or receive a dollar more than she is clearly entitled to receive by the terms of the settlement under which Germany laid down her arms.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no danger of getting more.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend says that there is no danger of getting more. This leads me to make another submission to the Government. If Canada adopts the, policy I have suggested, what is the situation that faces us if a settlement of the question of reparations is not arrived at in the pending negotiations? I do not know whether hon. members believe that the sanctions which have been imposed recently upon Germany are imposed in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Peace or not. One would judge from press despatches that they were imposed in accordance with those terms. I have examined the treaty with great care, and I can find no express provision in the treaty under which the sanctions could be imposed. Therefore I perused with very great interest the statement of the Attorney General in the British House of Commons in this important question. He was asked, on what grounds the Govern-
2G56

ment supported the imposition of the sanctions at the time. I am going to read to the House his answer, which will be found in the British Hansard of March 18, 1921, at page 2064:
There is, first of all. Article 430, in Part 14 of the Treaty, and it provides that, in the particular cases with which it is concerned, it shall be open to the Allies to re-occupy by means of armed forces certain areas in Germany which by that time will have been first occupied and afterwards evacuated. It is quite obvious that that Article, at any rate, has no relevancy to the present proceedings.
In explanation of that I may point out that there is a group of provisions in the treaty to secure its enforcement, the most , important being the provision for the allied occupation of German territory on the south bank of the Rhine and of certain bridge heads across the river. That is authorized for a period of fifteen years, subject to certain withdrawals in case certain amounts are paid. The section to which the right hon. the Attorney General refers is the section in the treaty which permits the Allies to re-occupy this territory in case Germany should make any default after some of the troops had been withdrawn. The Attorney General proceeds:
I pass to the second which I desire specially to mention. We get a little nearer, perhaps, to what has lately been done when we come to Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the second Annex to Part 8 of the Treaty. Part 8 is the Part of the Treaty of which the subject-matter is reparation, and Paragraph 17 provides as follows:
"In case of default by Germany in the performance of any obligation under this Part of the present Treaty the Commission. ... will forthwith give notice of such default to each of the Interested Powers, and may make such recommendations as to the action to be taken in consequence of such default as it may think necessary.
The measures which the Allied and Associated Powers shall have the right to take in case of voluntary default by Germany and which Germany agrees not to regard as acts of war, may include economic and financial prohibitions and reprisals, and, in general, such other measures as the respective Governments may determine to be necessary in the circumstances."
The Attorney General comments on various clauses of the article but I have read it throughout. The Attorney General continues:
It is apparent that there have been those who have thought that it is under the express terms of that part of tlie Treaty that recent measures -or shall I call them pressure or coercion?- have been adopted and pursued. I find it difficult to accept the proposition that those orovi-sions are strictly applicable to these proceedings. May I mention one instance, which is of itself sufficient? Before the particular measures, sub-

ject to the particular conditions -which are contained in these articles, may be carried out, a certain condition precedent has to be fulfilled, that is to say, a certain notice of a certain kind', coming form a certain notice of a certain kind, coming from a certain source, has to be given. I have made inquiries, and I am told that in fact that notice was not given. The condition precedent for the application of that part of the provisions has not been performed. ' If I had to pause there and answer the question up to that point, my answer would be that the recent measures of coertion or pressure which have been taken by the Allies against Germany are not dependent upon the particular and specific remedies or sanctions set out in the Treaty.
The Attorney General* however, proceeds to give the grounds upon which those sanctions were imposed. He bases it upon the general right of victorious belligerents to enforce the performance of a treaty, and that that right is not limited by the express provisions in the Treaty; that Germany by her conduct has shown she has no intention to perform the Treaty, and that it is for the Allies, and for the Allies alone, to determine the measures necessary for its enforcement. The Minister of Justice will be able to advise on the point, but so far as I have been able to consult the authorities on international law the position would appear to be that if the proceedings are not taken pursuant to the express provisions of the Treaty under which it is agreed by Germany that certain sanctions should not be considered acts of war, military occupation outside the express terms of the Treaty is either a resumption of the old war or the beginning of a new war, though Germany may not choose to so regard it.
Now, my point is simply this. However far the Government of Canada may choose to go in co-operating for the enforcement in accordance with the express terms of the treaty to which we are parties, I submit that the Government should hesitate to take part in any programme which may involve a new war, should the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister come to the conclusion that the imposition of these sanctions outside the treaty does amount to that. I know the view taken by very responsible parties and by certain leading journalists in England is that it does amount to a new war. The great provincial British journal, the Manchester Guardian has had a series of editorial articles on the question of the "new war," and the Observer, the strongest journalistic supporter of the present government under the very able editorship of Mr. Garvin, has had a series of articles along

somewhat similar lines. Germany should pay every dollar she agreed to pay when she laid down her arms but so far as Canada is concerned we should not go beyond the express provisions of the treaty in enforcing payment.
Just a word in conclusion in reference to the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. I have already intimated that I believe the policy of the British Empire should be that of hearty co-operation with all states rather than particular alliance with any.
The Prime Minister this afternoon referred to the terms of the Anglo-Japanese alliance. I have a copy of -the treaty in my hands and in view of its importance I propose to quote one or two paragraphs for the information of the House. The object of the treaty, as set out in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the preamble, are as follows:
(a)	The consolidation and maintenance of the general peace in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India ;
(b)	The preservation of the common interests of all Powers in China by insuring the independence and integrity of the Chinese Empire and the principle of equal opportunities for the commerce and industry of all nations in China;
(c)	The maintenance of the territorial rights of the high contracting parties in the regions of Eastern Asia and of India, and the defence of their special interests in the said regions.
I shall quote only two paragraphs from the body of the treaty. Articles II and IV are as follows:


Article II:: If by reason of unprovoked attack or aggressive action, wherever arising, on the part of any Power or Powers, either high contracting party should be involved in war in defence of its territorial rights or special interests mentioned in the preamble of this Agreement, the other high contracting party will at once come to the assistance of its ally, and will conduct the war in common, and make peace in mutual agreement with it.


Article IV:: Should either high contracting party conclude a treaty of general arbitration with a third Power, it is agreed that nothing in this agreement shall entail upon such contracting party an obligation to go to war with the Power with whom such treaty of arbitration is in force.
Now, Great Britain or the British Empire did conclude a general treaty of arbitration with the United States-a treaty of arbitration that would fully comply with clause IV of the treaty. That particular treaty of arbitration, I understand, did not go into effect because of the failure of the United States Senate to ratify it. But subsequently, in 1914, a new argreement was entered into between
the United Kingdom and the United States with regard to the establishment of a peace commission. It was signed at Washington on September 15, 1914, and ratifications were exchanged at Washington on November 10, 1914. Article 1 of that treaty provides:
The high contracting parties agree that all disputes between them, of every nature whatsoever, other than disputes the settlement of which is provided for and, in fact, achieved under existing agreements between the high contracting parties, shall, when diplomatic methods of adjustment have failed, be referred for investigation and report to a Permanent International Commission, to be constituted in the manner prescribed in the next succeeding article; and they agree not to declare war or begin hostilities during such investigation and before the report is submitted.
I believe it is generally understood in Great Britain, that the treaty to which I have referred complies with Article 4 of the Anglo-Japanese treaty. A statement was recently issued by the Japanese ambassador in London, Baron Hayashi, to the effect that Japan recognized that any difference which might arise between the United States and Japan, if unfortunately such a difference did1 arise, Vvould not under the terms of the Anglo-Japanese treaty involve the British Empire. Therefore under the treaty as it now stands,
I do not believe there is any justification for the allegation that if a difference unfortunately did arise between Japan and the United States, the British Empire would be involved.
I do not believe there is justification for the criticism of this alliance which has been indulged in on the other side of the line. Japan has honourably carried out her obligations under the treaty, as has Great Britain, and there is no just ground for criticism of either. But, Mr. Speaker, that does not entirely end the matter. The Government of this country cannot ignore the feeling that does exist in the United States in reference to this alliance. I submit for the consideration of the Government the question whether it would not be found, after careful examination, that it is in the interest of good relations between the British Empire and the United States on the one hand and between Japan and the United States on the other, in the interests of good relations all round, that this treaty should not be renewed, at least in its present form. Not that we appreciate Japan less; but we want to be friends with every nation; we do not want any alliances that will prevent us from playing the part of friend to every nation in the world.

One word in conclusion in reference to the amendment moved by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). Mr. Speaker, I entirely concur in the views expressed by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, and also by the hon. member for King's, that we should endeavour in 'dealing with our inter-imperial affairs, and international relations, to avoid party differences and party conflicts. Up to this time every prime minister of Canada who has gone overseas has worthily represented our country no matter from which side of the House he has come. Canada has never had any reason to regret, the conduct of her prime minister while in London. On no occasion have her interests been sacrificed or prejudiced. I may not see eye to eye with the Prime Minister on all matters, but I believe that in this important matter the House and the country can obsolutely trust him just as they have trusted every prime minister of Canada in the past. The leader of the Opposition has heard the very clear statement of the Prime Minister. I do not share the view that we should seek to tie the hands of the Prime Minister at this conference. The Prime Minister has indicated what his line of action will be, so far, I think, as he could properly indicate it. What I regret most of all is that if my hon. friend presses his motion to a division there will be an appearance of difference in this House,-and that impression will be entertained in the country, in Great Britain and in other portions of the Empire, on matters in respect to which the House is not divided, but in respect to which all hon. members are substantially in agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask
my hon. friend this question: he has heard the statement I read this afternoon from the Prime Minister of England and also from the Colonial Secretary. I am sure he will agree that they are at variance with the statement made by the Prime Minister. How will the Prime Minister reconcile the position he will take at the conference with that of the Prime Minister of Great Britain if, for example, the Prime Minister of Great Britain holds to the attitude which he has set forth in the statement I have read to the House?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
would say that the fundamental difference is this:	Other prime ministers are not
responsible to the parliament and the people of Canada; the Prime Minister of

Canada is. They are responsible to their own parliaments; he is responsible to this. He is not responsible for what they say; he is responsible for what he says and does. I am prepared, and I am sure this House is prepared-I believe my hon. friend is prepared-to believe that the Prime Minister of this country on these important matters, particularly in view of his statement to-day, can be trusted just as fully as other prime ministers in the past have been trusted to preserve and protect all Canadian interests while'seeking to promote the spirit of unity and hearty co-operation among all the states of the Empire.
I cannot close without making this appeal to my hon. friend, because of the great importance of the issue, because it affects not only our own position, but all portions of the Empire and our relations elsewhere. After hearing the statement of the Prime Minister and listening to the debate, I would urge my hon. friend to withdraw his amendment. Let us be unanimous in form as we are in fact on this question. On the first occasion on which the Government of Canada has taken the House into its confidence and asked the House to express its opinions freely on questions of great moment to the country, let us not divide the House when there is no division of opinion, but let us present a united front to the people of the Dominion, the people of the British Empire and the people of the other nations of the world.


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, it may be for the convenience of the House, if in a very few words, I state, at this juncture, the view that is taken on the question before the House by the little group of members who sit in this corner. We had nothing to do with the arranging of the proposed conference and nothing to do with the drawing up of the amendment on going into Supply. But we are members of Parliament, and we have views about the merits of the amendment, which views we shall express in our vote if the matter goes to a vote.
In some words addressed to this House a few days ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) seemed to indicate that this conference, proposed to be held in June, was merely a preparatory conference. At that time, I formed the opinion that if it was merely a preparatory conference, and if practically no questions of concrete importance were to come before it, the preparation might very well go on for twelve months anyhow by correspondence, and that

it was a matter of doubtful expediency whether this conference should be held this year or not. I do not change from that view now. I would go a little further than the amendment does in its first clause in that respect. I would express a personal doubt about the value of this conference this year at all, on this ground first of all. Men's minds everywhere are yet so much in a state of flux that I very much question whether the world wants conferences at the present moment. We need to recall the events through which the world has passed during the last six or seven years, in which events we have so intimately participated. The conflict has been called a world-war, and well it might be. The Romanoffs have disappeared from the throne of Russia; the Hapsburgs have disappeared from the throne of Austria; the Hohenzollerns have disappeared from the throne of Germany, and Europe has been reduced to a state of practical chaos. For the first time in the history of the world, both hemispheres have been engaged in a conflict of unparalleled magnitude, and, as a result, the world's opinions are in a state of flux. Mankind is stunned into an apathetic condition, and when empires have been crumbling like this, I have the gravest doubt whether even the biggest men in the Empire cannot be better employed than meeting in London and embarking immediately upon a fresh scheme of empire building. That is my first remark in connection with this conference.
There are other reasons. Notwithstanding two recent by-elections, I think there is grave reason for doubting whether the Prime Minister of Britain represents the opinion of Britain at the present moment. Before the last two elections, opinion in that country was setting very steadily against the Prime Minister and his Government, and recent election results are probably due to the temporary cause of the labour upheaval. I have still grave doubt whether the Government of Canada at the present moment represents the opinion of Canada, and in its case there have been no by-elections to interfere with that doubt, because the by-elections have all gone in a particular direction. I feel perfectly certain that if our people from the Atlantic to the Pacific could be canvassed upon the simple question whether the greatest need of Canada in June is for her Prime Minister, after the unparallelled exertions which he has put forth in the House and out of it, since he became Prime Minister, to take part in a conference where subjects of great importance to the future of the world's peace and the future of the Empire are to be discussed and possibly put in the way of settlement, a large majority of our people would say:
" If that bright brain is not too tired, we would rather keep it at home to see if it cannot be better employed at the moment in helping to deal with Canadian problems, to relieve the unemployment situation, and to deal with other great problems that are concerning us in our own nation.'' For that matter, I think Mr. Hughes could find plenty to do in Australia along the same lines, and Mr. Winston Churchill and Mr. Lloyd George have, at the present moment, enough, in all conscience, on their hands in the British Isles to take a rest from foreign policy and from delicately manipulating the relations of the various portions of the Empire.
These remarks are based upon a supposition that this is a preparation conference for another bigger powwow to be held next year. I do not know why the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell) is so enthusiastic to-night in favour of these successive powwows, because when he was in Geneva recently he told the people there that Canada could not afford to have her greatest men going across the Atlantic every year. I do not see that he is quite consistent in his view in that respect. If this conference is to be more than a preparatory conference, then I submit that there is no practical method of limiting the subjects that will come under discussion at it. Indeed, we have had evidence of that in the statements of the Prime Minister to-day. The other day his statement, if it had any meaning-and he generally makes his meaning pretty clear- seemed to be intended to lead the House to believe that this was to be a preparatory conference. But the moment he is met with a very carefully drawn resolution and a proposal that certain limitations of a very moderate kind should be put upon him,, under the influence of applause behind him, he grows, towards the end of his speech, as is his wont, quite combative, and seems to plead for an absolutely free hand to speak for Canada in his own right on any subject that may come before the conference of Prime Ministers. It is trut that he asked this House in one afternoon's debate to give him any counsel and direction which we felt we could give him. But he practically, in his closing remarks, in reply to my hon. friend the leader of

the Opposition, claimed a free hand in this matter.
Now may I draw attention for a moment to the wording of the amendment. It does not propose to limit those who go to that conference, if they do go, in regard to the matters they discuss. There is no proposal of that kind-no proposal of any limitation whatsoever as to discussion. It does state in very careful language certain principles which would limit action. Discussion is one thing, but action is a very different thing. So far as I can see, and I certainly do not need to follow my hon. friend from Durham over all possible subjects of inter-imperial and international disputes or discussion, there is only one question of concrete, practical importance upon which ostensibly my right hon. friend is proposing to go to London at all. I do not know whether my right hon. friend is going to be accompanied to London or not. It has been stated in the newspapers that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) is going with the Prime Minister. Well, I do not know that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine is an expert on Anglo-Japanese relations. He has not taken that question up yet. He will not take it up very long before he is very vigorous in his study of it, and before he becomes an expert, at least in his own mind. I said just now that if the people of this country were canvassed as to my right hon. friend going to London, I believed there would be a very large majority who would say that he could find better occupation at home. Now in regard to the Minister of Marine, I am perfectly sure that nine out of ten of our people, if they were asked whether he should go to Europe this summer, would say: " That is the minister-Is it not-who has a weakness for buying semi-obsolete war vessels and building unprofitable merchant ships? By all means keep him at home, for if he goes to Europe he will come back with a little flotilla of dreadnoughts behind him." However, that is by the way.
I was saying that in my judgment there is only one practical question upon which ostensibly the right hon. gentleman is going to London, and that is the Anglo-Japanese treaty. Now need that take my right hon. friend to London? This treaty is not being made for the first time. It was contracted, first, on behalf of the British Empire by the Marquis of Lansdowne many years ago, and I apprehend that when he made that treaty he would be in consultation with the Canadian Government of that day. The treaty was renewed by Sir Edward Grey,

now Viscount Grey, and I should be very much astonished to learn that that treaty was renewed by Sir Edward Grey without any communication with the Canadian Government. I do not know, but I think I should be making a good guess if I suggested that our Government has already had communications from the Imperial Government about the Anglo-Japanese treaty, and for the life of me I cannot see why an exchange of two or three despatches on each side should not make it perfectly plain to the Imperial Government what the mind of this Government is on the renewal or non-renewal of the Anglo-Japanese treaty. And that, according to my view, is about the only great subject that seems to be taking my right hon. friend to London at this time.
The Prime Minister in speaking on the amendment raised the point that it placed him under a restraint and-he argued that that was inadvisable because it was out of harmony with the principle of conference. He said the conference would be of no value at all if he went under the supposed restraint of the amendment. I do not see that that was well argued. The amendment does not mention conference or discussion. What it says in regard to alterations in the constitutional relationships between Canada and the Mother Country is that no steps should be taken to alter those relationships at the coming Conference. What it says on the other head, in regard to armaments, is not that discussion should not take place, but that no action should be taken committing Canada to enlarged expenditures of a military or naval nature at the present time. I cannot see in the wording of the amendment any attempt to restrain discussion whatsoever. Might I ask my right hon. friend if he contemplates the possibility of any change in the constitution of the British Empire at the coming conference in June? I am quite sure he does not. Might I ask him-I scarcely need to ask him-if he contemplates entering into any obligations whatsoever in the month of June to increase the naval and military expenditures of Canada at this time? He said in his speech, in effect, that he did not. Then, if he contemplates no change in the constitutional relationships, and if he contemplates taking no step to commit us to further obligations in regard to increased expenditure on armaments, whether by land or by sea, why does he not accept the amendment? That is the simple position in regard to it.

My hon. friend from Durham has pleaded for unity upon this question. The Government can get it in a moment, and get it in a way that would not be in the slightest degree derogatory to my right hon. friend and his Government. My right hon. friend has in effect, in his speech put himself under the very restraint which he complains of the amendment placing upon him, because he expressed the opinion in regard to armaments that we should take no steps in regard to them until the general question of armaments was discussed. That point has been emphasized and endorsed by my hon. friend from Durham. In other words, he accepts the principle of the amendment, yet proposes to vote it down. I cannot understand what his attitude of mind is if that is not it. Not only did he say in effect that he did not propose to have any increase of armaments at the present time, but he admitted that it would be a serious matter if any opinion were expressed at the conference or any view taken there by the Prime Minister in conflict with the views of the majority of the people of this country. Well, that is just the fear that evidently operated upon the minds of those who drew this very reasonable and carefully worded amendment, and I repeat, I cannot for the life of me see why the Government does not accept it.
We have heard a great deal about foreign policy. My own feeling is that this country and the world have had all the foreign policy they wantior a number of years. I recall that Mr. Gladstone, speaking on a memorable occasion, reminded his audience that the famous Greek Pericles had said that a man in relation to his wife was better off when he did not know he had one. Gladstone said that he was not quite prepared to endorse the proposition of Pericles in regard to the possession of a wife, but he said: "I am absolutely sure of this, that a country is in a far better position in regard to its foreign policy when it does not know it h.as one." Yet we have had a whole afternoon, after we have certainly had our fill of foreign policy for the last seven years, devoted to a discussion of the question how we can multiply and complicate the obligations of this country in the direction of Empire building. I consider that the step is ill taken and uneneeessary at this time, because, as I have said, the world has had its fill of foreign policy. There would indeed be nothing more serious than that my right hon. friend should express opinions or commit himself to views at that conference that were out of harmony with the views of the majority of the people of this country.
I assuredly think that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), was well within his rights when he claimed for his amendment that it is not framed in any partisan spirit. I do not think there is any evidence of partisanship in the amendment at all. Not only is it not framed in the interests of party, but it is framed with the evident desire to help the Government in taking a stand which is for the good of this country and which is in harmony with the views of the great majority of the Canadian people, if I can form any judgment upon that point. Not only so, Mr. Speaker, but the amendment is framed in support of views which make for the peace, the progress and the happiness of mankind; and my right hon. friend will be well advised if he studies the amendment thoroughly, even after he has voted it down, and gets his system permeated with the principles that are contained in it.
We forget the events of yesterday. I remember very well that when I was supporting the Military Service Act in this House, I made the statement that we, like President Wilson, were in the war because we believed it was a war to end wars. Speaking for myself and those associated with me, I said that we were supporting conscription because we believed that this war would end conscription. And both sentiments were cheered t6 the echo by every hon. gentleman sitting opposite to me to-night. Those sentiments were received with cheers in the debate on the second reading of the Conscription Bill. Have we forgotten that those were the high ideals with which we went into the war? Have we forgotten that it was for those ideals that we lost 60,000 of the fairest and finest of Canadian manhood? Have we forgotten all these things when we so easily take up this question of Empire building once more and give another example of those who forget also the Scripture which says: "The eyes of the fool are in the ends of the earth"? Mr. Speaker, we can well afford to take a rest in this matter of armaments; we can well afford to rest for awhile from artificial Empire building.
What does the amendment assert? It asserts that those who vote for it are eminently satisfied with the British Empire as it is; and they are supported in that view by the fact that the Empire has come through such a strain as it was never

subjected to in its history, such a strain as no one expected that it would have to bear. It has come through with its flag flying at the top of its mast; the free Empire of Britain and her outlying Dominions. That Empire has emerged from the test in a most magnificent way, and what do we want to be doing with it? I say, give it a rest from this Empire building. How are you going to make it better? Do you expect to strike another war next week bigger than the one we have been through? There is no need for these things at the present time; there is no need for thinking of increasing armaments. The amendment asserts that we are satisfied with the Empire as it is. It asserts that what the world wants is rest; what the world wants is honest industrial occupation; what weary men and women want is more fresh air, if you like, but not more Empire building, and certainly not more armaments.
What were the objects held out to us throughout the whole of the war? What were we fighting for? It was said: Reparation shall be made to Belgium and France more than they have lost. This was the statement of Mr. Asquith which was taken up in every portion of the Empire and of the Allied countries. The Hapsburgs and Hohenzollerns, many of us asserted, would pass from their thrones; and these predictions have been fulfilled. It was declared that never again would another nation break international law without the knowledge that all civilized races of mankind would be against it the moment the breach was made, and that, following an understanding of the civilized nations to that effect, steps should be taken towards a large measure of general disarmament. If my right hon. friend were going into a conference to commence working night and day, declaring that Canada was in the forefront of leadership in a movement to bring about that disarmament, then I should say, "by all means, go to the conference". But there are doubts in our minds; there are fears that there may be commitments made along certain lines. We propose, therefore, so far as this corner of the House is concerned, I think, unanimously, to support the amendment, because, in our soul and conscience, we support two propositions which it contains as being propositions which we believe to be held by the great majority of the people of this country, propositions which make for the progress, the happiness, the prosperity of mankind, and which alone, if carried out, can bring to a weary

humanity the things for which we asserted we are fighting all the time the war was on.


Right Hon.   S@: I
wish simply to make two or three remarks in connection with the long debate which we have had on a most important question. It is rather difficult for me to see why the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has proposed this motion, but it is still more difficult for me to follow the arguments of some gentlemen who have spoken in support of it. The member for. Gaspe and Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) has given us a very ornate speech in reference to a great many things-ancient history as well as modern-but he has not strongly and appositely devoted himself to the proposition that was laid down bj the leader of the Opposition. Amongst the other speeches-which have been of a high order if I may be allowed to express an opinion-we have heard a speech from the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). It had a great many excellent things in it but it seems to me to have gone a good deal wide of the mark.
Let us take just two or three sample observations on the question. If there was anything in the argument of my hon. friend from Red Deer, it was that there should not be a conference at all, or at least that the Prime Minister had better stay at home and not attend the conference. Th at was driven home with a good deal of force. But we are up against a fact. The fact is that a conference has been determined upon and that it will be held, that the other Overseas Dominions have arranged for their premiers to attend it, and some of them are now on the way. What is the use of getting up here and making a drive at the uselessness, so to speak, of the conference when the Mother Country and the Overseas Dominions have decided that there should be one when it has been called, and it will take place? If we must be consistent we must be prepared to say that that conference can go on, that it can be carried through, that it may have the premiers of all the other Overseas Dominions, but that Canada would be wise to keep out of it entirely. I do not think the people of Canada, I do not think this House, is disposed to ask that Canada shall take that position with reference to this conference. For my part I would not think it would be wise to do so and to say that as the conference had better not be attended by Canada. I do not think that such an attitude is within the running,

unless we are prepared to state that we will sit by and see a conference carried on with the co-operation of all the other Overseas Dominions and the Mother Country, but that we shall not be present, or be heard, at that conference.
Take the other point of view. I have followed very closely the discussions which have taken place in the other Overseas Dominions, and I cannot find that either there, or at home, there has been any attempt on the part of the legislatures or parliaments of those countries to bind or tie the hands of their representatives by the passage of a resolution; in all cases they will be there and will have gone with the confidence of their parliaments and their legislatures behind them. What is the reason we should act differently from these other Dominions and imply lack of confidence in the representative who goes to take Canada's part in that conference? We might go back in Canadian history a little -it has been mentioned already, it is no harm to mention it again-and during all the years from 1894 until the present time that we have had these gatherings-at first Intercolonial Conferences, and then these other conferences resulting in the Imperial Conference of the last ten or fifteen years -on no single occasion, as far as my memory goes, has there been any attempt on the part of the House to hamper in any possible way the Prime Minister who went to those conferences. When Sir Wilfrid Laurier went over to attend those conferences he went as Prime Minister. Between him and the Opposition in the House there were strong divergencies of opinion-much stronger divergencies of opinion than exist to-day between hon. gentlemen opposite and the present Prime Minister-and yet there was no occasion on which the Opposition tried in the least to impute a lack of confidence in him as Prime Minister of Canada, or to send him over with bonds and shackles about him. Why should it be done in this instance? But there is an additional reason 10 p.m. why it is not necessary, and that is afforded by the admissions of my hon. friends themselves. As already stated, on no previous occasion, prior to the departure of our prime ministers to attend these conferences, has there been a full and free opportunity given for discussion with an invitation for suggestions and advice, and, in a way for instruction. This time the opportunity has been afforded, and the Prime Minister to-day, and in his previous utterances, has stated
the course that he proposed to follow at the approaching conference. That statement of his agrees absolutely with the propositions that have been put forward in the speeches of hon. gentlemen who have already spoken to-day, and agrees exactly with the two main propositions in the amendment which the leader of the Opposition has proposed. If, under these circumstances, the Prime Minister has stated that he does not propose to bind this Parliament or this country by any conclusions of a concrete nature, and if hon. gentlemen believe the Prime Minister's assertion, as they say they do, why is there any necessity for moving this amendment? If it is not necessary to restrain impetuous and reckless desire to commit this country, what is the use of it? If there had been any indication of such, a desire there might have been some ground assumed for passing such a resolution. As there has not been, why is the resolution necessary, on the admission of the members themselves who have spoken that-the Prime'Minister has frankly and fully stated that he does not propose to assent to any concrete conclusions which shall bind this country?
If those are arguments on one side, there is to my mind an argument on the other side that is more powerful still. I say it with all becoming moderation, but I doubt myself if it is for the interest and the reputation of Canada that, after the statement her Prime Minister has made of the lines which he has laid down, Canada should send him to that conference with a divided sentiment in this House behind him, such divided sentiment being based upon what? Upon the simple idea that the House, so far as the Opposition was concerned, did not trust the word of the Prime Minister, and did not believe that he ought to go without these shackles about him. I do not think that is going to contribute to the reputation and dignity of Canada, and I am quite certain that it puts our representative in an individious position compared with the representatives of all the other parts of the Empire who will attend that conference. I do not want to use too harsh a word, but I do not think it is a seemly position for our House of Commons to take under the circumstances, and I should be very sorry to see it taken. I had it in mind-my hon. friend from Durham (Mr. Rowell) made the proposition himself-that if I said anything at all tonight after this discussion had proceeded on the line it has, I would suggest that it would be proper and advantageous for my

hon. friend to withdraw his amendment. I am not sure whether he will or not. He may think now there is some advantage to be gained by pressing it to a vote, but I am quite certain that when he thinks it over in his cooler moments he will see that he has pressed a matter which has not been quite in accordance with the necessities of the case, nor with the dignity of this House. I shall be sorry if he presses his resolution to a vote, but that is for him and his associates to settle for themselves.
Now, when you come down really to the matter before us, what is it that this Parliament does hold in its hands? It is the absolute right to be the final arbiter of any conclusions which may be arrived at at these conferences-this conference or the conference which is to succeed it next year. The whole purpose of this conference is not to come to conclusions in the concrete. It has a purpose quite as important as that which is the purpose of next year's conference. I am not one who feels that we ought to speak slightingly about a preparatory conference looking to a conference of much greater moment in a way which is to take place next year. 1 am not so cocksure as my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that you can settle all these things to the greatest advantage by sending a despatch or two across the Atlantic and getting an answer back. If there is anything that distinguishes the work of the world to-day it is the willingness of its representative men to sit down around a common table and to exchange views with reference to the great interests which are confided to their charge. That is shown in the world's history of the last ten or fifteen years, and never to a greater extent than now. If there is one influence to-day which is working for a better understanding, and consequently for peace, it is the idea of a system of conferences between men of all grades of public merit and importance. And in these conferences where men meet together in conversation, in question and answer, in the putting forth of opinion and reply, and the canvass thereto they get at common views, and they are enabled to do their work much better. Undoubtedly it is an influence which is of untold benefit in working for the good understanding which is necessary to world peace.
My hon. friend from Red Deer says that we have had enough of foreign policies and of foreign countries during the last seven or eight years. Well, we have had a good

deal of them, and we have had a lot of world-work to do. But those foreign countries still exist; international interests still exist; inter-imperial interests still exist, and to my mind there are many things which require at this very day conference and understanding not only between the public men of various countries, but between the public men who have to do with the Empire itself. Readjustment of the work of the future, getting together for mutual understanding, are as necessary now as they were during the war, and to my mind a preparatory conference which takes into account the big and important questions, the questions upon which the weal or woe of this Empire depends to a very large extent, cannot be canvassed too soon by men from different parts of the Empire meeting together and going into close and intimate conference with reference to them.
It is all very well on a call of a month or two next year when the Imperial Conference meets to go to London to settle the big questions which we all admit are to be settled in some way there; that is one thing; but it is a mighty sight more important to get the benefits of personal conference first and then have the advantage of a year to think over and to pursue those personal conferences before you come up against the actual concrete solution of those big questions which will be before us within the next two years. Surely I am right there, surely it is not a waste of time that Canada should send her Prime Minister for that purpose in order that he may bring back to those who are his colleagues next year that intimate knowledge which can only be gained from these personal conferences with the heads of the Empire one with another next June.
I am rather surprised that men should think, and actually argue upon the thought, that no previous consideration should be given along the lines I have laid down; that nothing of that kind should take place until the Imperial Conference is convened, and that then in a fortnight or three weeks you should be called upon, in the rush of those busy hours, to come to your conclusions. My mind is that it is the part of wisdom to have this Conference of Prime Ministers now, to get at the. information, to get the views of representatives of other parts of the Empire. Then those who attend the conference may, upon that information and that interchange of opinions, bring back to the councils of their respective countries their views with regard to the matters dis-

cussed; the whole situation can he canvassed and re-canvassed-as would not be possible through the medium of letter or despatch writing-in the light of the living and intimate knowledge thus obtained of the various questions considered. This done, when next year the Imperial Conference is called, with its admittedly big questions to consider, we shall be glad to send our men there in the best possible manner fitted for the work which they will be called upon to do. I again urge upon my hon. friend, therefore, that it would be the part of wisdom for him to withdraw his resolution.
I think that in this matter we should proceed along historic lines-that is one argument. I think it should be done as is suggested because a Parliament should always have faith in its Prime Minister; when he outlines his work and pledges himself to a course of conduct, Parliament should accept his statement, should take his word and give him its confidence. Parliament should not embody in a shackling resolution what, if the word of the Prime Minister can be relied upon, is not necessary, and what carries with it a division in this House, an implication that the Prime Minister goes across with what might be called a divided confidence so far as the House is concerned-that Canada is not speaking as a whole. Now, that is simply the way it strikes me. We are not going over there, in the person of our Prime Minister, to meet enemies; we are going over to counsel with friends. To listen to some of the remarks which have been made here this afternoon, one would think that the Prime Minister was going over to put his head into a den of robbers- men who wanted to take advantage of him and of this country; who'wanted to draw us into intrigues and into conclusions which would be disadvantageous to Canada and to the Empire as a whole.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who suggested a den
of robbers?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Why, my hon.
friend himself. Of course, he did not use the word "robbers."	[DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: Grossly exaggerated.


George Green Foster: But threequarters of the speech of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve, if he will allow me to say it, was of a somewhat mischevious nature. It bred suspicion; it breathed suspicion; it played upon prejudice, as my hon. friend knows how to play upon prejudice.
He had to say something with reference to Winston Churchill. What good on earth or under heaven could come from allusion in debating a question of this kind to something that Winston Churchill might have said years ago or might not have said years ago?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Said it against the
right hon. gentleman in England.


George Green Foster: Why should
the hon. member for Maisonneuve drag in the Round Table again, as though the Round Table formulated the policies of this Government? My hon. friend loves that bogey. He has slept with it for the last ten years. It is a bogey which, when he pulls the string, may do some good to him in certain particulars and respects. But I must say to my hon. friend that he is capable of much better than that. He has an Imperial tendency as well, and I commend him for it. Why on earth should he bring out these breeders of suspicion, these arousers of prejudice, in the discussion of a question like this? I say again that we are not going over to Great Britain in the person of the Prime Minister to alight amongst enemies

those who wish to take advantage of Canada, to rope her into something egregious, something against her interests. I do not look at it in that way, neither does my hon. friend, in his heart. He has time and again in this House traced the evolution of the constitutional liberties of Great Britain and of the parts of the Empire which, as Overseas Dominions, are closely united to her. He has done it with his usual eloquence and his usual ability. Never in the history of that evolution has there been on the part of English statesmen a desire to take any action as affecting Canada or the other Overseas Dominions which is not fair and square and honest and for the benefit of the Empire as a whole. As a matter of fact, nothing can be done to bind this Parliament until the measures are brought back and laid before this Parliament. My hon. friend says: Then why not pass the resolution? Well, why not add a codicil to your resolution? Why not lay down just the cut of the clothes that the Prime Minister shall wear when he goes to that conference? The Prime Minister gives us to understand that he will go very well clothed; but my hon. friend says:	Then,
why not have it put in a resolution that he shall go well clothed? The Prime Minister says: I do not propose to do this and to do that, or come to any concrete

conclusions. Then why is it necessary to put it in a resolution? My argument against the resolution is founded upon its uselessness and its mischievousness. I would rather see it withdrawn and I would like to prevail, if I could, upon my hon. friend to make it better for Canada, better for himself in his after reflections, better for his peace of conscience, by saying: We believe the Prime Minister's assertion; he has frankly laid down his policy and his proposed -line of conduct; we trust him and we shall put no shackles about him.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the arguments which my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) has adduced in support of his suggestion that the motion of the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) be withdrawn do not impress me very deeply. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) stated this afternoon that while he could not accept the amendment of the hon. leader of the Opposition, he was quite willing to accept suggestions from the members of the House as to the stand he should take on the various matters to be discussed at the coming conference. If individual members of the House are invited to offer suggestions, what is the harm on the part of the whole House in offering a suggestion by way of a resolution? If an individual suggestion is invited, why should a collective suggestion be refused? The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) says that this would be a shackle, and that it is a lack of dignity on the part of this Parliament to offer such a motion. My opinion as to that differs from that of my right hon. friend. Is there any lack of dignity on the part of Parliament in expressing its opinion on questions which vitally affect the future of Canada? Is there any lack of dignity on the part of the House of Commons in giving its opinion, in making an assertion of what it believes oh questions which are very important for our country? The trouble is that this Government has developed the habit of ruling in an arbitrary way by Orders in Council, as it has done so frequently, ignoring altogether Parliament and its prerogatives and rights. The people of this country to-day want the prerogatives and rights of Parliament restored, and they will certainly approve the resolution presented by the leader of the Opposition, especially when there is in that resolution nothing which opposes anything set forth by the 
Prime Minister or any other hon. gentleman on the other side.
My right hon. friend says that this amendment is not in harmony with the principle of a conference. Why not? Why, I repeat, is a collective suggestion by Parliament not in harmony with the principle of a conference? Why should the expression of a mandate to our representative at that conference hamper his action there? It is true, as my right hon. friend has stated, that any decision reached at the conference shall have to be approved by the Parliament of Canada before it is binding. But, Sir, I believe that we have a right to express our opinion before the discussion takes place at the conference. We have a right to tell our representatives what we want and what we do not want, and there is nothing in that which means derogation from the dignity of either Parliament or the gentleman who will represent Canada at that conference.
Having made this statement, I will proceed to examine very briefly the four matters which my right hon. friend says now will be submitted to that conference. The first is: Preparation for the special constitutional conference contemplated in resolution 9 of the Imperial War Conference of 1917. There is no objection to preparation for the holding of that conference. I am not sure whether it was necessary to hold a special meeting of Prime Ministers for that purpose. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that correspondence would have brought about the same result. There is, however, no harm in that conference, and I quite agree that some system must be devised for the holding of that very important conference. May I suggest, in view of the fact that some hon. gentlemen have offered suggestions as to the date of that conference, that it should not be held prior to a general election in Canada. It is very important that the men who will represent Canada at that momentous gathering shall have the full support, if not of the whole population, at least of the majority of the people of the country.


Mr. CURRIE:: They have that.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend from Simcoe says that they have that support. Of course, he is not serious in that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He is a trouble maker.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. As to the other suggestion that men, representative of the various political groups in the Dominions,

should be invited to take part in the conference, perhaps that is a good idea, and I shall be glad indeed, so far as I am concerned, to see the right hon. gentleman present as leader of the Opposition in the Canadian House of Commons.
The second and the fourth matters which are suggested relate to foreign relations and to external affairs concerning all parts of the Empire. May I say that these two matters should be postponed until after the constitutional conference takes place? It is only after that constitutional conference shall have taken place that the real status of Canada shall be defined, and that the British Dominions shall know in a clear way the true and real nature of the political union between the various parts of the Empire. Then and then only, I suggest that we shall know whether it is in. the interest of Canada, whether it is opportune for Canada, to take part in the shaping of the foreign affairs of the Empire, and to what extent we should do that. Though I agree with much that has been stated by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Rowell), especially as regards the principle upon which his arguments are based, I differ as to many methods which he has suggested, as to what will be involved, and what will he the interpretation and meaning of certain governmental activities. There is a danger in our country meddling too much in foreign affairs without any reservation. The hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) quoted words of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, with which I am in full sympathy, concerning the gradual evolution of Canada in the course of the development of its autonomy. But while holding these views, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier always objected to our country taking part in the discussions and decisions regarding the foreign affairs of the Empire. As late as in 1911, at the Imperial Conference, when Australia proposed a resolution of regret that the Dominions were not consulted prior to the acceptance by the British delegates of the terms of the Declaration of London Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking to the resolution, said:
That is a thing which, in my humble judgment, ought to be left altogether to the responsibility of the Government of the United Kingdom. Tou ought not to give advice unless you are prepared to back the advice with a'l your strength.
That is the danger which faces us when we have the ambition to offer our advice regarding the foreign affairs of the British
Empire. We cannot give our advice unless we are prepared, as my late hon. leader stated on that occasion, to back our advice with all our strength. I do not think that the people of Canada wish or are prepared to-day to say that they will put all the strength of the country or what is left of her resources, and all her manhood, behind any scheme concerning Prussia, Mesopotamia, or any other country with which the foreign affairs of the Empire may be concerned. My hon. friend the member for Durham did not always speak in very complimentary terms of European diplomacy, and I am surprised, therefore, that he is so anxious to have a part in that diplomacy.
I am sure that he does not suppose that our offering advice will cure all the evils he complains of. Speaking at Geneva last summer, my hon. friend said:
Fifty thousand Canadian soldiers under the sod in Europe is the price Canada has paid for the European statesmanship which drenchec the continent in blood.
Those words were the subject of much comment, but I may say that so far as I am concerned I admire the courage of my hon. friend in expressing his opinion in the way he did. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not see how he can reconcile that statement with his anxiety to take part in all the conferences and all the discussions which may lead to a decision concerning the foreign policy of the British Empire. Canada must go slowly along that line.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Does my hon. friend wish an answer to that question?


Ernest Lapointe: I am always pleased to listen to my hon. friend.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The answer is quite simple. In my judgment the world's peace can only be preserved by international cooperation to preserve it, by peaceful means, and that involves all nations coming in and doing their share. I think Canada should do her share with the other nations.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not see how our giving advice to the British Foreign Office will lead to bringing that about. It is because I am afraid of taking the responsibility which our advice in every such case involves that I did not approve of some of the conditions in arrangement concerning the appointment of a Minister Plenipotentiary to Washington, though at the time I approved of almost everything my right hon. friend from King's (Sir Robert Borden) and my hon. friend from Durham stated. The feature which I do not like is



[Stage Direction]
that our representative at Washington shall act for the British Ambassador in his absence. If the representative of Canada acts for the United Kingdom or for the British Empire on such occasions, I do not see how we can escape responsibility for his actions. He will be our nominee, appointed upon the advice of Canadian ministers. I do not like that feature of the appointment which makes him British Ambassador as well as Canadian representative at Washington.
The third subject which is referred to is the Anglo-Japanese Alliance. As far as that is concerned, I do not see why we should send a representative to London to discuss the matter with the representatives of the United Kingdom. What I suggested this afternoon while the right hon. the Prime Minister was speaking, I suggest again to-night, and that is the insertion of a clause in the treaty-such a clause was inserted in the British-French War Treaty, upon the request, I am sure, of my hon. friend from King's who was then Prime Minister-stipulating that the treaty should not be binding upon Canada unless and until it has been approved by the Canadian Parliament. That would safeguard Canada's rights; there would then be no danger for Canada. We have no business to tell the United Kingdom not to enter into a war treaty with Japan so long as the treaty will not affect us unless we wish it to do so. I think our representative at the conference should insist that the treaty, if it is renewed, shall be ratified by the Parliament of Canada. Then it will be time for us to consider whether or not we should enter into that alliance. The position of Canada in that respect is a delicate one. I wish to be perfectly frank about it. A famous English writer has said that a diplomat is an honest man who goes abroad to lie for his country, but we are so young in diplomacy that we can afford to tell the truth. Mr. Speaker, the conditions that existed in 1911 when the Anglo-Japanese treaty was made do not exist to-day. I think everybody will agree with me that at that time it was against Russia that Japan was seeking protection, and possibly Germany, but no such danger exists to-day. The only possible war 

and I trust to God that such a disaster shall be scared humanity-would be one with the United States, and I am not sure that Canada should bind herself to an alliance which would compel her to fight against that country in any struggle with Japan. At least, it is a question that involves 
great difficulties and one that ought to be considered very seriously by the people of Canada and by this Parliament before we give our consent to any treaty of that nature.
As to the rest of the agenda, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister says that the time at the disposal of the conference will be limited and that it is quite probable that these subjects will not be discussed; and, indeed, he intimates that the question of naval defence shall not be considered at the conference. My right hon. friend the member for King's (Sir Robert Borden), and my hon. friend from Durham, as also hon. gentlemen on the other side, have emphasized that this is not the time for Canada to increase her armaments, either naval or otherwise. Well, it is all very well for hon. gentlemen to say this, and I am very much pleased with all these statements that have been made this afternoon and to-night. I do not forget, however, that the first statement of the Prime Minister on March 4 indicated that the main question was that of naval policy based upon the principle of co-operation. This question and the Anglo-Japanese Treaty were stated as being the subjects to be discussed. I must not forget, either, that in the British House of Commons, as well as in statements made by public men in the United Kingdom, it has been asserted that the whole question of military and naval defence will be discussed and even decided at the forthcoming conference in June. My right hon. friend says, and I am pleased to hear the statement, that no action shall be taken with regard to naval defence. Well, what is the harm in having it stated in a resolution that would strengthen the hands of the Prime Minister? This resolution only indicates that the Parliament of Canada is at one with the Government in refusing to discuss naval defence this year, and my right hon. friend, instead of being weakened by this assertion on the part of Parliament, would be strengthened, in refusing to be drawn into a discussion of that question. The right hon. member for King's and other gentlemen who have spoken on this phase of the question have declared that we should wait until a scheme of disarmament is decided upon as between the various nations of the world. This is a very good reason indeed in support of the contention that any such discussion should be postponed. But there is the financial side of the question, which is mentioned in this resolution presented by my hon. friend the

leader of the Opposition; and there is the other all-important argument that nothing of this kind should be done until the Constitutional Conference has defined what is our status in the British Empire. Then and only then shall we know exactly to what scheme of defence, naval or otherwise, we would commit ourselves, and it is only after that conference has taken place and its findings have been approved by this Parliament, as well as by the other parliaments of the Empire, that any general scheme of naval defence should be entered upon.
There is only one thing more I wish to mention, and that is the fact that this conference, as my right hon. friend and the member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), have pointed out, is to be a meeting of Prime ministers. I do not see why any other member of the Cabinet should go to London to attend this conference of Prime Ministers. We have only one Prime Minister, and we need all our ministers in this country at the present time. There are very grave and serious problems to settle, and it has been a source of dissatisfaction and of complaint throughout Canada that for the last two years our ministers have been spending more time abroad than they have devoted to the consideration of domestic problems in Canada. If the Prime Minister must go, let him go; but we love our other ministers so much that w'e want to keep them with us.
In conclusion, I want to ask hon. members: why should this amendment be opposed? The amendment merely asserts that, in the opinion of this House, no constitutional change in our relations with the Empire should be decided upon at this conference. Well, that is the general opinion as expressed in this House. This is not to be a constitutional conference; it is only a meeting of prime ministers. Every one agrees with that part of the amendment. Then, why vote against it? The other part of the amendment is the assertion that no action should be taken with regard to increasing expenditures on naval or military affairs. Every one, including the Prime Minister, has suggested that this discussion should not take place. Why, therefore, refuse to accept the amendment, which merely embodies these two principles that are accepted by all the members of the House, including members of the Government? I say, Mr. Speaker, that Parliament does well to express its definite opinion as to what should take place at this conference. Parliament does well to give a
mandate to its representative. Before he goes to that conference he should have the authority to speak for the Canadian people. Canada has a right to specify what she wants him to state there, so far as policies are concerned; and reciprocating the invitation put forward by my right hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), who has asked us to withdraw the amendment, I invite him to support it.
John Allister Currie: At this late hour I have no desire to prolong the debate. I merely wish to express a few sentiments in regard to the amendment and to the question before the House which I believe have so far been overlooked. I followed with a great deal of interest the recital by various speakers during the debate of the growth of the constitution of this country. After listening to the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) one would reach the conclusion that the development of the constitution of Canada was not a matter of easy and smooth growth, but that it came out of a struggle for existence, a struggle for liberty from beginning to end. In the historical works of Canada and in the writings of many of our public men that view of the situation is given, but to my mind it is a very wrong one. Great Britain has a history in regard to colonial government extending back for four hundred years. Any one who has studied the history of the colonies of British America, now the United States, will get a much clearer view of the status of Canada, and the constitutional growth of the Dominion, than they will by listening to a lot of talk about what Lord Durham did, and what Lord So and So. said of Canada, forty or fifty years ago. The colonial office in England has a history and there they know how to deal with colonial affairs-they have had a great deal of experience. The American colonies had much wider scope and had greater autonomy than Canada has to-day, but that did not prevent civil war and the breaking away of those colonies from the Mother Land. They wrote their own charters and in the case of two or three of the colonies-such as New Jersey, I think, and [DOT] Pennsylvania and Carolina-they selected their own governors which we have never done. Now what was the reason, the fundamental reason, why there was a break between those colonies and the Mother Land? We must follow the history of the colonial system in what is now the United

States if we are going to arrive at any conclusion as far as our own colonial system, so-called, is concerned. The American colonies assisted Great Britain in her wars against the French and Spaniards. They sent 5,000 men to Carthagena with General Vernon. In the war between France and England they manned a large number of warships to fight against the French, and they carried on in exactly the same way as Canada is carrying on now. What was the reason that trouble arose? Inside of virtually twenty years after the French had been swept from this continent trouble arose between the colonies and the Mother Country. The reason was that no effort was made to bring about a meeting between th'e principal leaders of thought and of politics in those colonies and the leaders of thought and politics in Great Britain. There was no interchange of ideas; there were no conferences of premiers such as are taking place now. The colonies drifted away from the Mother Land, and it took very little irritation of a local character to bring about a break between England and her colonies whereby those colonies were lost. In discussing this question as to what we are going to do, and what the position of Canada is to-day in the Empire, we should look very carefully over what happened over a hundred years ago. By doing that and studying the question seriously we may arrive at a sensible conclusion now.
In regard to the forthcoming conference the Prime Minister has made a statement and taken Parliament into his confidence, something that has never occurred in the history of these gatherings in England. The right hon. gentleman has said that he is going over as one of the prime ministers of the Overseas Dominions to take part in the discussion of affairs over there. He has recited to the House the various points and the various matters which are to be discussed there, and he has assured the House that, as far as he is concerned, if there is any conclusion to be arrived at he will first submit the question to the House before coming to any definite decision on the subject. I have a recollection of previous conferences in England which have been attended by Canadian Prime Ministers and I have never yet seen one of them take the House into his confidence as the present Prime Minister has done. I think that Parliament should reciprocate and not try in any manner 11 p.m. to bind his hands. Now the subjects that will come up
[Mr Currie.]
there for discussion and settlement are really of great importance to us. Whilst the war has ceased there is the question as to arms and armament in future. Then there is no doubt that a great industrial war is taking place at the present time, and the position of Great Britain and her Dominions from a commercial and industrial point of view will no doubt come, up for discussion at that conference. To my mind there are several matters that should be considered. For instance, I think that the question of banking should be discussed by the Prime Minister at that conference. At the present time the Empire .is really at war financially. There are no credits between the various colonies and Great Britain and Canada, and something should be done that will smooth over the question of banking and the question of exchange as far as the British Dorriinions are concerned, so that we can carry on business with a reasonable measure of success. If there had been a conference last year, if there had not been such a disposition on the part of some hon. gentlemen opposite to prevent any consultation between the Government of this country and the Government of Great Britain last year, if the leader of the agricultural group had not opposed the question of dealing with unite instead of dealing with the whole of Europe on the subject of grain, I am quite satisfied that this country would have been at least a hundred millions better off than it is to-day. Then there is the question as to trade between foreign countries and the members of the British Empire. These, and other matters will have to be discussed.
Coming back to the resolution and the reasons advanced in its favour, that resolution is an astonishing one to me. I never saw a move of this kind in the House before, and I am very much surprised at the attitude of the Agrarian group in respect to it. In their platform, and in their policy, the Agrarian group have certainly come out very strongly in favour of British connection. They have come out very strongly in support of trade with Great Britain. They want us to have reciprocal trade with Great Britain, they want a greater preference' accorded Great Britain, and they want free trade with Great Britain in four or five years from now. Still they are going to support a resolution which is designed to prevent the Prime Minister of this country from going over to talk over anything of that kind with the British Government. I think that is a wrong attitude for them to take.

I think it is an anti-British attitude, if f may be allowed fo so characterize it. If I were asked to point out the object of this resolution I would simply say that it seeks to tie the hands of the Prime Minister who has clearly informed the House that it is not his intention to do anything that would impose any burdens on Canada, or would lead to any closer union than now exists in the British Empire. I do not think it is possible for us to be brought by any human agency into any closer union than now prevails. It is not a written constitution that will bring about closer relations within the Empire. Written constitutions are like the harness on a horse; it is not the harness that draws the load, it is the animal itself. When war broke out with Germany nobody stopped to discuss whether under the constitution we were called upon to supply our quota of troops, and if the same issue arose tomorrow we would do just the very same as we did in 1914. It is not a written constitution that is of any value to us- it is the feeling of good will and the desire for amicable relations between its component parts that is going to unite the Empire more closely.
Mention has been made of Mesopotamia, and it has been said that we must not do this or do that. Now what is the trouble in regard to Mesopotamia? The great Standard Oil Company in the United States -and I suppose the leader of the Opposition might be able to give us a little clearer knowledge of the facts-acting through the United States Government, stated that they do not want Great Britain to take the Mesopotamia oil fields and that Great Britain's mandate for that territory must virtually cease. As a matter of fact, the mandate of Great Britain in .Mesopotamia has ceased to function, there is no credit, and thousands of dollars worth of goods are lying on the wharves to the great loss of British traders. I do not see why Great Britain or the Dominions should exercise themselves very much as to the views of other countries regarding their attitude; the Mother Country and her Dominions are large enough and strong enough to carry on in their own way. For my part, I am quite satisfied that when our Prime Minister goes to England he will be able to take his place alongside of any of the so-called diplomats from the various parts of the Empire, that there is not very much danger of their gold-bricking him, and that he will keep out of three card monte and other games of
chance. To my mind this is a most foolish resolution-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Allister Currie: Yes; and I cannot understand how any person who is a believer in British connection, who loves his country and is proud of the part she has taken in the war, and who looks forward to the future peace and prosperity of the Empire could assume the attitude which this resolution really suggests-that Canada does not wish to take any further part in the affairs of the Empire, and that we will not trust our Prime Minister to attend the conference in June. That is really what this resolution means.
A short time ago South Africa voted on the question whether that country should remain in the Empire, but her people saw the light and they returned Smuts and his party with an overwhelming majority, and that part of the Empire is now secure within the fold. We all appreciate what the people of South Africa are doing to build up that great country, and it is a pleasure to know that they are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams. The credit of South Africa is first class, in fact much better than that of Canada, and they are rapidly building up their banking and financial institutions. Their Prime Minister will be at this conference. The great Commonwealth of Australia lately debated the question whether Premier Hughes should have a free hand at the conference, and in spite of the fact that he has only a very narrow majority the House gave him an overwhelming vote of confidence. This country is looked upon as the brightest gem in the crown of Empire, she is always regarded as likely to achieve something great in Empire affairs, and the Prime Minister as her representative at the conference should have a free hand. A great deal of discussion has taken place about the Japanese Treaty and the difficulties between that country and the United States. I feel confident that if there is anything that will obviate war and assure continued peace between those two countries it is the attitude of Canada in regard to that treaty. It would be a very grave mistake for us to tie our hands. There may be some difficulties in the way, but the peace attitude on that whole question is the Canadian attitude, and our views should prevail. Why tie the hands of our Prime Minister in any way? As I have said before the resolution is one which cannot appeal

to any member with British sentiments. It is virtually an anti-British resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Allister Currie: Yes, it kicks the props from under our British connection. We might' as well look upon it as it really! is, and then every man will know what he is voting for. To vote for this resolution is to vote want of confidence not only in our own Prime Minister but in the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and our sister Dominions. That is the true attitude behind this resolution, and if its sponsors want to force it on the House, why, we will all know how to vote.


Mr. HERMAS DESLAURIERS (Montreal St. Mary's) :: land; this large territory, very rich in minerals, covers an area of about one-fourth of the American territory and would complete the development of Japan's industries. The two Australian Parliaments have passed an Act providing for a tax of $500 upon every Oriental immigrant, but that legislation was disallowed by a Foreign Office through the Governor General, of Australia, notwithstanding the fact that she is a sister nation standing on the same footing as the other nations within the Empire. Since that time, Australia has endeavoured to collect, through her agents, the tax to which the Japanese object, as they feel they have the support of Downing Street. Since then Great Britain did not hesitate to enter into a treaty with Japan. This is how the situation is described by an American correspondent:-
Australians will not have any Japanese for the same reason that California is rejecting them. The only way for the British Government is to make a new alliance, which instead of dealing with Japan, will protect the British interests in the East, and Australians believe that the future of the United States in the East will compel the Mother Country to follow their policy.
We see, however, the two allied countries arming themselves through mutual distrust. Admiral Falks, who is in command of the British squadron in Asia states that he could not give battle in eastern waters because there is no proper naval base there. It would be foolish, he says, to try and defend Australia at such a great distance from our naval base. Should a ship be . damaged, we would have to go back to Great Britain for important repairs. However, Great Britain is having a powerful naval base built up at Singapore with a very large dry-dock. On the other hand the Japanese are establishing a naval base on the Marshall islands. And the Americans are constantly urging the advantage of England making use of the dry-dock at Pearl harbour in connection with her base at Singapore.
English statesmen are of the opinion that Japan needs an outlet to her surplus population; they are building up their navy on a larger scale than the United States; their naval budget is greater than either those of the United States or of England. Useless to ask why they are building this fleet. Sooner or later the Empire will have to break away from Japan. If Canada endorses the cause of Australia, oui ships will anchor in the Pacific, on the Japanese side, bearing the brunt of the Japanese torpedo attacks. Will our rank of sister 
nation oblige us to subdue all the nations of the world?
Australia at the Imperial Conference of next June, will no doubt claim the support of the Empire and the sister nations. Whas attitude shall we take? That is the question. We must, notwithstanding our rank of sister nation, direct our policy as, being one of the countries of America, where our interests lie, and where we are to look for our support based upon those common interests (which are after all the most natural and the most lasting foundation. As far back as 1838, Lafontaine was of the same opinion and insisted on this point as of the most vital importance. He thus wrote to Mr. Ellice:
"It is not in your power to change our customs, our needs and specially our geographical position, although one of your newspapers has recently expressed such a desire. That is very British. It is absurd to think that we might have in view to become again a French possession. Such a motion would make the Canadians rise in a body. But you cannot prevent our being Americans, either that a sound policy on the part of England should prepare its northern colonies to independence, or that this lack of foresight should compel us to be gathered into the bosom of the Union. It is for you to avoid this, if you judge it convenient.
This is also the opinion of true soldiers, that it is absolutely absurd for Canada to think of a system of defence either by land or sea without first coming to an understanding with the United States. We should to-day more than ever take advantage of the Monroe doctrine, a British invention, on which Britain, the only European nation left on the American continent, all the others having been expelled, relies to safeguard, her interests in America (Canada and Newfoundland).
Through the intervention of Mr. Canning, a British statesman and Mr. Addington, British Ambassador at Washington, President Monroe decided to no more tolerate the conquest or the retaking of any part of the two Americas by any European power. We should direct our future policy in such a manner as to conclude a defensive alliance with the United States, the only nation that can and has an interest to give us an effective protection against Japan who might at any moment turn Canada into a new Belgium. But this alliance can only easily take place inasmuch as we will be independent, because the United States cannot undertake to protect us against all Great Britain's enemies. We should also think of forming an alliance with the republics to the south, Argentina, Brazil and Chile, so as to afford protection to the

whole American continent. It is ridiculous for Canada to try and build fleets and erect fortifications independently of our neighbours. It would be looked upon as a challenge, when they are addicted at present to a policy of armament without measure and they possess all the gold in the world. Since Mr. Lionel Curtis, states that there are but two possible alternatives to our future policy, either imperial partnership which would impose sacrifices and create burdens, or independence under the sovereignty of the King of England, we should choose this last alternative, the only one, owing to similarity of interests, of a nature to ensure our safety at the proper time. This was Lafontaine's opinion in 1838 as I explained a few moments ago, it was in 1852 Disraeli's opinion, in 1865, it was John Bright's opinion, also that of Lord Lisgar, Bishop Laroque and Bishop La Fliche, it was also that of Sir Charles Tupper and Sir John A Macdonald and also the opinion I believe of our late leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
Sir John A. Macdonald of whom the present Government party claim to be the successor spoke as follows:
When we become a nation of eight or nine millions of inhabitants our alliance will be worthy of being sought by the great nations of the earth.
And Sir Charles Tupper said:
We must ever retain the entire^ complete and independent management of our affairs.
Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks, I believe that the most honourable, the most Canadian attitude that might adopt our delegates at the next Imperial conference, would be to cross the seas bearing in their heart the motto of the late leader of the Liberal party:	"Canada first, Canada
second, Canada forever."


Mr. F. RINFRET (St. James) :: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a speech, nor do I presume to conclude the debate. But I cannot let go unchallenged the suggestion thrown out by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) that those who vote for the amendment of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) will be taking an anti-British stand. I do not see how the hon. member can reconcile this view with what has just been said by the right hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) that the amendment is useless. The Prime Minister himself said in the conclusion of his address that he would not bind Parliament to any final decision; therefore the member for
Simcoe will admit that if he charges us with any anti-British feeling he must also conclude that the Prime Minister himself made an anti-British conclusion to his speech.
I do not intend, I repeat, to make a speech, and possibly I should crave the indulgence of the House for entering this debate after so many prominent members on both sides have taken part in it. But I wish to give the impressions, I would say, of a young member listening to the series of speeches that we have heard, and I should like to do so in a very untraditional way. First of all, I cannot see why on this occasion, as on several other occasions, the Government should charge the Opposition, when we move a resolution or an amendment to the motion for Supply, with bringing forward a motion of want of confidence. It seems to me that there is no logic in that conclusion, because we all know that a motion for Supply is very often made for the express purpose of permitting the discussion of a certain subject to take place. I do not wish to make any argument based upon the rules or traditions of the House; I repeat that I wish to give my own impression as a new member. But I do notice that the House is moved into Committee of Supply very often for the express purpose of permitting discussion, and to-day the motion was specially made on behalf of the Government, to allow the member for King's (Sir Robert Borden) and other members to make speeches about the coming conference in London. If we cannot move an amendment on such an occasion without being charged with expressing want of confidence in the Government, it means that when we have a discussion of this kind we cannot embody our attitude in an amendment and ask for the vote of the House on it without at the same time intimating that we wish to refuse Supply to the Government. Why, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case such a contention would be manifestly illogical because we are ready to vote Supply to defray the expenses of our Prime Minister in connection with his trip to London. We are not trying to prevent him from attending this conference; we are merely trying to have Parliament agree on the attitude he should take there.
The Prime Minister said that he could not go to the conference with a fixed programme because if he did so there would be no use for the conference. I cannot understand what that means. The Prime

Minister seems to feel that if he goes to London without a fixed programme, if he goes to voice his own opinion, then there is plenty of room for such a conference, but if instead of voicing his own opinion or even that of his own party he goes there with the opinion of the Parliament of Canada, there is, he would contend, no use for the conference. On the contrary, I think it is perfectly right to say that by moving this amendment we have shown our desire to strengthen hdg position rather than to weaken it in any way.
The Prime Minister has said that he will not arrive at any final decision which would be binding upon Parliament with regard to what we shall do in the future. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce says there is no use for this resolution; that Parliament might as well set forth the cut of the clothing, the shape of the suits that the Prime Minister should take to London. We are not concerned at all, Mr. Speaker, with the quality of the clothing that the Prime Minister will take to London. But we are concerned as to the quality of clothing that he will bring back from London to Canada. It is not so much, I will say, a question of clothing as it is a question of ties-the question of what ties the Prime Minister will bring back around his neck and wish to put around the necks of the Canadian people. I will go further and say that the Prime Minister-provided, of course, he accepts the resolution that we have been kind enough to move to-day-should not prolong his sojourn in London. Of course, it may be interesting for Lloyd George to know what the Prime Minister of Canada thinks of the Anglo-Japanese treaty, hut I humbly submit that we have Chinese puzzles at home which require the attention of the Prime Minister. If he would give some thought to Lord Shaughnessy's letter about the railway problem, or spend a couple of days urging the Minister of Marine to abandon his scheme of shipbuilding when ships are not needed, or give his attention to other home problems, it would be worth his while making his stay in London as short as required by the conference, and in any case not too long.
I must say that I was very much impressed by the speech made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) to the effect that we are concerning ourselves altogether' too much in this House about foreign policies. Mr. Speaker, more foreign policy has been jammed into this half session than during the whole of our history. It seems that we cannont enter upon the 
consideration of any question, whether it be railways or canals or the debate on the Address or whatever it is, without getting an extra large supply of treatises on the League of Nations. I do not object to the" League of Nations; on the contrary I look very sympathetically upon this scheme. But I am afraid we are overfeeding the people with it, and the more we hear of it the less we are able to understand exactly what its aims are.
I repeat that by moving this resolution we were simply trying to strengthen the hand of the Prime Minister in London, in case, we will say, a resolution should be moved, not by a gang of robbers, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce insinuated so mildly, but by gentlemen on the other side or coming from other Dominions who might entertain opinions on certain matters different from those which we entertain in Canada. We were simply strengthening his position. We were allowing him to say not that we should avoid this and that we should avoid that, but that the Parliament of Canada is of opinion that we should not enter into such and such a bargain. That was our intention; if I understood the speeches delivered by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and I think it was a proper attitude to take. Instead of urging the leader of the Opposition to withdraw his motion, I am very sorry that such a wise parliamentarian and experienced politician as the Minister of Trade and Commerce did not urge the Prime Minister to accept that resolution and to go to London fortified by the feeling that the whole Parliament of Canada was behind him.
Mr. G., W. ANDREWS (Winnipeg Centre) : Mr. Speaker, I have looked forward with a good deal of pleasure to this debate, and I have not been disappointed. The speeches have been of a very high order, worthy of the great subject under discussion. I want to state very frankly my opinion on this subject, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so that has been afforded by the leader of the Government (Mr. Meighen). If my views do not coincide with the views of the people whom I represent, ample time remains for them to register their protest before the Prime Minister goes overseas.
In the first place, in my opinion, the great need in the world to-day, as regards the war and armaments, is disarmament, and disarmament, like charity, should begin at home. But having said that, I desire

also to point out that it is no use for one country to disarm to-day. We have long since passed that stage, and I must again point out to hon. members that not only Great Britain, but twenty-seven other countries took part in the last war as allies. The day of the little nation has gone, except in so far as it is supported by the opinion of civilization. Two things stand out in my mind. The first one is that if the leaders who declared war had
12 m. been called upon for one week [DOT]to undergo what our fighting men had to undergo in the salient at Ypres, the war would not have lasted very long. The second one, burned in with six-inch shells, is that if the countries of the world had spent half as much in peace propaganda as they spent in armaments, there would have been no war at all. Having said that-.and I have said it with a pur-t pose-I think the House will realize that, whatever else I may or may not be, I am not a jingo-imperialist.
I have listened to the amendment, and if it does not curtail the work of the Prime Minister, if it does not tie his hands, what good purpose does it serve? If it does tie his hands, Prime Minister Meighen becomes delegate Meighen, and that is a position which I would not accept myself, and I will not ask another man to do what I would not do myself. I would not ask the leader of the Opposition or the leader of the Government to do it.
I am not one of those men who believe in cast iron agreements. The British Empire has not been built in that way. There are a few men, as has already been pointed out to-day, here and everywhere, militarists, and mem who want everything bound up and fixed before they go on, who cannot work unless they have some precedents or authorities to go by. We find the same thing in every day business life. There are men who cannot work unless they get an order, and there are men who must have a precedent for everything, but such men never amount to much. As I have said, the British Empire has not been built in that way. We have always been fortunate enough to have men who could, in a commonsense way, deal with affairs as they came up, and if the time ever comes when the leaders of our nation require a precedent before they can act, or somebody else to give them an order, we can say goodbye to our greatness. But I would go a little further, and I would point out to hon. members that other countries are
just as anxious for peace as we are. . I venture the statement that Lloyd George wants peace just as much as I do. The British people have spent just as much blood and money and they are spending it now; the people of Australia, the people of South Africa have done the same thing. We are not going amongst enemies, we are going amongst friends, and this conference if it works at all, is going to work for peace.
Before resuming my seat, I think, for imperial reasons, it would be a mistake to let the Prime Minister go overseas from a divided House. It does not represent the spirit of Canada to send a representative overseas with only half the people or half the members of this House behind him. That has not a good effect, and it is effect -results-that we want. While any amendment that favours disarmament or peace always receives my sympathy, I think a mistake has been made in bringing this one forward to-day, and I ask the leader of the Opposition to withdraw it. If he can see his way to do that, he will never regret it.
The, House divided on the amendment of Mr. Mackenzie King, which was negatived on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs.
Archambault,	Lafortune,
Baldwin,	Lanctdt,
BSland,	Lapointe,
Bourassa,	Davigueur,
Bureau,	L6ger,
Cahill,	MoCrea,
Cardin,	McDermand,
Casgrain,	McGibbon (Argenteuil),
Clark (Red Deer),	McKenzie,
Copp,	McMaster,
d'Anjou,	Maharg,
D6chdne,	Marcile (Bagot),
Delisle,	Michaud,
Demers, /	Molloy,
/Denis,	Murphy,
Desaulniers,	Papineau,
Deslauriers,	Parent,
DuTremblay,	Pelletier,
Ethier,	Power,
Fafard.	Provost,
Fielding,	Proulx,
Fontaine,	Reid (Mackenzie),
Fournier,	Rinfret,
Gauvreau,	Savard,
Gervais,	S4guin,
Halbert,	Sinclair (Antigonish
Johnston,	and Guysborough),
Kay,	Stein,
Kennedy (Essex N.),	Trahan,
Kennedy (Glengarry	Truax,
and Stormont),	Turgeon,
King,	Verville,
Knox,	White-64,

++NATS
Messrs.
Allan,	Harold,
Anderson,	Harrison,
Andrews,	Hartt,
Argue,	Hay,
Armstrong (Lambton)	, Henders,
Armstrong (York),	Hocken,
Arthurs,	Kemp (Sir Edward),
Ballantyne,	MacKelvie,
Bolton,	Mackie (Renfrew),
Bonnell,	McCurdy,
Borden (Sir Robert),	McGibbon (Musk oka),
Boyce,	McGregor,
Brien,	Mclsaac,
Butts,	McLean (Royal),
Calder,	McQuarrie,
Campbell,	Manion,
Casselman,	Martin,
Chaplin,	Meighen,
Charters,	Merner,
Clarke (Wellington),	Mewburn,
Clements,	Mowat,
Cockshutt,	Munson,
Cooper,	Myers,
Cowan,	Nesbitt,
Cronyn,	Nicholson (Algoma),
Crowe,	Paul,
Cruise,	Redman,
Currie,	Reid (Grenville),
Davidson,	Rowell,
Davis,	Sexsmith, .
Doherty,	Shaw,
Douglas (Strathcona), Sheard,	
Douglas (Cape Breton Simpson,	
S. and Richmond),	Smith,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Spinney,
Edwards,	Stacey,
Elkin,	Steele,
Finley,	Stevens,
Foster (Sir George),	Stewart (Hamilton),
Foster (York),	Stewart (Lanark),
Fraser,	Thompson (Weyburn),
Fripp,	Thompson (Hastings),
Fulton,	Thompson (Yukon),
Gauthier,	Tremain,
Glass,	Tweedie,
Green, [DOT]	Wigmore,
Griesbach, *	Wilson (Wentworth),
Guthrie,	Wilson
Halladay,	( Saskatoon ) -9 6.
PAIRS	
Messrs.	
(The list of Pairs is Whips).	furnished by the Chief
Long,	Thomson (Qu'Appelle ),
Scott,	Vien,
Ball,	Pacaud,
Hepburn,	Tobin,
Bowman,	McDonald,
Whidden,	Crerar,
Hughes	Boivin,
Peck,	Fortier,
Best,	Chisholm,
Blake,	Cannon,
Morphy,	Duff,
Charlton,	McCoig,
Mackie (Edmonton),	Hunt,
Lang,	Wright,
Keefer,	Lemieux,
Clark (Bruce),	Maclean (Halifax),
Tolmie,	Sinclair (P.E.I.),
Lalor,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Buchanan,	Ross, \
Porter,	Gordon,
Middlebro,	Robb.
Bowman, 	Devlin.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was paired with the
hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer). Had I not been so paired, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DUFF:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy). Had I not been so paired, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McCOIG:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Had I not been so paired, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. HUNT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for East Edmonton (Mr. Mackie). Had I not been so paired I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CANNON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Blake). Had I not been so paired, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BOIVIN:: Had I not been paired
with the hon. and gallant member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes), I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CLARK (North Bruce) :: I was
paired with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). Had I not been so paired, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. TOLMIE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). Had I not been so paired, I would have voted against the amendment.
Main motion agreed to.

The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair. ,
Public Works, salaries, $598,510.


Mr. PARENT:: Why is there an increase in salaries?


Mr. McCURDY:: There is an increase of $15,390, which is more than accounted for by statutory increases and the increases due to the re-classification. The number of employees in the department is less than last year's.


Mr. McKENZIE :: Is the Civil Service Act in full force in this department?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the re-classification completed so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes, but there are a number of appeals pending before the board.

Generally speaking, however, the classification is in force.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I must protest against the changes made in the chief engineer's department.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: There is a special vote for that, and when it is called I shall make a statement in regard to the engineering service.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Last year we were told by some ministers that when the re-classification came into force and the salaries allocated in that schedule were paid the bonus would be abolished. Is that bonus to continue indefinitely or not?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: My hon. friend is aware that the bonus paid civil servants this year is three-fourths of what it was last year. What the future holds in store in that regard cannot, I think, be foretold now.


Georges Parent: On page 97 I see provision for a purchasing agent of the Public Works Department. What relation does this official bear to the Purchasing Commission established by the Government last year?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am pleased to say that the relations between this purchasing agent and the Purchasing Commission are most pleasant. This agency and the commission work in unison. The purchasing agent of the Public Works Department has performed the duties of that office for many years, and has become, an expert in the purchasing of supplies for the department. The routine followed in connection with these purchases is not, I imagine, dissimilar to that which obtains in other departments. So far as the Public Works Department is concerned, the purchasing agent oversees the drafting of specifications for the goods that are required, and obtains from the Purchasing Commission a list of firms which in their opinion are best qualified to supply these goods. As my hon. friend knows, the list is a wide open one. The forms of tender are sent to the firms mentioned in these lists and when the tenders are received they are opened in the presence of a member of the Purchasing Commission and of the purchasing agent of Kthe Department of Public Works, and of course, as my hon. friend would expect, [DOT]the contract is always awarded to the best tender received.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Does the Purchasing Commission buy anything for the Department of Public Works?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The Purchasing Commission and the purchasing agent of the Department of Public Works make the purchases.


Joseph Archambault: Who finally decides about the tender, is it the Purchasing Commission or the purchasing agent of the Department of Public Works?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The Purchasing Commission.


Joseph Archambault: Is it not a fact that when the purchasing agent of the department sends a requisition to the Purchasing Commission, and at the same time gives an indication to the latter body of the lowest tender, the Purchasing Commission is bound to accept the lowest tender?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I think there would be no controversy in a case of that kind. Where the lowest tender is indicated the order finally goes to that tenderer.


Joseph Archambault: Well then the
Purchasing Commission uses no discretion at all?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes, there is discretion as to prices.


Joseph Archambault: Who uses the
discretion as to prices; is it the purchasing agent of the department or the Purchasing Commission?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The Purchasing Commission.


Georges Parent: I want to point out to
the minister what happened in Committee of Supply last night. An item of $10,000 for the construction of a wharf at Lindsay was under consideration and the Minister of Railways in the course of his remarks said: "When it is a small matter we have the work performed by our own men." I would like to know if the Minister of Railways can, upon his own responsibility, carry out a contract involving an expenditure of $10,000, or whether the materials for work of that nature will be ordered through the Department of Public Works or through the Purchasing Commission?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I think it would be a
very good practice for all who could avail themselves of the services of the purchasing agent of the Department of Public Works to do so-I am sure they would save money and get good results. So far as purchases in the Department of Railways and Canals are concerned I am convinced the Minister of Railways would only be too glad to give

all the information desired in regard to the matter. Purchases for the Department of Railways and Canals would not, as a matter of fact, pass through the Department of Public Works.


Georges Parent: I should have thought
that the same principle that obtained in the case of the Public Works Department would also be followed in the case of the Department of Railways and Canals. Surely there must be a general policy applicable to every department, and that everything needed by a department must be bought from the Purchasing Commission. In the Public Accounts Committee to-day we were told that the Marine Department has nothing at all to do with the Purchasing Commission and that if there is any paint needed for painting the Government vessels it is not bought through that organization. I would, therefore, like to know whether there is a general policy followed in the case of all the departments in respect to these purchases?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: All I can say to my
hon. friend is that so far as my observation in the Department of Public Works goes, we have found the arrangement between the purchasing agent of that department and the Purchasing Commission to work admirably. Further than that I do not think I could go. If my hon. friend will direct his question to the minister of the department concerned I am sure he will certainly get first-hand information, and probably it would be much more comprehensive and intelligent than I can give him.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I notice an item "Clerk of the Estimates-$4,020" as against a vote last year of $3,840. Will the minister tell us the reason for the increase and what the gentleman who receives this salary does?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I think the title of the position fairly accurately indicates the duties which this official performs. As my hon. friend knows, the Department of Public Works is concerned in many activities throughout the country. There is not a city or a town of any size throughout Canada in which there are not expenditures of one kind or another made in connection with the operations of the Department of Public Works. If my hon. friend will peruse these Estimates, as I have no doubt he has already done, he will notice the large number of votes called for. The particular duty of this clerk is
	.
to keep the information, such as my hon. friend is now asking for, and the various details, up to date so that such information can be quickly furnished to members of Parliament. These Estimates have to be compiled and put into proper shape for submission to Parliament, and it involves a great deal of firork. The increase in salary indicated in the parallel column of the Estimates is on account of the higher salary due to this official under reclassification.


Georges Parent: I am glad that the minister is disposed to give such useful and reliable information. At the same time I would like to know why there are so many engineers in his department who are classified in a manner which appears rather strange. There is one senior engineer at a salary of $4,140; there is the chief engineer who is at the head of the list, and then there is a general engineer who receives a salary of $3,360. I do not complain of the salaries these engineers are getting because I do not think they are adequate as compared with those paid to engineers employed by private corporations. Still I would like to know why there are so many distinctions made in the classification of these engineers?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Fortunately or unfortunately, the minister is not troubled with these affairs as was formerly the case. I think I am supported by the opinion of every person who has come from commercial life to undertake the duties of administering the department when I say that there are anomalies of one kind and another. My hon. friend has referred to one of them, but the disposition of the salaries of the officers in the department does not lie absolutely with the minister. The reclassification to which the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) has referred provides largely for the salaries of these officials.


Georges Parent: Has the firm of Griffen-hagen and Company had anything to do with it?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Griffenhagen and Company are not in the employ of the Government. There was a reclassification of positions which has resulted in a large number of alterations in the salaries paid. It is no secret, my hon. friend knows it very well, that the classification has produced results that were scarcely anticipated. For instance, the position of assistant chief engineer to which my hon. friend referred

bears a salary now of $5,400, this official having advanced to the top of the class in which he was placed under the reclassification.


Georges Parent: What is his name?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Mr. K. M. .Cameron. He is chief superintendent of the dredging branch and is an excellent officer. But the anomaly will be observed when I say that the chief engineer of the department, who is also an excellent officer and is senior to the other gehtleman, appears on the list with a salary of only $5,100.


Joseph Archambault: Why was the
assistant engineer's salary increased this year while the chief engineer's salary was not?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I am endeavouring to explain to my hon. friend that under the classification the assistant chief engineer, who is superintendent of dredging, wa3 placed in the class of $4,500 to $5,400 and entitled to an increase of $300 each year, and having had three increases of salary he is at the top of his class.


Joseph Archambault: What is the
name of the chief engineer?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Lafleur.


William Duff: I do not know why the Government ever accepted this classification. In view of the fact that the minister agrees that there are these anomalies and mistakes, the Government should decide to do away with the classification. I think the minister must realize-and I am not saying this in criticism, but in appeal to him as a business man-that as one of the Cabinet he should try to have this classification straightened out.
I want to refer once more to the Purchasing Commission, and again I am going to appeal to the minister as a business man.
I see there are three purchasing agents- a chief, an assistant and a junior. While I cannot agree with the minister politically, yet I have sufficient confidence in him and in his deputy and their officials, especially those in my own province, to think that they can purchase supplies for their department far better than any Purchasing Commission sitting in Ottawa. It is a waste of money to have a purchasing agent at $4,000, an assistant at $2,580 and a junior at $1,800, and then have these men submit their decisions to a commission in Ottawa which does not know whether a log in South Cape Breton is worth 10 cents or 5 cents a foot. That is wrong, and it is


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
about time for the minister as a business man to say to his colleagues-who also have purchasing agents in their departments, costing the country anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 for each department-that is members of the Purchasing Commission at Ottawa should (be sent back to their farms to raise something for the benefit of the country. There is no necessity to have an assistant and a junior purchasing agent in every department, when as the hon. member for West Quebec said to-day, in the Public Accounts Committee evidence was given that in the Marine Department the minister does not consult the Purchasing Commission. I compliment him for having enough pluck to stand up against the commission, and I think he is absolutely corect in his attitude. The Minister of Public Works and the other members of the Government should decide whether they will do away with their own purchasing staffs or get rid of this incubus which is costing us $80,000 a year.
Georges Parent: I wish to supplement
the remarks of the hon. member for Lunenburg, which are in agreement with the opinions which I have several times expressed before the committee. At page 79 I notice the chief engineer of the Public Works Department draws a salary of $5,100 per year, and on page 96 it appears that the chief engineer of the Railway Department draws a salary of $8,000 a year, and advance of $2,000 on the previous year. I do not say that the chief engineer of the Railway Department is overpaid, but I think that the chief engineer of the Public Works Department should be at least on an equal footing with him, because his responsibilities are just as important and he should be as well recompensed for the work he performs. I cannot understand why there should be such a difference.


Mr. CAHILL:: Does the minister want
to pass this item tonight or does he intend to report progress?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It will be quite satisfactory if we pass one item.


Frank S. Cahill: You insist on passing
one item?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I would like to pass
one item if the committee will agree.


Frank S. Cahill: It is rather late, Mr. Chairman, to start passing any items.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It is getting late in
the session.


EDITION. COMMONS
Frank S. Cahill: There will be lots of time during the day.


Joseph Archambault: There have
been many unnecessary speeches to-day.


Frank S. Cahill: I have a number of questions in connection with this item and I doubt whether I will have an opportunity of placing them before the committee.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I would suggest that
one item be passed, and then we could hold the whole open for discussion on any other item. I would like to see a full discussion of all these items-the fuller the better. I assure my hon. friend that he will be afforded ample opportunity for discussion on a later item.


Frank S. Cahill: I am afraid that rule
has been tried before and has not been found satisfactory. For instance, there is a reduction in the staff, and in connection with that reduction there were a number of employees in the department engaged in connection with what were known as the Ottawa River works.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I suggest that my hon. friend might more appropriately discuss that matter under the vote for the service in question, which will be found on page 44. -


Frank S. Cahill: There is-no vote for the item I want to discuss. What I wish to refer to is the fact that a number of employees of the Public Works Department were let out last year without tany bonus or remuneration for the service they had rendered to the Government. If my hon. friend will turn to page 97 he will find reference to forty-three vacancies, and it is under that subject that I wish to discuss this question. I should like to know whether it is the minister's intention to pass this item to-night. I am sure that in connection with a number of the details, members of the committee would like to get some information.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Well, the matter of the disposition of the item is entirely in the hands of the committee, but I would like very much to make some progress. I am sure that the unfortunate experience my hon. friend has had on other occasions will not be repeated in reference to this department; he will have ample opportunity to discuss any matter he wishes to bring up on another item.


Frank S. Cahill: Unfortunately the minister is not chairman of the committee, and

while we might have no trouble with the minister we might have considerable difficulty with the Chairman if we tried to refer to an item after it had been passed. I think we would do well to report progress now and come back to this item again.


Mr. MURPHY:: This is the first time that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works has been before the committee with his Estimates, and I think the members on this side would deem it rather ungracious to criticise him with any degree of severity. But the request made is not, I submit, unreasonable in view of one circumstance to which I would like to direct the hon. gentleman's attention. At the end of the item we are considering, there are a number of positions under the title "National Gallery of Canada." Now, that National Gallery of Canada was created under the Government of which I was a member and since it was created it has been a haven for the special pets of Sir Byron Walker, and, not to put too fine a point upon it, it is a place where genteel graft is handed out under the protection of a vote of this House, a condition for which both sides must accept responsibility. A few weeks ago I observed that through some miraculous happening a collection of alleged very valuable prints had been secured for this country and purchased after most wonderful doings by the gentlemen who co-operate with Sir Byron Walker in connection with this National Art Gallery. The first sequel to that announcement was a circular that was sent around by the Civil Service Commission announcing that they were open to receive applications for a new position, if you please, designated as "Curator of Prints." The'second sequel to that announcement is this item in the Estimates providing a salary for the curator of prints. Now I want to be quite frank with the committee; I am sure that my hon. friend is in no way responsible for this; it is a little game that has been going on in Ottawa for years and with which we who belong to Ottawa are quite familiar. Among the irreverent in this city it is known, as I say, as genteel graft-only gentlemen take any part in it. In these days when the country is faced
1 a.m. with serious responsibilities it is rather asking us too much to increase the number of officials in this National Gallery of Canada from four to thirteen or fourteen, beginning with this curator of prints at a salary of $3,000, to justify the creation of which office we had

to buy a collection of prints. Then there are two museum helpers, two clerk-stenographers, one junior clerk and three art gallery attendants. Now, these are all new positions.


William Duff: All gentlemen?


Charles Murphy: The sex is not defined. If ' my hon. friend could dissociate these new positions from the rest of the item there would not be much objection to allowing him to prefer again the suggestion that he would leave open for discussion any item in regard to which discussion should properly take place. But I do submit to my hon. friend that he should not ask the committee to pass a vote for these new positions at the National Gallery, which is a private preserve looked after by Sir Byron Walker and his friends, unless he is prepared to give the committee full particulars and thus enable it to judge whether or not these amounts should be voted. I would prefer that I had to offer this-I will not call it criticism-these suggestions to a minister who was not making his initial appearance before the committee with his Estimates.


Georges Parent: Would the minister
explain also why a law clerk who used to be paid $5,600 is now paid only $2,800 for the current fiscal year?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I imagine the explanation to the hon. member is not what the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy) says, a "new" print, but a misprint.


Mr. McMASTER:: Bon jeu de mots.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: