[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I was asked a day or two ago to make such provision as would enable members of the house generally to acquire information respecting the proposals contained in the Montreal terminals bill which has been referred to the railway committee. I wish to announce that models and maps are now in the railway committee room and will be there until Thursday, when the railway committee will meet to consider the matter. It will be appreciated if members generally will avail themselves of the opportunity to secure information regarding the Montreal terminals scheme. Officials will be present to explain any feature to any member desirous of securing that information.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 259, for the relief of Grace Viola Byers.-Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 260, for the relief of Mildlred Soden. -Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 265, for the relief of Gordon Hanna. -Mr. Rowe.

Questions
Bill No. 282, respecting The New Brunswick Railway Company.-Mr. Bourgeois.
Bill No. 284, respecting a certain patent of Cobb Connector Company.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 288, for the relief of George Stanley Warner.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 289, for the relief of Vincenzina Gramigna.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Kenneth Evan Thompson.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Thomas Matthews Moland.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 294, for the relief of Andrew Town-sley Hirch.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Motions for first readings agreed to on division.

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

Mr. MACDOUGALL:: 
Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	According to the records of the marine branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries the following boats were engaged in the carriage of passengers between or to and from ports in Cape Breton in 1926, 1927, and 1928:-
Arichat, 1926, 1927; Aspy, 1926, 1927, 1928; Blue Hill, 1926, 1927, 1928; Boularderie, 1926, 1928; Bras D'Or, 1926, 1927, 1928; Breton, 1928; Electronic, 1926, 1927, 1928; Grandona, 1928; Harry Mathers, 1926 (as SS. Richmond. 1927, 1928); Kinburn, 1926, 1927, 1928; Lake-view, 1926, 1927, 1928; Magdalen, 1927, 1928; Mary, 1926, 1927, 1928; Pearl Can, 1926, 1927, 1928; Peerless, 1926, 1927, 1928; Pont de Canseau, 1926, 1928; Prince Albert, 1927, 1928; Richmond (See SS. Harry Mathers above); Robert G. Cann, 1926, 1927, 1928; Scotia No. I, 1927, 1928; Scotia No. II, 1926, 1927, 1928; Sir Charles Tupper, 1928.
2.	The boats were inspected by federal government steamship inspectors in the years set opposite their names in the answer to No. 1 above.
3.	Certified officers-(a) Master-certificate
as master of a passenger boat is required; (b) Mate-in the case of a steamboat over 400 tons registered tonnage or carrying over 40 passengers, a properly certificated mate is also required; (c) Engineers

the chief and other engineers must each hold a proper engineer's certificate or permit according to the nominal horse-power of the engine.	.
Life-saving equipment-(a) Life-boat or buoyancy apparatus accommodation for all passengers and crew; (b) Life jackets for all passengers and crew.
At the time of inspection non-compliance with requirements was found as follows:- Boularderie, 1926, engineer had no permit; 1928, engineers had no permits, 2 life-buoys required; Breton, 1928, engineers had no permits; Grandona, 1928, no certificated master, engineer had no permit, buoyant apparatus not fitted, 2 life-buoys required; Pont de Canseau, 1926, life-boats not approved, engineer had no permit; 1928, no certificated master or mate, 2nd engineer had no permit; Sir Charles Tupper, no certificated master or mate, 2nd engineer had no permit.
Note.-The Boularderie and Breton were being operated by the one crew of 4. The Pont de Canseau and Sir Charles Tupper were being operated by the one crew of 6.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


EXCISE OFFICERS IN WESTMORLAND AND GLOUCESTER
Mr. PRICE:: 1.	How many excise officers are engaged in Westmorland and Gloucester counties, New Brunswick?
2.	What are their names?
3.	What salary does each receive?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	16 customs excise officers at ports.
8 customs excise officers on preventive service.
2 and 3.
Place-Name-Salary
Moncton, N.B., J. A. Girouard, $2,640 per annum; Moncton, N.B., F. A. Conroy, $1,740 per annum; Moncton, N.B., A. W. Henry, $1,740 per annum; Moncton, N.B., E. J. C. Le-Blane, $2,040 per annum; Moncton, N.B., O. B. McQuarrie, $1,740 per annum; Moncton, NJB.
S.	B. Murray, $1,740 per annum; Moncton, N3., M. C. Steeves, $2,280 per annum; Moncton, NJB., R. H. Stewart, $1,500 per annum; Moncton, N.B., A. M. Frier, $900 per annum; Sackville, N.B., F. W. George, $1,920 per annum; Sackville, N.B., R. W. Duncan, $1,740 per annum; Sackville, NJB., J. C. Harper, $900
Questions

Place-Name-Salary
per annum; Bathurst, N.B., J. E. White, 81,920 per annum; Bathurst, N.B., A. E. Landry, $1,200 per annum; Bathurst, N.B., A. A. Blanchard, $960 per annum; Bathurst, N.B., A. G. Robichaud, $1,020 per annum.
The following officers are on the preventive service and are not allocated to any particular county or district but are mobile officers:
Name-Salary
G. W. Allen, $1,500 per annum; L. A. Chias-son, $1,200 per annum; P. 0. Gauvin, $1,320 per annum; J. R. McKinnon, $1,500 per annum; P. G. Robichaud, $1,080 per annum; E. B. Savage, $1,500 per annum; M. Theriault, $1,320 per annum; A. G. Veniot, $1,800 per annum.
Canada's gold beserve


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Referring to the statement of the Minister of Finance in this house on May 13th on "Canada's gold reserve", how much gold was held on March 30th at the Royal Mint, Ottawa, by the treasury of the Dominion of Canada?
2.	Does the Royal Mint, Ottawa, hold gold [DOT]other than for the treasury of the Dominion of Canada?
3.	If so, what was the value of this gold on March 30th, and for whose aeount was it held?
4.	Referring to return of chartered banks for March 30th, 1929, third column of assets, "current gold and subsidiary coin, total", how much of this sum is gold?
5.	What gold supplies are held by the chartered banks in addition to that referred to in the above questions and in addition to the gold in the central gold reserve?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	$557,036.01.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by 2.
4.	Returns made by banks do not show gold separately. So far as holdings in Canada are concerned, some $40,000,000 are in gold.
5.	According to returns made by chartered banks, none.


MR. JAMES W. THORNTON
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Is one James W. Thornton a member of the secretariat of the Canadian delegation at Geneva ?
2.	Has he passed any civil service examination ?
3.	What salary does he receive, and is such salary paid by the Canadian government?
4.	Is he a son of the president of the Canadian National Railways?
5.	What are the names of the other members of the secretariat of the Canadian^ delegation at Geneva, and what are the salaries paid to them?
6.	What are the names of any of these members who have passed civil service examinations?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Ne
2.	No information.
3.	No salary is, or has been, paid by the Canadian government.
4.	No information.
5.	The members of the staff of the Canadian advisory officer, Geneva, and salaries paid are as follows:-
Col. Vanier, $4,745; Mr. McGreer, $3,240; Miss Clark, $1,620; Miss McLennan, $1,200.
6.	Mr. McGreer.


COST OF MOVING GOLD
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What does it cost per $1,000 to move gold from Ottawa or Montreal to New York?
2.	What has been the average exchange rate during January, February, March and April, respectively, in 1929, between Canada and the United States?
3.	Is it true that Canada sent the following
amount of gold to the United States this year per month:	January, $39,000,000; February,
$3,000,000; March, $1,500,000; and April, practically nothing?
4.	Is it a fact that of the $192,000,000 in Dominion notes issued as in February, 1929, the banks had $164,000,000 in legals, leaving approximately $28,000,000 in general, or hand to hand circulation?
5.	When the banks need gold can they present Dominion notes and get specie from the Department of Finance?
6.	If the banks exercised their rights now in asking for Dominion notes to be redeemed, would it not have a tendency to bring on a deflation in prices?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Approximately ll/64th of one per cent.
2.	New York Funds, January, 1929, 15/64 pm.; February, 1929, 21/64 pm.; March, 1929, 37/64 pm.; April, 1929, 49/64 pm.
3.	Exports of gold from Canada to United States: January, 1929, $37,992,621; February, 1929, $5,659,412; March, 1929, $4,339,411; April, 1929, $1,955,490.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	The exercising of the " rights " suggested in this question to such an extent as to bring about a deflation of prices by depletion of the gold reserves need not be seriously considered as, under the provisions of the Bank Act, each bank must hold at all times forty per cent of its cash reserves in Dominion notes and, further, an additional large amount of Dominion notes, particularly of the denominations of $1 and $2 is required for circulation with the public, the banks not being permitted to issue their own notes for amounts less than $5; deducting such notes from the total of our outstanding notes issued against

Unopposed Motions jor Papers
gold, the balance would not be available or sufficient to diminish seriously the gold reserves with the treasury.
There being a divergence of views held by various financial authorities as to relative importance of any one of the various conditions which operate towards deflation of prices, it would serve no good purpose to put forth an opinion as to the effect, if any, towards deflation of prices of suppositious transactions such as the reexchanging of Dominion notes, now doing the work of gold held in trust in the Dominion treasury, for the actual possession of the gold itself.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What is the total amount of letters of credit for each department for the year 19271928?
2.	Is the expenditure made under letters of credit audited by the Auditor General before or after the banks have been repaid?


Mr. ROBB:: Order for return, which I now table.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. BRADY:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions and any other communications between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and any other persons or bodies, with reference to the appointment of Judge Ellis to sit in commission and take evidence in regard to the establishment of fish traps or otherwise in northern British Columbia waters.


CUS CARRIER-PRINCE ALBERT PENITENTIARY
Mr. CLARK:: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents relating to Gus Carrier, Prince Albert penitentiary, from January 1, 1925, to date.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: This man is an officer at the Prince Albert penitentiary and the matter in question is one of adlministration and discipline, which is presently under consideration by the department. I really cannot see that it would be in the public interest to lay these documents on the table; as a matter of fact there are no documents excepting reports by inspectors and the exchanges between the superintendent and the inspectors.


John Arthur Clark: Why should a member of
parliament be denied access to that file?


Ernest Lapointe: Because it is a matter
of discipline and it would not make for good administration to take such action. After all, that is the practice. If the matter were settled it might be different, but it is actually under consideration now.


John Arthur Clark: Without entering into a debate on the question, would the minister let this motion stand for another day?


Ernest Lapointe: Very well. I am sure
if my hon. friend' knew what is involved in the matter he would not insist.


Mr. BENNETT:: He persists because he
does know about it.
Motion stands.


ACTIVITIES OF COMMUNIST PARTY
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents relating to the activities of the Communist party of Canada during the year 1928?


Ernest Lapointe: This is another case in
which I must be disagreeable, but in connection with police reports concerning the communists or any other persons in Canada, they are strictly confidential, and I will not lay those papers on the table.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would point out
that the Communist party is a political party in this country at present; in my own city of Winnipeg there is a member of the city council who belongs to that party, and they have run candidates in federal and provincial elections as well.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest Lapointe: On a point of order I
would submit that if my hon. friend desires to debate this resolution he cannot do so now; he will have to transfer it to another order, and it will come up at the proper time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was hoping the
minister might reconsider his stand.


Ernest Lapointe: I certainly will not lay
the police reports on the table.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I would like to have this motion transferred to the other order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The motion
will be dropped.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, Mr. Speaker.
Private Bills


Ernest Lapointe: Transferred to motions.


John Frederick Johnston: It will be
dropped from this order and transferred to the other order.
Motion dropped.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 103, for the relief of Constance Mary Kearns.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Edna Louise Brown.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 117, for the relief of Wallace Evered Gillespie.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 122, for the relief of Florence May Forbes.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton West).
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Maud Parker. -Mr. Church.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Eleanor Vair. -Mr. Church.
Bill No. 190, for the relief of Lillian Augusta Dunn.-Mr. Tummon.
Bill No. 192, for the relief of Catherine Goring.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 196, for the relief of Ivy Georgina Lloyd.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 197, for the relief of Helen Steele. -Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 200, for the relief of Annie Forbes Sangster.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Charles Stanley Cuneo.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 204, for the relief of William Allan Griffith.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Sydney Bishop. -Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 206, for the relief of Walter Henry Lyne Dixson.-Mr. Tummon.
Motions for third readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 156, for the relief of Susannah Musson Savery- Mr. Bell (Hamilton)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-'Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children in this case?


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: One child, Mr. Chairman, who is now in the care of the petitioner.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.'

On section 2-Right to marry again.
Mr. WOODSWORTH':	I should like to
ask what the effect of this section really is. If I understand the matter aright, the solemnization of marriage is entirely a provincial matter. Both in the province of Ontario and in the province of Quebec, it is placed in the hands of the clergymen of the various religious bodies. We are told that certain churches in this country are opposed to divorce and refuse to allow remarriage. That means that a large number of clergymen both in the province of Ontario and Quebec absolutely refuse to conduct a marriage ceremony where the parties have been divorced. I take it that that means that those clergymen refuse to be bound by the findings of this parliament. We give the right to the innocent party to remarry, and by inference that right is given also to the other party, but certain clergymen refuse to be bound by the decision of this house. They set themselves up as being superior to parliament and refuse to permit the marriage of those people who this parliament say may be remarried. Perhaps it may be a theoretical question as to which is supreme, parliament or the church, but there is a practical aspect to this matter. As I have said, the solemnization of marriage in these two provinces is left in the hands of the officials of the various churches. In practice, that means that it is very, very difficult to seeure a clergyman in Ontario or Quebec who is willing to remarry divorced people. It is possible in Great Britain for divorced people to be remarried before a justice of the peace. I do not know whether that is possible in any of our provinces, but it certainly is not possible in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec from which most of these cases originate.
Mr. NEILL:: You cannot be married by
a justice of the peace in Great Britain.


James Shaver Woodsworth: By a magistrate.


Mr. FORKE :: You can marry much easier than that in Scotland.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I am
correct, Mr. Chairman, when I say that there is a provision in Great Britain for civil marriage.


Alan Webster Neill: That is a different thing;
that is performed by a registrar, not a justice of the peace. I am perfectly correct in saying that a justice of the peace has no right to marry in Great Britain.

Procedure in Divorce


James Shaver Woodsworth: I accept the correction. but the point I was trying to make is that there is provision for civil marriage. I am told that in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec there is no provision for civil marriage, which means that these people will have to go to a clergyman to be remarried and since a great many of the religious bodies are opposed to the marriage of divorced people it will mean, as far as these two provinces are concerned, that this clause 2 amounts to very little. The person who has been given the right to remarry will have to go up and down the country in an endeavour to find a clergyman who will consent to perform the marriage ceremony. I raise this point simply because it reveals a very anomalous situation in that this parliament is given distinct jurisdiction over marriage and divorce while the provinces have jurisdiction over the solemnization of marriage.


Mr. MARCIL:: Mr. Chairman, my well
founded opinion, after many years in parliament, is that at least one-half or three-quarters of these applications would not 'be made if this second clause was not included in the bill. It has always been my opinion that a grave injustice is done by placing the guilty party upon the same footing as the innocent party. It is bad enough to give the innocent party power to remarry without giving the same power to the other party. As regards the religious law, if members of the Roman Catholic church want to comply with its rules and regulations, that church does not permit the remarriage of divorced people. The church of England in Canada has also made it known that it will not allow the remarriage of divorced people. There is good authority for that point of view in the Bible if those who are interested would only read the words of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. I hold that these churches are not governed, so far as their rules and regulations are concerned, by any decision of parliament. The religious authority is quite independent of the civil authority, and while the civil authority has complete jurisdiction within its own domain, in the religious domain each church is quite independent of parliament. I regret once more that parliament is allowing such a large number of divorce bills to go through, over three hundred of them, without full evidence, because the two parties have not been heard. We are giving a decision on ex parte evidence and I am glad to see that in the province of Ontario, where the great majority of these
applications come from, there is a movement looking to a change in the procedure so that the power of granting divorces may be taken away altogether from the Dominion parliament.
Section agreed to
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.


MARY BERTHA DTJPUIS RANGER
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 193, for the relief of Mary Bertha Dupuis Ranger.-Mr. Millar-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children?


Mr. MILLAR:: There are no children.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 224, for the relief of John Carbery Hickman.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 225, for the relief of Lydia Alice Hinch- Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Allan Plant. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Frederick Herman Schelke.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).	'
Bill No. 232, for the relief of Alma Berlinda Swayne.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 240, for the relief of Frances Vera Carter Van Luven.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 243, for the relief of James Colling-wood Darroch.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 244, for the relief of Ross James Smalley.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 248, for the relief of Fanny Green Fuchs Webber.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 249, for the relief of Henry Lawrence Jones.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 256, for the relief of Dean William Moncrieff.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 257, for the relief of William John Brett.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 264, for the relief of Edna Marguerite Stroud Robinson.-Mr. Cahan.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Joseph Richardson.-Mr. Young (Saskatoon; for Mr. Mc-Phee).
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Angus John Archibald Blaine.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 271, for the relief of George Melville Fulton.-Mr. Boys.
2C30
Sockeye Salmon Fisheries
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Gertrude Georgeanna Anderson.-Mr. Garland (Car-leton).
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Lloyd Edward Angel.-Mr. Ladner.
Motions for second readings agreed to, on division.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 251, to ratify and confirm the organization and the election of directors of Family Trust, and to change the name of that company to Financial Trust Company. -Mr. Laflamme.

[Stage Direction]
On the notice of motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
Resolved that it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention for the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries in the Fraser river system, which was signed at Washington on the twenty-seventh day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, on behalf of His Majesty for the Dominion of Canada, by the plenipotentiary named therein, and that this house do approve of the same.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: It has been intimated to
the government that some hon. members of the house would like to have detailed information with respect to this treaty. In order to supply the information which they wish to have, it would appear to be desirable to have the resolution referred to an appropriate committee of the house where that information could be given. In the form in which the motion stands, it being a motion to approve a convention, nothing more is contemplated than formal approval after consideration of the resolution by this house while the Speaker is in the chair; it is not contemplated to have the resolution as it stands referred to the committee of the whole house. In the circumstances, believing that the select standing committee on marine and fisheries is perhaps the best committee to deal with this particular convention, I move:
That the subject matter of the government notice of motion standing on the order of proceedings for this day respecting the protection, preservation and extension of the sockeye salmon fisheries in the Fraser river system- be referred to the select standing committee on marine and fisheries.
Among other advantages of having the resolution so referred is that of enabling the committee to hear at first hand from the officers of the department who have had to do with the negotiation of the treaty itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the course suggested by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is one which commends itself to our judgment for it affords an opportunity for detailed consideration of the merits of the treaty that might otherwise be denied, and I have great pleasure in supporting the motion that has just been made.
While I am on my feet may I venture to suggest to the right hon. the Prime Minister, as indeed I have already done, that he consider the propriety of approving a treaty of this character by legislation rather than by resolution. I shall not discuss that at this moment, but I think if he will look into it he will satisfy himself that this form of treaty which in its substance involves future legislation should be approved itself by an act of parliament. I have gathered together some of the authorities, and I shall be glad ' at a future time to give them to the right hon. gentleman. I think myself that the matter should be dealt with by a substantive bill and not by a mere resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon, W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:
. That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare, -which was signed at Geneva on the seventeenth d.ay of June, nineteen hundred and twenty-five, on behalf of His Majesty for the Dominion of Canada, by the plenipotentiary named therein, and that this house do approve of the same.	.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you have just indicated in reading the resolution, this protocol was signed at Geneva in June, 1925-signed,
I understand, by some thirty-four different countries, including Great Britain and Canada. The protocol has since been ratified by a number of countries, but has not been ratified by either Great Britain or Canada.
At the meeting of the preparatory commission on disarmament which was held at Geneva this spring, Lord Cushendun, on behalf of His Majesty's government in Great Britain, intimated that it was the intention of His Majesty's government in Great Britain to ratify the protocol, subject to two reservations, the first being that its provisions should bind only vis-a-vis such countries as are also parties to the protocol; and the second being

Geneva Protocol
263)
tihat the provisions should cease to bind visa-vis a contracting party which ceases to observe the protocol's provision.
We instructed our representative on the preparatory commission on disarmament, Mr. Riddell, to inform the commission that it was the intention of the Dominion government to ask the approval of parliament to the protocol in order that it might be ratified at the same time on behalf of Canada as it is ratified on behalf of His Majesty's government in Great Britain. It is for that reason that the house is now being asked to approve the protocol. I do not think it necessary to go into the provisions of the protocol. They speak for themselves-" the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare."
Mr. CAHAN:: Will the government of Canada make the two same reservations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my hon. friend for asking the question. I should certainly have said that it is our intention that the instrument of ratification should contain the same reservations on behalf of Canada as are being made by His Majesty's government in Great Britain. The protocol is to assist in making binding upon the conscience and practice of nations the provisions which it contains, and thereby help establish international law in that particular.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the senate of the United States ratified the protocol?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not aware that the senate has.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, the precedent
has just been set in the previous resolution of reference to the most appropriate committee. Several years ago at the Prime Minister's own suggestion the committee on industrial relations was enlarged to be the committee on industrial and international relations. I think during the four or five years' existence of that committee there has never been any reference to it of any international matter. It strikes me that it would be highly desirable that the committee, and through the committee the house at large, should be more closely in touch with international affairs. In the past we in Canada have had very little to do with international affairs, and it is desirable that the general public should be familiarized more or less with the details and the implications of our international relations.
In order that this be accomplished I can see no better way than the discussing of these relationships in this house by going into details in regard to such matters before a committee, as is done with regard to other matters. Hence, since we have just referred the previous resolution to a committee, I would venture to suggest to the Prime Minister that similar action might be taken in this case.
Further, it seems to me 'that some time, either now or later, the Prime Minister ought to give us some reason for including in this protocol certain reservations. The only reason hitherto suggested is that Great Britain has done so. I do not think that is quite enough for us. It does seem to me that we ought to have some underlying reasons of our own for such action. It may be that Great Britain in this respect is right; and' it may be that Great Britain is not right. The present policy of the British government is the policy of the Conservative party in Great Britain. I do not know why this government should necessarily follow the policy of the Conservative party of Great Britain. And in any case I think it is right that we should have definitely set before us the reasons for placing these reservations in this protocol.
I offer my previous suggestion to the Prime Minister in the hope that in this way we may gradually enter upon a better understanding of our foreign relationships.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I heartily concur
in the observations made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that this is a purely formal matter. There is nothing in this protocol that can be said to be contentious. ' We are endeavouring to prevent a form of warfare, if the world ever again should know war, which we hope it maj not, that has met with the universal reprobation of mankind. Asphyxiating and chemical gases we know wrought great havoc in the armies engaged in the last world conflict, and in one instance, which was well authenticated, use of bacteriological methods brought great disaster to a very large community. We are merely declaring in that with other nations of the world we will not have anything to do with that kind of warfare. I cannot see that there would be any use in referring this resolution to a committee, with due deference to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth). Certainly there is no analogy between this and the other resolution on the order paper.
Geneva Protocol

With respect to the reservations, I apprehend that the reservations suggested by Lord Cushendun on behalf of Great Britain were reservations that were made as a result of the experience of Great Britain in the recent war. It was said that one of the greatest soldiers of the British Empire, as well as one of the great soldiers of one of the overseas dominions, was of the opinion that notwithstanding the fact that the enemy used poisonous gases,-the allies should not do so; but ultimately that judgment was over-borne and recourse was had by the armies of Great Britain and the allies to the use of poisonous gases to combat the poisonous gases used by the enemy. Large quantities of such gases were made on this continent and sent to the field of hostilties.
All that I understand these reservations to mean is that in the event of one of the parties to this protocol being engaged in hostilities and breaking the terms of the obligations, and utilizing asphyxiating or poisonous gases or bacteriological methods of warfare, we would thereby be relieved from our obligations with respect to that country, and that country only. That is, there is no general release from our dbligations, but only from those obligations that affect that party which has already broken its obligations under the protocol. That is how I understand it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is
correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the first reservation, it merely makes clear, what I think is already abundantly clear, that the terms and obligations of the protocol are binding only between those parties who have signed the protocol.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under these circumstances, as I have said, it is a great pleasure to support the measure, although it does not afford scope for any discussion of large international problems which I fancy the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie Kin^) will avail himself of when his estimates are under consideration, and should the necessity arise.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. WoodSworth) that the proper place for a resolution of this character would be the committee which has for its object the consideration of resolutions or other matters dealing with international affairs. One of my reasons for this statement is this. I recently found, in an answer to a question in the British house, the information

submitted by the ministry there that they had used in the chemical laboratories in the Defence department some 1,142 animals since 1925 in the testing of chemical gas for warfare. Now we find this protocol before us, and I think our committee should investigate the sincerity not only of the government of Great Britain but of our own Department of National Defence in matters of this kind. Frankly, I am all in favour of any treaty or any undertaking between nations which will eliminate the use of chemical gases. Indeed, I would go further than the Prime Minister and would propose the elimination of all means of warfare-all of them, as an hon. member suggests. Frankly, I should be agreeable to that so far as Canada is concerned. I think we have the least to fear of any nation, and we are in a geographical position of the most extraordinary advantage as compared with other nations in that regard. But on this question of the use of chemicals and poisonous gases in warfare, I think we should acquaint ourselves thoroughly, in order that our people in turn may be acquainted, with what steps have already been taken by the British war office in connection with such matters. My interest was aroused by that answer made in the British parliament recently, and I should like to know whether the Prime Minister has any information regarding the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why should we examine into what they are doing any more than they should examine into what we are doing?


Edward Joseph Garland: Because
they are a joint partner with us in this treaty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. It is stated that the treaty is signed on behalf of the British Empire but not for the overseas dominions, and our representative and no one else signed the treaty for Canada.


Edward Joseph Garland: But having signed the treaty we become a party to it with the others, and we want to find out what they are doing in the matter.


Mr. DUNNING:: Does my hon. friend
seriously suggest that a committee of this house could possibly find out what is being done by all the countries that have signed the treaty? Does he suggest that a committee could get information along the lines !he speaks of?


Edward Joseph Garland: I am quite sure that if the old system of secrecy still prevails there are great difficulties in the way. Certainly, however, so far as our own activities are concerned we should be made fully aware of them.

Geneva Protocol


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: I have just a word or two to say,
first, with regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that the matter be referred to the committee. The provisions of the protocol now before the house contain Canada's stated and considered policy since at least 1922. In 1922, at the time of the Washington naval conference, Canada became a party to a treaty framed practically in the same terms as this, and which I understand was ratified at that time. This treaty goes further only in two respects. In the first place, it includes other parties not present at the Washington conference; as the Prime Minister indicated, it includes thirty nations. In the second place, it adds bacteriological means of warfare to those already prohibited by the Washington treaty. The special provision in the Washington treaty was article V:
The use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices, having been justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world and a prohibition of such use having been declared in treaties to which a majority of the civilized powers aire parties.	_
The signatory powers, to the end that this prohibition shall be universally accepted as a part of international law binding alike the conscience and practice of nations, declare their assent to such prohibition, agree to be bound thereby as between themselves and invite all other civilized nations to adhere thereto.
As has been said on both sides of the house, this is no new policy for Canada, and I submit that it does not involve any technical examination which would require reference of the matter to a committee.
Secondly on the point mentioned by my hon. friend from Bow River (Mr. Garland) with regard to the necessity for inquiring into the good faith of the various parties to the treaty, if that suggestion is valid in respect to this treaty, how much further would1 the hon. gentleman's argument carry him in connection with the so-called Briand-Kellogg pact?


Edward Joseph Garland: Hear, hear.


James Layton Ralston: It would mean the complete examination of the defence forces, of the armaments, and of every means for warlike preparation possessed by every nation which has signed the pact. I understand that the very heart of that treaty and, I believe, the very spirit of this one, is dependence upon the good faith of the contracting parties; there are no securities either in that treaty or in this one. There is no provision as to anything that will take the place of what is prohibited, there is nothing that provides any guarantee that the terms of the treaty will be carried out. There is simply the word, the good
faith of the nations who have signed the treaty. It seems to me, therefore, that we should be flying directly in the face of these treaties, questioning the very spirit in which they were entered into, if we began immediately questioning the good faith of the parties by instituting an enquiry as to whether they intend to carry out their obligations and whether they are making preparations which might be suspected to permit of a violation at the first opportunity of the principles of the treaty.
With regard to the situation in Canada, may I say one word. Canada is not making any provision for the use of chemicals in warfare except in a defensive way. Training has been extremely limited. We have regarded the obligation imposed in the Washington treaty as our Obligation and have endeavoured to carry it out not only in spirit but in actual practice. There are in Canada at the present time probably one thousand anti-gas masks, used for the purpose of training our personnel in anti-gas measures. We have no personnel whatever engaged in connection with research, nor have we any personnel engaged in connection with the manufacture of this means of warfare. And that is the policy which we propose to carry out. The personnel we have specially trained in this work comprises one officer and two non-commissioned officers trained in England who from time to time give instructions to a limited number who in turn qualify for instructors in anti-gas measures, and I trust that will be found to be the only necessity which Canada will have to meet in that respect


Mr. HEAPS:: Can the minister give us any information regarding the manufacture of poison gases by any of the other nations who are signatories to the treaty?


James Layton Ralston: I am sorry I can give
no information in that regard. I can assure my hon. friend that we endeavour to keep in touch with progress in matters of this kind. It is, of course, very difficult to differentiate between chemicals used for industrial and for military purposes respectively; it is extremely difficult. The nation which has great transportation systems in connection with civilian activities is obviously better prepared for quick mobilization for war and in the same way a nation engaged in the manufacture of chemicals for purely civilian purposes, may in case of war be the quickest to adapt these agemees to military uses. We know there are developments in chemistry throughout the world, and particularly in industrial chemistry. That always can be associated with the possibility of utilizing
Geneva Protocol

such gases or chemical substances in connection with war. The department with which I am connected naturally must keep before it information which we get from time to time with regard to these developments, not in any critical or suspicious sense but simply with the idea of providing defensive measures should these agencies be used by any nation which is not a party to this treaty.
While I am on my feet I would like to refer to one point in reference to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) with regard to the reservations. I think that question has been dealt with already; the reservations are two. First there is a limitation that this treaty only applies as between us and similarly contracting parties; in other words the treaty is reciprocal, and in the second place we are not bound as against any enemy state who fails or whose allies fail to respect the agreement. I think that is a reasonable provision; I think the house will recognize the force of it and -necessity for it, and I do not think it is a reservation which need be submitted to a committee or, with all deference to my hon. friend, which will require very much debate in this house.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I
would like to make just one observation, and it is this: Any country might be conscientiously and sincerely intending to live up to a treaty such as this while at the same time they are going thoroughly into the manufacture of poisonous gases or bacteriological methods of warfare. In the last war, for example, without being part of a treaty it was well understood among the civilized nations that such things as poisonous gases would not be used, yet they were used to the horror and disgust of the allies at least. In the same way, in the next war, should such an unfortunate event occur, a country desiring to live uip to this treaty to the nth degree should be prepared in case one of the other countries should take the attitude which was taken during the last war. I believe no horror could have been greater than the feeling which was engendered among the allies when poisonous gases were used against them in the last war and therefore, with all due respect to other hon. -members who have spoken, I think the fact that one of the allies might be conducting a thorough examination into these methods of warfare would not necessarily mean a lack of faith should war occur. I think that action should be taken as a defensive -precaution in case one of the opposing countries adopted that method of warfare.	.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston):: I see no objection to referring this matter to a committee, because I believe in that way much information might be gained which would be advantageous to a great many people. Chemical gases are used industrially, and I believe the work being done now is of great service to the industrial world and to people in general. We had an example of the effect of poisonous gases in Cleveland just a day or two ago, and if in our schools we can proceed with the study of these gases and discover defences against them we will do a lot of good, because defence against these gases is just as important as the use of gas. No country is going to produce gases for any purpose other than defence, so I think this question could be submitted to this committee with a great deal of benefit to everyone. They will find nothing prejudicial to themselves or to any other Anglo-Saxon country, but they wiil find a great deal of research work being carried on in order to protect human life against these gases.
The information obtained during the last war has been of great benefit to the world at large; perhaps many people will condemn the use of animals in experiments of this kind, but we must remember that these experiments have for their object the protection of human life, whether in war or in industry. The other day in Cleveland it would have been of great benefit if some protective measure had been available against the effects of the poisonous gases which were released during that accident; perhaps a hundred lives might have been saved. We saved thousands of lives during the war through our knowledge of how to protect our men against the effects of a common gas which, previous to the war, was used only in industrial fields. So I see no objection whatever to the suggestion that this question should be referred to a committee; I believe a great deal of information can be obtained which will assist in the protection of human life.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my hon. friend who has suggested that this particular resolution should be referred to a committee that I had considered the possibility of following that course, -but on reflection it seemed to me that the provisions of the protocol were so self-evident and would be so generally approved by every hon. member of the house that to have proposed the reference of the protocol to a committee might have seemed, at least to some people outside of this house, rather a questionable if not invidious procedure. I may say to my hon. friend however, that speaking generally I think he

Preservation of Niagara Falls
is quite right in suggesting that the government should refer measures of an international character to a committee especially charged with questions of the kind, and I think I have shown with regard to the course recommended with respect to the preceding resolution that the government is entirely favourable to a committee, especially qualified to inquire into the subject matter of particular resolutions, being given an opportunity of so doing. With respect to future resolutions relating to international affairs I shall hope to have them referred to an appropriate committee wherever there appears to be reason for so doing. With respect to this particular resolution, my hon. friend may perhaps feel that his purpose has been served, in drawing attention to the wisdom of adopting such a course.
I should have told the house that the two reservations which are being made by Great Britain and Canada to the instrument of ratification have been made also by France and Russia; I omitted to mention that fact when the resolution was being discussed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Purely as a matter of information, could the Prime Minister tell us what countries have signed this protocol?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will find a list of the countries that have signed in the printed copy of the protocol which is before him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe Belgium has
signed since that list was prepared.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would also
move:
That a message be sent to the senate to acquaint their honours that this House has adopted a resolution approving of the above protocol.
And that the Clerk of the House do carry the said message to the senate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to obtain the report of the commissioners considering the question of increased remuneration for technical civil servants in time to make their findings effective by legislation this session or
whether the report will be brought down next session just prior to the election. I would also inquire if the commissioners have been notified and if formal instructions have been given them.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING tPrime Minister):	With regard to my hon.
friend's reference to the election I might suggest that he should not be too sure that the election will be held next year.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Will the Prime Minister
say it will not be held?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
country is well satisfied with the government, and it may be the country's desire to have the government continue in office until well on towards the end of 1931. However, that is a matter which may be considered in due course. With respect to the report of the commission, I am afraid the government will have to allow the commission some latitude in the matter of time required to gather evidence and make a report. I do not think we can put any pressure upon them with regard to the time taken to consider the matter. I have no doubt that the commission will be anxious to make its report as speedily as possible. When the report is received we will then have to consider its recommendations.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Have the commissioners
been notified?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


PRESERVATION OF NIAGARA FALLS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from February 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King:
That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention and protocol for the preservation of Niagara falls by the construction of remedial works and for the experimental withdrawal of additional water from the Niagara river, which was signed at Ottawa, on the second day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, on behalf of His Majesty for the Dominion of Canada by the plenipotentiary named therein, and that this house do approve of the same
And that a message be sent to the senate to acquaint their honours that this house unites with the senate in the approval of the above-mentioned convention and protocol;
And that the Clerk of the House do carry the said message to the senate.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, in respect to this resolution I would say that it was discussed quite fully by the house some little

Preservation of Niagara Fails
time ago, but the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was absent at the time and at the request of one of the hon. members opposite it was held pending his return, in ease the hon. leader of the opposition might have some remarks to make.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I did not desire that the passage of this resolution should be delayed by reason of my absence, and I thought I indicated that fact before I left Ottawa.
In the first place I desire to observe that the procedure adopted in this case, in my judgment, is improper; this approval should be the subject matter of legislation and should be introduced by way of a bill and not by the method which has been adopted. A few minutes ago I directed attention to what I conceived to be the true principles which should govern in a matter of this kind, and perhaps I may refer to the authorities without taking up too much time of the house.
There is an article in the British Year Book of International Law for 1928 which summarizes the whole matter. The following appears at page 59:
Anson, writing in 1908, tells us that:
"where a treaty involves a charge upon the people, or a change in the general law of the land, it may be made, but cannot be carried into effect without the consent of parliament"; and also that
"apart from precedents relating to Indian territory, it has of recent years been thought desirable, if not necessary, that the consent of parliament should be given to the cession of territory in time of peace. Cessions made at the conclusion of peace or in course of a war, or of lands acquired by conquest or cession, for which parliament has not legislated, and for which the king has not by his own act deprived himself of the power of legislating by order in council, would seem to stand on a different footing."
The summary is as follows:
We may conclude by suggesting the following summary of the present state of British constitutional law and practice.
(1)	Treaties which for their enforcement by British courts of law require some addition to or .alteration of the existing law cannot be carried into effect without legislation. Therefore the king will not be advised to ratify them unless and until such legislation has been passed or parliament has given the necessary assurance that it will be passed. A treaty imposing on Great Britain a liability to pay money either actually (for instance, to make a loan) or contingently (for instance, to guarantee a loan), usually falls within this category, because as a rule the money could .not be raised or expended without legislation.
(2)	Treaties which modify the belligerent rights of the crown when engaged in maritime warfare will receive effect in British prize courts without legislation.

(3)	Treaties made expressly subject to the approval of parliament require its approval, which is usually given in the form of a statute.
(4)	Apart from the Indian Empire, which stands on a special footing, it is the practice, amounting probably by this time to a binding constitutional convention, for treaties involving the cession of British territory to require the approval of parliament given by a statute.
The article was written by Arnold D. McNair, C.B.E., LL.D., fellow of Gonville and Cams college and university lecturer, Cambridge, and who I believe is also the editor of the last edition of Oppenheim's International Law.
The treaty made between the United States and Canada, and which we are considering, will involve the expenditure of public moneys. One parliament should not bind or restrict the full authority of another parliament unless it be done by statute, for resolutions have no place or binding authority in the courts. One of the anomalies of our system of legislation, as has been pointed out by some commentators, is that mere resolutions are not taken notice of by the courts at all; although it may be a resolution passed by the House of Common*' and passed by the Senate as well it is not taken notice of by the courts because a law can be passed by the sovereign only with the advice and consent of the commons and senate in parliament assembled. That is, the three estates of the realm must unite to give effect and validity to legislation, but in this ca.se we have only a resolution, which, although approved by the commons and the senate, has not the force or effect of a statute. It is a resolution which contemplates a charge upon the public revenues, and therefore it comes within the purview of the first rule laid down by Professor McNair.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Has that ever been the practice in Great Britain?


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are new at dealing
with these matters in Canada, but where we have dealt with them we have endeavored to do so by legislation. Perhaps the most important of all international documents with which we have had to do was the one in connection with the International Joint Commission, and that is the subject matter of a statute which is to be found in the annual statutes for the year in which it was passed.
Another difficulty is purely a practical one, and I submit it to the Minister of Justice as being one which will commend itself to him. When rights are affected by a treaty information regarding such treaty should be easily available to those who are interested. When the treaty is attached as a schedule to a statute

Preservation of Niagara Falls
it always appears in the statute books of the country and there is no difficulty in referring to it. For instance, the parliamentary approval of the treaty between Great Britain and France made in 1919, to which Professor McNair refers, is in these terms:
1.	The approval of parliament is hereby given to the treaty set out in the schedule to this act.
2.	This act may be cited as the Anglo-French treaty (Defence of France) Act, 1919.
That embodied the whole matter. It will be observed that the words used are "approval of," not ratification; for ratification means one of the prerogative rights of the sovereign. The approval by parliament means that sanction has been given to the treaty by the representatives of the people in the form of a bill which is the recognized procedure by which parliament expresses itself for the purpose of enabling it to be recorded as a part of its deliberations upon the statute books of the country. When parliament has expressed its approval of the treaty that treaty becomes a part of the schedule to the act.
Without going further into a matter which has been already discussed, it is sufficient for my purpose to point out that some of our treaty obligations create new obligations. To implement the obligations it will be necessary either to vote money or pass legislation. The voting of money is embodied in the supply bill, which is a legislative act, so that the principle which governs in such cases should, in my judgment, govern in this. Wherever a treaty is sought to be approved by the parliament of Canada, which consists of the Senate and the House of Commons acting with the sovereign, it should be by bill and not by resolution, for wherever the document itself contains provisions which obligate this country, as one of the high contracting parties, to discharge obligations or to do any act or thing mentioned or described in the document, that can only be given effect to through legislation, then there should be legislative approval of the treaty itself by act of parliament. When we endeavour to bind the hands of future parliaments, we cannot do so by means of resolutions, but only by acts of parliament, and, therefore, I submit that this matter should have been submitted to parliament in the form of a bill.
There is another ground upon which I desire to make a few observations, and that is this: the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) was charged with the responsibility in connection with this matter, But when the minister was considering the use and conservation of water of the Spray
lakes, which are in the Rocky mountains some distance from the Bow river and in connection with which I think the minister will agree that not even the scenic beauties of the Rocky mountains park were affected, there was such a long delay that ultimately nothing was done and recourse was had to the development of additional power at the Ghost river site on the Bow river. It happens that the city of Calgary, a portion of which I have the honour to represent, is entirely dependent upon the Bow river for its supply of hydro-electric energy. The representations as to the water in that river in the early days appear, in the light of ultimate information, to have been very inaccurate and the quantity of water fell at one time as low as 600 cubic second feet in the winter season, and the minimum flow of a river is the important thing to ascertain when one is determining the question of power development. On the other hand storage possibilities are ever present in a country such as we have in western Canada, near the Rocky mountains. It was sought thus to utilize the waters of the Spray lakes. There are those connected with the parks branch of the minister's department who believe that the scenic beauties of the park would be so marred or interfered with by the construction of a dam to enable the waters of the Spray lakes to be utilized, with a tunnel to convey the water through to the river, that the matter should not be considered. A great agitation was carried on. Many of the papers in the west joined in the attack against the power company in an urgent endeavour to protect, as they said, the scenic beauties of the parks of the west.
The Niagara falls have been known in history for, I think, something like 250 years. I believe the first measurement of the falls was taken by one of the early explorers in the seventeenth century. The falls have undoubted been gradually receding. The action of the water has been to destroy partly the falls on the Canadian side. On the United States side, where the fall is much wider, a thinner film of water has been spread over the rock and the result has been that there has not been as much erosion as on the Canadian side where the body of water is greater and its action more apparent. It has been represented by United States engineers in one of their journals that the rock on the Canadian side has receded as much as five feet a year in recent years. It seemed to me to be incredible that it should recede so great a distance, but that is the figure which has been given.

Preservation o} Niagara Falls


Charles A. Stewart: In the
Horseshoe.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, in the centre of the Horseshoe on the Canadian side. That is the figure, whether it be accurate or not. Many years ago Isham Randolph prepared elaborate plans for the purpose of conserving the beauties of the falls. I will not endeavour to deal with the plans he then put forward, but one of the gentlemen who signed the present convention between the United States and Canada, I think Mr. Macfarland, is the editor of a very important journal and1 I recall seeing upon the cover of that journal some years ago a picture of Niagara falls practically dry, with nothing but the rocks over which a thin trickle of water was flowing, the falls having been destroyed by the activities of the power companies. That was the position which was then taken by those who were endeavouring to project their piinds into the future. No such condition has as yet arisen, but I suggest that the present convention is intended for one purpose and one only, namely, to enable more power to be secured from Niagara falls by both the province of Ontario and the interests that operate in the state of New York. It will be recalled that neither the state of New York nor the province of Ontario is a party to the treaty: it is a treaty made between the United States and Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is entirely wrong with respect to that. While they are not parties, they are entirely in accord.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I am saying. They are not parties to the treaty. Naturally the United States speaks as a nation through the treaty just as does Canada. New York is a part of the United States and Ontario is a part of Canada. We are given to believe that Ontario is satisfied with the provisions of the treaty, but there is nothing to show whether the beauties of the park or the falls are matters to be considered. The point seems to be rather that more power may be available by diverting the water over a wider area and spreading it over the Horseshoe in a thinner stream, thereby causing less erosion, so that additional pbwer will be available in Ontario and in the state of New York. It is already a matter of record that, because of this treaty, the state of New York has said to the private corporation operating on that side that while that additional water is to be available by the methods employed, they must pay to the state of New York a license fee not only for the additional water to be secured, but for water now being taken 
about which heretofore there was a grave question whether they would pay anything or not. That is a matter of record. I suggest that the principle that has governed in eastern Canada in considering this matter should also be applied in western Canada.
When the matter was actively before the department in connection with the Spray falls, I was a shareholder in the Calgary Power Company, although I was not a member of the house, When I assumed my present duties I disposed of such few shares as I had remaining in that enterprise, and therefore I feel I can speak with some degree of freedom with relation to it. It seems to me that you should not have one set of principles governing in the west where, for instance, in Calgary we are wholly dependent on that development for hydro-electrical energy, and another set in the east with respect to Niagara falls and the hydro-electric development dependent upon that large head of water.
I desire to refer to but one other matter- the method to be used is the construction of submerged dams. Mr. Isham Randolph, the elder, if I recall aright, according to a report he made, did not believe that was the best method to adopt. They had in mind at that time the creation of small islands, with sufficient loam upon them to enable some vegetation to appear so that the utilization of the water would be in harmony with the beautification of the park and the scenery surrounding the falls. The present scheme, so far as I can gather from the documents, contemplates nothing more than submerged concrete dams which will be close to the surface of the water and will not give any additional green appearance to the surrounding landscape and not add in any sense to its beautification. That at least, is the contention which has been made. I suppose the minister will say that this is a matter the details of which might be worked out by those charged with that responsibility. The treaty in the ultimate analysis is one made by the United States because of the insistence of the private power interests in the state of New York; and as regards Canada I suppose, not without the same measure of truth it may be said the treaty is largely the outcome of the representations of those who are seeking additional hydro-electrical energy in Ontario. Those are both desirable ends; both are ends to which we should try to lend our assistance in every way possible, but not if as a result the beauty of the falls is to be destroyed. If we are in any way to lessen the scenic beauty of these falls which, as I say,

Preservation of Niagara Falls
have been world renowned for over two centuries, we should not even for the purpose of getting a little additional horsepower, become parties to the transaction. It was only because of that fear which I expressed to some of my colleagues a few weeks ago, that the matter was delayed, apart altogether from the discrimination which I thought was being piactised between the east and the west in connection with this matter, scenic beauty is desirable both east and west, but the principle of utility should at least be applied in the same way in the east as in the west, and as I have said, I am firmly of opinion that the methods adopted are not those which one of the most eminent engineers of his time recommended should be applied, and departure from which will certainly detract from the scenic beauties of Niagara falls and park.
The first objection I have urged as to the method adopted is common to all these questions of the approval of treaties. We are entering upon a career of international treaties. It is highly desirable that we should settle the practice with some degree of certainty. I shall have something to say later as to section 132 of the British North America Act, which in terms does not contemplate this country making treaties with foreign countries apart from the empire. Section 132 I think should be closely studied having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in determining who is a "person" within that act for the purpose of taking a seat in the senate. Having regard to the terms of that decision, it does occur to me that it is not an unfair inference to conclude that section 132 of the British North America Act should be construed by the same canons of construction. In the event of the Prime Minister considering this fall amendments necessary to the British North America Act to enable Canada to exercise powers that belong to this Dominion if we are on an equality of status with Great Britain, I would suggest that he study section 132 in order that the treaty-making powers may be properly exercised without any question being raised in the courts, as might hereafter be done, as to the true interpretation and meaning to be placed upon section 132. There is only one purpose I have so far as the first matter is concerned, and that is that our practice should be settled along the lines that are supported by precedent and reason and that will be relied upon by future parliaments and future generations as establishing a system that is sound from every standpoint. and I cannot think that any approval 78594-168
of a treaty is sound that undertakes to bind the action of future parliaments without the consent of parliament expressed in the manner and form in the constitution provided-by His Majesty the King by and with the consent of the House of Commons and Senate in parliament assembled-and not by a mere resolution of the two houses of parliament.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say a word or two with regard to the first point raised by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I did not know that the matter was to be brought up in this manner, and I can only rely on my memory and on what I believe to be the sound principles governing this matter. .
As my hon. friend knows, the ratifying power in matters of treaties varies with different nations. In some countries the ratification is made by parliament; in others it is made both by parliament and the king; in others it is made by one branch of parliament. In the United States, for instance, the power of ratification belongs to the senate. So far as British countries are concerned, it is His Majesty the King who ratifies the treaty. So far as the British practice is concerned, it is and it was only when money was to be expended under the treaty that the treaty was formally submitted to the imperial parliament before being ratified.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Or if it affected any vested
interest.


Ernest Lapointe: When the Versailles
treaty of peace was submitted for approval, I remember reading a speech of Mr. Lloyd George, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, in which he reiterated that the ratification power is vested in the king, but that that treaty was of such tremendous importance that he thought it proper to submit it to the approval of parliament before asking for ratification by His Majesty the King. In this country for the last few years we have taken the stand that no treaty should be ratified before it is submitted for the approval of this parliament. That course the government has followed in every instance, and it is following it in this case. When there is need of special legislation for the purpose of enforcing a treaty, legislation has been introduced, but introduced apart from the treaty. I remember an instance in 1923 or 1924 when the halibut treaty was ratified. I was Minister of Marine and Fisheries at the time the treaty was negotiated, but not, I think, when the treaty was approved by parliament. In that case it was found necessary, apart from



Preservation oj Niagara Falls
the formal approval of the treaty by resolution of this parliament, to amend our legislation concerning the protection of fisheries in order to make it conform to the provisions of the treaty. We had a special statute passed at the next session, providing, for instance, penalties for violations of the treaty -because it was necessary, as my hon. friend has said, that when matters relating to the treaty were submitted to the courts there should be statutes for the purpose of enforcing its provisions. I think this course should be followed in cases where special legislation is needed. I do not think there will be need of such legislation in this case, but if there is a need there is nothing to prevent the introduction of a bill for the purpose of enforcing every provision of the treaty. I may remark that not so very long ago we were bound even by treaties which not only had not been submitted to the approval of this parliament but, still less, had not been followed by a statute of this parliament. That is changed now. We cannot be bound unless this parliament approves, and I believe that under the circumstances the method suggested by my hon. friend that in every case there should be a statute is not the method that is followed in the British parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not in every case, but
every case in which the document itself involves obligations necessitating future legislative action.


Ernest Lapointe: Even in that case I
think my hon. friend will admit that a bill could follow when necessary after the formal approval of the treaty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the treaty should be part of the statute.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It seems to me that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has fallen into some confusion of thought in making an analysis of the legal situation as compared with the constitutional situation in Canada in respect of the ratification of treaties. I think one may suggest with great confidence that a treaty ratified by His Majesty the King in a legal sense may have full force and effect in Canada without any approval whatsoever either by resolution of this house or by statute of this parliament. Legal effect is given to many international agreements, conventions and treaties by the simple ratification by His Majesty the King. But in the constitutional sense my hon. friend has insisted that treaties, which affect and apply to Canada, prior to their ratification by His Majesty the King should receive the approval of the parliament of Canada.
]Mr. Lapointe.]


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will allow me. I hope he did not misunderstand me. I never said we should do away with the approval of parliament. I am in favour of it entirely.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not misrepresenting the hon. gentleman, and I think we will agree on that. But we passed a resolution in this house, two or three sessions ago, to the effect that, before the government of Canada should advise His Majesty the King to ratify any treaty or convention which in terms affected Canada, the government of Canada should first submit that treaty or convention for the approval of this parliament. Now, in this case, the government of Canada in the name of His Majesty have entered into a treaty with the United States of America, and before advising the king to ratify that treaty, the government of the day have submitted that treaty for the approval of this house. This house may give approval by simple resolution, or by a statute of parliament confirming the treaty and providing for the carrying out of its terms. What is the distinction between treaties which are approved in the one form or in the other? This convention or treaty, which is now being approved by resolution, will have no more legal effect in Canada than if it had never received the approval of this house by simple resolution. This convention which is being approved by resolution merely has that effect in Canada which it would have had at any time during the last two centuries if simply ratified by His Majesty on the advice of his privy council at Westminster.
But there may be treaties and conventions containing terms which, even if His Majesty in the exercise of his royal prerogative, ratifies them by the advice, either of his privy council in England or of his privy council in Canada, would have no legal effect whatsoever, and would not be respected or enforced by any court in this country. You have only to look through the English decisions where you will find time and again that distinguished judges of the courts have declared that treaties merely ratified by His Majesty on the advice of His Majesty's privy council in England, or by formal resolution of parliament, sometimes contain terms which are not enforceable in those courts, because they had no statutory force or effect.
Therefore, I suggest to the Minister of Justice that the clear distinction is this. Any treaty which in times past could have been ratified by His Majesty alone on the advice of his imperial privy council, and by its terms may be made applicable to all the dominions

Preservation oj Niagara Falls
and colonies without any statutory legislation by the imperial parliament or by a dominion parliament, and which could be enforced without such statutory confirmation by the imperial parliament or by the Dominion, may have full force and effect in Canada to-day if approved by a simple resolution of this house, that simple resolution being strictly a moral support to the government of the day in taking the responsibility of advising the king, through His Majesty's privy council, to effect such ratification.
If the treaty or convention, however, which is to be submitted to parliament for approval before ratification by His Majesty, affects the revenues of the country, or provides for any expenditure of public funds, then, ever since the time that Anson collected his precedents, we know that no such treaty or convention can have full force or effect until it is submitted to parliament by a bill which, previously-as in England-has been authorized by His Majesty, or until it is submitted to this parliament by a bill, which has previously been authorized by His Excellency the Governor General.
But to go further. If the treaty or convention affects property rights or interests in particular sections of this country, and the treaty is only given effect to by ratification by His Majesty on the advice of His Majesty's privy council of Canada, then no court in Canada is bound to respect such treaty which has not been confirmed by statute, except to the extent that His Majesty by the exercise of his royal prerogative could, even without the advice of his privy council in Canada, have given by his ratification such force and effect to it.
I do nbt know whether I am making my idea clear. Whether hon. gentlemen opposite accept it or not is another matter.


Ernest Lapointe: It is very interesting.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We are not raising any
partisan discussion or issue. I called attention once before to the question as to which treaties became public law in Canada by mere ratification by His Majesty the King, and which treaties become public law in Canada only by statutory confirmation by the parliament of Canada. But take article 2 of this treaty-I am not raising objection to its terms -it provides for the construction of certain remedial works in the Niagara river above the Niagara Falls, designed to distribute the waters of the river for certain purposes. Article 2 says that concurrently with the construction and test of the remedial works, additional use of the water for hydro electric purposes may be permitted to a certain extent and subject 78594-168^
to certain conditions, and further that additional diversions shall be permitted during only a certain period of the year. Those additional diversions to be permitted in the state of New York shall not exceed a certain aggregate. Additional diversions to be permitted within the province of Ontario shall not exceed a certain daily diversion at the rate of 10,000 cubic feet per second. Now, I wish to suggest that this is one of a class of treaties .which should be confirmed by statutory enactment, because, unless it is so confirmed, any person living along the banks of the Niagara river, a riparian owner or other person interested in the flow of that water, whose rights are prejudicially affected, could go into the courts of Ontario and secure an injunction against the proposed diversion, if he showed that any right vested in him was injuriously affected thereby. And in the proceedings for injunction I suggest that this treaty dealing with private or public property interests in the province of Ontario, which has been ratified only by act of His Majesty the King and which has not been confirmed by act of this parliament, would not be considered in any court of justice as authorizing the diversion or the works which are contemplated by the terms of this treaty.


Charles A. Stewart: It should be confirmed by statute?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, confirmed by statute. Therefore it seems to me we should make a clear distinction between those classes of treaties which may be ratified by His Majesty, by reason of the exercise of his royal prerogative, and by reason of the exercise of such royal prerogative be given full legal effect to in this country, and those other classes of treaties which deal with matters of public revenue and expenditure or which alienate public rights in property or which prejudicially interfere with private property rights. And the latter class, if they are to be respected and enforced by the courts of the country, should receive statutory confirmation by the parliament of Canada or by the legislature of the province. I do not wish to discuss another aspect of the question because it is dear under the constitution that certain treaties made between the empire and foreign countries may be enforced by legislation of this parliament, even although the terms of the treaty may override and conflict with legislative enactments of the provinces.


Charles A. Stewart: There are one or two aspects of

Preservation of Niagara Falls
the case, and particularly the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), to which I wish to devote a moment or two. One statement made by the leader of the opposition was that the scenic properties were not given consideration, but that it was a matter of the securing of power. May I assure the hon. gentleman that that was not the purpose; the purpose rather was to take such steps as would prevent the very thing deprecated by the hon. member and others who are interested in the scenic properties of the falls, namely, the convergence of a large volume of water over the Horseshoe and the erosion at a very rapid rate of the Horseshoe itself.
Let me say that a great deal of study has been given this matter in the past ten years by the engineers who have investigated the methods suggested by my hon. friend. Those methods have been thoroughly examined and the consensus of opinion on the part of the engineers who have advised both the provincial government and the state of New York, the federal government at Washington and our government here, was that the submerged weir would ensure the best results. The diversion of twenty thousand feet more is merely incidental to the trial of what the engineers in their judgment consider the best method whereby to preserve the scenic qualities of the falls. That is all I have to say in that respect.
As regards the question of not considering the Spray lakes matter from the same standpoint as the Niagara falls question, I may say to my hon. friend that exactly the same study was made in both cases, and that study indicated that no great damage would ensue from the proposal of the Calgary Power Company. Later on some delay occurred owing to the fact that the provincial government intervened and was desirous of utilizing this storage basin as a provincial undertaking. Naturally there was a delay in order to allow them to study the whole question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Several years, was it not?


Charles A. Stewart: Well, we
have been about ten years altogether studying the Niagara falls proposition, and the same care has been taken in connection with both projects. My hon. friend will agree that in Canada there is a veiy considerable public opinion on the desirability of preserving, as nature left them, many of the scenic spots which are to be found throughout the country. With that view I have no quarrel. Let me say, however, that my study of .the Spray lakes problem, the study made by the officials 
of the department, has convinced me that the proper thing to do is to leave the Spray lakes out of the Banff park reservation altogether. It will be outside the park reservation, and so long as a flowage of 350 cubic second feet for the three summer months, is guaranteed in the Spray river, we are prepared to issue a license to anyone who is desirous of going in there. The first opportunity to develop will be given to the provincial government, then to any power company that may wish to develop the undertaking, provided they build a tunnel to carry the water.
I have nothing to say with respect to the small controversy that has arisen as to whether this resolution shall be statutory or by the approval of parliament.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not a small controversy; the matter is important.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must take exception to
the last statement of my colleague (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) who dismisses this weighty matter as a small affair. Hon. gentlemen in this house will feel that my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Ca'han) has rendered a very helpful service in making clear the distinction between public law and statute law, which I gather was one of his objectives in the debate.
With regard to what we are doing at the moment, I think my hon. friend will agree that we are not attempting more than to carry out the third article of the treaty, which provides that:
The present convention shall be ratified by His Britannic Majesty in accordance with constitutional practice, and by the President of the United States of America, by and with the advice and consent of the senate thereof.
As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has said, the constitutional practice which we are following in this parliament is to have all treaties approved in the first instance by both houses of parliament; and that is what just now we are seeking to have done. But it is possible that, in carrying out the provisions of the treaty, further enactments in the nature of statutes may be necessary. The only point that seems to me to come up in the -way of difference between us is whether both the approval of the treaty itself in a broad way and the statutory provisions that may be essential to the carrying out of all its provisions, must be a part of the one document and effected simultaneously.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the Prime Minister will
pardon the interruption, I tried to make the distinction between the constitutional practice to which he is now referring, and the other

Juvenile Delinquents
practice which I shall presently mention. The constitutional practice to which the Prime Minister is now referring is a practice largely inaugurated by himself for the purpose of protecting the autonomous position of Canada, to which end he submitted to parliament his resolution that the government of Canada should not give assent to the ratification of a treaty unless approval had first been obtained from the Canadian parliament. But there is another constitutional practice of equal importance in vogue in Great Britain whereby parliament has asserted its right in respect of treaties proposed to be ratified by the king, namely: that when such treaties involve the revenues or expenditures of the country, or alienate property within the territory of the country, or prejudically affect private vested interests, in these cases it is in accord with another constitutional practice, I believe, that such treaties before ratification by His Majesty should be first approved and confirmed by imperial statute. I was trying to make that point clear.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from May 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. 179, respecting juvenile delinquents-Mr. Lapointe -Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 22-Parent or guardian may be ordered to pay fine, damages or costs.
Ernest Lapointe: I wish to make two
changes in this section. In the third line of subsection 2 the word "sixteen" should be "twenty", and in subsection 4, line sixteen, the word "nine" should be "ten". Perhaps that is why some hon. gentlemen thought the other night the parents might not receive notice. Section 9 was not the proper reference; under section 10 notice is given in every case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does my hon. friend now think subsection 4 is sufficiently connected with subsection 2?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend was
referring the other night to section 9, which has nothing to do with notice to parents; he will see that section 10 provides that parents and guardians always must receive notice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will pardon
me if I point out that in addition I was endeavouring to suggest that I had some doubt whether that notice would bring sufficiently home to the parents the possibility of their being charged with financial responsibility, because the notice under section 10-


Ernest Lapointe: -is a notice of the prosecution against the child.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, and I though
we should make it clear in the terms of the notice that there was a possibility of the parent being mulcted by a fine or by having to assume financial responsibility. In other words, a notice might be sent in a casual sort of way, directed to one of several persons, but after the hearing the magistrate might order the parent to assume the responsibility, and it might be successfully contended that it is doubtful whether the parent had notice of that particular point-if I make myself clear. In other words, I might ask for a ' judgment against some person for $25,000; the name of another person might be in the complaint, with an inferential direction to that person. That person might not turn up; he might say, "I am not interested in this case; it is just a judgment against someone else." What I feared was that the parent might not be given ample notice of what might result by not appearing.


Ernest Lapointe: Of course, this not only has the approval of but is urged by the committee. Probably the first two lines of subsection 4 might be sufficient:
No order shall be made under this section without giving the parent or guardian an opportunity of being heard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly what
I think.


Ernest Lapointe: I have no objection to
making this subsection read as my hon. friend suggests.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps we can go
through the rest of the bill and then return to this section later. I believe the minister and I are of the same opinion, and it is only a question of method.
Section stands.
Sections 23 and 24 agreed to.
On section 25-Children under twelve.


Ernest Lapointe: The only change is that the words "of neglected children" are left out after the word "superintendent". They are unnecessary because the word "superintendent" is defined in the general section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 26-Children to be separated from adults.
Arthur Edward Ross: How is it that
with a section of this kind we still have forty children in our penitentiaries?
Juvenile Delinquents


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will see that by subsection 2 this does not apply to a child who has been proceeded against by indictment under section 9 of this act, and it does not apply to places where there is no juvenile court. As I said the other day, this act applies only in certain places where provision has been made for a juvenile court and where a proclamation has been issued to that effect.
The other day I was asked as to the number of places under this act; at that time I had no information, but now I can give those places in Ontario if my hon. friend would like to have them.


Arthur Edward Ross: If you please.


Ernest Lapointe: In Ontario there is the
city of Ottawa; the city of Toronto; the city of Stratford and the county of Perth; the judicial district of Timiskaming; the city of Berlin-now the city of Kitchener-and the county of Waterloo, which came under the act in 1914; the city of Branitford and the county of Brant; town of St. Marys; city of Galt; city of Windsor; town of Walkerville; town of Ford; county of Grey; county of Huron; county of Haldimand; city of Hamilton; district of Nipissing; county of Lincoln; town of Port Colborne; county of Middlesex; city of London; town of Cochrane, excepting certain townships; town of Dundas; and city of Oshawa. Apart from those places in Ontario, there can be no juvenile delinquent under the act. A boy of sixteen has to stand his trial under the criminal code in the ordinary way.


Mr. McNUTT:: Does that apply to Nova
Scotia?


Ernest Lapointe: I will give the list for
the rest of Canada: city of Winnipeg; city of Vancouver; city of Victoria; city and royalty of Charlottetown; town of Summer-side; city of Halifax; city of Montreal; province of Alberta; county of Pictou; district of Dauphin; province of Saskatchewan; each electoral district of British Columbia; province of Manitoba.


Arthur Edward Ross: Of the forty juveniles in the penitentiaries, twenty-six have come from institutions. It would louk as though a boy could be taken up under this juvenile system and sent to an institution, but if he escaped he would be sent immediately to a penitentiary.


Mr. STEVENS:: If he is incorrigible.


Arthur Edward Ross: The warden of the penitentiary has told me that ju9t as soon as they escape they are sent down to the penitentiary, and that does not look as though they are complying with this section.


Ernest Lapointe: That would show the
advisability of having separate institutions for the young offenders, whether they have been tried by way of indictment or otherwise. I will try to get the Minister of Finance to help me in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it does not involve
any money he might help you.


Arthur Edward Ross: We have been
working along these lines for years and I thought there would be something done when this meeting was held last fall. We have been told that when juveniles are sent to penitentiary they will not be permitted to come in touch with "lifers," and yet just two weeks ago I found one in a penitentiary who was sitting on a bench with a "lifer." It does not look to me as though a boy would have a chance if he is treated in that way, and the report of the superintendent of penitentiaries shows many cases of this kind. These boys are placed side by side with the "lifers," they work at the same benches, and they cannot be disputed. I have followed up a couple of oases myself and have found that to be true. Once a boy escapes from one of these institutions to which he has been sent he is immediately sent to the penitentiary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 27-Juvenile court committee.
Ernest Lapointe: Subsection 3 provides
that a petition must be presented before the power can be exercised.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 28-Duties of committee.
Ernest Lapointe: There is no change in
this section except by the elimination of four words which were thought to be unnecessary.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 29 to 31 agreed to.
On section 32-Probation officers.
Ernest Lapointe: I would like to explain
the exception for the province of Alberta. In that province the probation officer does not function directly under the juvenile court judge because the judge is not appointed. An existing official is designated to act in that capacity and the probation officer is directly responsible to a central authority at Edmonton.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Juvenile Delinquents
On section 33-Adults liable.
Ernest Lapointe: This section extends the jurisdiction to persons other than the parents or guardian of the child. Under the old section only the parents or guardian could be held responsible.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 34-Penalty for inducing.
Ernest Lapointe: There is really nothing
contentious in this section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 35-No preliminary hearing.
Ernest Lapointe: The only change is to
make the provisions of the criminal code applicable.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 36-Contempt of court.
Ernest Lapointe: It is making the court a real one in this respect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. minister will agree that this matter is one which has engaged the attention of tribunals to a great extent. There were two prominent cases in England during the last few months, and perhaps the minister has had his attention directed to them. It is a very extraordinary power to confer upon any court, this power to punish for contempt of the court itself. Perhaps the section may not be used to any great extent, but I suggest to the minister that under the circumstances he make the penalty somewhat smaller.


Ernest Lapointe: I share the view of my hon. friend to a large extent, but the committee of the child's welfare organization suggested imprisonment as well as a fine for contempt of the juvenile court. After discussion with my officials I came to the conclusion that we should limit it to a fine only. I have struck out " imprisonment."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the circumstances
I think that is right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 37-Appeals by special leave.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a new section.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. It is to give the right of appeal. In this case I again did not go as far as the committee asked me to do. They recommended appeal as of right. I came to the conclusion that we should not grant the appeal in indictable offences, but still, to meet their views to some extent, I have made it subject to special leave granted
by a judge of the supreme court in the province. Then, instead of going to the appeal court as under the criminal code, the appeal will be heard by a judge of the supreme court of the province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right of appeal to
a judge of the supreme court should be ample, but it having been made possible to go to the court of appeal, might it not be better to go there first of all and thereby save two appeals?


Ernest Lapointe: There is only one appeal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section reads:
Save that the appeal shall be to a supreme court judge instead of to the court of appeal, with a further right of appeal to the court of appeal by special leave of that court.
What I have in mind is this: that as the procedure is inexpensive when you get into that kind of litigation, there is always a desire to exhaust the courts to which it may be taken. The only query I make is whether or not it might be advisable to permit an appeal to the court of appeal if a judge of that court granted leave. That would end the matter because the cases would be very few. As it stands now, it goes by leave to a single judge; he hears it and then the court of appeal may grant leave of appeal.


Ernest Lapointe: What would my hon.
friend suggest?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I daresay only extraordinary cases would ever go to the court of appeal.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 38-Act to be liberally construed.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think this would be
a very good section to have at the end of the bill. As a matter of drafting, it should be the last section of the bill except the repealing section.


Ernest Lapointe: But there is no change.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a declaration
which appropriately comes after you have given all the other sections of the act.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but we have merely followed the old act in that respect, because the subsequent sections followed in the old act also.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Juvenile Delinquents
[Stage Direction]
On section 39-Not to affect provincial statutes.
John Frederick Johnston: There is a change in
the third line by the addition of the words " intended for the protection or benefit of children," after the word "statute."


Ernest Lapointe: That was to make it
clearer.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 40-Repeal of former law.
Ernest Lapointe: No change.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the former section 35.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 41-Sections 12 (4) and 17 (3) in force in Canada,
John Frederick Johnston: This is new.


Ernest Lapointe: This is a necessary selfexplanatory provision on account of the rest of the legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the one about
publications in newspapers. It is a very serious innovation. It provides that special provisions of the statute shall be in force in all parts of Canada whether this act is otherwise in force or not. While it is highly desirable that newspaper references to these cases should disappear, the fact is that this is very peculiar legislation. The section reads:
Subsection (4) of section 12 and subsection (3) of section 17 shall be in force in all parts of Canada, whether this act is otherwise in force or not.
It is substantive legislation applying to every part of Canada, regardless of the application of the act otherwise in any province or city or town.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will see, if not the necessity, the importance of it. The first clause mentioned in section 41 concerns newspapers. Of course, as regards the province of Quebec, I think only the city of Montreal comes under the provisions of the act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now the act will apply
to the whole province.


Ernest Lapointe: If it were not for this
provision it would be possible for a newspaper published in Quebec City and read in Montreal or the Montreal district, to contain the names and other details concerning young offenders.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am wholly in accord
with the principle, but the method by which it is brought to operation may cause difficulty in connection with some newspapers which are trying to conform to the law. This section is really a new statute with respect to the publication of accounts of these proceedings in newspapers in every part of Canada, It is highly desirable, but it is put in such a way in the statute that it is made difficult to understand.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend suggests
that it should be clearer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is making this part
of the substantive law of the country apply to every part of Canada. Regardless of whether the act is in force, for instance, in the city of Moose Jaw, this portion of the statute will be applicable to the whole of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and to that extent it curtails properly the license heretofore exercised by newspapers in connection with matters of this kind. The question is only one of making it plain to the newspapers. They will be anxious to obey the law once they know what it is. but it is not clear with a little section in the statute bringing other, provisions into force with respect to the whole of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think this section is necessary:	Subsection (4) of section 12
already states:
Subsection (3) of this section shall apply to all newspapers and other publications published anywhere in Canada, whether or not this act is otherwise in force in the place of publication.
This should be sufficient without section 41 of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the section must
have been put there for some purpose.


Ernest Lapointe: It merely gives effect to what is already stated in subsection (4) of section 12.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It includes subsection (3) of section 17.


Ernest Lapointe: Even there it is made
clear. Subsection (3) of section 17 reads as follows:
(3) If a person, whether a child or an adult, against whom any warrant has issued out of a juvenile court cannot be found within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court out of which the same was so issued, but is or is suspected to be ,in any other part of Canada, any judge or deputy judge of a juvenile court within whose jurisdiction such person is or is suspected to be, o,r if there is no juvenile court having jurisdiction in such place, then any justice within whose jurisdiction such person is or is suspected to be, upon proof being made

Juvenile Delinquents
on oath or affirmation of the handwriting of the juvenile court judge or other officer who issued the same, shall make an endorsement on the warrant, signed with his name, authorizing the execution thereof within his jurisdiction.
So the two things which are mentioned in section 41 are, already in the bill. We might do without section 41. It merely repeats what is already in the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is desirable to
continue it there so that there shall be no doubt as to its application.


Ernest Lapointe: If those two things were not already there, I agree that this would not be sufficient.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 42-When act shall be enforced.
Ernest Lapointe: There is no change there except, "subject to the provisions of section forty-one."


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 43-Any city or town may ask for this law.
Arthur Edward Ross: I am struck by the
unfairness of this thing. For instance, you have children from the county being tried in the city, and they are being treated differently from the city children.


Ernest Lapointe: Is there any county
my hon. friend has in mind?


Arthur Edward Ross: The county of
Frontenac. The city of Kingston may have a juvenile court, but the children of the county of Frontenac will be treated in a different way from the city children. They must go to the penitentiary or prison.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not necessarily the
penitentiary.


Arthur Edward Ross: To the prison or
penitentiary. The juvenile courts have the privilege of treating the city children in a different way and sending them to some other place of detention. It may be claimed that more crime exists among city children, but I do not think so in proportion to the number. The unfair thing is that children from parts of the province where there is no juvenile court will be sent to the penitentiary or prison, whereas the city children will go elsewhere.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend understands the obstacle that we have in the British North America Act. The penitentiaries are
under federal jurisdiction, but all other prisons and institutions, hospitals and asylums, are under the province, and we could not enforce this act except with the cooperation of the province and the local authorities.


Arthur Edward Ross: When I asked the minister in regard to these forty children he claimed that some would be from districts outside the jurisdiction of this act. That is what I point out as an unfair feature, that those Outside the jurisdiction of this act must go to penitentiary or prison.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 44 agreed to.
On section 45-Operation of act.
John Arthur Clark: I cannot see any really new
provisions in the act that ensure the segregation of juveniles from adult criminals in the penitentiaries. I would ask the minister to point to the sections of the bill with respect to that phase of the matter which make provisions not contained :n the old act.


Ernest Lapointe: As far as that goes we
have not changed the old act. The amendments are rather on questions of procedure, providing for the right of appeal, for instance, and to make the act more workable.


John Arthur Clark: Then there is no attempt by
this act to ensure the segregation of juveniles from adults in the penitentiaries?


Ernest Lapointe: Not in this act.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the minister
any intention of dealing with that matter this session?


Ernest Lapointe: It is my intention-I
am speaking for myself just now-and I have warned the Minister of Finance that I shall appeal to him before the session is over.


John Arthur Clark: Will it require a special act, or just an amendment to some existing act?


Ernest Lapointe: Merely an item in the
estimates.


John Arthur Clark: It will be done by regulation rather than by legislation?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, absolutely.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 46 agreed to.
On section 22-Parent or guardian may be ordered to pay fine, damages or costs.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think this section might be improved upon, but I do not think it will work any great injustice as it is.
Juvenile Delinquents


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend thinks of some amendment we can have the section changed in the senate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The senate may amend
the bill, but in view of the fact that cases such as I mention will not often happen, I am not going to insist upon an amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. LAPOINTE moved the third reading of the bill.
Arthur Edward Ross: May I ask the
minister if during the discussion of his estimates on penitentiaries he will have an announcement to make in regard to the detention of juveniles in penitentiaries?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend has
already asked me what my intention was, and I have told him. I hope I shall be as persuasive with my colleagues as he was with me.


Arthur Edward Ross: I just wished to
say that I have some suggestions to make in regard to the matter when the estimates are up.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and bill read the third time and passed.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, on the motion to go
into committee of supply to consider the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, I would ask the privilege for a few moments of referring to the enforcement of the National Prohibition Act of the United States, particularly in regard to British shipping and shipping of Canadian registry.
On January 16th, 1929, the eighteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States was ratified. That constitutional amendment inaugurated an entire change in the attitude of the government and people of the United States to the sale, transportation, exportation and importation of intoxicating 
liquors. It has one remarkable omission, that neither in the amendment itself nor in the Volstead Act, known as the National Prohibition Act, which was passed in October, 1919, is any prohibition or penalty imposed upon the purchase or consumption of intoxicating liquors within the territorial domains of the United States. Therefore those residents there who can induce others to sell may legitimately purchase, and there is no penalty imposed for their consumption of the liquor so purchased. This act came into effect in January, 1920.
To prevent the smuggling of liquor into the United States from the sea, the United States congress included in its tariff act of September, 1922, the provisions of section 581 of that act, authorizing federal officials of the United States-
-to go on board of any vessel or vehicle at any place in the United States, or within four leagues of the coast of the United States, to examine the manifest and to inspect, search and examine the vessel or vehicle, and every part thereof, and any person, trunk or package on board, and to this end hail and stop such vessel or vehicle, if under way, and to use all necessary force to compel compliance, and if it shall appear that any breach or violation of the laws of the United States has been committed whereby or in consequence of which such vessel or vehicle, or the merchandise, or any part thereof, on board of or imported by such vessel, or vehicle, is liable to forfeiture, it shall be the duty of such officer to make seizure of the same, and to arrest any person engaged in such breach or violation.
This tariff act of 1922, which has been held to foe binding upon the courts of the United States, extended their jurisdiction beyond the three-mile limit up to the twelve-mile limit, and to that extent purported to authorize infringements upon the rights of other nations beyond the three-mile limit, rights which are clearly established by the well recognized rules of international law.
Therefore, while the courts of the United States are legally bound to enforce the provisions of the tariff act of 1922, which provides for the twelve-mile limit, no other nation is bound to recognize that twelve-mile limit, and United States customs officials beyond the threenmile and up to the twelve-mile limit have, so far as established rules of international law are concerned, no right to inspect or seize vessels flying the flag of any other nation.
In discussing proposed amendments to the tariff act of 1922, Senator Sterling said that the United States Secretary, Mr. Hughes, had taken up with the British government ths question of reaching an agreement whereby searches of British vessels outside of the three-

Liquor Traffic-Mr. Cahan
mile limit would be permitted. He stated that the Secretary of State was of the opinion:
-that the three-mile limit was generally accepted among the principal maritime nations of the world as the limit of a nation's jurisdiction over the adjacent sea, and that the government had on more than one occasion committed itself to that limit. Hence, in the view of the Secretary, there should be an international understanding or agreement in regard to the matter. Otherwise interference with foreign vessels, outside the three-mile limit, might bring about international complications and subject the government to claims for damages.
I am quoting from the Congressional Record, volume 62, Part II, page 11593. Under the conditions which then existed, the seizure by the United States coastguard service of a British vessel within twelve miles from the coast of the United States was authorized by the statute law of that country, which its courts were bound to respect but which other nations, to preserve their rights under international law, would be bound to protest. And the government of Great Britain did persistently protest against seizures of British vessels at any greater distance than three marine miles from the coast of the United States.
In 1922 the case arose of the Cunard Steamships Company versus Mellon, which is reported in 262 United States Reports, page 122. Mr. Justice Van Devanter in delivering the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States said:
It is now settled in the United States and recognized elsewhere, that the territory subject to its jurisdiction includes the land areas under its dominion and control, the ports, harbours, bays and other enclosed arms of the sea along its coast and a marginal belt of the sea extending from the coast line outward a marine league or three geographic miles.
So that by that unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States up to the three mile limit was recognized as the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as it had been recognized throughout the British Dominions by the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878, which declared that:
-any part of the open sea within one marine league from the coast measured from low water mark, be deemed to be open sea within the territorial waters of Her Majesty's Dominions.
To show how completely the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States coincided with the opinion entertained by the government of Great Britain, I find that in 1923, in 163 Commons Hansard, column 961, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated the views of the British government in these terms:
The doctrine of territorial waters is not laid down in any international instrument, but the
jurisdiction of nations over coastal waters has been accepted by usage and is now a recognized rule of international law; His Majesty's government have always maintained that by international law and practice, the general limit of territorial jurisdiction is three miles, but from time to time claims to extend the three mile limit have been advanced by different states. Such claims, which amount to annexation of the high seas, could only be made effective by international agreement.
The convention between the United States and Great Britain, of 1924, had its inception in a letter written by Mr. Charles E. Hughes, United States Secretary of State, and dated June 26, 1922. This letter was addressed to the British Ambassador at Washington with regard to the possibility of aid by the British government by means of-
Cooperation on the part of the British and American authorities with regard to the smuggling of liquor.
It does seem to me most peculiar indeed that authentic copies of this correspondence between the British governments and the United States government, which was given to the press by the Department of State at Washington some two years ago and which has been cited by various legal authorities in the United States in the discussions before their own courts, and in contributions to their legal reviews, should not be available to the House of Commons of Canada, which is directly concerned in those negotiations and in the interpretation of the convention which was consummated as the result of those negotiations; because there is one rule of interpretation of treaties which I think is accepted by all modern nations, namely, that the correspondence leading up to the completion and ratification of a treaty is relevant always for the purpose of construing the purport and intent of the treaty so negotiated. Therefore it is rather surprising that when we desire to construe the terms of that convention, which has now been laid upon the table of the house, there should not be available to us the correspondence which led up to the consummation of the treaty. In this diplomatic note the United States Secretary of State, on June 26, 1922, suggested that an-
-international arrangement between the United States and Great Britain, under which the authorities of each nation would be authorized to exercise, beyond the three mile limit of territorial waters, a measure of control over vessels belonging to the other-
-was most desirable. The note proceeded to allege that:
The situation with which the authorities of this government are confronted has become so serious that this government feels prompted to inquire whether your government would be dis-

Liquor Traffic-Mr. Cahan
posed to enter into a treaty for the purpose of checking the illegal practices in question. Such a treaty might contain reciprocal provisions authorizing the authorities of each government to exerciee the right of search of the other beyond the three mile limit of territorial waters, to the extent of twelve miles from the shore.
There was implied in that note an admission that the United States government had a right of search and seizure within the territorial limit of three miles, but that its right of search and seizure between the limit of three miles and the limit of twelve miles, enacted by the United States Tariff Act of 1922, depended upon the acquiescence of foreign governments.
On November 13, 1922, the British government replied at length, stating in detail the measures which they had taken to prevent breaches of British laws by persons engaged in the liquor trade with the United States. The British note then proceeds:
His Majesty's government had thus taken steps, even before the receipt of representations from the United States government, to prevent the practices, to which attention has now been drawn. They have now, as already indicated, issued supplementary instructions in the matter and hope that the measures taken will prove successful in preventing any breaches of the local law. They feel, however, more difficulty in accepting the proposal that a treaty should be made authorizing the authorities of each government to exercise a right of search of vessels of the other beyond the three mile limit of territorial waters up to a distance of twelve miles from the shore.	.
His Majesty's government have consistently opposed any extension of the limit of territorial waters such as that now suggested. They feel that the outbreak of smuggling which has led to the proposal cannot be regarded as a permanent condition, but is one which will no doubt be suppressed by the United States authorities within the not-distant future. While, therefore, they are desirous of assisting the United States government to the best of their ability in the suppression of the traffic and in the prevention of the abuse of the British flag by those engaged in it, they do not feel that they can properly acquiesce, in order to meet a temporary emergency, in the abandonment of a principle to which they attach great importance.
In communicating the above to you I am directed to add that while His Majesty's government are, as already indicated, unable to acquiesce in the proposed treaty for the extension of territorial waters, they are nevertheless most desirous of taking any steps within their power to prevent any infractions of the local law by persons engaged in liquor smuggling.
In the meantime, on September 13, 1922, the British vessel Gardner was seized twenty-two miles from the coast of the United States, and the British government protested against this seizure on the ground that it had taken place beyond the three mile limit. On account

of, or at least following, this protest by the British government, on November 9, 1922, instructions were issued to the United States collector of customs by the United States Secretary of the Treasury, as follows:
The department is in receipt of your telegram of the 8th instant, relative to the seizure of the British auxiliary schooner M. M. Gardner on September 13, 1922.
It appears from your report that the seizure was made outside the three mile limit, and that while the master admitted unloading part of the cargo beyond the three mile limit there is no evidence that the vessel was communicating with the shore by means of her own small boats or equipment. Under these circumstances it is the desire of the Department of State and the Department of Justice that all foreign vessels so seized shall be released, and you will be governed accordingly. A report should be made to the department in each instance.
So that the government of the United States at that time, even before the negotiation of the treaty, by its acts and its orders, acquiesced in the contentions contained in the protest of the British government. The newspapers at that time reported that approximately twenty vessels were released under this order, but the United States government retained possession of a British vessel named the Grace' and Ruby, which they claimed had been searched and seized beyond the three mile limit but which had been in communication with the shore by means of her small boats. In regard to the retention of the Grace and Ruby, on December 30, 1922, the British ambassador wrote the United States Department of State as follows:
In order to avoid the possibility of any misunderstanding, I am desired by my government to make it clear that His Majesty's government are unable to acquiesce in what they understand to be the ruling of the United States government, namely, that foreign vessels may be seized outside the three mile limit if it can be shown that they have established contact with the shore for illegal purposes by means of their own small boats. My government must reserve their right to lodge a protest in any individual case in which action may be taken by the United States government under this ruling.
That was a clear protest on the part of the British government against the search and seizure beyond the three-mile limit of British vessels which were or had been in communication by their own boats with the coast of the United States.
On January 18, 1923, the United States Secretary of State replied as follows:
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note, No. 973, of December 30, 1922, stating that your government desires you to make it clear that it is unable to acquiesce in what it understands to be the ruling of the United States government, namely, that foreign vessels may be seized outside the three-mile limit if it can be shown that they have estab-

Liquor Traffic-Mr. Cahan
lished contact with the shore for illegal purposes by means of their own small boats. You state that your government must reserve the right to lodge a protest in any individual case in which action may be taken by the United States government in cases of this character.
I have the honour to state that consideration has been given to the statements contained in your note, and the conclusion has been reached that the government of the United States should adhere to the position it has previously taken, that foreign vessels outside the three-mile limit may be seized when it is established that they are using their email boats in illegal operations within the three-mile limit of the United States. This conclusion is supported by the position taken by the British government in the oase of the British Columbia schooner Araunah, which was seized off Copper island, by the Russian authorities in 1888, because it appeared that members of the crew of the schooner were illegally taking seals in Behring sea by means of canoes operated between the schooner and the land, and it was affirmed that two of the canoes were within half a mile of the shore. Lord Salisbury stated that Her Majesty's government were of opinion that, even if the Araunah at the time of the seizure was herself outside the three-mile territorial limit, the fact that she was, iby means of her boats, carrying on fishing within Russian waters without the prescribed license warranted her seizure and confiscation according to the provisions of the municipal law regulating the use of those waters.
Therefore the negotiations at that period had this result: The United States abandoned their claim that they had the right to seize British vessels outside the three-mile limit except those which were communicating for illegal purposes, or in breach of the laws of the United States, with the shore of that country by their own boats. On April 30, 1923, that was followed by a statement made by Mr. McNeill, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the British House of Commons at Westminster, in which, referring to the case of the Grace and Ruby, he said:
His Majesty's government have questioned the right of the United States government to make this seizure, and diplomatic correspondence on the subject is proceeding.
Therefore, at that time the government of Great Britain did not acquiesce even in the claim of the United States government that it had a right to seize beyond the three-mile limit British vessels which were in communication with the shore by their own small boats.
On July 10, 1923, the British Charge d'Affaires at Washington wrote to the United States Secretary of State in reference to the condemnation of the Henry L. Marshall, which was alleged to have transferred her cargo of liquor to an American vessel at a point ten miles off the coast of the United States; he stated that this vessel was not entitled to British registry. There had been
a fraudulent transfer to British registry, the vessel really being owned by a citizen of the United States, and the British government intimated that they did not intend to exercise their diplomatic privileges for the protection of an American who had procured a fraudulent certificate of registry under British law. However, the British Charge d'Affaires continued:
In order to avoid the possibility of any misunderstanding on the part of the United States government as to His Majesty's government's attitude in this matter I have the honour, under instructions from His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to inform you that any attempt on the part of the United States authorities to seize a British ship outside the three-mile limit would be regarded by His Majesty's government as creating a very serious situation. In regard to the Henry L. Marshall case, I have been instructed to explain that the absence of a protest by His Majesty's government against the condemnation of this vessel in no way implies any alteration lin the views of His Majesty's government with regard to the principle at stake, inasmuch, as that vessel, owing to the circumstances in which she secured her British registry, was not recognized by His Majesty's government as entitled to British registry. Consequently. His Majesty's government have not felt called upon to assert the principle at stake on her behalf, since, as far as His Majesty's government are concerned, the Henry L. Marshall remains an American vessel.
Again, in diplomatic language, the British government made a most emphatic protest against the seizure of this vessel beyond the three-mile limit from the American coast. On July 16, 1923, before the negotiations for the 1924 liquor convention were consummated, Mr. Charles E. Hughes, United States Secretary of State, replied to the note which I have just read, justifying the seizure of a British vessel if the facts show-I quote:
__that its direct and single effort was by
fraudulent means to introduce the cargo, and all of it within the territory of the United States; and that the vessel prior to and at the time of its actual seizure, even though more than three miles from the shore, was hovering off the coasts of the United States and engaged in an attempt to violate the laws of the_United States by the introduction of liquor into its territory.
This is the first time that the American doctrine was expressed that vessels hovering near the three-mile limit, but just beyond that limit, were liable to seizure by the United States authorities and thereupon liable to forfeiture by decree of the United States federal courts.
In the meantime a draft treaty had been prepared by Mr. Hughes, Secretary of State, and submitted on behalf of the government of the United States to the British Secretary
Liquor Traffic-Mr. Cahan

of State for Foreign Affairs. The terms of the draft treaty proposed that each of the two governments would be permitted to board vessels of the other within a distance of twelve geographical miles from the coast, in order to make inquiry whether such vessels or the persons on board were engaged in an attempt to violate the laws of the other party to the proposed treaty. That was a clear suggestion of the desire of the United States to incorporate into the rules of international law, which limited the territorial jurisdiction to three miles, that provision of the United States Tariff Act of 1922 which extended the jurisdiction of their officials and of their courts to a limit of twelve miles from their coasts. In pursuing the discussion on this treaty, on July 19, 1923, Mr. Hughes, the Secretary of States for the United States, wrote to the British government making an official declaration. Before I read that declaration I wish again to emphasize the contention that in respect of a treaty which intimately concerns the Dominion of Canada, and in the interpretation of which the correspondence which preceded its ratification is absolutely necessary for a clear understanding of its import, we should not be denied access to that official correspondence. I have a part of that correspondence as published in the American press and also as quoted in some of the briefs submitted rto the United States federal courts in cases arising out of the seizure of British vessels. Mr. Hughes made this declaration:
The proposed special agreement would bear only upon those vessels which came within twelve miles but hover off the three-mile limit for the purpose of aiding in the smuggling of intoxicating liquor, or other prohibited articles, into the territory of the United States.
That is a clear declaration that the proposed special agreement would give the United States government officials the right of search and seizure only within the proposed twelve-mile limit of the original draft agreement. Mr. Hughes proceeds:
It may confidently be asserted that there would be no disposition on the part of the American authorities, and' the special agreement would not justify any attempt, to seize a British vessel, save within the limits proposed and when it was clear that the vessel concerned was directly involved in an attempt to introduce its illicit cargo into the territory of the United States.
I think that declaration is one which binds the honour of the government of the United States in dealing with these seizures of British and Canadian vessels beyond the three-mile limit; it was a declaration involving the honour of the United States that no seizures

would be made beyond the limit provided for in the draft agreement which was subsequently consummated, signed, ratified and confirmed by this parliament of Canada-
On September 17, 1923, the British government replied, saying:
So far as British subjects are concerned, there is no violation of any law, British or international, in the sale of such liquors on the high seas to purchasers of any nationality; therefore there is no obligation upon His Majesty's government to interfere with the prosecution of a perfectly legitimate trade. Nevertheless, the whole question has been carefully examined with an earnest desire to afford the United States government any proper assistance in the difficulties which they are encountering in the enforcement of the Volstead Act.
I then omit some matter which is irrelevant for my purpose, and the note concludes:
I am to add, in view of the difficulties of the ease, that His Majesty's government could not agree to the extension of the three-mile limit, even for a limited purpose, until the matter has been submitted to the imperial conference. which will meet within a few weeks in London.
These negotiations clearly disclosed that the British government objected to fixing a distance defined in miles for the exercise of the proposed search and seizure beyond the fixed territorial limit of three miles from the shore; but that, if the territorial limit of three miles were affirmed, the British government was willing to agree not to object to the boarding and search of vessels flying the British flag "outside the limit of territorial waters," but not at a greater distance from the coast than can be "traversed in one hour" by the vessel suspected of committing the offence, except in those cases where the cargo of liquor is intended to be conveyed to the shore by a vessel other than the one boarded and searched, in which event the distance from the shore is determined by the speed of the other vessel.
While these negotiations were pending and under discussion by the two governments, a meeting of the American Society of International Law, held at Washington, D.C., in April, 1923, discussed the matters then at issue in the correspondence between the government of the United States and the government of Great Britain. Mr. Frederick K. Nielson, counsel with the United States Department of State, was present at that conference. His remarks I have taken from the proceedings of the American Society of International Law for the year 1923, at page 38. After Mr. Nielson had stated the position

Liquor Traffic-Mr. Cahan
which the United States government had taken in years past with respect to the freedom of the seas beyond the three-mile limit, he said:
I have tried to emphasize the position taken by the United States in the past. It seems clear that until an appropriate agreement respecting the alteration of the well-established rule shall have been reached, the United States, in view particularly of this positive position, cannot justify a departure from that rule for the purpose of dealing with an isolated or temporary situation.
He was referring to the isolated or temporary situation which was created by the enforcement of the Volstead Act and the eighteenth amendment throughout United States territory. At page 46 of the report, Mr. Nielson continued:
Writers who have discussed the so-called Hovering Acts, authorizing the boarding of vessels on the high seas bound for a port, point out that such action cannot be taken pursuant to the exercise of a right, but that it is a permissive jurisdiction in which a nation whose vessels are boarded may acquiesce.
I should like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to that remark, which I believe to be a correct statement of a rule of international law. Mr. Nielson continued:
Of course the action authorized by the so-called Hovering Acts is something different from undertaking to interfere generally with vessels beyond the three mile limit with a view to the prevention of smuggling. We can hardly expect nations to acquiesce generally in such action solely for the purpose of preventing smuggling. The violation of our law is, to be sure, a serious thing, but to other nations there is merely presented a ease of difficulty in preventing smuggling. They do not think that drinking wine will destroy or degrade their civilizations. I do not know whether it will or not. I have never made any sociological studies along those lines, but as I say, they do not consider the question so serious as to warrant its being dealt with pursuant to principles underlying the so-called right of selfpreservation, and surely they would never concur in the idea expressed by Doctor Stowell-
Who had preceded him.
-as I understood him, that they would assist us in punishing infractions of our laws relating to smuggling. We have enacted such laws and it is incumbent upon us to enforce them. They, of course, concede our sovereign right to do so within our jurisdiction. Surely, they will not admit our right to call upon them to help us exercise our sovereign rights. And in view of positive statements often heard in this country with regard to exclusive sovereign rights, to deal with matters relating to control overimports and immigration, it might not be considered desirable by the people of the United States that foreign countries should volunteer to help us to enforce those rights.


Ernest Lapointe: Whose words are those?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Those of the counsel with the United 'States State department, Mr. Nielson. At this stage-in November, 1923-the imperial conference assembled at London, and in the correspondence and documents recently brought down by the Prime Minister I find this extract from the summary of the imperial conference of 1923:
* During the session of the conference, the question of the regulation of the liquor traffic off the American coasts and of the measures to be taken to avoid a serious conflict either of public opinion or of official action was seriously debated. The conference arrived at the conclusion that while affirming and safeguarding as a cardinal feature of British policy the principle of the three-mile limit, it was yet both desirable and practicable to meet the American request for an extension of the right of search beyond this limit for the above purpose, and negotiations were at once opened with the United States government for the conclusion of an experimental agreement with this object in view.
There was a clear statement of the understanding of the representatives of the various dominions and the British government at that imperial conference in 1923, namely, that, assuming, as they did assume, and as they had a right to assume, that the United States had no right of search beyond the three-mile limit from her coast, nevertheless, in order to assist the United States in the enforcement of its smuggling and other tariff laws it was expedient to meet the United States request for an extension of the right of search beyond this limit for the above purpose, and negotiations were undertaken with that end in view.
I should like to place the treaty on Hansard where it can be read by everyone who takes Hansard, but I suppose I shall not be permitted to do that and I do not wish to take up the time of the house in doing so. Is there any objection?


Ernest Lapointe: Not at all. Far from it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That treaty should 'be known throughout the length and breadth of this country. It is as follows:
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India;
And the President of the United States of America;
Being desirous of avoiding any difficulties which might arise between them in connection with the laws in force in the United States on the subject of alcoholic beverages;
Have decided to conclude a convention for that purpose;
And have appointed as their plenipotentiaries:
His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India:
The Right Honourable Sir Auckland Campbell Geddes, G.C.M.G., K.C.B., his Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United States of America [DOT]
Liquor Traffic-Mr. Cahan

Liquor Traffic-Mr. Cahan

treaties had authorized the proceedings avowed in the record before the court. He also added:
Nowhere in the treaty can any words be found indicating .an intent on the part of the contracting parties to change or extend the limits of the territory of the United States. In fact, the contrary is plainly indicated by Article 1 of each treaty.
Then there arose the case which was heard in 1926 of the Francis E., a British vessel, seized sixteen miles off the Florida coast. On appeal in that case, the circuit court of appeals for the district, a federal court, held:
There is nothing in the treaty from which it could reasonably be inferred that it was the intention of the high contracting parties to extend the criminal laws of the United States beyond the three-mile limit. The vessel may be seized if those on hoard have violated any law within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States that would subject her to forfeiture except as to provisions relative to sea-stores and compensation for loss occasioned by improper acts, not germane to the subject here under discussion. That is the extent of the agreement.
Referring to the treaty, the court also held that "the American-Rritish treaty did not in fact enact criminal legislation" and that no statute had yet Ibeen enacted by the United States making illegal the acts committed1 by foreigners on foreign ships on the high seas, nineteen miles from the coast of the United States.
After I had run these cases down, through the courtesy of the Department of External Affairs, I had access to Jessup, an American authority, who has recently issued a work dealing with marginal waters. After referring to these cases to Which I have called attention, Jessup says that the weight of judicial authority-
-certainly sustains the view first enunciated by Judge Morton, in the case of the Frances Louise, that ithe treaties deal completely with the subject and exclude all extraterritorial seizures not made in conformity with its terms.
I have some other cases, but I do not wish to tax the patience of the house.
I wish to direct the attention of hon. members to the correspondence which has been laid on the table by the Prime Minister between the Hon. Vincent Massey, Canada's representative at Washington, and the State Department of the United States relating to the sinking of the Canadian vessel I'm Alone. The first letter is of March 28, 1929, addressed by Mr. W. R. Castle, Jr., for the United States Secretary of State, to the Hon. Vincent Massey, and simply recounts the facts from the American report. The reply is dated April 9, 1929, and is subscribed by the Hon. Vincent Massey, and directed to the Hon. Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of State of the

United States. The Canadian government takes a very, very strong position, a position I think irrefutable in law, in view of the terms of the convention of 1924 and of the correspondence which I have cited to-night and the decisions of the American courts to which I have made allusion. Paragraph 8 says:
It was of the essence of the convention that its provisions covered the whole field of extraterritorial seizures.
So far as I am concerned, I am not disposed to be critical, but I wish, for the sake of preserving a strong position on the part of the Canadian government for all future time, that that note had practically endedl with paragraph 8. I am sure the government will agree with this proposition, that, in our diplomatic correspondence with foreign governments, any formal admission made by this government stands registered for all time against any future claims of this country arising out of a similar situation; and therefore it is very necessary indeed that statements of law should be made only after the most careful consideration and reflection, and that they should be made in such express terms as to leave no doubt whatsoever as to their meaning. This note of Mr. Massey is in the nature of a pleading before a court. I do not know who wrote it, but I am sure that, if he had been accustomed to preparing pleadings in our courts of law, he would realize the advisability on all occasions of stating one's client's case quite fully both as to the facts and the law on, which he based his claim; but it is always advantageous to leave the opposing attorney to state his own case, so that in reply you may place your own objections more pertinently and expressly before the court which is to consider the issues. In paragraph 12 of this letter Mr. Massey continues:
In any ease the pursuit lasted through two days and two nights, f'ar beyond the starting point, and the sinking took place over two hundred miles southward in open sea. It has been intimated that pursuit and seizure on the high seas might be justified on the ground of hot and continuous pursuit. It is agreed that international law recognizes that pursuit begun within territorial waters may be continued on the high seas, if immediate and continuous.
Now, first, in the prior correspondence there was no such intimation as Mr. Massey suggests. It had not been intimated that pursuit and seizure on the high seas might be justified on the ground of hot and continuous pursuit. It might better have been left to the American Secretary of State to make that contention, and, in my opinion, such an ad-

Liquor Traffic-Mr. Cahan
mission should not in any event have been made on behalf of this government. It will be noted that Mr. Massey proceeds:
It is agreed that international law recognizes that pursuit begun within territorial waiters may be continued on the high seas, if immediate and continuous.
I take this opportunity of suggesting that that is not a statement of international law which is generally recognized to-day, and that the admission so made may prove most prejudicial to the interests of Canada in this prospective arbitration, and possibly most prejudicial to the interests of Canada in such cases as may subsequently arise during the existence of that treaty. After making that admission Mr. Massey proceeds:
The validity of this doctrine has been fully recognized by the Canadian courts.
I beg to suggest that there is only one case in which this doctrine has come before the Canadian courts, and I also suggest that it has not been recognized to the extent and in the terms which Mr. Massey has expressed. I refer to the case of the ship North versus the King, reported in the Supreme Court of Canada reports, .volume 47, page 385, et sequitur. I wish to call attention to the decision of Mr. Justice Davies,-more recently known, before he died, as Sir Louis Davies,- who gave the decision of the majority of the court. But first let me state the facts under which the decision arose.
The American schooner North was discovered fishing illegally within the three-mile limit with four of her boats out fishing within three miles of the Pacific coast in violation of the treaty of 1818. One of these boats was seized by the Canadian fisheries protection cruiser "Ke'strel". The North was pursued and overhauled one and three-quarters miles beyond the three-mile limit. Her boats were out within the three-mile limit, and the "Kestrel" was delayed in overtaking her by stopping to seize one of these boats. Now the North was seized, it is true, beyond the three-mile limit. It was a hot and continuous pursuit. But if I understand that decision correctly, our Supreme Court held that, in the case as between the owners of the American vessel and the King, they were not called upon to consider or to decide whether the vessel had been rightfully seized in accordance with the rules of international law, at the point where she was seized, one and three-quarters miles beyond the three-mile limit. The court held that although the seizure may have been illegal and the first arrest illegal, inasmuch as the vessel was brought within the jurisdiction of Canada, and a proper attachment made 78594-1691
subsequently to her being brought into Canadian waters, the court could decide on forfeiture as against the owners, leaving the government of the United States-the vessel being of American registry-either to acquiesce in the seizure having been made, at the place where it was made, or to make a claim for damages on behalf of the owners, which claim would be settled 'by some international tribunal. Mr. Justice Davies said:
But even if there was a reasonable doubt as to the power of the officers of the cruiser to seize the schooner on the high seas beyond the three-mile limit, under the circumstances before us, I am of the opinion that such irregularity could not affect the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court to hear and determine the offence charged against the schooner. That offence being within the jurisdiction of the court and the vessel being also within such jurisdiction and properly attached and libelled could not plead an alleged irregularity in the mode of her being taken on the high seas as a defence.
The manner in which she was brought into port and within the jurisdiction of the court was. if wrong or irregular, matter for diplomatic protest at the instance of the country to which she belonged or for civil action by the owners of the ship. If that country does not complain of any offence against its honour and dignity the ship libelled cannot do so. If the poaching schooner had escaped into the territorial waters of her own country and had been chased there, captured and brought back the government of that country might well justify intervention. But short of such intervention I think the ship charged with illegal fishing within the three-mile limit being within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court and properly libelled there for an offence committed within its jurisdiction procedings cannot be defeated or the jurisdiction of the court ousted merely by an irregularity in the taking of the ship.
The principle underlying the decisions relating to persons kidnapped and brought before magistrates having jurisdiction over the offence with which they are charged are, I think, in point. These cases show that the remedy for the illegal arrest and the kidnapping of the prisoner is by proceedings at the instance of the government of the foreign country whose law or territory has been violated or at the suit of the injured party against the trespasser.
This doctrine of hot pursuit has been suggested at times by the United States in respect of the pursuit of vessels which have been found within the three-mile limit, committing offences against the customs laws of the United States and which, when an attempt has been made to seize them, have escaped beyond the three-mile limit and have been seized. But I suggest that no British authority has ever made the clear, bald admission, with respect to the validity of this American doctrine of hot pursuit, in the terms in which Mr. Massey makes it in the note from which I have just quoted. And although up to this time the Americans had never suggested in this correspondence that
Liquor Traffic-Mr. Cahan

they could vindicate their actions by reason of the hot pursuit of the I'm Alone, Mr. Massey continues in paragraph 14:
It is believed, however, that the government of United States will agree that it is essential for the effective operation of the convention of January, 1924, and for the attainment of the definite and agreed procedure, which was the object of the contracting parties, that the terms of the convention should be strictly observed.
Having thus taken his ground accurately, in express terms and in the most convincing manner, he nevertheless proceeds in the next sentence:
His Majesty's government in Canada trusts that the government of the United States will further agree that the search and seizure of vessels beyond territorial waters should be exercised in accordance *with the terms of the convention,-
Splendid; but he unfortunately adds:
-that pursuit should not be continued beyond an hour's sailing distance from the shore unless initiated within territorial waters.
This subsidiary contention destroys the force and effect of his main and valid argument that the United States had no jurisdiction beyond such limits os are defined within the four corners of the treaty. He says that pursuit should not be continued beyond an hour's sailing distance from the shore unless initiated within territorial waters; but dearly the whole purpose and intent of the convention was that pursuit, hot or otherwise, wherever initiated, could never be carried beyond the distance covered by one hour's sail of the pursued vessel from the coast of the United States. To determine that fact, and to secure from the United States an agreement to that end, was the sole. purpose of the long continued negotiations between Great Britain and the United States. Moreover, it was due to the express declaration of the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Hughes, to which declaration I have ilready referred, that under this convention there would be no seizure beyond the twelve-mile limit, that the government of Great Britain and, I believe, the government of Canada also were induced to approve of and authorize the ratification of that treaty. That the United States Secretary of State very speedily placed his finger on the weak point in our contention will appear from his letter of April 17, 1929. It is to be found on page 15 of this printed report, about two thirds of the distance down the' page:
It is not understood that your government questions the validity of the doctrine of hot pursuit as such but merely its application in the instant case.

Then he goes on to suggest that since Mr. Massey has attached the doctrine of hot pursuit to the express terms of the convention of 1924 he, on behalf of the United States, will press his new vantage point to the extreme. He says:
In the estimation of this government, the correct principle underlying the doctrine of hot pursuit is that if the arrest would have been valid when the vessel was first hailed, but was made impossible through the illegal action of the pursued vessel in failing to stop when ordered to do so, then hot pursuit is justified and the locus of the arrest and the distance of the pursuit are immaterial, provided:
(1)	That it was without the territorial waters of any other state;
(2)	That the pursuit has been hot and continuous.
Then I would direct attention to the final letter from Mr. Massey, the date of which does not appear to be printed. Paragraph 5 of that letter reads as follows:
5. Even, however, were it not established that the I'm Alone was beyond the treaty limits when ordered to stop, the government of Canada cannot agree that any adequate ground has been established for pursuit on the high seas. They have previously indicated their view that the doctrine of hot pursuit which has been advanced is not applicable to a pursuit which, as is agreed to have been the case in the present instance, did not begin in territorial waters.
There we are endeavouring to limit the application of the doctrine of hot pursuit which we, quite unnecessarily, were led or induced to admit in the very first statement which we made as to our legal position.
I simply wish to direct attention to this and to suggest that if we are to engage in diplomatic correspondence of this nature with other countries, dealing with the rights of Canadian citizens on the high seas or in other parts of the world, it is absolutely necessary that our Department of External Affairs should obtain access to the Department of Justice for legal advice; if that access is not open at the present time, or, if that department is not now thoroughly equipped to deal with the international issues which are sure to arise from time to time, immediate steps should be taken to provide for such thoroughly experienced and competent legal advice as is certainly necessary in dealing with a nation such as the United States which, I say with deliberation, having, through the United States Secretary of State, pledged its honour to one interpretation of that treaty in the most formal manner, now undertakes to sink British shipping on the high seas and to bolster its act of almost deliberate wanitonnees, by developing an entirely different interpretation

Liquor Traffic-Mr. Mackenzie King
of an international convention, which, in its plain terms, does not admit of any such construction.
It seems very clear to me-and I say this deliberately-that under the tariff laws of the United States as they may be construed by their express terms, the coastguard of the United States was not authorized to seize British or any other shipping, save perhaps American shipping, at any point more than twelve miles distant from its coast. In this case the evidence seems clear that this pursuit of two days continued to a point on the high seas 215 miles from the coast, and in my opinion the second coastguard vessel, the Dexter I think, which then came upon the scene, would never have sunk a British ship by cannon shot 215 miles from the coast, unless by wireless she had received direct instructions from the political authorities of the United States to commit that act which, if actually authorized by the executive political authority of that country, was an act of war, or which, if not authorized by that political authority but actually committed on the initiative of the United) States coastguard alone, was the equivalent of an act of deliberate piracy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I hope the
house will recognize that in discussing a matter which has been referred to arbitration under an important treaty the government occupies a position very different from that occupied by an hon. member of this house who also happens to be a member of the opposition. I think it is even questionable whether my hon. friend, though sitting on the opposition side, in view of the fact that at the moment this case has been referred to arbitration, should have gone the length he did this evening in presenting what, to his mind at any rate, will be the Canadian side of the case when the matter comes to be argued before the proper tribunal. Certainly it would be an extraordinary procedure were the government, in the circumstances, to argue with my hon. friend with respect to any aspect of the case.
As a result of correspondence which has taken plaee between the two governments the I'm Alone incident has been referred to arbitration, and the arbitrators are about to be appointed. In these circumstances I think any criticism 'which the opposition may have to take against the administration, considering all the factors, might well be raised at a time when it is not calculated to embarrass
in any particular those who will be charged with presenting the Canadian side of the case.
May I say that with respect to the correspondence which Mr. Massey, as the Canadian minister at Washington, presented to the American government, our government of course takes full responsibility. Mr. Massey acted under the instructions of the government, and any criticism which may be directed against aniy communication of his would be properly directed against the administration itself.
My hon. friend has spoken at great length and has given a very lucid and comprehensive statement of the grounds on which he believes the case should be decided in favour of Canada. In so doing he has displayed his great abilities as a counsel, but again I submit that in the interests of the country at large he might have presented his argument to better effect in some other form to those who are at present at work upon this case.
I shall not attempt in any way to review .what my hon. friend has said. He began by speaking of the 'domestic law of the United States of 1922 with respect to the tariff and certain discussions which related thereto. He then reviewed at some length the cases of seizures which had taken place beyond the three-mile limit prior to the enactment of the convention to which he subsequently referred. He made mention of a remark by the Hon. Mr. Hughes, Secretary of State of the United States, which he said in honour bound the United States to a certain position, and having said that much he then came to the convention under which the I'm Alone incident has arisen and said that everything relevant to that particular incident must be contained within the four corners of the convention; in other words, all that he had said up to that time was more or less beside the mark.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not beside the mark, but rather in support of the position.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope my hon. friend's whole argument will prove to have been in support of the position, and I think it would have been much stronger in that direction if it had not been so critical towards its close. The hon. member next spoke of the cases which had arisen since that convention was concluded all of which undoubtedly will be brought up in the course of the discussion before those who may be appointed as arbitrators in this matter. He came finally to one point in the correspondence between the Canadian government and the United States government and he said in effect: Here
2660	COMMONS
Liquor Traffic-Mr. Mackenzie King
is a very serious mistake which has been made on the part of Mr. Massey in his communication with the United States government. He has made mention of the doctrine of hot pursuit. That doctrine, he went on to say, was not raised by the United States government at the outset in correspondence with the Canadian government and should not have been raised by the Canadian minister at Washington in correspondence with the American government. If my hon. friend intended to imply by his remarks that the United States government had not at the inception of the discussion put forward the doctrine of hot pursuit in any form, he was quite mistaken and quite wrong in what he said. Very shortly after the I'm Alone incident occurred, the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States defended the seizure and the action of the United States government on the ground of hot pursuit, and this contention was therefore referred to by Mr. Massey in his communication.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Was that in an oral conversation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it was a statement issued as Secretary of the Treasury of the United States government in charge of coast guard operations. It was apparent to our government that the United States was basing its whole claim on the doctrine of hot pursuit. Had we ignored that position in our communications to the United States I think my hon. friend would have been the first to have directed our attention to the fact that we had overlooked what the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States had said publicly on behalf of the United States government as to its attitude.
May I say again that in speaking on this matter I feel the restriction which is necessarily imposed on myself as a member of the government in attempting to give all the reasons why mention was made of that particular doctrine in the first communication sent to the American authorities. I think that will become wholly apparent when the case is argued, and until it is argued I would prefer to leave the statement just at that point.
Throughout our negotiations with the United States government we have worked in the closest cooperation with the Britidi government with respect to the substance of the communications which have passed between Canada and Washington. The British government is interested as a party to the treaty and Mr. Massey has been in the closest touch with Sir Esme Howard, the British am-
JMr. Mackenzie King.]
bassador at Washington. The Department of External Affairs at Ottawa has been in close communication with the Foreign Office in Great Britain. I may say that so far as the government is concerned we take much greater pride in the commendation which we have received from the British government with respect to the manner in which this incident has been handled than concern over anything which my hon. friend has said tonight.


Mr. MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: Did I understand the right hon. the Prime Minister to say that other cases would be referred to this arbitration?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think the hon. member could have understood me to say that; I made no reference to other cases.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Mr. JACOBS:: Did my hon. friend do that last Friday night?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I certainly did not do
that last Friday night. I found the hon. member -for Cartier endeavouring to make, on false statements, a case which he did not succeed in making.


Samuel William Jacobs: I deny that. That is false.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I expect a gentleman who would make it would also deny it, because the capacity to do the one is quite consistent with the desire to do the other. I shall refrain, I say, from traversing the case further, but I cannot but think a very serious injury has been done to this Dominion by our minister in dealing with this matter on an assumption which is unwarranted in law, which is based apparently upon a misapprehension of the facts, and which places upon a doubtful doctrine of international law a construction that, had he read the case in the lower courts, he would have found was substantiated by United States decisions which have never been fully recognized as applying to other than cases of blockade, and not to breaches of revenue laws or domestic statutes of that country. He is setting up that country's contentions just as we were, in regard to the seizure of this ship beyond the three-mile limit, which according to my appreciation of international law is the limit within which continuous pursuit can be commenced. The words are not "hot and continuous pursuit" in the case to which reference has been made, but "continuous pursuit'" and so strongly was that doctrine relied upon that it was a question of grave doubt whether or not when the pursuing ship stopped to arrest the dory of the ship and its crew within the three-mile limit, she had not broken the continuity of the pursuit so as to render the doctrine asserted by the Supreme Court of the United States to be no longer tenable. In this case the closing observations of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George clearly indicate the alternatives that must be in the mind of every Canadian, having regard to what happened to that ship some 200 miles from seacoast at the time she was destroyed by shot and shell from a vessel of a friendly power.

Liquor Traffic-Mr. Bennett


Samuel William Jacobs: I am sorry that I was not in the house when the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) began his argument in this case, and my object in rising is merely to say that I question the propriety of bringing this matter before the house at the present juncture when the case is sub judice.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not sub judice under
any doctrine of law in regard to sub judice that I have ever heard of.


Samuel William Jacobs: It is being submitted to arbitration and a thorough ironing out by the arbitrators will be made. I represent the owners of the cargo and the schooner, and as such I want to say that we are thoroughly satisfied with the present status of the case. We feel assured that justice will be rendered in the matter and that when a decision is given the owners of the cargo and the schooner will be satisfied. There is a radical difference between the language of the notes which passed between the United States and Canada and the language of the debate in this chamber this evening. It is well known -I think it was Lord Randolph Churchill who said, that the business of an opposition is to oppose. That is their business, and strange to say, the opposition in this house knows its business thoroughly. It opposes everything which is brought up by the government; whether it be a matter of a diplomatic nature or not, the opposition opposes; but I would have thought that an eminent lawyer like the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, and an equally eminent lawyer like my good friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) would know something of the rule in regard to cases before the courts, namely, that when a case comes before or is about to be tried by a court, all criticism should be allowed to rest until judgment is rendered.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This is neither before a
court nor coming before a court, and it is subject to public criticism.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does my hon. friend not
think that when a case comes before the arbitrators it is not before a court?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No arbitrators have been
appointed. We have an official statement from both Washington and Ottawa to that effect.


Samuel William Jacobs: They have both agreed
upon it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You cannot say it is before a court when a court is not constituted.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does my hon. friend think
the case of Canada is to be improved when they read to-morrow in the newspapers in Washington of the criticism of our minister by the opposition?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly it will not be
prejudiced.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not think it will do
the case any good; I think it will do it harm.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In what way?


Samuel William Jacobs: My hon. friend is doing
disservice to his country when he rises to criticize the conduct of the government in this matter so far as it has gone. I am rather surprised at the hon. gentleman.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In what way is it doing a
disservice?


Samuel William Jacobs: Criticising the conduct of
our minister and of our government because, after all, the minister is the mouthpiece of the government in the stand they have taken in regard*to the question.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Will the hon. gentleman
admit that the government of this country, through its minister, may be allowed to take, in a diplomatic note, a position which stands as the view of this government for all time without criticism if the opposition deems it worthy of criticism?


Samuel William Jacobs: This is not the time for
criticism.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This is the only time we
have.


Samuel William Jacobs: This is not the time, when the case is before the court.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not before the court.


Samuel William Jacobs: The case is sub judice. The time fo<r criticism is when the decision is rendered and it then comes before parliament. Then my hon. friend can move a vote of nonconfidence or anything else he likes.


John Arthur Clark: Is this the appropriate time for counsel in the case to make his speech? -


Samuel William Jacobs: My hon. friend does not seem to know that a private attorney acting in a case is not permitted at all to speak before this court. The government will appoint counsel learned in the law, who will know all about the case. I am acting merely for the parties and I have no status before the court.


Mr. GEARY:: And know nothing about the case.

Supply-Privy Council


Samuel William Jacobs: It may be that when the
government appoint counsel they may look to the hon. member for Vancouvesr-Burrard (Mr. Clark). I have no doubt they will find in him a very able man who will do justice to the case and see that the interests of Canada are properly presented. I am merely a private member of parliament expressing my views, and I question the propriety of this ma'tter being raised in this house at this juncture.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I ask, on a question of grave parliamentary privilege, in view of the observation just made by the hon. member for Cartier that we have agreed upon the arbitrators, whether the right hon. gentleman will be good enough to tell us who they are? It is passing strange that a private member of parliament should know, when parliament is denied that right.


Samuel William Jacobs: Who said that a private
member of parliament knows?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman said, "We have agreed upon them."


Samuel William Jacobs: Not at all. I am as ignorant on that matter as my hon. friend is on many subjects.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter to be treated with levity. The hon. gentleman said that the matter had been referred to arbitration, whereupon the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George stated that there had been no arbitrators appointed; at least he said that a denial had come from Wiashington and from 'Ottawa to that effect. Thereupon the hon. member for Cartier said, "We have agreed upon them."


Samuel William Jacobs: Agreed upon arbitration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: "Agreed upon them." That is what he said. The record will show it. Let us send for the record.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think what my hon. friend wants most to know is who the arbitrators are. Up to the moment no arbitrators have been appointed, and I did not understand my hon. friend from Cartier to say that any arbitrators had been appointed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He said that they had been agreed upon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understood him to say that arbitration had been agreed upon. As to the arbitrators themselves, they have not yet been appointed, not yet, in fact, agreed upon.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then the Prime Minister will admit that there is no constituted court at present.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Quite the contrary. The two countries have agreed to refer this question to arbitration. I think my hon. friend will admit that. Having agreed to refer this matter to arbitration, from the moment of agreement upon arbitration until the award is given I think members of parliament might well refrain from giving arguments to our opponents in the case.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not sub judice until the arbitrators are appointed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The arguments we were making were all in favour of this country and against the argument which the minister was trying to establish.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.


OFFICE OF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR GENERAL
[Stage Direction]
Civil Government-office of the Secretary to the Governor General-salaries, $34,335; contingencies, including house allowance of $1,500 per annum to Secretary to the Governor Genera], $72,500.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING': The details of this vote will be found on page 75 of the estimates. The messengers' staff has been decreased by one. The appropriation asked for this year is less than last years's vote. There are no increases.
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Privy Council-salaries, $55,170; contingencies, $7,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The details
will be found on page 100 of the estimates. It will be seen that there are no increases in the staff, and no increases in salaries with the exception of the allowance to the deputy head, to the clerk of the privy council, whose salary has been increased from $8,000 to $9,000, an increase of $1,000 as the deputy head of this department.


Mr. SPENCER:: I notice that the deputy
ministers whose salaries are being increased are not all getting the same amount of increase. Would the Prime Minister inform the committee on what basis the salaries of these deputy heads are being increased?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon- friend will recognize that some of the departments of government are very much larger than, others and involve rather more in the way of expert knowledge and continuous pressure of duties. I do not wish to say that all departments of the government do not require ex-
Supply

Privy Council

pert knowledge on the part of the heads, but certainly it will be admitted that some of the departments, from the point of view of the class and amount of work involved, are not as considerable in their demands upon the deputy heads as others. The privy council is a department of the government which is all important, but it has not been felt by the administration that the deputy head of that department should receive an allowance comparable, for example, with the deputy head of some of the large administrative departments, carrying on work without cessation from day to day and month to month. The work of the Privy Council is not wholly comparable in the way of continuous duty to that of some other departments.


Mr. GARDINER:: The first item in the
details shows an increase to the deputy head. I understand from the estimates that the deputy heads of departments have 'been granted substantial increases. I think probably it is due the committee for the Prime Minister to make a statement as to the basis on which the government, in view of their refusal to increase the salaries of the lower paid civil servants, have decided to increase the salaries of the deputy heads.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend
knows the agitation there has been with respect to technical and professional officers in the government service and the difficulty there is to obtain those who are required to fill the high positions relatively to the difficulty experienced in regard to filling positions in the service commanding less in the way of knowledge and ability. The deputy heads, I submit, come very much within the class of those requiring technical and professional knowledge and whose special service in that regard should receive special consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is only one observation I have to make with respect to that at the present time, because the whole matter will be under consideration before we finish the estimates. But, there must be some principle governing matters of this kind. In some instances the increase in the salaries of the deputy heads has been $1,000 and in others $2,000, while still other deputy heads have received no increase at all. Perhaps the Prime Minister as the head of the administration would give us some idea on what basis these increases have been granted. If it is on a percentage basis, it does not work out; if it is on the basis of the work done, it does not work out; if it is on the question of length sf service if does not work out. It is difficult

to ascertain just what principle has been followed. If it were known on what principle the increases were being made one would be better able to determine what his course of action in the matter should be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend will realize that there are departments of government recognized as such with responsible ministers at their heads. It is only the deputy heads of these departments that for the present the government has considered in the matter of increases. There are some branches of the government service which have at their head officers with the rank of deputy, but who are not deputy ministers in the sense in which the word is used without qualification. The question of their increase has not been finally considered up to the present time. There are important officers of state performing duties, some of them undoubtedly of a character similar to those performed by a deputy head. As I have said, up to the present time their position has not been finally considered by the government. We felt that inasmuch as a commission was being appointed to inquire into the whole question of the salaries of those who are expected to have technical and professional qualifications, its members would wish to consider the cases of all those in the public service who hold positions which demand qualifications of that kind. Later the government may have something to say with regard to the additional remuneration, if any, to be accorded to them. But certainly with the difficulty the government is experiencing in retaining the services of some of those who are at the head of the departments of state, it has been felt that, having regard to the salaries paid for similar services by private organizations, and having regard also to the length and quality of the services rendered, we should make the increases which we have made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, Mr. Chairman,
the observations of the Prime Minister answered a portion of the questions which I asked. The maximum appears to be $10,000. Now, if there has been an increase in the amount of work that has to be done by deputy ministers, I should think in one department in which it would be reflected, if not two, there has been no increase, apparently $10,000 being the maximum. Then there are other departments which are being gradually shorn of their responsibilities, by reason of the provinces being likely to receive their resources some time in the next century, and presumably those deputies having less work

Supply-Privy Council
.to do, should not be receiving increased compensation. Now, all these are matters that I find it difficult to reconcile. If the maximum to be paid a deputy minister is $10,000, then the matter is clearly settled, because there are no increases with respect to the two deputies who now enjoy that salary. With respect to others we have increases of $1,000 and $2,000, and, as I have said, neither upon the basis of length of service and character of the work rendered, nor upon any other factor of that character, could you say why one should receive an increase of $1,000 and another $2,000. It is a little difficult to reconcile these various factors in order to arrive at a common policy. It has been suggested that the political predilections of some of the gentlemen before they were appointed have had a great deal to do with determining whether or not they should receive additional compensation. That has been stated by friends in and out of the house who have not been considered. It is a matter, I think, upon which a statement should be .made.
I do agree with the Prime Minister that it is difficult nowadays to get men to remain in government service. There has never been a time when the demand for competent and qualified executives was greater than it is to-day, and if the country is to be well served it must be prepared to pay. The difficulty I experience in connection with the whole matter is that we have a multiplication of employees in Canada to whom we pay indifferent wages and compensation, with the result of a steady increase of the number, spreading over too wide an area-spreading it very thinly, if I may use a term that is easily understood-the number which would give efficient service. I listened to some explanations made during the passing of the estimates the other night, and as I thought over what was involved I began to understand why the minister was unable to recommend any increase having regard to the number employed. The figures given in the last civil sendee report indicate that this country pays $82,000,000 for permanent servants of the state, temporary employees and casual labour. Under these circumstances the right hon. Prime Minister will understand why we should like some explanation as to the principles which govern in connection with this matter, why some should be left on one side, and why some should be selected for a preference of $2,000, some for $1,000, there being no relation, as I have said, between the increase and the length of service or the character of the work that has to 'be done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
first of all to my hon. friend with respect to political predilections that I can assure him they have had nothing whatever to do with the decisions of the government in this matter. The particular vote that we are considering at the moment relates to the position of the Clerk of the Privy Council, who is the deputy head of that department, and who was, as I think hon. members are well aware, for many years private secretary to Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and has been a life-long Liberal. I assume he is a Liberal still.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would think so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But he receives an increase of $1,000 only. And my hon. friends. I am sure, will realize that the work of the Clerk of the Privy Council is not comparable, for example, with that of the Undersecretary of State for External Affairs, the next vote to be referred to, in what it demands in the way of sustained effort, expert knowledge and tax upon time and energies. There has been in the latter case an increase of salary from $8,000 to $10,000, because the government is of opinion that the Department of External Affairs is one of the most arduous, difficult and exacting departments of the government for whoever may be administering its affairs permanently. In no case has an increase been granted beyond $10,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to mention
to the right hon. Prime Minister only one case. The head of the Civil Service Commission has a very difficult task. He was a former supporter of the Conservative party and a member of the privy council in Sir Robert Borden's administration. His salary certainly is not increased in these estimates, and he has been in office eleven years, if my memory serves me aright. I suggest that he probably would think it very improper for me to mention his case; for I have not had any conversation with him, much less a discussion in any way, shape or form; but it did seem to me that there is one, the deputy head of a department, whose services certainly are continuous and arduous. Having regard to some observations made by one of my hon. friends opposite, whom I do not see in his seat to-night, those duties are certainly very arduous. Under those circumstances I think there is some discrimination in leaving his salary at $6,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it is
$7,000. May I say to my hon. friend that, as
266C
Supply-External Affairs

I mentioned, the government has not attempted up to the present time to take account of the salaries paid to any of those who have the rank of a deputy as distinguished from the position of the deputy head of a department. The head of the Civil Service Commission has not the position of a deputy minister corresponding to the permanent head of a government department. He is an officer who is appointed for a term of years under statute, and the Civil Service Commission, I think, reports through the Secretary of State.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: His position is different from that of the deputies who have been considered up to the present time. No doubt that position and many other positions of officers of state holding high and responsible posts will be considered in connection with the work of the present commission looking into salaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Office of the Prime Minister-salaries, $29,255.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The particulars of this vote will be found on page 97. It will be noted that there is an increase of two stenographers; that is all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
External affairs-salaries, including appointment of Laurent Beaudry and John E. Read at $6,000 each, notwithstanding anything contrary in the Civil Service Act, $98,890; contingencies, $50,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The details of this vote will be found on page 80 o| the estimates. It will be noticed that there is provision for one stenographer and additional provision for a legal adviser. I fancy that after the discussion we have had on the I'm Alone, and the importance that has been ascribed to the necessity of having communications in external affairs very carefully considered, from the legal point of view, hon. members will agree that it is wise to make this provision forthwith.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no hesitation in
saying that the department is exceedingly fortdnate in securing the services of Mr. Read. For many years Mr. Read was dean of the faculty of the law school of Dalhousie 
university, Halifax, and he has made for himself an enviable reputation as a lawyer. My memory is that he was a Rhodes scholar. I may be wrong-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is my memory. But we have counsellor and legal adviser as well in that department. Why are there two? There is usually only one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This department had formerly a legal adviser, Mr. Christie, but from the time of his resignation we have had no legal adviser attached to the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there was no counsellor.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The work has grown considerably since Mr. Christie left the department, and both positions are necessary. For some time past there has been a counsellor, Mr. Desy, but he has gone to Paris and his place is being filled by Mr. Laurent Beaudiy, who has been at Washington.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
London-Salaries and expenses of the office of the High Commissioner for Canada, including $2,000 additional salary for the High Commissioner to that authorized by chap. 15, R.S.C., $117,260.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the reason for
the increase?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The department has been seeking to bring about a certain uniformity between the salaries paid to the heads of the different legations and to the High Commissioner in London. The salary fixed for the minister at Washington, the minister at Paris and the minister at Tokyo has been $12,000; the salary for the High Commissioner in London is, under statute, $10,000. We have felt that, the position of High Commissioner in London, being the oldest of the quasi diplomatic posts, and the most important of them, the salary attaching to that office should be made the same as the salary paid the ministers in the capitals I have mentioned. For that reason we are asking the additional $2,000, notwithstanding the amount fixed by statute.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: What is the total cost
of the High Commissioner's office in London? The Prime Minister, when speaking on the budget, made a statement with reference to the cost of this office and he challenged some figures which I had used and, of course,

Supply-External Affairs
some remarks I had made. I should like to know what the total cost of this office is at the present time. Is it the sum of $117,260 which is asked for under this item?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
total sum which the Department of External Affairs pays for the work carried on in the office of the High Commissioner. There is an additional amount which is paid by the Public Works department for upkeep of the building.


Hugh Guthrie: How much is that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: $35,000.


Hugh Guthrie: Then do these two items -$35,000 paid by the Public Works department and $117,000 paid by the Department of External Affairs-constitute the whole cost of that office?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They constitute the whole cost, yes.


Hugh Guthrie: But there is another
item of $10,000 for salaries, to be found at page 10. Would that be added to the total expenditure authorized by statute?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes; I should have added that. It is the salary of the High Commissioner as provided by statute.


Hugh Guthrie: Then, if my right hon.
friend will add these figures, he will find that I was not far wrong in what I said in connection with the budget. The office costs much more than I stated, and the increase has been enormous.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The comparison I was making was between the figures my hon. friend quoted as prevailing now and those that prevailed at the time he was in office. He will find that I paralleled the columns in both cases.


Hugh Guthrie: But my right hon. friend when he paralleled them did not add the $10,000 and the $35,000 paid by the Public Works department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Neither did
my hon. friend.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not know about
them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was in the
same position in my comparisons.


Hugh Guthrie: The increase is greater
than I stated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are there any details
of the vote?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are
not detailed.


Robert Gardiner: Can the Prime Minister give the committee some information as to the duties of the High Commissioner in London? Friends of mine who have been in London have made a very striking comparison between the High Commissioner from Canada and the High Commissioner from Australia in relation to the duties performed by these gentlemen, and I regret to say that the comparison is not to the credit of this country. Most visitors seem to think that the Canadian High Commissioner is there more or less for the purpose of introducing Canadians to high society, and I think it would be well for the Prime Minister, if it is possible for him to do so, to dispel such an idea and give the committee an understanding of the High Commissioner's duties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No one
familiar with the important and varied duties of the High Commissioner could entertain such an idea. The Canadian High Commissioner represents the government of Canada in innumerable transactions, and particularly in its relation with the government of Great Britain. For the barest outline of last year's activities I would refer my hon. friend to page 10 of the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At the bottom of the page he will find an account of a few of the duties performed by the office of the High Commissioner during 1928. Perhaps I might read a paragraph in point:
The High Commissioner's office in London has discharged its usual multifarious and important duties, acting as the organ for maintaining the necessary detailed relations between the departments of His Majesty's governments in Canada and Great Britain, as well as in connection with the government expenditures and contracts in Great Britain, with measures foT informing the British public as to Canadian matters and extending requisite assistance to Canadian visitors. The office was represented at the periodical meetings of the Pacific Cable Board, the Imperial Institute, the War Graves Commission, and the Imperial Shipping Committee.
In pursuance of his usual practice with the object of keeping in close touch with Canadian public life, the High Commissioner visited the Dominion during the month of August, delivering speeches and holding interviews at various places. He was actively engaged also in the conclusion of an agreement with the Bulgarian government under which the property of Bulgarian nationals in Canada sequestrated by the Custodian of Enemy Property is to be restored to them, 'and also in the arrangements connected with the transfer to the Royal Canadian Navy of the Champlain and Vancouver as well as the building of two new destroyers for the Canadian navy.
Supply-External Affairs

This makes no mention of the many financial transactions for which the High Com-misioner's office has been responsible in part in the past and is responsible at the present time-for example the collecting of outstanding debts from the governments of Great Britain, Roumania and Greece, as well as many other highly important transactions. It may be stated that the High Commissioner in cooperation with the Minister of Finance was instrumental in securing, during the seven years Mr. Larkin has been in office, the settlement of outstanding accounts resulting from war transactions, averaging $29,500,000 per annum. As one instance of the effective service of the High Commissioner during the past year I would mention his success in cooperation with the Imperial Shipping Committee in doing away with the discriminations previously in force in the insurance rates charged by the underwriters upon ships voyaging to Canadian ports, particularly Halifax and St. John and in some measure St. Lawrence and British Columbia ports, a practical service to every Canadian exporter and importer.
I do not know from what source my hon. friend Obtained the information which occasioned him to make the comparison he did between the High Commissioner for Australia and the High Commissioner for Canada. Nothing could possibly be further from the mark. I think anyone who has any knowledge of the work being done in London by Canada's High Commissioner will say that we have been extremely fortunate in having in the Honourable Mr. Larkin a gentleman of exceptional business ability and administrative capacity and one who has been most industrious and efficient in watching over Canada's interests in London. I think Canada's office will more than bear comparison with any similar office in Great Britain.


Henry Elvins Spencer: In support of the criticism of the hon. member for Acadia I may say that I visited London in 1927, and from my inspection of Canada House as compared, say, with Australia House, I would say that we do not go far enough in advertising Canada except possibly in the advertising matter which is on the shelves of the ground floor. It is a very nice office and they have very fine reception rooms, but when it comes to the advertising the wares of Canada certainly we can take a leaf from Australia's book; from a commercial point of view there is no comparison between the two. If you go into Australia House-and any members who have been there will support me in this statement- 
you will find a miniature Australia before you; you will see every state; you will see pictures of the various industries, of the fields and of the farms; their products are on display where any vistor can see them. On the other hand, if you go to Canada House you will find a very nice office, and commodious waiting and reception rooms, but that is all you can say. What the high commissioner does there in his capacity as Canada's representative I cannot say. The Prime Minister is in a position to give the house that information, but from the point of view of advertising Canada to the public I certainly think we take second place to Australia.


Robert Forke: I should like to say a few words with regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Battle River. He forgets that Australia concentrates entirely on London; all the advertising they do in Great Britain with regard to the products of Australia is done in the city of London, and as far as London is concerned it is well done. However, my hon. friend must bear in mind that Canada has ten offices in the principal cities of Great Britain, where splendid exhibitions of Canadian products are maintained, advertising Canada all over Great Britain. We consider that a much better way of advertising Canada than by concentrating everything in London where it can be seen only by the .people of that city


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: Could the Prime Minister tell us the cost of the construction of that building?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We discussed that matter six or seven years ago, and I am afraid I have not the figures with me at present.


Arthur Edward Ross: Then will the Prime Minister say what all these little sub-offices cost?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The estimates of the Department of Immigration will be down to-morrow, probably.


Arthur Edward Ross: It might be worth while to get the aggregate cost if we are to make a comparison with Australia.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Do I understand the Minister of Immigration to say that Australia does no advertising in Great Britain except in the city of London?


Robert Forke: I would not say they do not carry on any advertising in the counties, but they have no exhibitions in the different large centres such as Liverpool and so on, and Canada does carry on work of that kind. I suppose the Australian government has immigration agents throughout the counties, but there is no exhibition of Australian products such as we have of ours.


Thomas Cantley: Am I to understand that no advertising is carried on in the city of Glasgow, for example?


Robert Forke: I do not think there is any exhibition there; not to my knowledge.


Thomas Cantley: I referred to advertising
and I am certain I have seen- such several times. I have also seen such advertising in Edinburgh, and in other places.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Arthur Edward Ross: All connected with Australian House?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These are in addition to the other figures I gave. The activities they represent are centred in Australia House.


Arthur Edward Ross: The only reason I ask the question is that the remarks of the Minister of Immigration would seem to indicate that Australia had just the one centre in London, whereas I think the figures now given by the Prime Minister show that the work is carried on all over Great Britain.


George Reginald Geary: Would the Prime Minister tell us, without going into great detail, the reason for the $5,000 increase, excluding the $2,000 increase in the salary of the High Commissioner?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Due to the increased work of the London office-and I may say this work has grown considerably even within the last year coincident with our having in Canada a High Commissioner from Great Britain-we have thought it advisable to make provision for another clerk in the Canada House office, and there is an appropriation of $3,000 for that purpose.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if this $2,000 increase was requested or suggested by the High Commissioner, or whether it is a bonus offered by the right hon. gentleman himself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can assure my hon. friend that it was not asked by the High Commissioner. As I said a moment ago, the department is seeking to adopt some uniformity in the scale of allowances for salaries and other purposes as between the different offices. AVe have felt that London is the first of the positions abroad, and that the salaries and allowances should be made proportionate in relation to what is being paid elsewhere. I do not think I am wrong in saying that the High Commissioner spends many times the total of his salary and allowance in connection with the services which he is rendering the country overseas.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He must spend at least


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure it is more than that.
Supply-External Affairs


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I think the Prime Minister is absolutely right when he says that the High Commissioner spends more money than he is paid by this government. What I am afraid of is that while this matter is being taken care of with regard to London we will have the ambassadors extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary at Tokyo and Washington stating that their services are worth more money than they are paid.


An hon. MEMBER:: I think they are.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: We have had very distinguished men occupying the office of High Commissioner at London tout it can never be said that the present High Commissioner has done more than Lord Strathcona did, and I never heard it suggested that more money should be offered to Lord Strathcona. I think the position should be an honorary one; but if it comes to the point where money is to be paid for these services, then let the matter be carefully weighed. This is one of the first positions under the government. It is well known that the office has been adorned by men who have been anxious to serve their country, and I am unwilling to see it put on a pecuniary basis. If an offer of $2,000 has been made, put it on a business basis and if necessary offer more.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Passport office-salaries and expenses, $28,500.
Robert James Manion: Are there branch passport offices throughout the Dominion where passports are issued without applying direct to Ottawa?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, there are not.


Robert James Manion: Someone has made the
statement that there is one at Montreal; is that correct?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Robert Gardiner: What is the income
derived from this office?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last year the income amounted to $140,000.


Mr. COOTE:: Is it necessary for people
coming from Great Britain to Canada to have passports?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


George Gibson Coote: Then why should it be
necessary for British subjects going from Canada to Great Britain to have passports before they are permitted to enter that country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That question has been asked repeatedly of the British government by our administration. The British government takes the position that they have adopted the passport regulations to enable them to control the admission of aliens. They contend that those who are British citizens will, in the long run, be occasioned less discomfort, if I may use that term, in their admission to Great Britain through having a passport than if they came without one. There is a process of examination which they desire to have in Great Britain in order to satisfy themselves as to persons not being aliens, and a passport apparently avoids any questioning. For that reason the British authorities have considered that plan as being preferable to having individuals undergo a course of examination and questioning on arrival. The matter has been taken up by correspondence, and it was taken up at the last imperial conference. If I am not mistaken, it was taken up at the previous imperial conference but the British government up to the present time has not seen fit to do away with the passport regulation.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The Prime Minister has said that this is done to make it easier for Canadians to enter Great Britain. I wonder if something could not be done to make it easier for Canadians to return to Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
trouble getting back.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is much more trouble
for a Canadian returning to Canada than there is for one going to Great Britain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That has been my experience.


George Gibson Coote: I have been told1 that there
is considerable delay in the passport office in the issuance of the passports. I do not know whether the complaints are all justified but some cases have come to my attention where the parties have been held up for three weeks without receiving a reply from the passport office. Some of these people had engaged a berth on a certain ship and had to use the telegraph to speed up the passport office in order to receive their passports in time. Would the Prime Minister look into this matter and see whether there is any unnecessary delay or whether the passport office is requiring information which perhaps is not necessary?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should be
veiy much obliged if the hon. member would give me the names of any persons who have

Supply-External Affairs
experienced delay in obtaining passports, and I will undertake to let him have a statement as to the date on which their applications were received and the date on which they were given their passports. I have heard from many sources that the passport office at Ottawa is particularly efficient and the government has been complimented over and over again on the fact that there is less delay and less red tape in the matter of getting a passport from the Canadian office than from any other. I think the information of the hon. member probably has been given to him in an exaggerated form, but I should like to look into it.


George Gibson Coote: It is quite possible that the applicants may not have completed the form, or something of that kind. I have not the particulars, as these cases came to my attention when I was at home. Does the Prime Minister think unnecessary questions are being asked before a passport is granted, anid that the procedure is quite as simple as it might be?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I am right in saying that the question of passports was taken up at the League of Nations with a view to having a similar set of questions asked in all countries. We have endeavoured to simplify our passports as much as possible and have brought the questions down to the minimum.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. member for Macleod must be wrongly informed. I doubt if there is any other office where passports can be obtained as readily and with as courteous service as in this country. From my own personal experiences, one in Great Britain and one in France, I have come to the conclusion that we have nothing to learn in either promptness or courtesy in this regard. I think the difficulty arose through the correspondents of the hon. member having omitted to reply to what they thought to be an irrelevant question. Sometimes the signature is not put on the back of the photograph, and obviously that might give rise to a very difficult situation, because the country as such certifies to the validity of the passport, and with no signature there is nothing to indicate that the photograph is that of the person in question. If one is desirous of going to Great Britain the railway companies will take the requisite fee, have the form filled out and send the passport on to meet the passenger at the boat. I know of three cases since the opening of navigation this year in which that has been done. I only say that in justice to the gentlemen in charge of the office. One 78594-170
must speak of them as one finds them, and they have shown not for me alone, but for any person I have known who has had to communicate with them, a willingness to assist, a great courtesy, and an earnest desire to serve the public.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I think the trouble lies largely in the fact that the public do not understand the full information that is required of them with regard to passports. I am glad indeed to say that in any communications I have had with the passport office, I have been given the very best service. But I have had complaints from people who, not having the full information, have been wondering why their passports have been held up. That is where the trouble lies. The passport situation is a nuisance, but I am glad to say that I have received most excellent service from the passport office in Ottawa.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: My experience has been the same; that is, 1 have received great courtesy, most efficient sendee and had the matter I was dealing with expedited as much as possible. But having many complaints with regard to delays that have taken place, just to see how long it really took, I followed step by step the case of a friend in my part of the country who was applying for a passport. Living, as many do, some distance from a railway, he received his mail by rural mail carrier twice a week. When he wrote me I went to the office and had the necessary form sent out to him, but it required about two weeks for his letter to reach Ottawa and for a reply to be sent. He wrote to Ottawa, and the application was promptly mailed to him, but this took two weeks. The application was sent back to Ottawa improperly filled out and had to be returned with explicit and courteous instructions as to what should be done. This took two more weeks. When he finally got the passport, a little over six weeks had elapsed, but almost the whole of that delay was due to the distance and the time required for the application to reach that outlying point and then to be returned. It took six weeks, without the slightest dilatoriness on the part of the passport office, the necessary information having been sent at the earliest possible moment.


George Gibson Coote: So far as I have had any
communications with the passport office they have been answered as promptly as possible, but I have had cases where the time elapsing between the making of application for a passport and the receipt of it was just as long as in the instance quoted by the hon. member

Supply-External Affairs

for Red Deer. I am speaking only from memory, 'but in some cases it seems that an unnecessarily long time elapses between the despatch of a request for a passport and its being received. The delay may have been accounted for by circumstances which were not brought to my attention. Personally I have had the best service possible from the passport office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand the
matter, they deal with the applications in sequence.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I do not want in any
way to criticize or to sound a note of discord in regard to what has been said as to the work of the passport office. We are moving far away from the war and the post war period, and it seems to me that the work should therefore be lighter and easier. The sum of $5,500 is an important item. If an explanation were given why at this date the expenses of the office are increased, it might be illuminating.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As times are
improving, people are travelling a great deal more. The cost of printing passports is in itself a considerable item.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: But there is the money collectf <1.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But a larger number are required to attend to the business as there is more business to attend to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Washington-representation, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or any of its amendments, $100,000.
Robert Gardiner: Would the Prime Minister give the details of this?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will notice that the amount asked for this year is the same as last year. I would refer him, if I might at this hour of the evening, to the report of the Department of External Affairs on the work of the legation at Washing. I think the extent of the work of the legation is now pretty generally known.


Finlay MacDonald: In view of the statement the Prime Minister has made regarding such cases as the I'm Alone incident, namely, that he is not prepared to refer them to arbitration, I ain afraid that in justice to one of my constituents I shall have to take up the time of the committee for a little while.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not say that I was not prepared to refer them to arbitration. I said that I thought this was perhaps not the time to make a decision on that point.


Finlay MacDonald: My statement will take up some time, and I do not wish to take the time of the committee now if the Prime Minister will assure me that he will give my case the consideration it deserves. I think his deputy will assure him that I am pressing pretty strongly in connection with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He has told
me about it several times. I have said to him that we must give it every consideration, and we shall do so.


Finlay MacDonald: I am afraid if I let this opportunity go by I shall not haave another one for a year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can promise my hon. friend another opportunity during this session.


Finlay MacDonald: Before the session is over?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Finlay MacDonald: That will be satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Paris-representation, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act, or any of its amendments, $80,000.
Mr. ADSHEAD:: Why the increase?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend will realize that the legation itself was opened within the past year and the premises in which it is at present housed are different from those which we had heretofore. There have been some additional expenses in connection with the new building and they account for the slight increase.
Mr. SPENC'ER:	What extra work will
our representative in Paris do to-day that he did not do before his change of position?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might mention just one matter which may help to illustrate the increase in his duties. Heretofore the Canadian Commissioner General had no right of immediate approach to the French government. Matters of a governmental character were dealt with by the British ambassador.

Supply-External Affairs


Richard Bedford Bennett: He 'had no' right of
audience.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He had no
right of audience, as my hon. friend says. To-day all the duties that were formerly carried out through the British ambassador's good offices are attended to immediately by our own office. The interests which Canada has in France have been increasing from year to year. The number of Canadians visiting France and wishing to be assisted in many ways in the matter of information and in connection with the business in which they are engaged has increased considerably and altogether the importance of the position has grown with the years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do I understand that our diplomatic representatives do not, except in cases of difficulty with the country to which they are accredited, deal with questions of trade and commerce and commercial matters?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They deal with . all matters of governmental character.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am speaking of-


Charles Avery Dunning: Trade promotion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not only trade promotion, but questions connected with trade and commerce. I was advised, and I said that when I got the opportunity I would ascertain whether or not it is correct, that our diplomatic representatives do not deal with questions of trade except for the purpose of making representations. For instance, I assume that our representatives at Washington made representations with respect to the proposed new United States tariff, and that our diplomatic representative at Paris might make representations with respect to contemplated action by the government of France in connection with duties and matters of that kind. But in the development of trade, as distinguished from the diplomatic side of trade, do I understand that our plenipotentiaries do not deal with such matters?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend would include in the diplomatic phases of a plenipotentiary's work the giving of a great deal of information on commercial matters, I should say that he was in the main right in saying that the direct and detailed promotion of trade is left to the commercial representatives of the government, but the diplomatic representatives have much to do with furnishing information not only to departments of the government but to in-78594-1701
dividuals with respect to important trade matters in the countries to which they are accredited, and in creating the interest and affording .many of the facilities essential to the promotion of trade.


Mr. KAISER:: In what manner and to
what extent can a member of parliament ascertain what is being discussed by our diplomatic representatives? How can we ascertain, for instance, what matters have been placed before, the United States government by our diplomatic representative at Washington?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The report of. the Department of External Affairs gives some indication of the work that is being done. There is a committee of this house on industrial and international relations, and I think it would be advisable at some time to have the question of the work of these legations referred to that committee so that the ministers themselves, were it so desired, and others connected with the legations, might appear and advise members of the house at first hand of their various services. I think that would be preferable to attempting to discuss these matters on the floor of the house.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: The Prime Minister must
admit that the Department of External Affairs publishes only a very meagre report. I read it through very carefully, and I confess that I was more confused than I was before. I could form no idea of what matters had been under representation by our diplomats.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend knows that it- is part of the art of a diplomat not to say too much about what he is doing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tokyo-representation, including salaries and allowances for minister plenipotentiary, secretaries and staff, notwithstanding anything to the contrary .in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments, $75,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will this pay the whole cost for this year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We hope it will.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You are not buying a
building, I take it.


George Reginald Geary: There is an increase of $25,000 in this item. A minister has been appointed, I believe, and last year his salary did not appear in the estimates. Perhaps the Prime Minister would give us details of filw increase.
Supply-External Affairs


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the
estimate was being prepared last year it was understood that no appointment could be made and no steps taken in the matter of the organization of the legation until possibly the beginning of the present year. Accordingly parliament was not asked to appropriate the amount which we now feel is necessary for another year. We feel that the additional amount will be necessary for the coming year.


George Reginald Geary: The item last year was $50,000, and this year it, is $75,000. What is the extra expense for?
. Mr. MACKENZIE KING: The amount last year was the estimated amount, part of which, but not all, has been spent, in providing accommodation and equipment for the legation in Tokyo.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geneva-salaries and expenses of the office of the Canadian advisory officer, $22,500.
Robert James Manion: This question may come more pertinently under the next item, but perhaps the Geneva items will all be dealt with together. What check-up is there on the League of Nations in regard to its expenditure? I have seen a good deal of criticism in various sections of the press regarding the expenses of the league, and what appears to be everybody's business is nobody's business. That seems to be the impression of some of the English and Canadian journals that I have read. Would the Prime Minister give some explanation of how the expenses are checked?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My colleague the Minister of Railways and Canals was on the budget committee at the last meeting of the League of Nations and can probably answer that question.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is more difficult to get estimates past the budget committee of the League of Nations than past any legislative body of which I have been a member. The debates regarding what might be called the internal economy of the league and the presentation of the estimates for the various branches of the league's work certainly arouse very strong and very critical discussion. One can understand that when one remembers that some of the nations are not interested in certain phases of the league's work, and naturally they are very critical of expenditures on those phases which do not particularly interest them. The procedure is almost identical to that followed in this house. I can assure my bon. friend that I was surprised at the 
thoroughness with which the representatives of the various nations criticized the estimates and brought about from time to time reductions in the votes brought before the budget committee of the League of Nations.


Robert James Manion: I do not dispute that, but at the same time. I haye seen a good deal of criticism of the expenses of the league. 1 notice, for instance, that Canada's contribution, and we are one of the small countries of the world, is increased by over $21,000 this year. I am not trying to hold up the estimates of the Prime Minister, but he cannot get these four items relating to the league through to-night, so it does not really matter very much. It would be interesting to the committee if the Prime Minister when next these estimates are up would give a brief sketch of how the expenses of the League of Nations are made up and how our proportion is worked out. I do not expect anything lengthy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps in the meantime we can pass this item.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, May 21, 1929