March 30, 1928

ROYAL ASSENT

LIB

Hewitt Bostock (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

I have the honour to

inform the house that I have received the following letter:

Ottawa, March 30, 1928.

Sir,-*

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable F. A. Anglin, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.

James F. Crowdy,

Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.

Topic:   ROYAL ASSENT
Permalink

IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON


On the orders of the day:


CON

Arthur Edward Ross

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):

I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Immigration the following facts. Some few days ago there arrived a notice to the superintendent of the employment bureau informing him that eight immigrants classed as farm labourers would arrive in Kingston. When they arrived two were found to be experienced, one partly experienced and the others without any experience. The two experienced and the one partly experienced were

placed immediately. Two others have been placed in Kingston at temporary employment; one is unemployed, and the other two are on the trek to the city of Toronto. The two temporarily employed are taking the positions of two citizens of Kingston and we believe that is a situation which should be stopped. I should like to ask the minister if such a situation will be continued or if there is any plan to rectify it.

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
LIB-PRO

Robert Forke (Minister of Immigration and Colonization)

Liberal Progressive

Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):

I think the

house will agree with me that the question whether we can meet a situation of that kind is rather a difficult one to answer offhand. There will no doubt be unemployed people in Canada. There will be some difficulty on occasions in finding a place for all the people who come to this country. I have no knowledge of the circumstance to which the hon. member refers; but I will make inquiries in order to find out under whose auspices they came and why they have been allowed to get into the situation in which they find themselves, and should the question be repeated I will endeavour to give a definite answer.

HOME BANK DEPOSITORS On the orders of the day:

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
CON

William Earl Rowe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):

I

should like to ask the Minister of Finance if the judges of the Exchequer court have been asked for a report regarding the Home Bank. If so, has he received that report.

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
LIB

James Alexander Robb (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):

The judges of the Exchequer Court are from time to time reviewing cases under the Home. Bank legislation of a couple of years ago. I have asked the auditors, who, I think, have this in charge, to give a report, but I am not sure whether it has been received or not. I will look into the matter and let my hon. friend know.

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY On the orders of the day:

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):

Has the Prime Minister any statement to make to the house with regard to the relationship between this country and Great Britain in respect to the treaty between Great Britain and Egypt?

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

If my hon. friend had not asked the question which he has just asked, I was about to request the house to allow me to make a statement on a matter of public interest which -arises out of a report that

Anglo-Egyptian Treaty

appears in to-day's papers to the effect that Lord Salisbury, leader in the House of Lords, of the British government, apparently entertained a different point of view with respect to Canada having been asked to become a party to the Anglo-Egypt.ian treaty from that which was expressed by myself in this house in the course of a debate earlier in the week. May I first of all draw the attention of the house to what Lord Salisbury himself observed, namely, that he had not seen my remarks at the time at which he was speaking and therefore he was unaible to say exactly what had been said by myself in that connection? May I also add that I have not seen the despatches that have gone from Canada to Great Britain and I am therefore not in a position to know what has been represented in Great Britain with respect to the remarks which I made in this house? My remarks however are in Hansard, and with respect to what appears in the Hansard report of the debate of the other night I have nothing to alter or change in any particular. I think I can indicate very clearly where any difference in point of view that may exist has arisen, if such in fact is the case.

Lord Salisbury's remarks, as reported in the papers of yesterday and to-day, fall really under four heads. In the first part Lord Salisbury refers to the policy of Great Britain with respect to the Anglo-Egyptian treaty and remarks that it was a policy for the preservation of peace, and that in that particular the policy of the home government is the same as that of the Canadian government. There is no disagreement in any way between us on that; in fact, we are in hearty accord.

Lord Salisbury then refers to the report which was sent of my remarks on the Chanak incident. I ^hiuk I had better read what Lord Salisbury says in that regard and I can then indicate whether or not there is any difference in our point of view with respect to that jncident. Lord Salisbury's remarks as reported in the Canadian Press cable despatch appearing in the different papers, are as follows:

Undoubtedly, Lord Salisbury continued, relations between the component parts of the empire in respect to these high matters were a matter of some difficulty. Undoubtedly the Canadian government were asked to associate themselves with the British government at the time of the Chanak affair, and were asked whether they would be represented by a military contingent in the event of military action being required in those regions.

It was true, Lord Salisbury declared, there were no military operations, but he would not like to lay it down that the result was entirely 5610^-*ia

due to the action of the Canadian government. His recollection was that there was a very strong feeling in Great Britain against military operations on that occasion, and it would not be rash to say that the strong opinions expressed here had at any rate a partial effect, just as the opinion of Canada had, in bringing that incident to the end it reached.

That is entirely the view I took with respect to the effect of Canada's representations on the Chanak appeal, if I might use that expression. I believe it was one of the factors which operated. I have never contended that it was more than that. I agree absolutely with Lord Salisbury in what he says as to the different factors that materially contributed to bring about the termination of the incident to which reference is there made.

The third part of Lord Salisbury's remarks is as follows:

The government leader continued that in regard to the Anglo-Egyptian treaty it was difficult to discuss the matter because he had not yet received the full text of Premier King's observations. He emphasized that all through the negotiations leading to the draft treaty with Egypt the dominion governments had been kept fully informed of every step taken, but the terms which the British government proposed to the Egyptian government were expressly limited to the relations between that government and Great Britain, and on the face of it did not include any of the dominion governments.

My hon. friend who has asked me a question to-day asked me a question in the house on March 9 last with respect to the Anglo-Egyptian treaty. Here is what was then saic; as it appears in Hansard of that date:

Mr. J. S. Woodsworth (Winnipeg North Centre): I should like to ask the government if Canada has been consulted with regard to the policy of Great Britain in Egypt.

Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister): I assume that my hon. friend refers to a treaty which was in the course of negotiation between Great Britain and Egypt?

Mr. Woodsworth: Yes.

Mr. Mackenzie King: The treaty to which my hon. friend has reference was a treaty being negotiated between His Majesty, as representing Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Egypt. The Canadian government was kept informed of the progress of the negotiations.

So that thus far there is no conflict in anjr particular between the statements made by Lord Salisbury and those made by myself. I did state as long ago as March the 9th last that the treaty negotiated was between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Egypt, and that we had been kept informed of the policy of the British government with respect thereto. Let me now continue with the further remarks of Lord Salisbury:

There never was any question of asking the dominions to participate in responsibility for the results of the treaty, he said. The dominions were asked to concur in the general

Anglo-Egyptian Treaty

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
CON

Henry Lumley Drayton

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Perhaps my right hon. friend could conveniently now give the date of the first draft treaty.

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The despatch that I am referring to was received on November the 11th of last year, 1927.

The report of the inter-imperial relations committee of the Imperial conference, 1926, provides that:

Til the case of a treaty applying to only one Part of the empire, it should be stated to be made by the king on behalf of that part.

To the despatch of November 11 we replied on November 22, stating that the Canadian government would raise no objection to His Majesty's government in Great Britain entering into an agreement embodying the substance of the draft treaty, in appropriate form, with the government of Egypt; however, that we could not contemplate recommending to parliament that the treaty should be made applicable to Canada, nor could we undertake to participate in its signature and ratification, and we gave our reasons therefor.

On November 24 we received a despatch, saying that the British government was much obliged for the full explanation given of the position of the Canadian government in relation to the proposed treaty with Egypt.

On December 2 we received a further despatch, saying that the British government had decided to sign the proposed treaty, in view of the replies received from the various dominions; that it was being made clear that, as regards the form, the treaty should be concluded in the manner contemplated in the report of the inter-imperial relations committee of the Imperial conference, 1926, in case of a treaty made on behalf of one part of the empire, that is, that in the preamble it should be confined to Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and should be signed by a plenipotentiary holding a full power limited correspondingly.

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

Is that the Prime Minister's deduction, or is it stated in the despatch?

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

No, I am giving the substance of the despatches. Hon. members will observe that I am careful to say nothing about the treaty itself. The Imperial government has laid on the table of the British House of Commons all the documents that I think it wishes to have made public with respect to the treaty. I am confining my remarks to the exchange of communications between the British government and our own on the subject of Canada's relation to the treaty.

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

And the final form in which the treaty was executed differed from the original form submitted to the Prime Minister?

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My hon. friend has it exactly. May I say to him that the accuracy of what I have stated from the Canadian point of view is conclusively borne out by the white paper which was laid on the table of the House of Commons of Great Britain this year, entitled Papers regarding Negotiations for a Treaty of Alliance with Egypt, a copy of which I hold in my hand. At page 9 of this white paper is the counterdraft approved by His Majesty's government July 28, 1927. The preamble reads:

His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Reas, Emperor of India, and His Majesty the King of Egypt.

Then after another paragraph or two comes the following one relating to the powers:

Have agreed to conclude a treaty for this purpose and have appointed as plenipotentiaries:

After a blank the paragraph continues:

Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

Then follows the text of the treaty. Now, under the interpretation set forth by the interimperial relations committee on treaties, a treaty, so drafted, without limitation had it been signed by a plenipotentiary, would have bound Canada along with all the other dominions. Being presented with the full text of the treaty in this form, and being asked to give our concurrence, we interpreted that Canada was asked to be a party to the treaty, and therefore in our reply we were careful to state that we could not become a party to the treaty because, for reasons given we did not believe that this parliament would approve of Canada being made a party thereto.

Now, on pages 35 and 36 of the white paper to which I have already referred appears the draft treaty as it was submitted two days after our despatch, or at any rate after our despatch had gone to Great Britain, stating the position of the Canadian government. The draft is in this form:

His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, and His Majesty the King of Egypt,-

I am leaving out some of the intervening paragraphs in the preamble.

Have agreed to conclude a treaty for this purpose, and have appointed as plenipotentiaries:

Immigration oj Miners

His Majesty the King of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India: _

for Great Britain and Northern Ireland:

The Right Honourable the Lord Lloyd, G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., D.S.O.. Member of His Most Honourable Privy Council:

His Majesty the King of Egypt:

His Excellency Abdel Ivhalek Sarwat Pasha, President of the Council of Ministers;

Who, having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:-

Hon. members will notice that the treaty as finally presented, signed between Great Britain and Egypt, is distinctly limited in the preamble, as should be the case when a treaty applies to only one part of the empire, by saying:

His Majesty for Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Making no reference to any other parts of the empire.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I accept unreservedly Lord Salisbury's statement to the House of Lords that the government of Great Britain had not any intention of obliging the dominions to become a party to the treaty, or even of inviting them to do so.

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

They made a very delicate suggestion.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING' I agree with my hon. friend, I think it was a very delicate suggestion; and I submit that, as presented to us, the documents were not capable of any other interpretation in the light of the rules laid down at the Imperial conference with respect to the negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties. But I hope the explanation which I have made will remove any possibility of difference on that point as between the British government and ourselves.

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
LAB

Herbert Bealey Adshead

Labour

Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):

May I ask the Prime Minister: Egypt then is regarded as a foreign country as the treaty is made with it? Secondly, Canada is not involved in the treaty?

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

No, Canada is not bound by the treaty.

Topic:   IMMIGRANTS AT KINGSTON
Permalink
LAB

March 30, 1928