May 5, 1930

CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Op-, position):

It was with respect to that very

matter that I was asking the right hon. gentleman whether or not the Senate of the United States which, under their constitution, is required to approve of the executive action, had done so, and I stated that my memory was that the Senate had not approved of it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ACCESSION OF UNITED STATES TO PERMANENT COURT
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

That is correct.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ACCESSION OF UNITED STATES TO PERMANENT COURT
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Then I wonder if we do very much by approving of this resolution.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ACCESSION OF UNITED STATES TO PERMANENT COURT
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I believe many other powers including Great Britain have done so.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ACCESSION OF UNITED STATES TO PERMANENT COURT
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

They have executed it,

and so have we.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ACCESSION OF UNITED STATES TO PERMANENT COURT
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

They have also approved, I think.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ACCESSION OF UNITED STATES TO PERMANENT COURT
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

My understanding is

that parliamentary approval, where it is necessary, is in some countries awaiting the action of the United States, but that in many instances parliamentary approval is not necessary and executive action is all that is required. I am only speaking from memory, because I did not take the trouble to look up the matter in my books. As it stands at the moment we were bound to adopt the first resolution, but with respect to the one now before the house I rather fear that if the Senate of the United States does not approve of it our ratification will be nugatory, because it would have to go back to the main body for reconsideration, it being really a contract between the powers. I had the benefit of listening to a very instructive address upon the subject by Hon. Newton D. Baker, who was a member of the administration of the United States at one time, and hence I have followed this question with a great deal of interest. The pressure in the United States to have the Senate approve of the protocol has been and is very considerable; whether or not it has been successful I cannot say.

So far as the motion is concerned certainly I desire to agree in every way with what has been said and done, but whether or not it may be nugatory, in consequence of the fact that the necessary action has not been taken by the United States, I cannot say. However, it will do no harm in any event; if it becomes necessary to do it over again all the other nations will be in the same position.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ACCESSION OF UNITED STATES TO PERMANENT COURT
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN


On the orders of the day:


CON

Arthur Edward Ross

Conservative (1867-1942)

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

On

March 20 sessional paper 142 was brought

Duty on Tea

down from the Department of National Defence. The file was not complete, and some further papers were to be brought down. I should like to know if they will be brought down at an early date.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INQUIRY FOR RETURN
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):

If my hon. friend will give me the subject matter of the return, and its number, I will look into it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INQUIRY FOR RETURN
Permalink
CON

Arthur Edward Ross

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):

It is sessional paper 142, with respect to tenders for the military college.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   INQUIRY FOR RETURN
Permalink

SALARIES OF POSTAL WORKERS


On the orders of the day:


CON

Hugh Alexander Stewart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) if he would bring down the correspondence between his department or the Department of the Secretary of State and the Civil Service Commission since the year 1926, relating to increases of salaries of postal workers, and also copy of Privy Council order 1644 of September 14, 1925.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SALARIES OF POSTAL WORKERS
Permalink
LIB

Peter John Veniot (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):

Mr. Speaker, the correspondence with reference to the increases was brought down last session, but I will bring down any correspondence since that date.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SALARIES OF POSTAL WORKERS
Permalink
CON

Hugh Alexander Stewart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

Unfortunately

what was brought down last session does not appear to be available. The distribution office informed me that the Postmaster General had taken out that return, and apparently it cannot be found.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SALARIES OF POSTAL WORKERS
Permalink
LIB

Peter John Veniot (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Mr. VENIOT:

The Postmaster General has not taken that return.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SALARIES OF POSTAL WORKERS
Permalink
CON

Hugh Alexander Stewart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

That is what the Postmaster General says.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   SALARIES OF POSTAL WORKERS
Permalink

May 5, 1930