May 15, 1931

COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) presented the first report of the special committee to which was referred Bill No. 4 to amend the Copyright Act as follows: Your Committee recommends that it he granted leave to print 400 copies in English and 150 copies in French of its proceedings and of the evidence to be taken by it, together with such papers and documents as may be incorporated with such evidence, for the use of the Committee and for the use of the members of this House; and that Standing Order 64 be suspended in relation thereto. Your Committee further recommends that it be given leave to sit while the House is sitting. Mr. CAHAN moved that the report be concurred in. Motion agreed to.


COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS


First report of the select standing committee on standing orders-Mr. Bury. Mr. BURY moved that the report be concurred in.


LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

I should like the hon. gentleman to give some explanation so that we may know why this permission should be granted. I think in a matter of divorce, as I understand this to be, the rules of procedure should be strictly observed.

Topic:   COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS
Permalink
CON

Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BURY:

I may tell my hon. friend that the explanation given the committee was that it was impossible to locate the respondent in the case until May 4, when he was personally served. Therefore it was impossible to file the petition in time.

Topic:   COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I think this motion

should stand so that we may see for ourselves what is at the bottom of it.

Topic:   COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


GENERAL ACT OF 192S PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES -APPROVAL OF ACCESSION IN RESPECT TO CANADA

CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:

That it is expedient that parliament do approve of the accession, in respect of Canada, to chapters I, II, III, and IV of the General Act of 1928 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, subject to the following conditions:-[DOT]

International Disputes-Mr. Bennett

1. That the following disputes are excluded from the procedure described in the General Act, including the procedure of conciliation:

(i) Disputes arising prior to the accession, in respect of Canada, to the said General Act or relating to situations or facts prior to the said accession;

(ii) Disputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement;

(iii) Disputes between His Majesty's government in Canada and the government of any other member of the League of Nations which is a member of the British commonwealth of nations, all of which disputes shall be settled ill such manner as the parties have agreed or shall agree;

(iv) Disputes concerning questions which by international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of states; and

(v) Disputes with any party to the General Act who is not a member of the League of Nations.

2. That His Majesty in respect of Canada reserves the right in relation to the disputes mentioned in article 17 of the General Act to require that the .procedure described in chapter II of the said act shall be suspended in respect of any dispute which has been submitted to and is under consideration by the council of the League of Nations, provided that notice to suspend is given after the dispute has been submitted to the council and is given within ten days of the notification of the initiation of the procedure, and provided also that such suspension shall be limited to a period of twelve months or such longer period as may be agreed by the parties to the dispute or determined by a decision of all the members of the council others than the parties to the dispute.

3. (i) That, in the case of a dispute, not being a dispute mentioned in article 17 of the General Act, which is brought before the council of the League of Nations in accordance with the provisions of the covenant, the procedure described in chapter I of the General Act shall not be applied, and, if already commenced, shall be suspended, unless the council determines that the said procedure shall be adopted.

(ii) That in the case of such a dispute the procedure described in chapter III of the General Act shall not be applied unless the council has failed to effect a settlement of the dispute within twelve months from the date on which it was first submitted to the council, or, in a case where the procedure prescribed in chapter I has been adopted without producing an agreement between the parties, within six months from the termination of the work of the conciliation commission. The council may extend either of the above periods by- a decision of all its members other than the parties to the dispute.

And that this house do approve of the same, subject to the said conditions.

He said: Mr. Speaker, I assume that hon. members of the house have had an opportunity of reading the General Act of 1928, which has been distributed through the distribution office. It will be observed that the motion, in terms, approves of the accession in respect of Canada to chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 of

the General Act of 1928. This act is called the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, and under that act the first methods to be applied are conciliatory methods, the first chapter being entitled "'Conciliation." Article IV of that chapter provides that the commission of conciliation shall be composed as follows:

The commission shall be composed of five members. The parties shall each nominate one commissioner, who may be chosen from among their respective nationals. The three other commissioners shall be appointed by agreement from among the nationals, of third powers. These three commissioners must be of different nationalities and must not be habitually resident in the territory nor be in the service of the parties. The parties shall appoint the president of the commission from among them.

To the other provisions I will not refer, because I take it that hon. members are probably quite familiar with the general act itself.

Chapter 2 refers to the judicial settlement of disputes:

All disputes with regard to which the parties are in conflict as to their respective rights shall, subject to any reservations which may be made under article 39, be submitted for decision to the Permanent Court of International Justice, unless the parties agree, in the manner hereinafter provided, to have resort to an arbitral tribunal.

It is understood that the disputes referred to above include in particular those mentioned in article 36 of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice.

Article 39, which comes under the provisions of the General Act, refers to the reservations, which do not apply to those who accept the General Act. I do not think it necessary to take up the time of the house in reading them. So far I have dealt with chapter 2.

Chapter 3 deals with settlement by another method altogether-that is, by arbitration: first, conciliation; second, by course to the International Court of Justice; and third, by arbitration. Article 21 reads:

Any dispute not of the kind referred to in article 17 which does not, within the month following the termination of the work of the conciliation commission provided for in chapter I, form the object of an agreement between the parties, shall, subject to such reservations as may be made under article 39, be brought before an arbitral tribunal *which, unless the parties otherwise agree, shall be constituted in the manner set out below.

It is, perhaps, unnecessary to do more than observe that the tribunal shall consist of five members, each of the parties nominating one member, who may be chosen from among their respective nationals. The two other arbitrators and the chairman are to be chosen.

1628 COMMONS

International Disputes-Mr. Bennett

by common agreement, from among the nationals of third powers-very much like the provisions with respect to commissions for conciliation.

Chapter 4 deals with the general provisions of the act itself. I do not think it necessary to refer to the articles of that chapter, because it will be observed that the resolution provides that it is expedient for Canada to approve of the accession to chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the act. Then follow the provisions, in the resolution, with respect to the exceptions from the operation of the act. These are important. May I direct the attention of the house to them:

^ 1. That the following disputes are excluded from the procedure described in the General Act, including the procedure of conciliation:

(i) Disputes arising prior to the accession, in respect of Canada, to the said General Act or relating to situations or facts prior to the said accession.

That is a reasonable provision inserted by the governments of Great Britain, Australia and Canada, for it takes ou't of the operation of the General Act, the settlement either by way of conciliation, by recourse to the courts, or by arbitration, of such disputes as arose prior to the accession of this country to the General Act or relating to situations or facts prior to such accession.

(ii) Disputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement.

It frequently happens, for instance, that methods may be devised by countries for the settlement of disputes peacefully, which would take such disputes out of the operation of this act. In other words, we will rely upon this act with respect to the matters which we have agreed to settle peacefully. Then:

(iii) Disputes between His Majesty's government in Canada and the, government of any other member of the League of Nations which is a member of the British commonwealth of nations, all of which disputes shall be settled in such manner as the parties have agreed or shall agree.

That, of course, is a much wider question. It has been felt that members of the same family should settle their differences, if any, by recourse to methods entirely different from the methods that would be adopted for the purpose of settling differences between a member of the family and strangers. Discussions have taken place from time to time as to the method by which a court could be constituted within the empire for the settlement of empire differences. This provides that members of the commonwealth of nations known as the British Empire, who are members of the

League of Nations, shall not have recourse to the provisions of the General Act for the settlement of any disputes or differences that may arise between them.

Topic:   GENERAL ACT OF 192S PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES -APPROVAL OF ACCESSION IN RESPECT TO CANADA
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

How would that

affect India?

Topic:   GENERAL ACT OF 192S PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES -APPROVAL OF ACCESSION IN RESPECT TO CANADA
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

As India is now constituted, it clearly provided that India's case would not be settled by recourse to the provisions of the General Act, if, for example, they had any dispute with us or with South Africa or Australia or New Zealand.

Topic:   GENERAL ACT OF 192S PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES -APPROVAL OF ACCESSION IN RESPECT TO CANADA
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

India is a member of the league.

Topic:   GENERAL ACT OF 192S PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES -APPROVAL OF ACCESSION IN RESPECT TO CANADA
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes, India is a member

of the league; that is the reason. India is a part of the British commonwealth of nations and is also a member of the League of Nations. Therefore disputes arising between two parts of the British Empire, which are members of the League of Nations, wall not be settled under the provisions of the General Act, but by some other method which has been or which may hereafter be agreed upon.

It is not necessary at this time to discuss in this chamber the question as to the establishment of some empire tribunal for the settlement of differences of that kind. Suffice it to say that discussions have gone on now for a period of some ten years, and those discussions are still going forward. Personally I look for the establishment some day of a tribunal that may be agreed upon, so that in the event of there being differences they may be settled 'by recourse to that tribunal and not to some tribunal outside of the empire itself.

(iv) Disputes concerning questions which by international law are solely within the domestic jurisdiction of states.

That, it is needless to say, is a very important reservation. International law recognizes the rights of a state to settle certain domestic problems without having to arbitrate them or to yield. to conciliation from without, or by recourse to the decisions of any tribunal, whatever it may be. The other evening we had some slight indication of what might be involved. International law does not countenance the idea that a sovereign state may have to listen to another sovereign state indicate how that state shall settle its domestic problems. We may, if we have agreed so to do, make arrangements by which we offer our services; and frequently in diplomacy we know that states have offered their good offices for the purpose of bringing about adjustments. But international law recog-

International Disputes-Mr. Bennett

nizes that there are certain matters of a domestic nature which should not be regarded as a subject for discusison before tribunals set up, for instance, under the provisions of an agreement such as this.

Topic:   GENERAL ACT OF 192S PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES -APPROVAL OF ACCESSION IN RESPECT TO CANADA
Permalink
LAB

James Shaver Woodsworth

Labour

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Do I understand

the Prime Minister to say that such a question as we had under consideration the other evening, with respect to the Ukrainian problem in Poland, would be precluded from consideration under these provisions?

Topic:   GENERAL ACT OF 192S PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES -APPROVAL OF ACCESSION IN RESPECT TO CANADA
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; Minister of Finance and Receiver General; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

My hon. friend has not

followed me. By international law it is not competent for a sovereign state to interfere with the domestic business of any other sovereign state, unless there is an agreement permitting it to be done. I did not allude to the matter under discussion the other evening in order to illustrate my point, because both parties are members of the League of Nations. I was dealing with what would happen if they were not members of the league and had not agreed to settle their disputes in certain ways. The very recognition of the existence of a national community involves the right of that national community to carry on its own domestic business in a manner which is acceptable to the majority of the people within the area constituting that national. It is true that by international agreements such rights have to some extent been settled during the years. But those hon. members of this house who recall the cablegram which the then German emperor sent to President Kruger, with its repercussions, and who also recall the discussions in the House of Commons when Sir A.usten Chamberlain and the chancellor of the German empire began at long range a discussion which ended in rather acrimonious observations being made by both, will realize that the general principle of international law is that there is no right in one country to interfere in the domestic business of another unless it be that by agreement that other country has afforded the opportunity for such action being taken. It has been a constant practice in diplomacy, almost crystallized into a recognized procedure .rnder international law, for disinterested states to offer their good offices for the purpose of arriving at adjustments which might prevent near revolutions, but not to interfere in the domestic affairs of any given country. This reservation is prepared for the purpose of recognizing the general principles of international law, the non-interference by outside communities in the domestic concerns of this country or any other country that- may be a party to the act.

The next dispute excluded is No. 5, which reads:

(v) Disputes with any party to the General Act who is not a member of the League of Nations.

That reservation was inserted in the accession resolutions of Great Britain and Australia and is now being submitted to this house because it is felt that disputes as between two communities, one being a member of the League of Nations and the other is not, should not be subject compulsorily to determination and settlement by recourse to the provisions of the General Act itself. Those reservations, as I say, were inserted by a general agreement between the governments of Great Britain, Canada and Australia. When the matter came before the British House of Commons on March 9 of this year the foreign secretary moved a resolution approving of the accession of Great Britain to the General Act. Sir Austen Chamberlain moved an amendment against acceptance on the ground that it diminished the authority of the council of the league and constituted a procedure tending to encourage international disputes. The matter was discussed by some very eminent members of the House of Commons, such as Sir Rennell Rodd and Major Hills, and others, who emphasized that ground and contended that the provisions for arbitration where no rule of law exists, practically gave five men power to legislate on what were distinctly political matters. I need hardly say to this house that one of the great difficulties in arriving at peaceful settlements between countries by recourse to arbitration or other methods of similar character, whether it be conciliatory or judicial, has been the unwillingness of sovereign communities to submit political differences to the judgment of any arbitration tribunal. One might say in the broad and general way and without exaggeration, that in the main that difficulty is what has brought on -war, the unwillingness of communities to submit political questions to the determination of an arbitration tribunal however eminent it may be.

It will be recalled that before the war the Bryan treaties for arbitration were approved by the United States Senate, and I think one was approved by this house and adopted by Great Britain, but in general there has been the difficulty in having nations believe that political matters should be settled by recourse to arbitration because it was feared that there would be interference with what they conceived to be the right to settle their own disputes in the way they thought best.

1630 COMMONS

International Disputes-Mr. Bennett

The records will show that some of the Labour members of the British House of Commons objected to the extensive character of the reservations, particularly that one which excluded signatories who were not members of the League of Nations. However, Sir Herbert Samuel, Sir Donald Maclean, Mrs. Manning, Mr. Noel-Baker, and others contended that the General Act did not supersede the work of the council, but merely supplemented it where experience had shown it could not reach finality. They urged that the reservations safeguarded the points as to which the greatest uncertainty might arise until such time as additional experience could be Obtained as to how far they were necessary, and pointed out finally that accession at the present time would extend only until 1934, when additional reservations could be made or present reservations could be reduced in the light of intervening experience. That is a fair precis of the attitude taken in the House of Commons in England with respect to this matter when it was under discussion.

The British house voted down the amendment of Sir Austen Chamberlain. The resolution of the assembly of September 26, 1928, does not seem to 'have been referred to although, in my judgment, it would seem to dispose of Sir Austen Chamberlain's argument. That resolution reads as follows:

The assembly invite all states to accept arbitral decisions for the settlement of all disputes either by becoming parties to the annexed General Act or by concluding conventions with individual states. For the same purpose, they specifically declare that undertakings such as the General Act are not to be interpreted as restricting the duty of the League of Nations to take at any. time whatever action may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of the world, or as impeding its intervention in virtue of articles 15 and 17 of the covenant where a dispute cannot be submitted to arbitral or judicial procedure, or cannot be settled by such procedure, or where the conciliation proceedings have failed.

That resolution declares the principles and purposes of the league with respect to this act. If the act is read in the light of that declaration and of the reservations which, after all, are reservations which this or any other country would be expected to adopt in the light of our present practice and knowledge of international affairs, there should be no difficulty in this house giving its accession to this General Act.

This act is not preceded by a protocol. As all hon. members who have looked at it will have observed, it is signed by the president of the ninth ordinary session of the

assembly of the League of Nations and by the secretary-general, and communities who were members -of the league were invited to indicate their accession to it by appropriate resolutions 'by their legislative bodies charged with responsibility in the premises. In our case, that is the Commons House of Parliament and the Senate House of Parliament, and the resolution which is now being submitted for the consideration of this house seeks the approval of Canada's giving her accession to this General Act. I doubt not that most hon. members observed the other day that the French republic adopted this General Act with certain reservations, which I am bound to say I have been unable to secure at the moment. There are a considerable number of them and if my general information is accurate, one is somewhat more extensive in its operations than any of the reservations contained in the submission to-day. Mr. Briand, the foreign secretary, indicated his intention of himself, depositing at Geneva the accession of the republic of France, he considering it to be a matter of very considerable importance in the preservation of the peace of the world.

AVe have now the following safeguards of peace: the covenant of the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand pact, a declaration against war as an instrument of national policy, arbitration treaties, and before the wax we had the court at the Hague. AVe now have our permanent Court of International Justice.

This resolution is one asking the House of Commons of Canada to approve of the Dominion acceding to the provisions of the General Act, with the reservations indicated, believing that it is one Step more towards the pacific settlement of international disputes. I do not intend to dwell upon the desirability of that and one of our most eminent historians has pointed out that the very existence of democracies is opened to the maintenance of militarism. As to that I think there can be no question, and while I am hopeful, I am not so hopeful of the future as not to realize that, human nature being what it is, as long as armaments are made and nations invest money in them, just so long will there be danger of a spark creating the explosion that will result in wax. The other evening, just by accident, I picked up an old magazine, and I observed there a translation by Dryden of a poem by Lucretius. It was an appeal for peace 2,000 years ago. I could not but reflect tliat after

2,000 years mankind is still striving for peace, still endeavouring by pacific methods to make our civilization respond to the demands we

International Disputes-Mr. Lapointe

make upon it, realizing and recognizing that war is waste: that it cannot in any sense be approved as an instrument of national policy, and that we at this time are paying the penalty that all the nations of the world are paying for the wastage of men, material and money that took place from 1914 to 1919, Under such circumstances I should think there would be little difficulty in this new democracy giving its accession to a method of settlement of differences that", happily, I think, will not arise in our time between this and other countries, for we ourselves have made provisions for the settlement of our difficulties on the American continent to a large extent by the international treaty which we made in 1908. Happily, I say, if we have differences, they will be composed by resort to conciliation, or to the courts that may be established to ensure the great principles of international law are more firmly asserted and more clearly understood with the lapse of time, or by arbitration when that becomes the last resort to which men may appeal for the settlement of differences between their country and another. I commend the approval of the accession of this General Act to the favourable consideration of the house.

Topic:   GENERAL ACT OF 192S PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES -APPROVAL OF ACCESSION IN RESPECT TO CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this resolution as a new move in the organization for peace, as a new link in the chain of the machinery to secure the prevention of war. After the foundation of the League of Nations and the various instruments and agencies which were established for discussion and conciliation, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has said that the most important step was the creation of the world court. But only justiciable disputes, and even at that, only a certain category of justiciable disputes, could be submitted to that court. In 1928 came the treaty of Paris, ordinarily called the Kellogg pact, by which Canada with most of the other nations of the world agreed to outlaw war, and took the pledge to see to it that every difficulty between our country and the othere should be settled by pacific means. When the Kellogg pact was submitted for the approval of this parliament, I took occasion to state that it was of great value; that it was certainly most important for the people of the world that all nations should consider war as a crime and should outlaw it, but that the value of that pact would consist mainly in the measures which might be adopted afterwards to make it effective.

The first measure that was adopted, as far as many countries are concerned, was the accept-

22110-104J

ance of the optional clause of the statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, whereby we bound ourselves to accept the decision of that court in regard to certain disputes which might be submitted to it by us and other countries. At the time Canada assumed the leadership in the British commonwealth of nations for the acceptance of that optional clause. Indeed, Britain was rather doubtful; it was against British tradition to submit to a tribunal outside of the empire, on which tribunal foreigners would sit, any dispute concerning the empire. Canada stated both at the League of Nations and at the Imperial conference that we were ready to accept the optional clause and we merely agreed to postpone our declaration to that, effect until a final decision was reached by the other nations of the empire and this was done, I believe, in 1929. The General Act was drafted by the League of Nations in 1928 and submitted to the various countries. Our delegates at the League of Nations-and I refer more .particularly to Senator Dandurand -took a strong attitude in favour of arbitration, and indeed it is gratifying to us that to-day this attitude is endorsed and supported by the other countries of the British commonwealth. Arbitration, security and disarmament -they are the three fundamental principles: which seem to be linked together and which are pointed out as the goal to be reached iby all nations.

By the approval of this resolution and the acceptance of arbitration as the means of settling our disputes with other countries, we and the other countries which accept it are clearing the road for the momentous gathering which is to take place next February for the disarmament of the world. All countries will be represented there, even those that are not members of the League of Nations. In that connection Mr. Speaker, I was reading the other day that in the British parliament they have appointed members of the three parties to the imperial defence committee in order to prepare the case of Great Britain to be submitted to that very important conference. In the Lnited States they have adopted the practice of sending members not necessarily on the side of the government in office to conferences on disarmament. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that he consider ' the advisability instead of having solely the government of Canada represented at this most momentous gathering, of having the parliament of Canada represented there. I believe that the parliament of Canada should be represented at that world conference to ex

1632 COMMONS

International Disputes-Mr. Lapointe

press the unanimous voice of Canada in favour of disarmament, and in favour of that great work for peace.

Justice and peace, I might say, are twin sisters. The one cannot exist without the other. The obligation, the compulsory nature of the pacific solution of difficulties is an essential condition, a sine qua non condition, for the prevention of war. Arbitration is an act of moderation. It is an act of patience. It is the desire to do what is right, and it affords the means of redressing injustices between nations without resorting to the still greater injustice of war, because, after all, bullets and machine guns cannot be considered as the instruments of fair and impartial justice.

The world has always craved for peace. This is not new. What is new is the organization for peace. War has always been organized, but peace has not been organized in the past. Peace was often a subject for discussion and debate, for fine words, but deeds for peace have only come to exist since a few years ago. This resolution before us to-day is one deed in the organization for peace, in that organization *which is necessary to effect a change in the *conditions that exist. Arbitration accepted -everywhere, will be a greater security than armaments. I was amazed the other day to hear an hon. gentleman say in this house: If you want peace, prepare for war. It was simply repeating that old saying of centuries; "Si vis p&eem, para bel'lum." That was the doctrine of the nations prior to 1914-prepare for war and you will have peace, and it is because of that doctrine that the world has been drenched with blood. It has been proved futile and vain. It is in organizing for peace, and not for war, that peace can be secured.

Topic:   GENERAL ACT OF 192S PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES -APPROVAL OF ACCESSION IN RESPECT TO CANADA
Permalink
CON

Peter McGibbon

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. McGIBBON:

Does my hon. friend

think that if England had been prepared for war in 1914 the Great war would have come?

Topic:   GENERAL ACT OF 192S PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES -APPROVAL OF ACCESSION IN RESPECT TO CANADA
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE:

The result has demonstrated that the nations which were not prepared were the victorious nations in the end.

Topic:   GENERAL ACT OF 192S PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES -APPROVAL OF ACCESSION IN RESPECT TO CANADA
Permalink
CON

Richard Burpee Hanson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):

How

does thq hon. member prove that statement? That is an assertion of fact.

Topic:   GENERAL ACT OF 192S PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES -APPROVAL OF ACCESSION IN RESPECT TO CANADA
Permalink

May 15, 1931