Mr. J. ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Veroheres):

I understood the Prime Minister to say that there was only one copy of the Treaty in French. Would it be possible to have furtther copies printed for distribution to bon. members?

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

If hon. gentlemen desire it, it can be done; it may take a little time. I might explain that it was impracticable to translate the Treaty into French and have it printed, for the reason that it would not be authentic. There were two authentic originals, one in English and one in French. The French text arrived only two days ago, and therefore could not be printed in time. If we had attempted to translate it after we had received the English copy of the Treaty, we would have had two French versions, probably differing somewhat from each other, and that was not desirable.

Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):

One would have been in Parisian French.

Mr. BUREAU:

And the translation might have in it the patois.

Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):

I beg to move the following

resolution:

Resolved, that it is expedient that Parliament do approve of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (and the Protocol annexed thereto), which was signed at Versailles on the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and nineteen, a copy of which has been laid before Parliament, and Which was signed on behalf of His Majesty, acting for Canada, by th$ plenipotentiaries therein named, and that this House do approve of the same.

He said: Mr. Speaker, we are still too near to the tremendous and terrible events through which the world has passed since August five years ago to realize fully their supreme significance in the world's history and their all-compelling influence upon the future destiny of humanity. The conflicts of a thousand years fade into relative insignificance whefi compared with this struggle in which for one or another purpose the entire manhood, and more than that, the entire womanhood, of the bellitSir Robert Borden.]

gerent nations were engaged. This war numbers its dead by millions and its maimed and wounded by tens of millions. It surpassed all previous conflicts in the extraordinary extent to which applied science and the control of mankind over the mighty forces of nature were brought into play [DOT] for purposes of destruction. It overthrew and destroyed the most formidable and highly organized military power known in the world's history; it crumbled thrones and sent kings and princes wandering as outcasts far from the places they once occupied; it tested as never before the courage and self-control of all the nations; and finally it seemed to shake the very foundations upon which organized society has slowly, and as we thought securely, established itself during a score of centuries.

It wias a war not of armies but of nations; and yet if we mistake not it was something more. If we cannot perceive in its genesis an inevitable clash between two strongly opposed and mutually destructive ideals and in its issue the triumph of reasoned justice and ordered liberty, if, out of its limitless sacrifice, mankind may not gain redemption from such unendurable horrors in the future, where can we see one ray of hope to lighten the pathway that lies before the nations?

We are assembled to consider terms of Peace which were presented to Germany after many anxious months of study and debate. Including the British Dominions, who were given in the Peace Conference a place commensurate with the part they had taken in the war, there were thirty-two nations assembled on the 6th day of May last in the secret Plenary Session of the Peace Conference at which those terms were unanimously adopted. I do not claim that there was no hesitation or even that there was no protest. Probably there was not a single nation whose representatives were absolutely satisfied with every disposition contained in the Treaty. I do not except the representatives of Canada from that sweeping assertion. But there was the great outstanding fact that thirty-two nations of varying and sometimes conflicting ideals and aspirations, widely divergent in status, in power and in political development, and separated sometimes by ancient antagonisms and long-standing jealousies, did finally give their undivided assent to a treaty which, whatever its imperfections may be, was designed in all sincerity to assure the future peace of the world.

for the prevention of future war, so far as that may be humanly possible. Since the terms of the Covenant were made public some months ago they have been subjected in each country to keen analysis and sometimes to fierce criticism. No one would pretend that the Covenant is a perfect instrument or that it affords an absolute guarantee against future wars. Its most sanguine advocates have made no such claim. Above all waves of criticism stands the solid rock of a Covenant foupded upon the solemn and unanimous affirmation of thirty-two of the world's nations that not force but right and justice shall be the arbiter of international disputes, that war is not a reasonable, just or recognized method of determining controversies between States, and that each of the thirty-two signatory nations binds itself to the maintenance and enforcement of these eternal principles.

No nation shall resort to the arbitrament of arms until its quarrel has been submitted to the Council of Nations or to an international court of justice. Any nation failing to respect this just obligation is subject in the first place to be treated as an international outlaw and placed under a commercial and economic ban. Thereafter it is liable to such punishment through naval and military measures as may compel an observance of the obligation imposed upon it by the Covenant. The League of Nations further contemplates effective provisions for preventing trade with uncivilized races in noxious drugs, intoxicating liquor and munitions of war. It is to establish safeguards against the white slave traffic. It provides effective means for that direct and intimate consultation and discussion which are so necessary for a true understanding and settlement of international difficulties. The Canadian delegates took exception both in form and in substance to certain of its original provisions. Our views were set forth in a confidential, memorandum which I circulated to the members of the Commission who drafted the Covenant and to the representatives of the five great Allied Powers. Many of our objections were met in the revised draft; and as to the others we felt that important as we regarded them, they ought not to be accounted of moment in comparison with the supreme purpose embodied in the Covenant.

Side by side with the Covenant stand the provisions of the Labour Convention. It was my privilege to attend the earlier meetings of the Commission which framed the articles on that subject now embodied

in Part XIII of the treaty. At one of these meetings the preamble of the Labour Convention was framed. It is as follows:

Whereas the League of Nations has for its object the establishment of universal peace, and such a peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice;

And whereas conditions of labour exist involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled; and an improvement of those conditions is urgently required; as, for example, 'by the regulation of the hours of work, including the establishment of a maximum working day and week, the regulation of the labour supply, the prevention of unemployment, the provision of an adequate living wage, the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out his employment, the protection of children, young persons and women, provision for old age and injury, protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own, recognition of the principle of freedom of association, the organization of vocational and technical education and other measures ;

Whereas also the failure of any nation to adopt humane conditions of labour is an obstacle in the way of other nations which desire to improve the conditions in their own countries :

The High Contracting Parties, moved by sentiments of justice and humanity, as well as by the desire to secure the permanent peace of the world, agree to the following. ,

Subsequently I was charged with the duty of bringing together representatives of the important industrial powers and of endeavouring to reconcile certain divergences of view in respect of the affirmation of general principles which have already been under discussion in this House. Those principles were adopted upon my motion at the Peace Conference in the following form:

The High Contracting Parties, recognizing that the well-being, physical, moral and intellectual, of industrial wage-earners is of supreme international importance, have framed, in order to further this great end, the permanent machinery provided for in Section I and associated with that of the League of Nations. They recognize that differences of climate, habits and customs, of economic opportunity and industrial tradition, make strict uniformity in the conditions of labour difficult of immediate attainment. But, holding as they do, that labour should not be regarded merely as an article of commerce, they think that there are methods and principles for regulating labour conditions which all industrial communities should endeavour to apply, so far as their special circumstances will permit.

Among these methods and principles, the following seem to the High Contracting Parties to be of special and urgent importance:

First: The guiding principle above enunciated that labour should not be regarded merely as a commodity or article of commerce.

Second : The right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by the employers.

Third: The payment to the employed of a

wage adequate to maintain a reasonable standard of life as this is understood in their time and country.

Fourth: The adoption of an eight hours day of a forty-eight hours week as the standard to be aimed at where it has not already been attained.

Fifth : The adoption of a weekly rest of at

least twenty-four hours, which should include Sunday wherever practicable.

Sixth : The abolition of child labour and the

imposition of such limitations on the labour of young persons as shall permit the continuation of their education and assure their proper physical development.

Seventh : The principle that men and women should receive equal remuneration for work of equal value.

Eighth: The standard set by law in each

country with respect to the conditions of labour should have due regard to the equitable economic treatment of all workers lawfully resident therein.

Ninth: Each State should make provision for a system of inspection in which women should take part, in order to ensure the enforcement of the law's and regulations for the protection of the employed.

Without claiming that these methods and principles are either complete or Anal, the High Contracting Parties are of opinion that they are well fitted to guide the policy of the League of Nations ; and that, if adopted by the industrial communities w'ho are- members of the League, and safeguarded in practice by an adequate system of such inspection, they will confer lasting benefits upon the wage-earners of the world.

These general principles and the recital above quoted constitute together a basis upon which international regulation of labour conditions shall proceed. Upon them the Magna Charta of labour throughout the world will be founded in the years to come.

The Labour Convention provides that the original members of the League of Nations shall be the original members of the Labour Convention.

It provides for a permanent organization consisting of a general conference of representatives of the adherent nations and of an international labour office controlled by a governing body. Each adherent nation is entitled to send four representatives to the general conference which is to be held at least once in each year. Of these representatives two shall be government delegates and two others shall be delegates representing respectively the employers and the work people. The conference is entitled to frame proposals which may take the form of a recommendation to be submitted to the adherent nations or of a draft international convention for ratification by each such nation. It is incumbent upon each government concerned to place any such proposal before the proper legislative authority for its consideration. There are also provisions

for inquiry into any alleged grievance or injustice. The first meeting has been convened for the 29th of October next and it is to be held at Washington.

The immense labours and responsibilities which devolved upon the British Plenipotentiaries, and especially upcn Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Balfour, can only be realized by those who were intimately associated with them in the labour of the Peace Conference. When the time comes for a fuller history of the events at Paris between the middle of January and the end of June, there will be an even warmer appreciation and recognition of their service to the Empire and to the world. Nor should I omit a tribute to the representatives of the other Dominions, with whom the Canadian delegates always worked in absolute co-operation and understanding.

It was my privilege to have very intimate relations with General Botha, whose service to his couritry and to the whole Empire has been so splendid and so conspicuous and whose loss is universally deplored.

I desire further to place on record also my grateful acknowledgment of the invaluable assistance of those of my colleagues who were associated with me in the representation of Canada at the Conference; also to my colleagues in Ottawa with whom we were in very close communication on questions of doubt or difficulty.

I should not omit to mention the valuable assistance which my colleagues and I received from Mr. Lloyd Harris, Chairman of the Canadian Mission in London; Mr. Frank P. Jones, Vice-Chairman of the Canadian War Trade Board; and Dr. James W. Robertson as representative of the Department of Agriculture. During a portion of the time Mr. P. M. Draper aided us with useful advise and suggestions respecting labour questions. The services of Lieutenant Colonel Oliver Mowat Biggar, Judge Advocate General, and Mr. Loring C. Christie, Legal Adviser of the Department of External Affairs, were especially notable. They filled highly important positions on several committees of the Peace Conference and discharged responsible duties in connection with the British Empire delegation. Their services received very warm appreciation from Sir Ernest Pollock, Solicitor General of England, and from Sir Maurice Hankey, British Secretary General of the Peace Conference.

I now come to consider the character of the representation secured by Canada at

the Conference, her position as a signatory of the Treaties concluded there, and her status as a member of the League of Nations and of the International Labour Convention. Early in the war it had been announced in the various Parliaments of the Empire that the Dominions would be fully consulted concerning the terms of peace. The sessions of the Imperial War Cabinet held in the spring of 1917 and in the summer of 1918 afforded in a certain measure the means for the carrying out of this understanding. Before leaving Great Britain for Canada on the 17th August, 1918, I had been actively engaged as a member of a committee of the Imperial War Cabinet, the constitution and purpose of which were somewhat notable. This committee had its genesis in a very frank and full discussion which I initiated in the Imperial War Cabinet immediately after my arrival in June, 1918. The whole issue involved was relegated for consideration to a committee consisting of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Prime Ministers of the Dominions, General Smuts representing General Botha. The committee called into consultation the Secretary of State for War, the Chief of the General Staff and the highest military experts from the more important theatres of war. Its duty was to determine what further effort was necessary to win the war according to the views of these experts, who were also asked to express their opinions as to the place where and the time when the supreme effort should be made and the conditions under which it should be attempted. An elaborate report was prepared which, however, was superseded within a few weeks by the rapid and wholly unexpected march of events.

Shortly before the armistice the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom strongly urged that I should arrive in London as soon as possible and with three of my colleagues I left Ottawa on the 8th November last. The status of the Dominions at the Peace Conference came immediately into question and was the subject of earnest discussion. Various methods, which it is not necessary to explain, were suggested. In the end I proposed that there should be a distinctive representation for each Dominion similar to that accorded to the smaller Allied powers, and in addition that the British Empire representation of five delegates should be selected from day to day from a panel made up of representatives of the United Kingdom and the Dominions. This proposal was adopted by the Imperial War Cabinet, Early in December preliminary

conversations on the making of peace took place in London between representatives of the British Empire, of France and of Italy, and the proposal which I had already put forward was accepted in principle. The Preliminary Peace Conference began at Paris on January 12, 1919, and the question of procedure, including that of representation, was immediately taken up by the representatives of the principal Allied and Associated Powers, afterwards commonly known as the Council of Teh. At first strong objection was made to the proposed representation of the British Dominions. Subsequently there was a full discussion in the British Empire delegation, at which a firm protest was made against any recession from the proposal adopted in London. In the end that proposal was accepted.

The adoption of the panel system gave to the Dominions a peculiarly effective position. At plenary sessions there were sometimes three Canadian plenipotentiary delegates, two as representatives of Canada and one as representative of the Empire. Moreover, throughout the proceedings of the Conference the Dominion delegates, as members of the British Empire delegation, were thoroughly in touch with all the proceedings of the Conference and had access to all the papers recording its proceedings. This enabled them effectively to watch and check those proceedings in the interest of their respective Dominions and placed them in a position of decided advantage. Dominion ministers were nominated to and acted for the British Empire on the principal Allied commissions appointed by the Conference from time to time to consider and report upon special aspects of the conditions of peace. The Canadian ministers acted as the principal representatives of the British Empire on these commissions as follows:

Commission on Greek Questions, Sir Robert Borden (Vice-Chairman).

Economic Commission, Sir George Poster (Vice-President).

Commission on the International Control of Ports, Waterways and Railways, Hon. A. L. Sifton (Vice-President).

Sub-Commission on Pre-War Contracts, Hon. C. J. Doherty (Chairman).

Supreme Economic Council, Sir George Foster, with Mr. Sifton and Mr. Doherty as alternates, was on the panel from which the British Empire representation was chosen from time to time.

On several occasions I was charged with the duty of attending as one of the British Empire representatives on the Council of Five. Mr. Lloyd George called upon me to put forward before the Council of Four the British Empire case in respect of the clauses

on economic questions, on the International Control of Ports, Waterways and1 Railways and on Submarine Cables. During the last month of my stay in Paris I acted regularly as Chairman of the British Empire delegations in the absence of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, whose duties as a member of the Council of Four constantly prevented his attendance.

It is desirable to note an important development in constitutional practice respecting the signature of the various Treaties concluded at the Conference. Hitherto it has been the practice to insert an article or reservation providing for the adhesion of the Dominions. In view of the new position that had been secured and of the part played by Dominion representatives at the peace table we thought this method inappropriate and undesirable in connection [DOT]with the Peace Treaty. Accordingly I proposed that the assent of the King as High Contracting Party to the various Treaties should in respect of the Dominions be signified by the signature of the Dominion plenipotentiaries, and that the preamble and other formal parts of the Treaties should be drafted accordingly. This proposal was adopted in the form of a memorandum by all the Dominion Prime Ministers at a meeting which I summoned, and was put forward by me on their behalf to the British Empire delegation, by whom it was accepted. The proposal was subsequently adopted by the Conference and the various Treaties have been drawn up accordingly so that the Dominions appear therein as signatories, and their concurrence in the Treaties is thus given in the same manner as that of other nations.

This important constitutional development involved the issuance by the King, as High Contracting Party, of Full Powers to the various Dominion Plenipotentiary Delegates. In order that such powers issued to the Canadian Plenipotentiaries might be based upon formal action of the Canadian Government, an Order in Council was passed on April 10, 1919, granting the necessary authority!. Accordingly I addressed a communication to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom requesting that necessary and appropriate steps should be taken to establish the connection between this Order in Council and the issuance of the Full Powers by His Majesty so that it might formally appear of record that they were issued on the responsibility of the Government of Canada.

The new and definite status of the Dominions at the Peace Conference is further

manifested in the constitution of the League of Nations. Since they had enjoyed the same status at the Peace Conference as that of minor powers, we took ,the ground that the Dominions should be similarly accepted in the future international relationship contemplated by the League. The League of Nations' Commission, while inclined to accept this in principle, did- not at the outset accept all its implications as was apparent in the first draft of the Covenant. This document, however, was professedly tentative. The Dominions' case was pressed, and in the final form as amended and incorporated in the Treaty of Peace with Germany, the status of the Dominions as to membership and repre- . sentation in the Assembly and Council was fully recognized. They are to become members as signatories of the Treaty, and the terms of the document make no distinction between them and other signatory members. An official statement as to the true intent and meaning of the provisions of the Covenant in that regard was secured by me and is of record in the Archives of the Peace Conference.

A similar question arose in respect of the constitution of the International Labour Organization. Corresponding to the Council of the League there is a Labour Governing Body consisting of delegates nominated by a limited number of governments. The original form of the Labour Convention did not adequately recognize the status of the Dominions and at the Plenary Session of April 11, 1919, when a resolution was proposed that the Peace Conference approve of the Draft Convention, I moved that the resolution be amended by adding a provision which authorized the Drafting Committee to make such amendments as were necessary to have the Convention conform to the League of Nations in the character of its membership and in the method of adherence. As a result the Labour Convention was finally amended so that the Dominions were placed on the same footing as other members of the International Labour organization, becoming eligible like others, for selection to nominate their Government Delegates to the Governing Body.

I hope the House will realize that the recognition and status accorded to the British Dominions at the Peace Conference were not won without constant effort and firm insistence. In all these efforts the Dominions had the strong and unwavering support of the British Prime Minister and his colleagues. The constitutional structure of the British Empire is imperfectly

understood by other nations, even by a nation so closely allied in kinship, in language and in the character of its institutions as the United States of America. Such lack of comprehension need excite no surprise because the association between the Mother Country and the great self-governing Dominions has been for years in a condition of development and that development is not yet bomplete. The' future relationship of the nations of the Empire must be determined in accordance with the will of the Mother Country and of each Dominion in a constitutional conference to be summoned in the not distant future. Undoubtedly it will be based upon equality * of nationhood. Each nation must preserve unimpaired its absolute autonomy, but it must likewise have its voice as to those external relations which involve the issue of peace or of war. So that the Britannic Commonwealth is in itself a community or league of nations which may serve as an exemplar to that world-wide League of Nations which was founded in Paris on the 28th of last June. On behalf of my country I stood firmly upon this solid ground; that in this, the greatest of all wars, in which the world's liberty, the world's justice, in short the world's future destiny were at stake, Canada had led the democracies of both the American continents. Her resolve had given inspiration, her sacrifices had been conspicuous, her effort was unabated to the end. The same indomitable spirit which made her capable of that effort and sacrifice made her equally incapable of accepting 'at the Peace Conference, in the League of Nations, or elsewhere, a status inferior to that accorded to nations less advanced in their development, less amply endowed in wealth, resources and population, no more complete in their sovereignty and far less conspicuous in their sacrifice.

I commend this Treaty to the consideration and approval of the Canadian Parliament, claiming not indeed that it has no imperfections, but that it does in truth embody terms consistent with honour and justice and that the most earnest endeavour of those who framed it was to ensure the future peace of the world.

Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):

Might I ask the right hon. gentleman to supplement the very interesting, instructive, and helpful statement he has given by answering a question I am about to put, and which I hope he will regard as reasonable. I should be glad to have his opinion as to what will be the con-

sequences of refusal or failure on the part of the Parliament of Canada to ratify the Treaty. In what manner, and in what degree would the interests of Canada, of the Empire, and the world be affected?

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

The failure of Parliament to ratify this Treaty would, of course, involve the fate of the Government which presents it to Parliament for ratification.

Hon. Mr. FIELDING:

I. had not that in mind

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

That is what would be involved, and then it would devolve upon my hon. friend, or those associated with him, if they should occupy the Treasury Benches, to answer the question which he has just now asked.

Hon. Mr. FIELDING:

I had not that in mind at all. The fate of one Government or of one party is a small thing in the presence of the story of the League of Nations. My question was not, how will it' affect the fate of hon. gentlemen on that side or this, but what effect will it have upon the interests of Canada and the interests of the Empire? What would be the consequences as affecting any one of the nations concerned in this matter? What difference does it make to us, the Empire, or the world, if we never ratify the Treaty at all ?

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

It makes this difference: Canada would stand out of and apart from the rest of the Empire ratifying the TreatyIt would virtually, I think, commit Canada to such absolutely independent action, that she could not be regarded in the future as acting in cooperation with the other nations of the Empire.

Hon. Mr. FIELDING:

W'ould not Canada, as a part of the Empire, be affected in all her international affairs by the ratification of His Majesty the King and the British Parliament?

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

His Majesty the King and his advisers have recognized the right of this Parliament to express its opinion upon this Treaty. I made that pledge to Parliament, and the British Government have been informed of that pledge. They recognize the situation, and they are not disposed to deal with this Treaty, so far as Canada is concerned, apart from the approval of the Canadian Parliament.

Hon. Mr. FIELDING:

Will the right hon. gentleman bring down any. papers that will

show that the British Government have said they would not ratify this Treaty without the consent of this Parliament. He has made a statement to that effect, and I hope he will bring down the papers showing the foundation for it.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I did not say

there were papers. The subject was discussed. There may be papers or there may not. I am stating to the hon. gentleman an absolute fact as to which I hope he will not doubt my word. I tell him that it is recognized by the ministers of the Crown of Great Britain that this Treaty must.be submitted to the Canadian Parliament for its approval, and that we desire, we insist, upon the judgment of the Canadian Parliament in regard to it before we advise the King on behalf of Canada that the Treaty should be ratified.

Hon. Mr. FIELDING:

Of course, I accept without any hesitation any statement my Tight hon. friend may make. While there may be no question as to the right and desirability of our approving of the Treaty, my question was, what would be the consequences to us, to the Empire, or to the world, if we did not approve, and my right hon. friend has shown us no more serious consequences than that we might have a change of Government.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I beg my hon.

friend's pardon. He has forgotten what I said a moment ago. Failure to ratify the Treaty would involve very serious consequences indeed.

Hon. Mr. FIELDING:

What are they?