April 28, 1921

L LIB

Samuel William Jacobs

Laurier Liberal

Mr. JACOBS:

I agree that that would

not he reasonable.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

I am not prepared to

say what Canada ought to do when we find ourselves face to face with the complete list of those nations who have declared their readiness to accept the compulsory jurisdiction.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

Marie Joseph Demers

Laurier Liberal

Mr. DEMERS:

Does the minister believe that Canada can be summoned before the League of Nations?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

No, there is nothing in this to subject us to be summoned.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

Lucien Cannon

Laurier Liberal

Mr. CANNON:

Is this to be the only

tribunal, or are there to be other tribunals constituted?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

So far as I know, it is

not intended to constitute another tribunal. The parties may submit matters to arbitration outside of this court, if they deem

proper. When they so submit them to arbitration, they determine to whom they will submit them. There is in ,the covenant provision for the creation of one court, and one court only; I am speaking now of the court proper. There is provision for the constitution of bodies to decide certain questions about transit and communications but looking at it from the point of view of the court of justice, this is the one court.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

Lucien Cannon

Laurier Liberal

Mr. CANNON:

What about the court

suggested by the United States? Should that court be constituted, what position would we be in?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

This is, as I understand it, the court that was suggested, so far as any court was suggested, by the United States of America. Mr. Root, as I pointed out, took a most prominent part in the work of the committee.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

Lucien Cannon

Laurier Liberal

Mr. CANNON:

Is this the court suggested by the United States of America?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

So far as any court

with a plan can be said to have been suggested by the United States of America, officially, the United States have never suggested any court at all, so far as I know. Of course, if the hon. gentleman has information that they have, then I am speaking about something that I do not know.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

Lucien Cannon

Laurier Liberal

Mr. CANNON:

My information is very

limited, but by reading the Bill and the schedule attached to it, I notice that this tribunal only refers to members- of the league. The United States is not a member of the league. Therefore, how can this tribunal be suggested by the United States?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

I have not stated that the United States of America in any official way suggested this court, but I may point out that by provisions of this very statute itself the United States of America has access to this court, if it so desires, even though it should not become a member of the League, because to all those nations mentioned in the schedule to the covenant access to the court is extended. I do not want to be misunderstood. I was not in any sense speaking with any suggestion of criticism when I said that possibly the hon. gentleman had information with regard to the United States that I had not, because I am perfectly free to confess that I have never concerned myself with endeavouring to find out in any definite way whether the United States had ever made any concrete proposal for a court. If I am to give what I gather from the newspapers, I

gather that after Mr. Root's return he did speak in(high terms, as I understood him, of the court as projected in the plan to which he was a party, and I am under the impression that that was followed by certain expressions by a gentleman who at that time was a candidate for the presidency with regard to the value of a court, and I think he spoke of a court with teeth in it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

Lucien Cannon

Laurier Liberal

Mr. CANNON:

If the United States of America, not being a member of the league, has access to this tribunal what advantage is there in our being a member of the League and paying as we have to do?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

Any state not a member of the league that avails itself of its access of the court, will then find itself subject to having determined by the court what contribution it ought to make to pay the expenses entailed by the court by reason of that nation using it.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

Lucien Cannon

Laurier Liberal

Mr. CANNON:

Is there not a provision that parties appearing before the tribunal should bear their own expenses?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

That is one provision, but there is another special provision dealing with those who are not members of the league.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Hugh Boulton Morphy

Unionist

Mr. MORPHY:

While the minister is looking that up, I might point out that the latter part of Article 35 provides:

When a state which is not a member of the League of Nations is a party to a dispute, the court will fix the amount which that party is to contribute towards the expenses of the Court.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

I have endeavoured to put before the committee what seemed to me to be the salient features of the project. I shall be very happy, if hon. gentlemen have questions to ask, to answer them to the best of my ability.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
L LIB

Lucien Cannon

Laurier Liberal

Mr. CANNON:

Am I to understand that the jurisdiction of the tribunal is fully stated in Article 36?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink
UNION

Charles Joseph Doherty (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Unionist

Mr. DOHERTY:

The jurisdiction, as I 'have already said, as a rule depends on the referring of the matters by the party. Then that is extended. Article 36 provides that the jurisdiction of the court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it, "and all matters specially provided for in treaties and conventions in force."

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   REVISED EDITION. COMMONS
Permalink

April 28, 1921