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

That it be resolved by the [DOT] [DOT][DOT]

House of Commons that it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention between His Majesty and the President of the United States of America, signed at Washington on the twenty-third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, for the purpose of avoiding any difficulties which might arise between them in connection with the laws in force in the United States, on the subject of alcoholic beverages, a copy of which has been laid before parliament.

That a message be sent to the Senate informing their honours that this House has adopted the above resolution and requesting that their honours will unite with this House in the approval of the above-mention convention.

And that the clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.

He said: Mr. Speaker, very shortly after the opening of parliament, I laid on the Table a copy of a convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, respecting the regulation of the liquor traffic. This subject was one of consideration and of discussion at the Imperial Conference last fall. It is referred to in the summary of proceedings of the conference which has also been tabled. I might quote from the reference, to be found on page 12 of the summary, the paragraph that is pertinent. It reads as follows:

During the session of the conference, the question of the regulation of the liquor traffic off the American coasts and of the measures to be taken to avoid a serious conflict either of public opinion or of official action was seriously debated. The conference arrived at the conclusion that, while affirming and safeguarding as a cardinal feature of British policy the principle of the three mile limit, it was yet both desirable and practicable to meet the American request for an extension of the right of search beyond this limit for the above purpose, and negotiations were at once opened with the United States government for the conclusion of an experimental agreement with this object in view.

I should like to give to the House the essential provisions of the convention, or treaty as it may be called, and will do so, in as brief a form as possible:

The principle that three marine miles from low water mark constitute the proper limits of territorial water is upheld.

Appropriate provision is made for the searching of British vessels under stated con-

Prohibition in United States

ditions; and when there is reasonable cause for belief that the vessel has committed or is committing or is attempting to commit an offence against the laws of the United States prohibiting the importation of alcoholic beverages the vessel may be seized and brought into the United States for adjudication.

It is provided that this right of seizure may be exercised within the distance from the coast that may be traversed in one hour by the vessel suspected of endeavouring to commit the offence. Where a transfer from one vessel to another is contemplated, it is the speed of the latter vessel which is to determine the distance from the coast within which seizure may be made.

The treaty also provides that no penalty or forfeiture under' the laws of the United States shall attach to the carriage of alcoholic liquors by British vessels when listed as sea stores or as cargo destined for a port foreign to the United States, provided that such liquors are kept under seal continuously while the vessel is within the territorial waters and that they shall not at any time or place be unladen within United States territory. Such carriage is to have the same status as now provided by law with respect to the transit of alcoholic liquors through the Panama canal. Provision is made for reference to a joint commission of claims for compensation where a British vessel has suffered loss or injury through any unreasonable or improper exercise of the rights conferred by the treaty. The treaty is subject to ratification in the usual manner, and is to remain in force for one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications. Three months before the expiration of the year modifications may be suggested by j either party, and if no agreement is made with respect to them the treaty is to lapse; otherwise it is to continue from year to year subject to a similar right of proposed modifications. The treaty is also to lapse if either of the parties is prevented by judicial decision or legislative action from giving full effect to its provisions, and in case from any cause the treaty comes to an end, such party is to enjoy all the rights he would have possessed had it not been concluded.

The convention was signed at Washington on January 23 of this year by the British ambassador, Sir Auckland Geddes, representing His Majesty the King, and by the Hon. Mr. Hughes, Secretary of State of the United States, representing the President. It has since been ratified by the Senate of the United States on March 13, by a vote of 61 to 7.

It will be ratified by the King as soon as approval of the treaty has been given by the

parliament of the United Kingdom and the parliaments of the several self-governing dominions. On January 12 of this year the Canadian government was asked if its ministers approved of the terms of the treaty, and also if they were agreeable to having the British ambassador sign the treaty. On the day following a reply was sent to the British government intimating that the terms of the treaty were agreeable to our ministers; also that the government was agreeable to having the British ambassador sign. The reply drew attention to the particular clause in the treaty which refers to vessels which may be illegally seized and brought into port. We fell, that if the vessel seized should happen to be under Canadian registry it was but right that the British representative on the board appointed to adjudicate upon the matter should be a person nominated by the Canadian government ; we also felt that the government should only give its approval subject to the subsequent approval of this parliament. These two intimations were given in our despatch, and in the reply which was received from the British government it was intimated that the wish of Canada in both those particulars would be fully respected.

I will, for purposes of greater accuracy, indicate to the House more or less in the language of the despatch itself, the form in which our approval as a government was given to the terms of the treaty. The despatch, sent on January 12 intimated-that: The government of Canada, subject to acquiescence by the British government in the conditions therein mentioned, approved of the proposed treaty with the United States, and approved of the signature of the treaty by His Majesty's representative at Washington. It had been decided that parliamentary approval should be obtained before concurrence in ratification should be intimated. It was stated that the Canadian parliament would probably meet before the end of February. That the Canadian government's present approval of the proposed treaty was given on condition that it was understood that if a joint board to report upon the claims of compensation by a vessel of Canadian registry is required to be constituted under Article 4, the selection of the person whose name is to be submitted to his Majesty for appointment to the board will be made by it. In conclusion the despatch said it was assumed that an undertaking by the British government on this point would be sufficient and that provision with reference thereto need not therefore be included in the treaty.

The reply sent stated that it was quite understood that the Canadian government

Prohibition in United States

would wish to obtain the approval of the Canadian parliament before ratification, and that a similar course was contemplated in the United Kingdom; that his Majesty's government would readily leave to the Canadian government the nomination of the person to be the member of the joint board referred to in Article 4 in respect of vessels of Canadian registry and agreed that it was not necessary to make provision in the treaty, further that the same procedure was contemplated in case of other dominions.

As I have intimated, the treaty was signed on January 23rd by the British ambassador. In this connection may I point out to the House that the practice followed with respect to the signature of this treaty is the one decided upon at the recent Imperial Conference and set out in the report of the Summary of Proceedings of the Imperial Conference to be found on pages 13, 14 and 15 in the part of the report relating to negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties. With reference to the signature of treaties there are the following provisions:

(a) Bilateral treaties imposing obligations on one part of the Empire only should be signed by the representative of the government of that part.

The Halibut treaty which has been the subject of discussion in this House is of that character. It is a bilateral treaty which imposed obligations only on Canada, not on other parts of the British Empire, and as such according to the procedure which the Imperial Conference has thought proper in this matter, it should be signed by a representative of the government of Canada. Now I continue to quote from the report of the proceedings:

The full power issued to such representatives should indicate the part of the Empire in respect of which the obligations are to be undertaken, and the preamble and text of the treaty should be so worded as to make its scope clear.

(b) Where the bilateral treaty imposes obligations on more than one part of the Empire the treaty should be signed by one or more plenipotentiaries on behalf of all the governments concerned.

This treaty between His Majesty and the President of the United States is a bilateral treaty which imposes obligations on more than one part of the Empire. It imposes obligations on all parts, and therefore it is, in the language of the procedure set forth by the *conference, to be signed by one or more plenipotentiaries on behalf of the governments concerned. It would seem quite sufficient that the British Ambassador should be sole plenipotentiary for this purpose. I might say I am informed that the governments of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, and the Irish Free State have all approved of the terms of the treaty, and have all expressed their acquiescence in having the British Ambassador sign the treaty in so far as their interest in the matter is concerned. The act of ratification is an act of the sovereign. The treaty while it has been ratified by the United States has not yet been ratified by His Majesty the King. That ratification awaits, as I 'have already intimated the concurrence of the governments of the several parts of the Empire before that step is taken.

In regard to the ratification of a treaty, the Imperial Conference has the following to say with respect to procedure:

Ratification of treaties imposing obligations on more than one part of the Empire is effected after consultation between the governments of those parts of the Empire concerned. It is for each government to decide whether parliamentary approval or legislation is required before a desire for or a concurrence in ratification is mtimated by the government.

It will be seen by the statement I have just read that it is not essential to ratification that parliament should approve treaties. Ratification being an executive act may be taken by the executive independent of parliament altogether, should the executive of the country, in other words the government concerned, so desire. We have felt that in these important' matters of treaty the parliament should be asked to approve before the government would concur in the ratification. It is with a view of obtaining the approval of the parliament of Canada that to-day we are asking this House to pass the resolution which I have just presented. In recommending the adoption of the resolution, I do so on the grounds which have been urged in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, namely: First of all, there is the ground of morality, that it is obviously desirable for countries to unite in endeavouring to give effect to the laws of other friendly countries, particularly where those laws have in view serving a great moral purpose. There is next, and closely allied, the ground of international good-will. There is reason to believe that the

United States is most anxious that this course should be taken; that this treaty should be passed, and we in Canada, as a near neighbour, will I think, feel gratified at an opportunity of being able to facilitate in any manner possible the furtherance of friendly relations between Great Britain and other parts of the British Empire and the United States. By giving our approval in a whole-hearted manner to this treaty, I think we shall be helping to serve that end. Finally, it has been represented by British shipping interests that it will be very much to their

' !|| COMMONS

Prohibition in United States

advantage that this treaty should be enacted. While, on the one hand, it gives to the United States government the privilege of the right of search beyond the three-mile limit to a point which, roundly speaking, it has been estimated might be set at somewhere within the vicinity of twelve miles, with a view of assisting the United States government to enforce its legislation restricting the importation of alcoholic beverages, on the other hand, it gives to British shipping interests the right to carry alcoholic beverages under seal into United States ports, provided that those alcoholic beverages are kept under seal when within the three-mile limit. On these grounds, therefore, of commercial interest, moral obligation and international good-will, I recommend the adoption of the resolution by the House.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

Before the Prime Minister closes, I would like to ask first this question: Does the treaty entirely fail of effect

if it should be that the parliament of any single one of the dominions fails to ratify it?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I assume that the British government would reconsider the present wording of the treaty if any of the parliaments of the British Empire should refuse to approve it, possibly exempting the particular country concerned from the provisions of the treaty; but I should expect that in this case a question of that kind would not be apt to aiise.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

There are two other

questions on another point which the Prime Minister referred to, namel>

the point of the formality of the execution. First, how is it determined whether a treaty is bilateral, affecting one part or dominion alone? What precautions are taken to make sure of that? Second, in the event of its being found to be a bilateral treaty affecting one part alone, upon whose recommendation does His Majesty act in authorising the execution by the appropriate dominion representative?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

With regard

to the first question which my right hon. friend has asked: How is it ascertained that a bilateral treaty applies to one particular part of the Empire or more than one, I would answer that that fact would be ascertained by the terms of the treaty itself, its subject matter and by conference between the different parts of the Empire. The paragraph in the report of the Imperial Conference which deals with the subject of negotiation of treaties, contains, I think, what will answer

my right hon. friend's question. The paragraph reads:

(a) It is desirable that no treaty should be negotiated by any of the governments of the Empire without due consideration of its possible effect on other parts of the Empire, or, if circumstances so demand, on the Empire as a whole.

(b) Before negotiations are opened with the intention of concluding a treaty, steps should be taken to ensure that any of the other governments of the Empire likely to be interested are informed, so that, if any such government considers that its interests would be affected, it may have an opportunity of expressing its views, or, when its interests are immediately involved, of participating in the negotiations.

If that course is pursued, I think it will soon become apparent ro any particular selfgoverning dominion or the government of the United Kingdom, whether the treaty which it proposes to negotiate is one that concerns only one part of the Empire or more than one paH. In these, as in all matters, common sense has to govern in the last degree; hard and fast lines cannot be laid down; but the broad intelligence that is usually applied to matters of this sort would soon, I think make it quite apparent and clear whether a sell-governing dominion or the government of the United Kingdom would be justified in regarding a treaty as imposing obligations only upon itself.

As to the second question which my right hon. friend has asked

on whose advice does His Majesty act in ratifying a treaty, was it?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

No, in a case, for example, of a treaty which, after the conference, the other dominions and the United Kingdom should agree affected Canada alone. In that event, some Canadian is authorized by His Majesty to sign. Upon whose advice does His Majesty act in authorizing the execution, thus approving the terms of the treaty?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

In this report of the Imperial Conference is mention of the legal adviser of the Foreign Office, who was present when the particular matter to which my right hon. friend refers was discussed at a subsidiary conference. His name is Sir C. J. B. Hurst. Perhaps I can best illustrate the point of view which was expressed at that time, by recalling, as best I can at the moment, an answer made by Sir Cecil Hurst to a question that was asked by one of the dominion prime ministers. It was in the nature of a rhetorical reply. In the event of advice being given to His Majesty which might prove to be not proper advice, and the necessity should arise for impeaching the minister or prime minister who had given it, would it, asked Sir Cecil, be the British Prime Minister or the

Prohibition in United States

Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great Britain, or the minister or prime minister of the dominion concerned against whom impeachment proceedings should be properly started? That question was put in that way to elucidate where the responsibility began and where it ended. I gathered, I think rightly, that the interpretation which the Foreign Office placed upon the matter to which my right hon. friend just referred is this, that the government of the Dominion which was tendering the advice in such a case was the government that was responsible; that it was advising His Majesty direct in regard to matters which were of sole concern to the dominion; that in the transmission of that advice the British government was acting as the channel through which that advice was transmitted, but was not the government which was formally tendering the advice.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I understand, then, that the Prime Minister intimates that for the sake of approving of a certain treaty a Canadian should be appointed to execute it and that the British government itself would entail no responsibility; in other words, that His Majesty would act solely on the advice of his Canadian Privy Council.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I take it that the view of the British govenment is that it is prepared to trust the governments of the self-governing dominions "all in all or not at all" in this as in other matters; and that on a matter in regard to which a dominion government has a right to advise His Majesty direct, such as the question of who should be appointed to sign a particular treaty which comes within the group of bilateral treaties, to which I have referred, which impose obligations on only one part of the Empire, the responsibility shall rest with that particular government and not with the British government.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

If such is the case, and

if the approval of the British government is not at'all essential, is not indeed obtained, why does the transmission take place through the British government and not through His Majesty direct?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I think my

hon. friend will see that these are all matters of constitutional development. Up to the present time all communications have gone to His Majesty through the British government. It will also be seen that it is obviously desirable to have some central agency or channel through which'

all communications may pass and where they may be noted. I think it would be palpably unwise to have different parts of the British Empire communicating direct with His Majesty, without any knowledge on the part of other parts of the Empire that such advice was being given in that way. I consider it advisable that in the working out of a great constitutional evolution-for that is really what is involved in these matters steps should be taken slowly and with great caution.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I take the responsibility

of stating the situation as I understand it. and which I think is a more correct statement of the actual constitutional result. The function of the British government will consist in making a recommendation; the wording of the transmission to His Majesty will be a recommendation. I do not think the Prime Minister would venture to deny that. The British government having been first apprised cf the terms of the treaty and having agreed that the matter is purely one that concerns Canada, the recommendation will in every case be cheerfully given; but it will signify to His Majesty the approval by the British government of the treaty.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

My right hon. friend is always prone to assert his own views as against the views of everyone else. I have given him my understanding of the situation, arrived at after a conference with the British authorities, and the prime ministers of the other dominions in the presence of Lord Curzon who as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs presided; at a subsidiary conference of the Imperial Conference held expressly for the purpose of considering these very matters. As I have intimated, when the matter was discussed, the conference had the benefit of advice from the legal adviser to the Foreign Office, Sir C. J. B. Hurst, who is perhaps the greatest authority on international law in the world. I believe I have accurately stated the position; it is certainly the basis upon which this government is proceeding.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

As regards the merits

of the treaty itself, I do not propose to take general exception to its terms as generally outlined by the Prime Minister. As respects the last point, whether I am right, or whether the Prime Minister is, will I think wholly depend upon whether a recommendation actually goes from the British government; whether the document that passes from them to His Majesty contains a recommendation or merely transmits one of ours. I shall be interested to know just how the matter de-

. . . COMMONS

Prohibition in United States

velops and whether such a recommendation passes or not. This arrangement having been arrived at as between the dominions and the United Kingdom on the one hand and the United States on the other, for the settlement of a somewhat vexed matter of controversy between them, I feel that on the part of this parliament there will not be a disposition to refuse ratification. With regard to the necessity for ratification by parliament, I only emphasize that this is no new development; this is no accretion in the evolution of our constitutional relations; it is something that has been meticulously observed, in respect of matters both of great and of little consequence, in at least the last decade of our history.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

In order that there may appear correctly in Hansard the references to the persons concerned in the subsidiary conference to which I have referred, I would direct the attention of hon. members to the opening paragraph in the summary of proceedings of the Imperial Conference. I have reference to the section relating to negotiations, signature and ratification of treaties.

The principles governing the relations of the various parts of the Empire in connection with the negotiations, signature and ratification of treaties seemed to the conference to be of the greatest importance. Accordingly it was arranged that the subject should be fully examined by a committee, of which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was chairman The Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Prime Ministers of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and Newfoundland, the Minister of External Affairs, of the Irish Free State, and the Secretary of State for India as head of the Indian Delegation, served on this committee. With the assistance of the legal advisor to the Foreign Office, Sir C. J. B. Hurst, K.C.B., K.C., the following resolution was drawn up and agreed to

Then follow several paragraphs relating to negotiations, the signing of treaties, and their ratification. It was as a member of that conference that I heard stated the position as I have given it to this House; and it was,

I think, quite beyond question in the mind of anyone present that the position wks exactly as I have indicated. Indeed, I might say to my right hon. friend, so important did I consider the matter, that at the conference I asked the particular question to which he himself has referred, and received the reply which I have given to the House.