Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The expenses

of the office of the League of Nations were reduced last year by some two or three hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. SHAW:

I think there is a matter which is far more important than the mere proportion of expenditure, and that is the question whether or not we are getting anything like

Supply-League of Nations

the value for the expenditure that we make. I feel there is a growing conviction-I will not say as to the futility altogether-but certainly that we are not getting the maximum usefulness from this particular organization known as the League of Nations. I am not going to argue the thing now. I think it is rather unfortunate that to the question of our external relations we pay but little attention. I remember reading a statement of Vincent Massey, of Toronto, in which he pointed out that of 534 days of discussion in the last five sessions preceding this parliament, we spent only some 13^ days altogether covering the whole field of trade treaties, external department estimates, and all other matters that had even the remotest relation to external affairs. I do not want to discuss that particular matter now, but I do want to challenge the attention of the Prime Minister, and I cannot do it better than by reading two or three extracts from the first volume of a book by Kellor, entitled "Security against War." Dealing with the career of the League of Nations he says:

There have been recorded thirty-seven disputes which threatened a rupture or to disturb international peace and good understanding. Of these disputes all but four have been in some form before either the assembly or council, so a fair test of the practical value of the covenant has been afforded.

Of these thirty-seven disputes, resort was had in fourteen instances to some form of aggression in which military force was used, either before, or without, resort to the conciliatory methods of the covenant. Among these are major disputes involving territory and reparations. In thirteen o-ther disputes resort was had to political interevention. These, with the exception of Upper Silesia and Iraq, constitute minor disputes involving small territories and minorities.

It will be observed from the table that in the fourteen instances where resort was had to force, vhe question has been definitely settled, in nine of which (namely, the Burgenland, Polish-Russian War, Vilna, Corfu, Memel, the Rhur, Fiume, Teschen and Eastern Galicia) the aggressor was either rewarded with a slice of territory or with reparations. In the other instances, Greece lost its conquest over Turkey and Albania, Russia did not seek territory in Persia, and was only pursuing General Deniken, Yugo-Slavia lost its conquest over Albania and Panama lost its territory to Costa Rica as awarded by the White decision. In one other instance, upon the threatened return of ex-King Charles to Hungary, the Little Entente threatened to use force.

Of the fourteen instances in which resort was had to conciliation six (Upper Silesia, Hedjaz and Lebanon, Hungarian frontiers with Yugo-Slavia and Czechoslovakia, the Aaland islands and the return of ex-King Charles) have been definitely settled; four remain unsettled (Bolivia, the Bulgarian disputes and Hungarian optants), two have been withdrawn from the league and are in process of settlement (Iraq in the Lausanne treaty and Peru before the United States), and two have been the subject of conquest after or without political intervention (Armenia and Georgia). In four of these instances the people most vitally concerned either lost their independence or their territory (the Aaland islands, Armenia, Georgia, Hungary), and in another instance they were divided (Upper Silesia).

And may I interject, one of the real danger points of the world.

In one instance (Lebanon) the people received autonomy under a French protectorate, and in Iraq a similar provision is made under British protection.

Of the nine questions referred to the Permanent Court, only six have any direct relation to the maintenance of peace; in four of these the court rendered an opinion and in one a judgment which constituted the basis for peace and security, namely, in the instances of the nationality decrees, Polish-Czecho-slcvakian frontier, the two questions concerning German settlers, and in the Kiel canal case. The Eastern Carelian dispute was outside its jurisdiction and remains unsettled.

From the following table it appears that of the thirty-seven disputes, thirty-three were the subject of negative, neutral or affirmative action in either the assembly or the council. Of the thirty-three disputes, the council took decisive action which was accepted by the parties in four instances, the Aalands islands, Upper Silesia, Jaworzina and Memel, the initative in each instance being taken by an allied power or the conference of ambassadors. Of the remainder, eight questions have been referred to the court. In five of these an opinion has been rendered which has been accepted by the parties. In two opinions relating to minorities in Poland, that state has accepted the opinions in principle, but their application is encountering obstacles; while in one no relief was afforded.

That short statement is a challenge to the League of Nations to justify its existence.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

Even at this late or rather early hour of half past one in the morning, and with only about thirty members present, I feel we ought not to pass this item without some little discussion as to the league itself and the responsibilities which we have as a member of the league. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) told us early in the session that an opportunity would be given for a discussion of the protocol and the work of the league. So far that opportunity has not been given and we are now at the very last hours of parliament. Surely we ought to recognize the very decided obligations which may at any time arise because of our membership in this league. I know that at the present time a very considerable proportion of the people of Canada are not par-ticuiarly interested. Some of them are inclined to ask, What have we to do with Europe? Yet we are to-day carrying a terrific load simply because we found a few years ago that we had to go to Europe under the circumstances and with the commitments that Great Britain then faced. I do not think we should simply pass these things by with indifference. I should like to take a few minutes to make a few observations with regard to this matter and I do so in the hope that another year, if any of us are here, opportunity may be given very early in the session for the discussion of such questions. As I suggested once before, the committee

Supply-League oj Nations

which was set up last year on industrial and international relations might very well be given the opportunity of reviewing the policy of this Dominion with regard to foreign affairs. I would urge that as at present constituted1 the League of Nations can be given only a very qualified support; ^and without developing the argument. I should like to enumerate one or two of the points which seem to me to justify such a statement.

First of all, as at present constituted, the league affords no guarantee of peace. We are told by its advocates that we ought to support the league; but, I repeat, there is no guarantee that we shall have peace. In fact, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald, Pictou) told us a day or so ago that his visit to Europe convinced him that we were in very imminent danger of a new war. Sir Arthur Salter, director of the economic and financial section of the League of Nations, in a lecture last summer at Williamson Institute of Politics said of the league:

It is essentially an organized system of conferences designed to facilitate agreement.

That is all it is. In holding conferences the league undoubtedly is performing a very important function. But the fact that we have a mechanism for the holding of conferences with the existing state of affairs gives us no guarantee whatever that we may look forward to any lengthened period of peace. It would seem to me that the league, if it is to become at all effective, must be dissociated from the iniquitous treaty of Versailles. I do not propose to examine

that treaty at any length, but I should like to quote one clause of it which in my opinion obligates us very definitely. In the covenant of the league in clause 10 we find:

The members of the league undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the league. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

Anyone who has studied the map of Europe as it exists to-day must surely be convinced that the present situation cannot very long endure. I had hoped that the member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) might have carried out his purpose and exhibited that map to this House and shown something of the difficulties which face European statesmen at the present time. The point I want to emphasize to-night is that under clause 10 of the covenant of the league, we in Canada are intimately interested in this question. We cannot escape our responsibilities and we are obliged to maintain what can only be termed

an absolutely impossible position. Further, I would urge that if it is to be effective, tiye league must be enlarged to take in all rations. I was very much interested the other day in noting that the so-called "Fidae", the InterAllied Veterans' Society, were urging that the veterans of Germany and Austria should be given the privileges of membership within a year. One of their planks, No. 5, was to re-order the League of Nations, eliminating America's objections to membership, so that the United States may become a member. In view of the very prominent position which the United States occupies to-day because of her financial and industrial importance in the world, it would seem as if no organization such as the league could ever carry out the work for which it was originally designed without the inclusion of the United States. The United States has certain definite objections and I do not think that this country is justified in contributing its support to the league without protesting steadily against the things that would in any way bar the entiance of other nations. From the information that we have been given it would appear that Germany is shortly to be admitted. I believe that, according to the newspapers, that is a part of the arrangement that is now being made. I submit that we should have some statement from the Prime Minister as to what attitude Canada is taking with regard to the proposed security pact It seems to me it is only right that the members of this House and the people of Canada should be informed as to the position of the government in regard to this situation. I would urge further that not only Germany be included in the league, but also Russia. It still seems to be almost a dangerous thing to mention Russia, and yet any student of world affairs must recognize that Russia occupies a strategic position at the present time. We go no further than to call the attention of the House to a treaty which has been made recently between Russia and Japan, which is of very far reaching consequence. Decidedly we cannot hope to re-establish peace conditions on a permanent basis in Europe unless the great country of Russia is included. Now may I quote two or three very brief statements in regard to the condition of that country given us recently in an official report of the British Trades Union delegation to Russia in November and December, 1924? I do so because in this country there has been so much adverse propaganda that the great majority of the people are still under the impression that conditions over in Russia

Supply-League oj Nations

are very deplorable. I may say that the gentlemen who made this report were rather conservative in type, well-known trades unionists, and one may not be afraid of being accused of being very disloyal to the Empire when we remember that Ramsay MacDonald and the members of the British Labour party advocated closer relationship with Russia. In making this plea to-night I am but carrying out the avowed policy of the Labour party of Britain. The following is the considered conclusion of the delegates who spent some time in Russia:

Finally the deflegation is of opinion that the Soviet system of representation and its scheme of constitutional and civil rights, so far from being undemocratic in the widest sense of the word, given in many respects to the individual a more real and reasonable opportunity of participation in public affairs than does parliamentary and party government. . . .

Under that constitution there are certainly as great- and possibly greater-possibilities than elsewhere in respect of popular government, political peace, and social progress.

And again with regard to the general social conditions that exist the delegates state:

The conclusion reached by the delegation in the matter of law and order is that public order is now un a footing well above that in most continental countries; that justice is equitably enforced in the new courts, and under new cedes that constitute a judicial system still in its youth, but adequate for its present purpose.

And then in conclusion, after presenting a vast amount of statistical data, very carefully prepared, these delegates sum up in a paragraph their general impression:

Final Conclusion to General and Labour Reports

In view of the information contained in the preceding chapters-all of which has been obtained by themselves from sources and through channels that convince them as to its general accuracy-the delegation has come to the following conclusions. That the U.S.S.R. is a strong and stable state; that its government is based firstly on a system of state socialism that has the active support of a large majority of the workers and the acceptance of an equally large majority of the peasants and, secondly, on a federal structure that gives very full cultural and very fair political liberties to racial and regional minorities, together with full religious toleration; that the machinery of government though fundamentally different from that of other states seems to work well, and that the government it gives is not only in every way better than anything that Russia has ever yet had, but that it has done and is doing work in which other older state systems have failed and are still failing; that these good results have reconciled all but a very small minority to renouncing rights of opposition that are essential to political liberty elsewhere; and that this causes no resistance partly because these rights have been replaced by others of greater value under the Soviet system, and partly because recent movements have been steaddy towards their restoration; and finally that the whole constitutes a new departure of the greatest interest that is well worth foreign study and a new development that may be greatly benefited by foreign assistance.

This report is signed by the following well-known Labour men of Great Britain:

Herbert Smith, Ben Tillett, John Turner, John Bromely, Alan Findlay, Albert Purcell (Chairman), Fred Bramley (Secretary), and Harold Grenfell, A. R McDonell, George Young, Advisory Delegates.

Now without going further into the situation in Russia, I would urge that we should take our part together with other forwardlooking nations, and together with the progressive sections of our own Empire in asking that the league should include in the near future, not merely the allied nations, but all the nations of the world, as was the original intention. It is only on that basis the league can be made effective. Again, I would urge that the league must be democratic in its organization. The assembly at the present time represents some fifty nations and the council represents four great powers and six other countries. This means that the council composed so largely of the great nations is able to impose its will on the assembly. I cannot think that is in accordance with the general principles of democracy, and undoubtedly it is this weakness that has led to the failures referred to in the article read by the hon. member for West Calgary. Why should we urge that disputes should be brought before the league and then refuse in many instances to refer disputes with which as an empire we are closely connected? I need not go further than to refer to the Egyptian situation, but there are many others. Why should we set up a league that is supposed to preserve peace, which we proclaim to the world ought to adjudicate in cases of dispute, and then reserve to ourselves the right to withdraw certain cases from the jurisdiction of the league?

One other point. There is a very great danger that the league should become little more than a tool of the great international financiers. In connection with the Dawes report, I am sure that many hon. members recall the words of Lloyd George who stated that the report was the work not of Mr. MacDonald, then Prime Minister of Great Britain, or of Monsieur Herriot, Premier of France, but that essentially that report was the work of the international financiers. Surely such a statement coming from such a source ought to give us all pause. Further than that we have been frequently told of the great benefit which has been conferred upon Austria and Hungary by the loans which have been made to those countries. I think perhaps the true situation might be very well indicated by the following paragraph from

Supply-League of Nations

a correspondent in Budapest, Mr. Fred Hank-inson. In speaking of Hungary which he observed right on the spot, he says:

The League of Nations commission has been here, and curiously enough prices rose all the time and the kronen depreciated. I feel with you that a foreign loan is only a palliative, and the country accepting such a loan becomes part of a financial gamble in Wall street and in London. If Hungary, like Austria, accepts the loan it may help for a time, but it only postpones the evil day and lays Hungary open to the craft of the international financiers and exploiters.

An editorial on this paragraph comments:

Exactly! Why fool ourselves? Mr. Bertrand Russell, in a recent address, pointed out with admirable cogency, that it is not necessary any longer to conquer a country militarily, or to annex it politically. All advantages of conquest and dominion can now be obtained by making a loan, and establishing the required financial control to see that the loan is safeguarded and its obligations met. Austria and Hungary are to-day colonial dependencies of the Allies. They have disappeared as nations. And, what is worse, not even by this process has anything been done to bring permanent relief to Europe.

I would! urge that we are now far enough away from the war to enable us to see the situation in something like its true perspective, and we ought to set ourselves very definitely to reorganizing the affairs of Europe and the world on an altogether different basis. Some of us may be ridiculed as visionaries and impossible idealists or dangerous radicals. We shall have to endure such terms, I suppose and the opprobrium which attaches to them. But the situation is to serious for us to remain silent. We believe it is possible to reorganize the affairs of the world in such a way that devastating wars will be abolished. I would urge that if this league, to which we are contributing and of which we form a part, is to accomplish its true purpose, it must devote itself to a reorganization somewhat along the lines which I have ventured to indicate.

May I ask again, in closing, that we might have from the Prime Minister, some statement, however brief, as to the attitude of the government with regard to the security pact? Personally, I am very thankful because of the attitude which the government took in regard to the protocol. I know that protocol was fostered and put before the world by the labour Prime Minister of Great Britain. None the less I feel that we in this country could not endorse it, and I am glad the government has not asked us to do so. I think, however that at this time we ought to know something at least as to the government's attitude towards present developments in Europe.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The security pact, as my hon. friend is aware, was a matter of negotiation primarily and essentially

rMr. Wood-sworth.]

between the governments of Great Britain, France and Belgium and the German government. The Canadian government, with the government of the other self-governing dominions, have been kept informed 2 a.m. of these negotiations which have not developed beyond the discussion of a principle and an endeavour to find out how far these respective countries might be prepared to go with respect to certain matters which are confined entirely to Europe. At no stage of the negotiation has any intimation been made to the governments of the self-governing dominions by the countries that I have mentioned in the nature of asking us for an opinion or making any request. We have been kept informed, as I have said, but we have not thought, under the circumstances, we should either offer advice or take exception to anything that was being done, having no reason to take exception as we are not participating, but reserving always, in the light of the information that was given to us, a freedom of expression if we thought it was required on the part of the country. I gather from a statement which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has issued in the British parliament that Great Britain will not be committed without the approval of her own parliament with respect to whatever the nature of the obligations may be that Great Britain is prepared to enter into. The same intimation has been made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with respect to the dominions, that no dominion government will be asked to do anything without the full sanction of its parliament. That is the attitude which we would expect the British government would take towards any action that might be either expected or anticipated with respect to Canada. Whether or not we shall be asked to become a party to an agreement that may ultimately be reached, I cannot say. It is quite conceivable that an agreement may be reached wholly independent of our parliament, but one thing I feel perfectly sure of is that no agreement will be reached which will commit in any way our country without the explicit condition that this parliament approves whatever action is taken. I think my hon. friends may rest assured that the government is not likely to sanction a course which it has not good reason to believe will be wholly in accord with the wish and the will off the people of Canada. I would point out to my hon. friend that the objection to discussion at any length of matters of this kind is that it is so largely a European affair that, for us to attempt a discussion while parties in Europe are negotiating, is only

Supply-Miscellaneous

possibly to throw into the arena of European discussion some element that might be capable of being misconstrued and do more harm, than good. I can, however, assure my hon. friend that the government is following the whole negotiations with great care that thus far it has reason to feel that what these European countries have been seeking to do is all to the good, and that, as regards our Dominion, no step is being taken which will in any way occasion concern to the people of Canada.

Mr. SHAW:

Do 1 understand from the Prime Minister that no obligation will be assumed without the approval first being had and obtained of the Canadian parliament.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Yes. I have in my hand a despatch which was sent yesterday from London. I could not do better than read it because it sets out in an authentic way the position to date: It comes from the Secretary of State for the Colonies and it gives a summary of what- took place in the British House of Commons on the 24th instant in regard to the security pact. After mentioning that a copy of this debate is being sent to the government in full, the despatch states:

In the course of his opening speech and reply to points raised in debate, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs made it clear

(1) That what the House had to discuss was not a treaty, since there is no treaty or draft of treaty in existence, but mere preliminary statement of principle and of what countries concerned feel it would be possible for them to undertake and in what direction they think they can make an advance.

(2) That no obligation will be undertaken on behalf of this country except subject to the approval and ratification of parliament.

(3) That dominions have been kept fully informed of policy of His Majesty's government but that with the exception of New Zealand which has expressed its complete confidence in policy of His Majesty's government and its readiness to leave decision in their hands they have not yet declared themselves.

(4) That no dominion can be committed except by its own government acting with consent of its own parliament

I think that covers the point raised by my hon. friend.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

What is being

taken up this year, and who are the delegates?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The government has not yet appointed delegates for the present year. It is the regular annual meeting of the league.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

We have no

special side show this year?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Not that I am aware of.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

What is this

organization, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

It is of a similar category to the tuberculosis and social hygiene associations, only it realates to mental diseases.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

What is this

organization?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

It is an association of members of parliament of the different countries of the world. I understand they are having a meeting in the United' States in the fall and intend to visit Canada for a few days. The government thought it would be in every way appropriate and desirable that these gentlemen should be invited to visit Canada and be our guests while here. My hon. friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) is vice-president of the association.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

It is an extension of the visit to the United States, as my right hon. friend has pointed out. A large number of questions are discussed at the conventions of the association, and it may be looked upon as a useful auxiliary of the League of Nations. As a matter of fact, it started the idea of arbitration in the first instance. These members of parliament from all over the world meet together, and the social reactions result in a better knowledge of each country's troubles and difficulties, and as a result they are in a far better condition to consider any international questions that may arise.

Mr. THURSTON:

How many countries

are represented?

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

A great number. There are no bars to membership.