Mr. BENNETT (reading):

Mr. Dunning would not comment-

Mr. DUNNING:

"Would not comment."

Mr. BENNETT (reading):

-on the costly blunder of the men responsible for the location of the terminus at Port Nelson,-

Mr. DUNNING:

That is right.

Mr. BENNETT:

There is only one

inference. (Reading):

-where more than six million dollars has been expended since the inception of the Hudson Bay route. It is quite evident however that the decision to make Port Nelson the Hudson bay port was dictated by political rather than business motives.

That is the sentence, and it does not say that it is Mr. Dunning's or the reporter's.

Mr. DUNNING:

Oh, no.

Mr. BENNETT:

I go this far to say that

when Sir Robert Borden saw that report he was so annoyed-I can go this far without violating any confidence-that he directed attention to the fact that during his official life he had never seen any minister whose regard for the public interest was so great as the late Frank Cochrane's, or one who was so willing to subordinate political considerations to the public weal. Because of that I

The Address-Mr. Bennett

spoke privately to my friend about the article, and he told me that he had no intention to convey the implication that might be drawn from the document as it now reads.

Mr. DUNNING:

Perhaps my hon. friend

will permit me to say that I have on more than one occasion paid tribute to the absolute honesty of the late Mr. Cochrane's motives in connection with the whole of this matter.

Mr. BENNETT:

Quite so.

Mr. DUNNING:

To my mind no such

inference can be drawn from this report as that now suggested, and I cannot be responsible for the reporter's words.

calendar year the figures are, from the British Isles 49,782, and from other European countries 73,182. How, then, my friend could write into the speech from the throne this statement with respect to immigration I find a little difficult to understand:

There has been a substantial increase in the number of British immigrants as well as the number of immigrants of a suitable type from the continent of Europe.

Well, the figures Show that while immigration from the British Isles has increased, it has increased much more rapidly from continental countries; that while we had 37,000 odd from the British Isles in 1926 and 39,000 odd from other European countries, last year the figures were 49,000 odd from the British Isles and 73,000 from other European countries. I leave the question to be dealt with by the government.

But I want to go a step further with respect to this question, because the government has a history in this regard, and I think it time this country realized just what that history is. I have already said that this government has prepared seven speeches from the throne; let us see what they have said on the question of immigration, and ask the people of the country to judge on the most important question that can engage public attention at this time, what is being done and what has been done. We will look first at the speech from the throne in 1922, and see the statement with reference to this question of immigration. It is as follows:

The stream of immigration to the Dominion was much interrupted and restricted during the war. Now that the blessing of peace is with us, a renewal of efforts to bring in new settlers must be made. My government are fully alive to the importance of this question and will use every reasonable endeavour to attract to our country people of the most desirable class, with particular regard to settlement on our undeveloped lands.

That was in 1922. A further statement was made in 1923, to this effect:

The matter of securing an increasing flow of desirable settlers to develop the large areas still available for cultivation in Canada has had the serious consideration of my advisers. Additional and general publicity campaigns have been launched in Great Britain and the United States, and, as opportunity offers, will be extended to other lands from which a suitable class of settlers may be attracted. In other particulars, the activities of the Department of Immigration and Colonization are being expanded.

In 1924 nothing was said on this subject, but in 1925 we again have some semblance of activity:

To aid in an increase of production, through the development of our vast natural resources,

every effort is being made to attract the right class of immigrants to Canada, and to secure their settlement in the undeveloped areas served by our great transportation systems. In due course steps will be taken to further colonization and settlement in other fertile regions such as those of the Peace River.

Then again in 1926 they had one more try out:

An agreement has been made between the government and the railroad companies providing a larger measure of co-peration in immigration activities in the British Isles and on the continent of Europe. An agreement entered into with the British government has already been instrumental in stimulating immigration from Great Britain.

While it is of importance to attract new settlers it is equally, if not more important, to assist those who are already established on the land by reducing the cost of agricultural production. To this end a measure will be introduced offering wide facilities for rural credits.

I have already read that part of the speech from the throne delivered in 1927 dealing with this question, and I gave the census figures for 1916 to 1921 and for 1921 to 1926; those figures have been placed on record, and they indicate that although we have sent a few settlers west, many of them have left the country; they entered at the front door and left by the back, and we have not even maintained our natural increase. Further than that, in no one year since 1921 have we brought into Canada half as many people as weTe brought here in 1913. Those are the facts and the figures.

Now, Sir, this question transcends party; it is larger than the lives of parties because it strikes at the very life of this Dominion. We must have settlers. We have in Canada facilities to take care of an additional population of from 15,000,000 to 17,000,000 people; we 'have 10,000,000 acres of untouched land within 20 miles of the railways; we have the Peace River area and other portions of the country which are lying idle while the government is expressing pious hopes as to what will happen. I say the time has come when action must be taken.

It cannot be done in any small way; it cannot be accomplished in any niggardly way, but it must be done in a large way. It involves the expenditures of vast sums of money and, more than that, it involves a large and comprehensive policy of settlement. 1 suggest to the Prime Minister that the committee on agriculture and colonization or a special committee of this House, one or the other-and I would prefer the latter-should meet to hear the evidence of the presidents of our great railways, of the minister, the* deputy minister and the officials of the de-

The Address-Mr. Bennett

partment and, further, that we should bring here the men charged with this work overseas. I am sure they would come, at their own expense if necessary, to give us the benefit of their experience in other lands. I say again that this committee and this house should hear the story in its entirety, in order that the people may have their unrest and their suspicion with respect to the conduct of this department removed. I think it highly important that this should be done, and I do ask my friend in all seriousness whether he does not think that either the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, or a special committee appointed by the house, should deal with this question.

Within the last three hours I had a cable from a friend of mine in London who is tremendously interested in this question, saying that the regulations now in existence are preventing people from coming to Canada. He said also that the new medical regulations were absurd, to give his exact words. I am not going to pass judgment upon them myself; I was very careful to tell the house that this was a cable from a friend vitally interested in these matters, not in any sense from a political point of view at all. Everywhere men and women are interested in this question; I recently had a letter from London giving me the very figures which I quoted with respect to British and continental immigration. I checked them up at the Bureau of Statistics and found them correct in every detail.

These are1 the conditions under which this department is being administered. It is a crying shame that this country is not getting additional settlers. We have here the greatest area of vacant land in the world, crying for settlers; we have productive lands and we offer great opportunities, and we must do something to deal with this problem.

There are two problems to be dealt with at the same time; one is to conserve the present population, a big problem in itself, and the other is to secure additional settlers. On the one hand we have to maintain the population we have, and on the other we must induce additional settlers to come here. These two problems are allied and connected; the one is the complement of the other, and unless the government takes such measures as will secure the safety and employment of those men who come to our country in the first instance, and thus conserve our present population, they certainly will not succeed in meeting the second problem, which is the movement of people to this country. We do not want to bring people here merely for the purpose of sending them on to other countries.

That is not what we desire to do, and I do suggest in all good part to the right hon. Prime Minister, that some effort be made to deal with the matter along the lines I have mentioned. Then when intelligent men, seized with the whole circumstances and with a high sense of their responsibilities and obligations, make recommendations of a practical character, we may hope to have them carried out. I do know this, sir, that from time to time articles appear in the public press suggesting that we should deal with these matters entirely outside of government; that we should set up a great body which would deal with them as a commission. That does not appeal very strongly to a great many of the Canadian people, but the fact remains that the suggestion has been made from time to time, and it should be considered by the committee dealing with this matter. Other suggestions have also been made; I suppose most of the members of this house consider from time to time the reports coming from overseas with respect to migration . and the vast sums of money which have been made available to prospective settlers. Large sums, relatively, have been allotted for the purpose of sending people to this country and to other parts of the British Empire; settlers are going to Australia and they are coming here, but the unfortunate fact is that the figures indicate that as far as we are concerned this has been almost a total failure, and I do think the time has come when some effort should be made in the way I have suggested.

The only other domestic matter on which I desire to speak is the customs report. In that respect I am only going to say this, that there could have been no more ample vindication of the expression of opinion by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). Nothing more clearly indicated the conditions under which the revenues of this country were being lost to the exchequer than that report, and nothing more amply indicated the wrongs which were being committed under political protection and under the protection of the law in various parts of Canada. I suppose my friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) realizes what was said by counsel for the commission at Regina when dealing with the Bronfman cases; I suppose other gentlemen have realized what occurred with respect to prosecutions in the province of Quebec, and in all sincerity I say to my friend the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler), that when this report is considered by this house, as it will be when the legislation which is to be introduced following that report, as promised in the speech

The Address-Mr. Bennett

from the throne, is brought down, he will be expected to produce some better answer than the mere glorifications which have appeared in the newspapers as to the efficiency with which his department has been conducted.

This parliament has been flouted with respect to the customs enquiry. It solemnly passed a resolution in which it said that the judges should be appointed by the judges of the exchequer court, and they were so appointed in the first instance. When the change of administration took place an order in council was substituted for the voice of the judges of the exchequer court and a political tribunal-not using the words in that sense with respect to the judges-a political tribunal was set up and eminent counsel, a member of the Liberal party was appointed in connection with it. But information placed in their hands was not acted upon. I say now to the minister that the action of this parliament in demanding that prosecutions take place, naming the persons that should be prosecuted, naming the persons from whom money should be collected before the proper forum-and that forum did not mean a lawyer's office in Toronto but a court of law -was ignored. I say that when that action was taken and when those resolutions were arrived at they meant that this House of Commons demanded that action should be taken; and I say to the minister that when his legislation comes before this house-without taking up the time of parliament in going into the matter now-I hope that the names of these people will be given and some reasons offered parliament and the public why these prosecutions have not taken place. I say to my right hon. friend in all sincerity that he and not someone else has now the responsibility in this matter. I sympathized with my right hon. friend when he said to me in days gone by how difficult it was for the first minister to be able to know what goes on in every department of the public service. And that is the correct statement of the situation. However, I suggest to him that notwithstanding pressure of work he will find ample opportunity for satisfying his curiosity-shall I say?-if he will investigate the report that has been laid upon the table of this house.

There is only one thing more I desire to say with respect to the domestic situation, and that is in connection with research. I am wholly in accord with the suggestion made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) that we should provide large sums of money for research. We have

research with respect to animal husbandry, with respect to grain, with respect to field harvests, with respect to forests, with respect to fisheries. And here I observe that the government has appointed a fisheries commission to deal with certain matters in connection with the maritime provinces. I hope that the report of this commission will be laid upon the table before the house rises and at the earliest possible moment, because it is important that whatever is proposed in connection with fishery matters should be considered by parliament in the light of the evidence taken by that commission. But with respect to research, may I make this observation: Nothing is more fatal to research than duplication of effort and waste of public money; and no laboratory work is worthy of the name-the Prime Minister knows that so well-that is conducted under departmental supervision, as just a little branch of a department with a deputy minister at its head. That is so in connection with the Department of the Interior and of forestry research matters. But these things cannot be done in that way; it is a waste of public money. I have endeavoured to- make some investigation into the matter. I have made some enquiries with respect to the work done, for instance-my right hon. friend is thoroughly familiar with it-by the Rockefeller institute and the Carnegie foundation; also work done by other foundations in Great Britain, and work being done in the universities. If we are going to have duplication of effort it will be money wasted without accomplishing any results at all. I want to say on behalf of the Conservative party, and every member of it, that we desire in every way in our power to make possible the development of research facilities in this country in order that young Canadian men and women may find employment; there is nothing comparable to it. I speak particularly of young women because some of the best work done in connection with the Department of Agriculture, as the minister himself will tell you, is done by young women who have adopted that particular field of activity.

There is one other important matter I will speak of, and that is with respect to the uniting of the Department of Health with the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment. Many of the men who have returned from the front are opposed to uniting their department with any other department; but it may be that there is such a close relation between their disabilities and the Department of Health that such a union can be satis-

The Address-Mr. Bennett

factorily carried out. I reserve to myself the right to speak upon this subject when I have heard further details with respect to it.

I have been amazed that the speech from the throne contains no promise with respect to the matter of pension legislation. Last year when I introduced an amendment the Minister of Health (Mr. King, Kootenay) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) both rose in their places and promised that at the ensuing session legislation would be introduced dealing with the matter. It may well be that such legislation will be introduced, but it seems to me that if such is contemplated the speech from the throne would have been the most suitable place in which to have announced it. As I travel up and down the country I come into contact with increasing numbers of men who are unfit for work, men who are ill and broken in health. They have been given the same answer time after time, "This is a post-war disability", and they can get no consideration from the department at all. This seems remarkable to those who saw them leave for the front in the enjoyment of robust health. They have returned with broken down constitutions and they are told that their state of health is a post-war disability. Such treatment is calculated to make men not only indignant but resentful, and I should be most happy if some action is taken which will prevent any further delay in dealing with these cases.

I desire to make two or three observations with respect to another matter that was touched on in the speech from the throne. I find that there have been during the last few months since the house rose constant reiterations by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice on the question of the alleged equality of status of Canada with other parts of the empire. That has been mentioned times without number. It has been mentioned by visitors; it has been mentioned by the Prime Minister. Now it is as old as Aristotle that you must consider the government from three aspects: The executive, the legislative and the judicial. The judicial branch of Canada must always be responsible for the interpretation of the laws of the country. Upon that body must rest the proper construction of the meaning to be given to the legislative measures of parliament on the one hand and the acts of the executive on the other hand. So that in the ultimate analysis it is upon the judiciary we must rely for the interpretation of our constitution or of our enactments. I care not how pious your resolutions may be or by whom they may be passed; I care not how much the House of Commons may resolute; how much the Senate

may resolute; how many resolutions the Imperial conference may pass, unless and until, as Dicey points out, the King with the consent and assistance of the Commons and Lords- in this case the Senate and the House of Commons-in parliament assembled enacts legislation, there is nothing of which a court can take notice. Resolutions are not taken notice of by courts of law; and in the interpretation of the constitution of this country recourse must be had to the decisions and to the constitution in order to determine what they mean. Now when we say we have equality of status we are saying something that is untrue. In fact my friend the Minister of Justice has so said in parliament as I dhall presently read. So as long as the Colonial Laws Validity Act remains on the statute book of Great Britain we have no equality of status. We may as well face these things. Nothing could be worse for this country than to tell the young men of Canada that we have equality of status when we have not. It is nothing more than a specious deception, I care not by whom these words may be uttered, because in the end the judicial branch of government determines the meaning of legislation and executive acts, and no later than 1926 did the judicial body, sitting in London, determine that the Colonial Laws Validity Act still had power. In the Nadan case it was decided that because the parliament of Canada had passed a statute that was repugnant to the provisions of a'British statute it had no force, no power, and was invalid. In the light of this, how can any man say that we enjoy equality of status? Neither I nor those members sitting on the left of the Speaker yield to any person in the desire to have Canadians stand on an equality with any other people within the British Empire. But there is one thing We will not do-and in this regard I shall in a moment quote the language of the Chief Justice of Canada: we will not become parties to any subterfuge or any use of language which leaves the impression that what we aspire to has in fact already transpired. We will make no such pretence. There can be no such thing as equality of status so long as that British statute remains in force. What said the Minister of Justice in discussing this question? He advanced the view that the only means by which we might attain the end to which we aspired was through the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act. He said:

I think that what must be done is to repeal the Colonial Laws Validity Act on which that Judgment-

That is, the judgment in the Nadan case. -was based.

The Address-Mr. Bennett

Therefore until such time as the Colonial Laws Validity Act is repealed-and I have no doubt that members of this house would like to know precisely what that act provides -it follows that there can be no equality. It seems to me that nothing could be more fatal, nothing more injurious than to have the younger men of this country wake up some morning and find a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada to the effect that certain legislation passed by this parliament was invalid on the ground that it was repugnant to the provisions of a statute passed by the parliament at Westminster. Nowadays most Canadians are under the impression that such is not the state of affairs. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has gone about t'he country and discussed the question in such a way as to convey the impression that equality of status is an accomplished fact. But what is the real state of the case? In the very report of the Imperial conference the statement is made that sub-committees have been set up for the purpose of determining what should be done in the matter. Under the circumstances, therefore, let us in all conscience tell the people of the country really the situation is this-that we desire equality of status and that proper measures should be taken to achieve it. But do not let us pretend that that which we are striving for has already been accomplished, that that has been done which in fact has not been done. Until such time as the British parliament at Westminster repeals that statute to which I have been referring our inferior position must continue.

I have here the provisions of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, which I have no doubt will be of interest to some of our friends, and I will take the trouble to quote from it.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

Do I rightly infer from

my hon. friend's remarks that he will join with me in asking to have the Colonial Laws Validity Act repealed?

Mr. BENNETT:

My hon. friend, confronted with the difficulty of his own situation, seeks to escape by asking someone else a question. He will find that I am too old to be caught in that way. I resort to the language of Mr. Gladstone, "I will prescribe when I am called in." But I will tell my hon.' friend what I -am prepared to do: I will use every endeavour in my power, so long as I occupy this position, to see to it that this country shall maintain a status of partnership within the British Empire on an equality with other partners in the commonwealth.

That was a good

question.

Mr. BENNETT:

The question is good,

but another question suggests itself: what has been done about it? Why assert that something has been done which as a matter of fact has not been done? Would a man in ordinary life say that that was an accomplished fact which obviously was not? Let me illustrate. Around a table sits a family group of six, the eldest fifty, the youngest twenty-two, and they all claim equality. Suddenly the old family solicitor interrupts: "There is a family agreement somewhere that provides that the eldest son shall have the power to veto if you do anything at variance with what he has done." They look up the family records and discover that such an agreement exists. Well, that is the Colonial Laws Validity Act, which in 1926 the Privy Council declared determined the Nadan case; and the language of that act is that any statute which is repugnant to it in terms shall be invalid to the extent of such repugnancy. Although Sir John Thompson forty years ago put on the statutes of Canada a provision denying the right of appeal to the Privy Council in criminal cases, in view of the fact that in 1833-44 it wan provided that the poorest subject in the empire might claim the right to petition the Privy Council, that provision being inconsistent with the statute passed by the parliament of Canada, the Privy Council in 1926 concluded in the Nadan case that the law invoked was ultra vires. Here are the words of the Colonial Laws Validity Act:

Any colonial law which is or shall be in any respect repugnant to the provisions of any act of parliament extending to the colony to which such law may relate, or repugnant to any order or regulation made under the authority of such act of parliament, or having in the colony the force and effect of such act, shall be read subject to such act, order, or regulation, and shall to the extent of such repugnancy, but not otherwise, be and remain absolutely void and inoperative.

A committee of experts created to determine what action should be taken concedes absolutely that there is no equality until such time as legislative measures are adopted in the circumstances, and here we are going about the country assuring the younger men that we have equality of status, when we know perfectly well that it is not so and cannot be so until such time as legislation is enacted by the parliament of Westminster as well as by the parliament of Canada. And in this regard may I point out that the gov-

The Address-Mr. Bennett

eminent of the province of Quebec, on the tenth day of this month, placed on record its view with respect to amending the British North America Act.

I will not at present do more than discuss our international situation as dealt with by the speech from the throne. An international situation arises in Canada on the Atlantic, on the Pacific and on the three thousand miles of territory that lie between us and the United States, and further by reason of our membership in the League of Nations. We have recently achieved a non-permanent seat on the council of the league. That was foreseen when we joined the league. When we became a party to the agreement we knew that one day we should secure one of these non-permanent seats, and we now have it. But I do think, and I believe the people of this country are beginning to conclude, that there is too little knowledge on the part of parliament as to what transpires in the League of Nations affecting this country. A great commission was set up on imports and exports, an economic commission on which Canada was represented. Canada agreed to certain conclusions. How many members of this house know what they were, and how much has parliament done to deal with the matter? What I fear is that we shall be charged with bad faith in the years to come because we have become a party to these recommendations without knowing what they are. How many members of this house are familiar with these reports? How many know the implications of them in every sense? Senator Dandurand, speaking on September 15 before the assembly, pointed out that Canada was the only nation in the world that had reduced its tariff four times since the war, and he rather boasted about it. He said that this was anticipating the report of the economic commission created by the League of Nations. My hon. friends will find the subject discussed in the verbatim report of September 15. There are difficulties in connection with the protocol which was rejected, and Mr. Chamberlain made the statement that rather than sign that protocol he would leave because it would mean the disruption of the empire. Yet later on Mr. Ramsay MacDonald bases a speech on the vague and indefinite observations of Senator Dandurand as to the desirability of the protocol being signed. I am bound to say I do not think Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was justified in founding his observations on, what Senator Dandurand did say, because he did1 not make at all clear that he favoured the protocol, as was suggested. I think that is clear from the whole

substance of his speech. But we are dealing with international events in countries thousands of miles away, and we are appointing men on committees and commissions to deal with these matters, and what does parliament know about them? Senator Dandurand refers to a dispatch sent by this government to the League of Nations in 1925. I suggest to the Prime Minister that there should be laid on the table of this house every communication that takes place between Canada and the League of Nations, so that parliament and the people of this country will know what is going on, because I do not desire that this country should be charged with bad faith in the years to come because we have appointed men on committees and commissions dealing with these international matters, who have made no report to us and we have no knowledge of these matters except the printed word as circulated.

Then there comes our relations internationally by reason of the appointment of ministers to this country on the one hand, and by reason of the proposal to appoint ministers to France and Japan. May I point out that there seems to have been a very great misapprehension on the part of some persons with respect to the use of the word "ambassador" and "minister" in years past? The word "minister" is used as between Great Britain and1 Canada. We are told that we are going to have a minister in Great Britain, and Great Britain is going to have a minister in Canada. I took the trouble, thinking my memory might be at fault, to look up these matters. I had desired to speak on them last year, but I was prevented by illness from doing so. A leading authority on international law says:

Diplomatic envoys accredited to a state differ in class. These classes did not exist in the early stages of international law. But during the sixteenth century a distinction between two classes of diplomatic envoys gradually arose, and at about the middle of the seventeenth century, after permanent legations had come into general vogue, two such classes became generally recognized-namely, extra-ordinary envoys, called ambassadors, and ordinary envoys, called residents; ambassadors being received with higher honours and taking precedence of the other envoys. Disputes arose frequently regarding precedence, and the states tried in vain to avoid them by introducing during the eighteenth century another class-namely, the so-called ministers plenipotentiary. At last the powers assembled at the Vienna congress came to the conclusion that the matter ought to be settled by an international understanding, and they agreed, therefore, on March 19, 1815, upon the establishment of three different classes-namely, first, ambassadors; second, ministers plenipotentiary and envoys extraordinary; third, charges d'affaires. And the five powers assembled at the congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818 agreed upon a fourth class-namely, ministers resident,

The Address-Mr. Bennett

to rank between ministers plenipotentiary and charges d'affaires. All the other states either expressly or tacitly accepted these arrangements, so that nowadays the four classes are an established order.

That is the position with respect to that. Let us go a step further and. see who may be accredited, and under what conditions men may be accredited from one state to another. I find it put in this short sentence: First of all, there must be a state, and a state is defined1 internationally to consist first of all of a people. There must, secondly, be a country in which the people has settled down. There must, thirdly, be a government, and there must, fourthly and lastly, be a sovereign government:

Sovereignty is supreme authority, and authority which is independent of any other earthly authority. Sovereignty in the strict and narrowest sense of the term includes, therefore, independence all round, within and without the borders of the country.

That is the definition given by an accepted authority in international law. Let us proceed a step further, and here is where a great difficulty arises:

The appointment of an individual as diplomatic envoy is announced to the state to which he is accredited in certain official papers to be handed in by the envoy to the receiving state. Letter of credence is the designation of the document in which the head of the state accredits a permanent ambassador or minister to a foreign state.

Since when did Great Britain become a foreign state to Canada?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

May I interrupt my hon. friend? I do not know whether his intention is to have it appear that someone on this side of the house has suggested sending a minister to Great Britain and receiving a minister from Great Britain in this country. If that is what he has in mind, may I tell him that he is entirely in the wrong? No one on this side of the house has suggested anything of the kind. I would like to add, for the benefit of my hon. friend, that I know a suggestion of that kind did come from some hon. gentlemen who are sitting beside him.

Mr. BENNETT:

My right hon. friend

always has greater information with respect to this side than I have. I can only say that if such a suggestion came from this side, I never heard of it. It may well be that someone has suggested that, but whether someone on this side has suggested it or not,

I can only point out that it can possibly be that a minister from Canada cannot be accredited to Great Britain, or a minister from Great Britain accredited to Canada.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I entirely

agree.

Mr. BENNETT:

The Prime Minister may not have had that in mind, but certainly I can tell him that some of his followers had.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

I do not

think so.