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

Yesterday my right hon, friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) referred to a news 'broadcast from Rome on the evening of Wednesday, June 17, which stated that the Canadian council of ministers at a meeting held the previous day, that is June 16, had decided to favour the abolition of sanctions. I replied that I would make inquiry as far as possible to see if there was any ground for believing that this statement indicated knowledge in advance of the policy of the government announced in the House of Commons on June 18. I do not think it does.

The statement quoted is incorrect since as a matter of fact the question was not discussed in council at all on June 16 as stated. The general position had been discussed some days earlier, and council's decision reached at the time, but the final wording of the statement of the government's position was taken up at the special meeting of council on the morning of June 17. I notice in the Montreal Star of June 16 the following disipatch from Ottawa:

It is understood that the government is giving consideration to-day to its position in respect to sanctions against Italy. What precisely will be the attitude is not officially determined. It is believed, however, that the government is practically certain to join that section of British thought which favours the lifting of the penalties.... Discussion is tentatively fixed for Thursday. The Prime Minister on that occasion is expected to define the attitude towards a continuance of sanctions. Inasmuch as these penalties in time of active war did not frustrate the annexation of Ethiopia by Italy, their continuance, in time of peace, may be regarded as futile.

I think there is little doubt that the statement to which my right hon. friend referred was simply a more positive expression of the above, or similar anticipations. For some days before the announcement of the United Kingdom government the press contained similar surmises as to the decision which would be announced.

I may repeat that there is not the slightest indication that the decision of the government was communicated to any outside person.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

I have only to say that it

was not a press report. It was at seven o'clock p.m. Atlantic standard time, as I indicated, that it came over the radio from the Rome station in the terms I have indicated. That station, fortunately or unfortunately, seems to have been very accurate in its statements during the last six months, especially regarding the Ethiopian situation.

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

I have pleasure in informing the house that His Majesty has been pleased to approve the appointment of Sir Herbert Marler as Canadian Minister to the United States, and the appointment of the Hon. Randolph Bruce to succeed Sir Herbert Marler as Canadian Minister to Japan.

Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):

The other day a return was brought down in regard to questions I had asked with respect to the names of those who had been invited to attend the unveiling of the Vimy war memorial. My question this morning is to ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention to attend that ceremony?

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

In reply to my hon.

friend I may say I should like very much to be able to be present at the ceremony at Vimy next month, particularly because of the nature of the ceremony and also in view of the fact that His Majesty the King has accepted the invitation of his Canadian ministers to be present, and the president of the French republic has accepted the invitation of the government of Canada to be present on the occasion. I have however had to ask myself what may be involved in the way of absence overseas during the next twelve months, and as hon. members know, the coronation ceremonies will take place in London in May of next year, to be followed by an imperial conference, and I expect, unless something unforeseen happens, to be present in Great Britain at that time. I had anticipated that it might not be necessary for any reason other than in connection with the unveiling ceremony at Vimy to visit Europe this year; I am inclined, however, to believe that the importance of the meeting of the League of Nations Assembly which is to be held in September, and which will have to do with the critical situation in Europe and the revision of the

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth

covenant and which may mark a fresh start in the affairs of the League is so important that it would be desirable for the leader of the government of Canada to be one of the representatives of the government at Geneva at that time. In these circumstances I fear I may have to forego what would be an exceptional privilege, namely, being present in France at the unveiling of the monument at Vimy. I have asked my colleagues the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) and the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) to represent the government at the Vimy ceremony, and it has been so arranged.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

Mr. Speaker, this would seem to be the appropriate place to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) if he has any information to give the chamber regarding the probable date of the opening of the next session of parliament. I quite appreciate the difficulty to which he has referred with respect to his own personal *movements, but I recall that on more than one occasion he made similar inquiries of the late administration, and it occurred to me that this might be a suitable occasion on which to indicate generally his intention. I agree that if the League of Nations is to revise the covenant this year it is highly desirable that the Prime Minister of Canada should be present. Whether or not that would interfere with any plan which might be prepared for the early opening of a session of parliament of course I do not know. But it is quite clear that the right hon. gentleman would have to be absent moderately early in 1937, and it is probable that we would not have parliament continuing to sit in his absence. This is a matter of some interest to hon. members, and I have been asked to try to ascertain whether the government has any information to communi-[DOT] cate in this regard.

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

Mr. Speaker, my right

hon. friend is correct in anticipating that the date at which parliament may reassemble will necessarily be contingent, in part, on what may take place at Geneva. It is possible that some action taken at Geneva may necessitate the calling of parliament in the

12739-262J

fall of this year. There is also the circumstance which my right hon. friend has mentioned, namely that the coronation ceremonies take place on May 12. Obviously in order to permit those who may be attending: the coronation ceremony, and the conference which follows, to be present at these meetings it will be necessary for parliament to have adjourned either at the conclusion of the session's deliberations, or during the proceedings of the session itself.

If it is found necessary to have a fall session hon. members may expect that the house will be called together during the latter part of November. The present hope of the government however is that if we meet in the early part of January, it may be possible for us to conclude our labours before the coronation ceremonies take place.

Canada's foreign policy-method of dealing

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, may I address a few words to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) before you leave the chair. Hellas intimated that he may attend the meeting, of the league at Geneva. I am sure the house will be delighted to learn that he has made that decision. It seems to me the world situation is important enough to necessitate the attendance of the Prime Minister, but may I point out that he has not given the house a clear statement of the policies he will advocate at Geneva. I recognize that if there is to be a reorganization of the league there has to be a good deal of latitude allowed, because the whole subject would be one of negotiation. At the same time, since the issues of peace and war are so largely dependent upon what is done at Geneva, it seems to me only right that the Prime Minister should give us, even now, some indication as to the general lines he intends to advocate at Geneva.

Further than that, in this session the opportunities for the debating of international affairs have been obviously very unsatisfactory.. Last night the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) intimated that she had been very anxious to present her views in the matter. She had not been able to do so earlier in the session. Near the last of the session we were promised that we would be given a day to debate the subject, although

4124 COMMONS

Foreign Policy-Mr. Woodsworth

at an earlier stage that opportunity was refused us. The "day" we were promised dwindled down to two hours.

Last night we had the curious spectacle of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) attempting in the midst of considerable disorder to present a highly technical and learned dissertation on some of the constitutional issues involved in the action of the government with regard to Geneva. It was impossible for any of us to give careful attention to his presentation. That is an absurd situation. The only opportunity we have to discuss a matter of such great importance is in the dying hours of a session. I would ask the Prime Minister whether or not he could give us the assurance now that near the beginning of the next session a *committee may be appointed charged with the definite responsibility of studying Canada's foreign policy. I cannot see where there could be any objection. None of us is anxious to drag to the light of day matters which ought to be kept quiet. We recognize clearly that certain things may come to the knowledge of our Department of External Affairs which could not at all times be made public, but surely we must get away from anything like secret diplomacy. More than that, it seems to me very desirable that the public at large should take an interest in its external affairs. It was all very well when Canada was a colony for us to confine our attentions to matters within our own boundaries; but to-day Canada is part of a big outside world. I believe it is the responsibility of this house to debate these matters, and that of the government to afford opportunities for wider discussions leading to greater public interests. I offer this suggestion to the Prime Minister.

I have one further suggestion along another line. No person could sit in the house last night and fail to be impressed with the ridiculous situation which results when we try to pass a great variety of estimates at the last moment. Indeed, I have often thought that the present method of handling estimates in committee of the whole is not the best that could be devised. Last night in connection with a particular estimate the minister in charge quite naturally did not know exactly the details in connection therewith. He had to wait until his deputy was called in. All along the deputies must attend in the house, and there is the curious spectacle of the minister leaning over to get a few sacred words from his deputy in order that he may pass on the information to the house.

Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):

Sacred, or

salient?

{Mr. Wermenlinger.]