UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Canada: the League of Nations and the U.N.O. Lindgren, William Marcellous 1946

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1946_A8 L5 C2.pdf [ 7.64MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0105855.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0105855-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0105855-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0105855-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0105855-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0105855-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0105855-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0105855-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0105855.ris

Full Text

CANADA:  THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS AND THE U.N'.O.  W i l l i a m M a r c e l l o u s Lindgren  A .Thesis submitted  i n P a r t i a l F u l f i l m e n t of  The Requirements f o r the Degree of MASTER of ARTS  i n the Department of ECONOMICS,  POLITICAL SCIENCE and SOCIOLOGY  The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia A p r i l , 1946.  (CABLE OP CONTENTS 8ANADA: THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS AND THE U.N.O. PREFACE  (i) (31)  PART ONE - CANADA'S STATUS IN THE FAMILY OF NATIONS 1. The Period Between Confederation and World War I  Page.  3-15  2. War and Peace.  15 - 25  3. A Voice in the Empire  25-39  4. Final Steps To the Goal  39 - 50  PART TWO - CANADA'S ROLE IN THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS 1. Canada's Part in Building the League  52 - 62  2. The Attitude of the Parliament of Canada 3. The League at Work. 4. The Problem of Disarmament & Security 5. The Deoline of the League PART THREE - CANADA AND THE U.N.O. 1. Prelude to San Francisco 2. Canada at San Francisco 3. The Charter Goes Before the Canadian Parliament 4. The United Nations meet in London  62-67 67 - 75 75 - 98 98 - 107 109 - 111 111 - 131 131 - 135 135 - 141  CONCLUSIONS  143 - 153  BIBLIOGRAPHY  155-169  P R E F A C E  The s u b j e c t : CANADA: THE THE U.N.O. appears  to f a l l  LEAGUE OP NATIONS  i n t o t h r e e separate  AND  sections.  Before one begins d i s c u s s i n g Canada's r o l e i n the League or  i n the U.N«0.  i t seems l o g i c a l to f o l l o w the development  of Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n a l H i s t o r y t o i t s c o n c l u s i o n — attainment of Canadian That  the  statehood i n the f a m i l y of n a t i o n s .  i s what I have attempted  to do i n P a r t I of t h i s  thesis*  F o l l o w i n g t h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n one i s prepared to d e a l w i t h Canada's r o l e i n the two  r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t attempts a t  guaranteeing the peace of the w o r l d . thesis i s divided  F o r t h a t reason  i n t o t h r e e separate and q u i t e  this  independent  studies• The p i t f a l l s to  a student educated  i n a t h e s i s of t h i s type are numerous outside the t e r r i t o r i a l  l i m i t s of  Canada, and to one having had v i r t u a l l y no c o n t a c t with, or knowledge of the country i n q u e s t i o n .  T h i s i s my  predicament.  T h e r e f o r e , any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of f a c t s , for  f a l s e emphasis, or f o r the m i s - i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of m a t e r i a l  presented, d e s e r v e d l y f a l l s upon m y s e l f . attempted this  t o g i v e a complete,  study.  (i)  However, I have  f a i r , and unbiased p i c t u r e i n  Any aid  c r e d i t to t h i s work i s due t o the generous  of P r o f e s s o r H. P. Angus of t h e U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  Columbia, who has a c t e d as my a d v i s o r and has g i v e n me many v a l u a b l e h i n t s , and much of h i s time and i n f o r m a t i o n . The  s t a f f o f the L i b r a r y of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  Columbia have my g r a t i t u d e f o r t h e i r generous a i d i n s e c u r i n g reference m a t e r i a l . Dr. A l f r e d Le Roy Burt  of the U n i v e r s i t y of  Minnesota, and Mr. Con. Michas of Vancouver and M i n n e a p o l i s were i n i t i a l l y  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r my f i r s t  interest  My thanks go out t o them, f o r I now a p p r e c i a t e country's  past and present  i n Canada.  their  r o l e i n the Pamily of N a t i o n s .  William Marcellous  U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, B. C , A p r i l , 1946.  (ii)  Lindgren  P A R T  CANADA'S IN  ONE  STATUS THE  FAMILY OP NATIONS  -0-0-0-  CANADA:  THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS AND THE U.N.O. -o-o-o-  PART ONE  CANADA'S STATUS IN THE FAMILY OF NATIONS  I . The Period Between Confederation and World War I The possession of a t e r r i t o r y , a population, a government, and sovereignty are usually considered to be the requisites  of statehood.  Canada does have the f i r s t  without a question, and she has, a l s o , great extent.  three  sovereignty to a  The decision as to whether or not Canada is  a state, then, turns on the point of sovereignty.  If  sovereignty implies nothing more than the right to exchange diplomatic envoys and to enter into treaty relations with other countries; to declare war and.make peace; then Canada i s a state.  But i f complete freedom from external control  i s involved i n one's d e f i n i t i o n of the word sovereignty, the assumption that Canada i s a state tends to be negated. She cannot formally amend her own c o n s t i t u t i o n ; her highest court of appeals is in another country; and, although she  - 4has a K i n g , he i s a l s o K i n g of another people, and r e s i d e s o u t s i d e the t e r r i t o r i a l boundaries of C a n a d a .  1,  A b r i e f look i n t o the C o n s t i t u t i o n a l H i s t o r y of Canada will,  I b e l i e v e , support the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t Canada i s a  s t a t e i n her own r i g h t and, as such, i s a f u l l - f l e d g e d member of the f a m i l y of n a t i o n s , capable of conducting h e r own i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s , and capable of assuming the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of a l l her a c t i o n s as a s o v e r e i g n s t a t e . When, i n 1783, the T h i r t e e n American their  C o l o n i e s gained  independence, England -had on the c o n t i n e n t of N o r t h  America, the R o y a l C o l o n i e s of Canada, New Brunswick, Nova S c o t i a , and P r i n c e Edward I s l a n d .  Each had i t s own governor  sent from England, as w e l l as a n appointed c o u n c i l , and a n e l e c t e d , though not p o p u l a r i l y e l e c t e d , The Colony of Canada was d i v i d e d  assembly.  i n t o Upper and Lower  Canada i n 1791 by the C o n s t i t u t i o n a l A c t .  The f a c t . t h a t  there was a wide s e p a r a t i o n of powers between the governors and  t h e i r c o u n c i l s , and the assemblies l e d to c o n t i n u a l d i s -  agreements and c o n f l i c t s between the two. A s i t u a t i o n arose i n each of the R o y a l C o l o n i e s which was not u n l i k e  that  which had caused the r e v o l t i n the T h i r t e e n American  Colonies.  1. C l o k i e , H. McD., "Canadian Government and P o l i t i c s " , - Toronto, Longmans, 1944,  pp. 1-15.  Repressive  a c t i o n on the part of England  American C o l o n i e s had it  i n the case of these  proved to be d i s a s t r o u s , and  e a s i l y prove to be' the case with the C o l o n i e s  The R e b e l l i o n of 1837 t i o n was  serious.  so  could  to the North.  proved to the E n g l i s h that the  situa-  The E n g l i s h Government t h e r e f o r e , commis-  sioned Lord Durham as Governor-General and High Commissioner to i n v e s t i g a t e and r e p o r t  on the causes of the  Lord Durham's Report, presented door to the beginning Royal C o l o n i e s .  The  i n 1839,  of r o p r o o o n t a t i v o  r e p o r t recommended, among  i n England.  and Lower Canada be u n i t e d not e x p e c t a t i o n ,  I t was  i n t o one  colony,  constitutionally,  i n the hope, i f  to become A n g l i c i z e d .  r e s p o n s i b l e government was  into operation  other•things,  recommended that Upper  by the A c t of Union, t h i s recommendation was it if by 184€  the  that the French element i n B r i t i s h North  America would a l l o w i t s e l f  And,  opened  government i n the  t h a t the c o l o n i e s be g i v e n the same r i g h t s , as were i n e f f e c t  discontent.  i n the c o l o n i e s .  In  1841,  effected.  1 ,  a c t u a l l y brought  At the time of t h i s  grant  of r e s p o n s i b l e government, the E n g l i s h Corn Laws were r e pealed,  and,  two years  later,  the l a s t  of the unpopular  N a v i g a t i o n A c t s were e l i m i n a t e d . 1. Bradshaw, F.,  "Self-Government i n Canada and How  A c h i e v e d " , London, Orchard House, 1903,  pp.  It  was  Responsible government d i d not prove e n t i r e l y factory.  satis-  T h i s was e s p e c i a l l y true i n the Colony of Canada,  being made-up, as i t was, of two d i s t i n c t r a c i a l groups. Added to t h i s an unusual c o n j u n c t u r e of events made f o r an uneasy f e e l i n g i n the C o l o n i e s .  The l o s s of American  markets  f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l products e f f e c t e d by the a b r o g a t i o n of the R e c i p r o c i t y T r e a t y of 1854 showed the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of the C o l o n i a l Economy, and the sudden withdrawal of I m p e r i a l preference i n trade w i t h England n e c e s s i t a t e d .drastic economic adjustment.  P o l i t i c a l Union f o r the f i r s t time, began  to be s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d as a s o l u t i o n t o the numerous problems. Consequently, i n 1864, a meeting of the Maritime C o l o n i e s was c a l l e d  i n C h a r l o t t e t o w n , P.E.I., to c o n s i d e r  plans f o r a l e g i s l a t i v e u n i o n .  An u n i n v i t e d d e l e g a t i o n from  U n i t e d Canada attended the Conference and made s u g g e s t i o n s f o r a subsequent meeting t o be h e l d  i n Quebec C i t y t o con*  s i d e r plans f o r a union of a l l the C o l o n i e s . was approved, and l a t e r C i t y was convened.  The s u g g e s t i o n  i n that year the meeting at Quebec  Here the Quebec R e s o l u t i o n s were formu-  l a t e d as a b a s i s f o r u n i o n .  Though the p l a n f a i l e d  t o be  r a t i f i e d by a l l the C o l o n i e s , i t d i d form the b a s i s f o r a l a t e r meeting held was  i n London i n 1866, a t which time  f i n a l l y reached.  agreement  The p l a n evolved was put i n t o b i l l  form  - 7 and  passed the B r i t i s h Parliament  as the B r i t i s h North"  America A c t of 1867. The Dominion of Canada, c o n s i s t i n g of only four p r o v i n c e s and Nova S c o t i a that  -- Quebec, New Brunswick, O n t a r i o ,  came i n t o formal e x i s t e n c e on J u l y 1 of  year. * 1  I t i s important  t o note t h a t t h e B r i t i s h N o r t h America  A c t d i d not c r e a t e a s t a t e i n the l e g a l sense. there was created a new and l a r g e r colony nature.  Instead,  of a f e d e r a l  The A c t was the f i r s t g r e a t step, one i n many, t o  the road t o statehood.  A s i t u a t i o n was c r e a t e d which made  almost c e r t a i n i t s u l t i m a t e  attainment.  The B r i t i s h North America A c t , as i t stood -  was designed  to f i t the needs of B r i t i s h p o l i c y , and the  needs o f the c o l o n i s t s i n Canada. represented  i n 1867,  The f e d e r a l system  a compromise on the p a r t of the s e v e r a l c o l o n i e s  whereby they surrendered  t h e i r r i g h t s t o the f e d e r a l govern-  ment, and r e c e i v e d back c e r t a i n enumerated powers, making f o r a d i v i s i o n of l e g i s l a t i v e powers.  This d i v i s i o n  of l e g i s l a t i v e powers between the newly c r e a t e d and  thereby  provinces  the Dominion Government was s e t down i n the A c t under  Article  91 and 92. A Governor-General, one" of whose r i g h t s  1. W i t t ^ e , C a r l , "A H i s t o r y of Canada", Toronto, McClelland,  1935,  pp.169-188.  i t was  to reserve  f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n any  Dominion Government, was the Crown i n Canada.  s t a t u t e of  appointed as a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  And,  any  statute, reserved  the- Governor-General, c o u l d be d i s a l l o w e d Council  i f i t so deemed.  The  by  stood  t h a t i n a l l cases of c o n f l i c t  powers assigned  the p r o v i n c e s  and  i t s d e c i s i o n was  t u r e s of. the Dominion and courts  Although  i t was  under-  over i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of  to be the f i n a l binding  the p r o v i n c e s ,  determin  on the  legisla-  as w e l l as on a l l  i n the Dominion.  Only once has been used.  the power to d i s a l l o w a Canadian  That was  i n 1873.  General' s i n s t r u c t i o n s i n 1878 of Royal Assent being the p o s s i b i l i t y 1883,  was  the Dominion Government,  the P r i v y C o u n c i l , i n England, was ing a u t h o r i t y , and  by  the Queen i n  r i g h t to amend the A c t 1  s t a t e d i n the B r i t i s h North America A c t ,  of  or not  a l s o h e l d as a power of the B r i t i s h P a r l i a m e n t . not  the  bill  A change i n the Governoreliminated  the p r o b a b i l i t y  denied a l e g i s l a t i v e a c t , although  of disallowance  was  s t i l l present.  After  i t became the accepted p r a c t i c e f o r the- B r i t i s h  a u t h o r i t i e s to c o n s u l t the Canadian Prime M i n i s t e r on a c c e p t a b i l i t y of p r o s p e c t i v e  nominees to the post  the  of  Governor-General. 1. 30 V i c t o r i a ,  C.3  (The B r i t i s h North America A c t ,  1867)  Although these p r a c t i c e s were not. a p a r t of the w r i t t e n Constitution,(The  B r i t i s h North America A c t of 1867) of  Canada, they d i d become a p a r t of the conventions of p a r l i a mentary p r a c t i c e , and i t seemed improbable t h a t there would ever be a r e v e r s a l of p o l i c y . In the f i e l d by the B r i t i s h .  of f o r e i g n r e l a t i o n s , a l l power was h e l d Canada was not permitted  to. l e g i s l a t e on  matters of i n t e r n a t i o n a l concern, nor could  she enter  into  t r e a t y r e l a t i o n s of any s o r t w i t h a f o r e i g n government. It was i n 1871 t h a t Canada made her f i r s t in  the realm of t r e a t y making.  the T r e a t y was in  step forward  During the n e g o t i a t i o n of  of Washington, S i r John A. Macdonald, a Canadian,  appointed  t o a c t as one of the B r i t i s h P l e n i p o t e n t i a r i e s  the d i s c u s s i o n s i n v o l v i n g Canadian i n t e r e s t s on the  f i s h e r i e s q u e s t i o n which was under d i s c u s s i o n a t the time. It  should  be noted, i n p a s s i n g ,  that t h i s t r e a t y was  made between Her B r i t a n n i c Majesty and the U n i t e d and  not between Canada and the U n i t e d  States.  States,  However,  there was a r e f e r e n c e made i n t h e body of the t r e a t y p r o v i d ing  f o r l e g i s l a t i o n on the p a r t of the "Parliament  before  the t r e a t y would go i n t o e f f e c t .  of Canada"  Thus, i t i s seen  the wishes of Canada were taken i n t o account f o r the f i r s t time i n the n e g o t i a t i o n s of a t r e a t y d i r e c t l y i n v o l v i n g Canada.  1  1. S h i p p l e , L e s t e r B u r r e l l , "Canadian-American R e l a t i o n s - 1849-1874", Toronto, Ryerson,1939, pp.370-376.  - 10 Britain,  i n 1879,  -  gave i t s approval  to the  of a s p e c i a l High Commissioner to represent of B r i t i s h D e l e g a t i o n s treaties  Canada as a p a r t  i n the n e g o t i a t i o n of a l l commercial  i n v o l v i n g Canada.  were at f i r s t  nomination  Although f o r e i g n governments  r e l u c t a n t t o recognize  the p o s i t i o n of  High Commissioner, the B r i t i s h Government gave him  full  support i n h i s c l a i m to take an equal p a r t w i t h the in foreign negotiations In 1893  i n v o l v i n g Canadian  signed  j o i n t l y by  British  trade.  a s t r i c t l y Canadian t r e a t y was  signed w i t h Prance by a Canadian.  this  negotiated  However, the t r e a t y  the B r i t i s h Ambassador i n P a r i s and  Canadian M i n i s t e r .  Since  and  then, the precedent was  was a  established  whereby, a l l commercial t r e a t i e s i n v o l v i n g Canada e x c l u s i v e l y have been negotiated.by Canadians, though not 1. Canada. Not  until  have a f u l l  1923,  i n the name of  i n the H a l i b u t F i s h e r y T r e a t y ,  r e c o g n i t i o n of Canada's r i g h t t o  commercial t r e a t i e s i n her  own  right.  As had  did  we  negotiate been the  p r a c t i c e p r e v i o u s l y , "His Majesty, the K i n g of Great  Britain  and  Seas,  I r e l a n d , and  of the B r i t i s h Dominions beyond the  Emperor of I n d i a " , was  1. Tupper, C. H., Journal New  the c o n t r a c t i n g p a r t y .  But  the  treaty  "Treaty-Making Powers of the Dominions",  of S o c i e t y  of Comparitive L e g i s l a t i o n ,  S e r i e s XXXVII, 1917,  pp.  7-8.  - 11 was  between Canada and the U n i t e d S t a t e s , and Mr. l a p o i n t e ,  as p l e n i p o t e n t i a r y , was the f i r s t Canadian t o alone r e p r e s e n t His  Majesty.  From that time on Canada, h e r s e l f , has nego-1  t i a t e d her own commercial  t r e a t i e s on b e h a l f of H i s M a j e s t y .  Canada d i d make r e l a t i v e l y e a r l y advances of  i n t o the f i e l d  i n t e r n a t i o n a l a f f a i r s where t e c h n i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n -  v o l v i n g matters of p u r e l y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and n o n - p o l i t i c a l matters were i n v o l v e d . the  When t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Congress of  U n i v e r s a l P o s t a l Union was c a l l e d  i n 1906, there was a  separate Canadian d e l e g a t i o n i n attendance.  So a l s o was the  case a t the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference f o r the P r o t e c t i o n of I n d u s t r i a l P r o p e r t y i n 1911; a t the T e l e g r a p h Conference i n 1912;  and a t the I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conference on the S a f e t y of  L i f e a t Sea i n 1913. A t a l l these Conferences the Canadian D e l e g a t i o n s were granted t h e i r powers by the K i n g , but r e c e i v e d t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n s from the Dominion Government, and signed those Conventions approved by the government i n 2 the  name of the Government of Canada. Nationalism asserted i t s e l f  e a r l y i n Canadian  History.  The demand f o r self-government grew ever l o u d e r as the y e a r s passed, and, as we have seen, the Government of Canada s l o w l y , 1. The League of Nations S o c i e t y i n Canada, "The T r e a t y Making Power i n Canada", mimeographed,. 1938, pp. 15-16. 2. Lewis* Malcolm M., "The I n t e r n a t i o n a l S t a t u s of the B r i t i s h S e l f - G o v e r n i n g Dominions". B r i t i s h Year Book of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law, 1922-23, p.28.  - 12 but s u r e l y , gained c o n t r o l over domestic a f f a i r s and commercial  over  and t e c h n i c a l matters i n e x t e r n a l a f f a i r s .  however, was  r e l u c t a n t t o grant f u l l  sphere of i n t e r n a t i o n a l a f f a i r s .  autonomy i n the  Britain, political  The Dominion was c o n s u l t e d ,  on matters a f f e c t i n g t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n the e x t e r n a l world, but very o f t e n t h e i r stand was  n e i t h e r r e c o g n i z e d or acknow-  ledged, B r i t a i n f e a r i n g that the D o c t r i n e of U n i t y of the Empire  might be impaired.  C o l o n i a l Conferences were f i r s t  i n s t i t u t e d i n 1887 when  a meeting between B r i t i s h o f f i c i a l s and Dominion M i n i s t e r s was At  c a l l e d to c o n s i d e r the q u e s t i o n of defense f o r the Empire. t h i s Conference  the Dominions were induced t o assume t h e i r  share i n g e n e r a l defense measures f o r the Empire. of  The  c a l l i n g C o l o n i a l Conferences from time t o time was  on t h e n c e f o r t h f o r the purpose  idea carried  of c o n s i d e r i n g q u e s t i o n s as  "between H i s Majesty's Government and H i s Governments of the 1 s e l f - g o v e r n i n g Dominions beyond the Seas". p r a c t i c e was the  By 1897,  the  e s t a b l i s h e d whereby only the Prime M i n i s t e r s of  Dominions i n the Empire met w i t h the B r i t i s h  officials,  and we had the emergence of a v i r t u a l Cabinet of C a b i n e t s . Sir  W i l f r i d L a u r i e r , a t the C o l o n i a l Conference of  1907,  suggested that these meetings be known, from then on, as 1. S k e l t o n , Oscar Douglas,  " L i f e and L e t t e r s of S i r W i l f r i d  Laumier", Toronto, Oxford, Vol.11,  llt-ir  p.306  - 13 I m p e r i a l Conferences, inasmuch as the Conferences were h e l d to His At  c o n s i d e r questions "between H i s Majesty's Government and Governments of s e l f - g o v e r n i n g Dominions beyond the Seas". the same time, S i r W i l f r i d L a u r i e r made the o b s e r v a t i o n  that "We  are a l l H i s Majesty's Governments".  And  so, the  f i r s t f o r m a l r e c o g n i t i o n of Dominion Status as opposed C o l o n i a l Status was His  made.  to  The p r i n c i p l e of the e q u a l i t y of  Majesty's s e v e r a l governments was  also  sounded.  1  The seeds f o r Canadian autonomy were p l a n t e d e a r l y i n the  Country's h i s t o r y , and, although the Commonwealth scheme  was  p r o b a b l y not i n the mind of anyone a t the time of the  Imperial Conference of 1907, that here, f o r the f i r s t roots. equality  For here was  i t seems reasonable t o presume  time, the seeds began to put out  the f i r s t f o r m a l r e c o g n i t i o n of the  of the s e v e r a l governments making up H i s Majesty's  Empire. The next meeting of the I m p e r i a l Conference was h e l d i n 1911, and a g a i n S i r W i l f r i d l a u r i e r urged a g r e a t e r r e c o g n i t i o n of Dominion autonomy. mentary f e d e r a t i o n was of  A proposal f o r Imperial P a r l i a -  sponsored by the B r i t i s h  Imperialists  the Round Table Group, t h e i r idea being t o create an  I m p e r i a l Parliament w i t h power, f o r the whole of the Empire,  I. I b i d . , pp. 306-307.  - 14 over f o r e i g n p o l i c y and d e f e n s e . Mr. A s q u i t h  Referring t o the p r o p o s a l  of Great B r i t a i n d e c l a r e d :  f o r a moment to proposals fundamental c o n d i t i o n s up and c a r r i e d o n " . of Mr. A s q u i t h ' s  1  "We cannot  ... assent  which are so f a t a l t o the very  on which bur Empire has been b u i l t Controversy arose out of the meaning  statement, but i t has been g e n e r a l l y  conceded that he was implying  that a u t h o r i t y could not be  d i v i d e d between the c a b i n e t and the proposed I m p e r i a l ment.  He f e l t t h a t f o r e i g n p o l i c y of the U n i t e d  be determined by a government r e s p o n s i b l e B r i t i s h Parliament.  Parlia-  Kingdom must  s o l e l y to the  With t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n mind, L a u r i e r  adopted the same p o s i t i o n : Canadian p o l i c y must l i k e w i s e be determined by a government r e s p o n s i b l e ment. Mr.  I n l i n e w i t h t h i s reasoning,  F i s h e r of A u s t r a l i a t o ask t h a t  t o the Canadian P a r l i a -  i t seemed c o n s i s t a n t t o the B r i t i s h Government  c o n s u l t the Dominions before  committing them t o t r e a t i e s  a f f e c t i n g the whole Empire.  To t h i s L a u r i e r  objected,  r e p l y i n g t o Mr. F i s h e r : We may g i v e advice i f our advice i s sought, but i f your advice i s sought, or i f you tender i t , I do not t h i n k the U n i t e d Kingdom can undertake t o c a r r y out that advice unless you are prepared t o back that  1. S k e l t o n , L a u r i e r , V o l . I I , p.341.  - 15 a d v i c e w i t h a l l your s t r e n g t h , and take p a r t i n the war, and i n s i s t upon having the r u l e s c a r r i e d out a c c o r d i n g to the manner i n which you t h i n k the war should he c a r r i e d out. We have taken the p o s i t i o n i n Canada that we do not t h i n k we are bound to take p a r t i n every war". 1 Matters r e s t e d here, f o r nothing was outbursts of speech.  done to r e s o l v e these  The a s s e r t i o n f o r autonomy i n i n t e r -  n a t i o n a l a f f a i r s had been made, but B r i t a i n had not acknowledged these a s s e r t i o n s . II. 1914  brought war  War  and Peace  to the world, and Canada, a l o n g w i t h  the other B r i t i s h Dominions, was  plunged  a c t i o n of the B r i t i s h Government. been c o n s u l t e d i n any way,  i n t o i t by  The Dominions had  not  and because of t h i s , i t was  that the methods by which they were brought were v e r y u n s a t i s f a c t o r y .  the  Although  i n t o the  felt war  the Dominions co-operated  f u l l y w i t h the B r i t i s h i n the l i f e and death s t r u g g l e , clamored  they  f o r an understanding w i t h the B r i t i s h whereby there  would be no repeat performance  in a similar  The Government of Canada was p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the war  343.  disposed to regard  Canadian  as that of a p r i n c i p a l combatant  not as that of a mere s a t e l l i t e .  1. I b i d . , p.  situation.  Canada was  giving f u l l y  and and  - 16 u n s e l f i s h l y i n men and m a t e r i a l s this,  to the c a u s e .  Because of  the Canadian Army Corps was m a i n t a i n e d as a s e p a r a t e  u n i t i n the f i e l d ,  and u l t i m a t e l y , i n 1916, the Canadian  t r o o p s were brought under  the d i r e c t c o n t r o l of the Canadian  Government, w i t h the e s t a b l i s h m e n t 1  o f the M i n i s t r y of  Overseas  M i l i t a r y F o r c e s i n London. S i r R o b e r t B o r d e n , Prime M i n i s t e r of Canada, was c a l l e d t o a m e e t i n g of the B r i t i s h C a b i n e t i n 1915, t h e r e b y a v o i c e i n the conduct of thie w a r .  gaining  I n 1917, an I m p e r i a l  Conference was summoned, and out of t h i s Conference came  the  I m p e r i a l War C a b i n e t , composed of the Prime M i n i s t e r s of  the  s e l f - g o v e r n i n g Dominions and the f i v e members of the War C a b i n e t .  E a c h of the M i n i s t e r s was r e s p o n s i b l e  own r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  Parliament.  to h i s  The I m p e r i a l War C a b i n e t was  of g r e a t v a l u e i n the maintenance conduct of the w a r .  British  of c o - o p e r a t i o n i n the  C o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y , however, i t was of  greater importance, f o r i t ,  a l o n g w i t h the r e g u l a r  Imperial  Conference meeting r e s o l v e d t h a t the Dominions had a r i g h t  to  share i n the c o n t r o l of f o r e i g n p o l i c y f o r the E m p i r e , and t h a t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e - a d j u s t m e n t s t o t h a t end would be as soon as p o s s i b l e a f t e r  taken  the c e s s a t i o n of h o s t i l i t i e s .  It  1. "Report of the R o y a l Commission on D o m i n i o n - P r o v i n c i a l R e l a t i o n s " , Ottawa, K i n g ' s P r i n t e r , 1940 Book I ,  p.93.  - 17 was agreed that re-adjustment should he based upon a f u l l recognition of the dominions as autonomous nations of an Imperial Commonwealth . . . and should provide effective arrangements for continuous consultation in a l l important matters of common Imperial concern, and for such necessary concerted action, founded on consultation, as the several Governments may determine.1 . The Dominion leaders made further demands before the war was over.  This was especially true in the case of  Sir Robert Borden, the Canadian Prime Minister, and of General Smuts of South Africa.  They insisted on f u l l equality  with Great Britain in self-government, control of foreign affairs. -  and equality in the  Their concern was that of gaining  a voice in the Peace Conference, and with the Armistice in 2 sight, they became more and more vocal in their demands. Armistice Day came on November .11, 1918.  The war was  over, but the problem of the peace was s t i l l left to be faced by the Allied Powers. .The Supreme War Council of the Allied Nations had decided that representation at the Peace Conference should be on the basis of five delegates for each Great Power.  If this was to be the f i n a l decision, the.  Dominions and the Small Powers would be left without a voice. To satisfy the Dominions, Britain proposed that one of the 1. Proceedings of the Imperial War Conference, 1917, p.61. 2. Baker, P.J.,Noel, "The Present Juridical Status of the British Dominions in International Law", London, Longmans, 1929, pp.53-54.  - 18 f i v e B r i t i s h Delegates should he a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the Dominions and I n d i a , the seat being r o t a t e d among them a c c o r d i n g t o the s u b j e c t b e i n g d i s c u s s e d . Borden nor the Canadian Cabinet was proposal.  Numerous cablegrams  s a t i s f i e d with  Premier this  were sent between P a r i s ,  London, and Ottawa on the s i t u a t i o n . on January 4, 1919,  Neither  The Canadian  Government,  cabled S i r Robert Borden:  If Peace Conference i n i t s compo.sition i s to express s p i r i t of democracy f o r which we have been f i g h t i n g , as Cabinet t h i n k s i t should; s m a l l A l l i e d Nations l i k e Belgium which fought w i t h us throughout the War should be e n t i t l e d to r e p r e s e n t a t i o n through-^ out the whole Conference, even i f l i m i t e d to one ' member, and, i f t h i s were agreed, p r o p o s a l t h a t Canada should have same r e p r e s e n t a t i o n as Belgium and other s m a l l A l l i e d Nations would be s a t i s f a c t o r y , but not otherwise. Canada has had as many c a s u a l t i e s as the U n i t e d S t a t e s and probably more a c t u a l deaths. Canadian people would not a p p r e c i a t e f i v e American d e l e g a t e s throughout the whole Conference and no Canadian e n t i t l e d to s i t throughout Conference, nor would they a p p r e d i a t e s e v e r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from Great B r i t a i n and Canada none. There w i l l be g r e a t disappointment here i f you are not f u l l member of Conference. We f u l l y a p p r e c i a t e t h a t you are doing e v e r y t h i n g i n your power to secure s u i t a b l e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r Canada. Gr'eat B r i t a i n ' s p l a n f o r Dominion r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a t the Conference,  i t can be seen, was  not s a t i s f a c t o r y , a l t h o u g h  the Dominions, under the p l a n , would have been i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n than the other small n a t i o n s who  were not a c t u a l l y  - 19 represented, but were to be present when questions concerning them were under discussion.  Canada's solution to the problem  was to press the cause of a l l the Smail Powers, seeing to  it  that the Dominions received the same representation as would the lesser powers.  After considerable debate among the Big  Pive Powers, a system for representation at the Peace Conference was f i n a l l y settled upon.  The machinery consisted  of the Plenary Conference, the Bureau, the Supreme Council, Commissions, and a S e c r e t a r i a t .  1  The two with which we are  most concerned i n this study is the Supreme Council and the Plenary Conference. In the Supreme Council each of the Big Pive A l l i e d Powers was to have five delegates, thereby making a Council of Twenty-Five.  Great B r i t a i n agreed to l e t the Dominions have  one of her f i v e seats, thereby giving them a voice i n the most important body. In the Plenary Conference the Dominions were represented i n two ways.  Canada, A u s t r a l i a , and South A f r i c a , as small  nations, were represented with two delegates each; Mew Zealand with one.  The Dominions also had a place on the B r i t i s h  Empire Delegation which had been a l l o t e d five seats.  The  1. For the complete d e t a i l s of the organization of the Peace Conference see: Temperley, H. W. V . (ed.),"A History of the Peace Conference of Paris", London, Oxford, 1920, V o l . I, Part I I I , Chapter V I I , pp. 236-278.  D o m i n i o n s had won  their  victories.  T h e y had  Conference,  being  tives,  20  f i g h t and  received a  represented  and  through  of t h e  other Small  national  this  s t a t u s by  the o t h e r S t a t e s o f without The  shaking  the C o n f e r e n c e  Nations,  on t h e  Railways,  All  T h i s v o i c e was  had  of g r e a t  import-  the U n i t e d Kingdom, as w e l l a s And  a l l t h i s was  of t h e  achieved  Empire. i n the proceedings  of the S m a l l N a t i o n s .  —  1  by  the. C o m m i s s i o n s on  of  Dominion appointed  the L e a g u e  of  I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n t r o l o f P o r t s , Waterways  and  a g a i n s t t h e Laws o f  Reparations.  through  the Conference  a r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e i r T r e a t y was  greater  achieved r e c o g n i t i o n  on R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r O f f e n c e s on  Delegation  on f o u r of t h e f i v e m a i n C o m m i s s i o n s  the P l e n a r y Conference  and  i t she  the f o u n d a t i o n s  served  representa-  received a voice  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was  the W o r l d .  as d i d any  own  i n the Empire  Dominions took as g r e a t a p a r t  Ministers  their  Plenary  Nations.  a n c e t o Canada, f o r t h r o u g h  War,  i t with  i n the Supreme C o u n c i l t h e y had  Constitutionally,  by  on  two  v o i c e " i n the  the B r i t i s h E m p i r e D e l e g a t i o n .  than any  her  come out w i t h  "double  a s w e l l as b e i n g r e p r e s e n t e d  of F i v e ,  of  had  ready  w i t h the f i g h t  national  t h e D o m i n i o n s had  fought  s t a t u s , and. when t h e  Peace  f o r s i g n a t u r e , t h e y w e r e f o r c e d t o go  i n order  to maintain  the p o s i t i o n  for  on  t h e y had  won.  - 21 The question revolved around the method by which the Dominions should sign the treaty.  In a memorandum dated March 12, the  Dominion Prime Ministers presented a scheme which would satisfy them.  In part it said:  The recital in the Preamble of the names of the Plenipotentiaries appointed by the High Contracting Parties for the purpose of concluding the treaty would include the names of the Dominion Plenipotentiaries immediately after the names of the Plenipotentiaries appointed by the United Kingdom. Under the general heading 'The British Empire , the sub-headings 'The United Kingdom', 'The Dominion of Canada', 'The Commonwealth of Australia', 'The Union of South Africa', etc., would be used as headings to distinguish the various Plenipotentiaries. It would then follow that the Dominion Plenipotentiaries would sign according to the same scheme". 1  1  This suggestion was accepted in principle by the British Empire Delegation and the Conference. But when the draft of the Treaty of Versailles was ready in May, the recital of names in the Treaty did not follow the order for signature as had been suggested in the memorandum.  Instead, the United Kingdom would be signing for  the whole British Empire, and then the Dominion Representatives for their own representative countries. Sir Robert Borden did not approve this method of signature, but as Kieth points out: "It is clear that it was a correct replica of the procedure which he himself had secured 1. Canada, Sessional Papers, 1919, Special Session No.41 J .  - 22 for  the C o n f e r e n c e .  capacity;  A t i t the Dominions served i n a double  they had separate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , but they  also  served as members of the B r i t i s h Empire D e l e g a t i o n , and the complex s i g n a t u r e of the T r e a t y expressed  the same i d e a . "  The Dominion M i n i s t e r s d i d s i g n the T r e a t y as at  the same time i n s i s t i n g t h a t  1  i t was,  t h e i r P a r l i a m e n t s be con-  s u l t e d before r a t i f i c a t i o n was expressed f o r the E m p i r e . Lord M i l n e r of the U n i t e d Kingdom f e l t  there was no need f o r  a p p r o v a l of the T r e a t y by the Dominion P a r l i a m e n t s , and that the T r e a t y c o u l d be d e p o s i t e d as r a t i f i e d by the whole E m p i r e . S i r Robert Borden was i n s i s t e n t  on the r i g h t s of h i s c o u n t r y ,  and, a c c o r d i n g l y , the Dominions were g i v e n the n e c e s s a r y to secure a p p r o v a l by t h e i r P a r l i a m e n t s . debate i n the Canadian House and  Senate  After  time  considerable  the T r e a t y was  approved, and on September 12 an O r d e r - i n - C o u n c i l was  passed  and cabled to London, s t a t i n g that P a r l i a m e n t had approved the T r e a t y , and a s k i n g the K i n g to r a t i f y i t 2 respect  "for and i n  of the Dominion of Canada".  I t i s q u i t e obvious that Canada's r o l e i n the Peace Conference was p u r e l y s e l f a s s e r t i v e .  Her purpose a l l  through the s e s s i o n s was t o e s t a b l i s h new r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h f o r e i g n powers and the U n i t e d Kingdom.  Canada wanted autonomy  1. K e i t h , A r t h u r B e r r i e d a l e , "The S o v e r e i g n t y of the B r i t i s h Dominion^, London, M a c m i l l a n , 1929, p . 318 2. G l a z e b r o o k , G-.P.De T . , "Canada a t the P a r i s Peace Conf e r e n c e " , T o r o n t o , O x f o r d , 1942, p . 1 1 7 .  - 23and recognition of that autonomy by the world.  The' events  immediately following the War gave her to a great extent that recognition.  She secured the right of an independent  signature of the Treaty herself, and she had won from Britain the right to approve Treaties affecting herself. Thus far, no mention of the League of Nations has been made. Chronologically, the discussion of it should have been made along with the discussion on the Peace Conference, for the League of Nations was actually a part of the Treaty of Versailles which was approved by the Canadian Parliament on September 12, 1919.  Por purposes of clarity, it seems  reasonable to discuss the League separately from the technical issues involved in the Peace Conference, and in as much as another section in this thesis will fully develop the discussion of Canada's role in the League, my only purpose now is to mention the League's role in developing greater Canadian autonomy. No provision was made for the separate representation of the Dominions in the first drafts of the League of Nations Covenant. The Dominions convinced the British Government that they should be granted the same privileges in representation in the League as they had been given at the Peace Conference. Lord Robert Cecil pursued,their cause with the  - 24 American Delegation, and in the Hurst-Miller draft of the League Covenant, the Dominions were granted separate representation. When the Dominions asked that they he given the right to he elected to the League Council, opposition flared up, for the British Empire had already been given a permanent seat on the Council, along with the other Great Powers.  The day  was won for the Dominions, though, when Sir Robert Borden secured a written declaration from Clemenceau, Wilson, and Lloyd George: The Declaration of May 6, 1919. The question having been raised as to the meaning of Article IV of the League of Nations Covenant, we have been requested by Sir Robert Borden to state whether we concur in his view, that upon the true construction of the first and second paragraphs of the Article, representatives of the Self-Governing Dominions of the British Empire may be selected or named as members of the Council. We have no hesitation in expressing our entire concurrence in this view. If there were any doubt it would be entirely removed by the fact that the Articles of the Covenant are not subject to a narrow or technical construction. Dated at the Quai d'Orsay, the sixth day of May, 1919. G. Clemenceau (Signatures) Woodrow Wilson D. Lloyd George 1. One more struggle was necessary for the Dominions before they were satisfied. This involved the securing of separate 1. Miller, David Hunt, "The Drafting of the Covenant", New York, Putnam, 1928, Vol.11, p. 327.  - 25 representation in the International Labour Organization.  The  struggle turned to another v i c t o r y ; the Dominions won their point. Separate membership i n the League of Nations confirmed the fact that Canada had "come of age" i n international affairs,  and her election to a seat on the League Council  in 1927 bolstered that claim.  From that day f o r t h , Canada  could claim equality with other states, though the of that claim were unique.  conditions  The B r i t i s h Empire s t i l l existed,  unshaken, and Canada continued her t i e with the Empire.  The  subsequent events in Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n a l History show that her claim has been maintained and enhanced.  III.  A Voice In the Empire  The 1921 session of the Imperial Conference i s in two respects.  significant  It f i n a l l y settled the Imperial federation  issue, and i t formulated an Imperial p o l i c y regarding the future role of the Empire i n the P a c i f i c .  The settlement  of the Imperial federation issue consisted  of an understanding  among the Dominions and the United Kingdom as to the role of the Dominions in the conduct of Empire foreign p o l i c y .  It  was to be understood, from t h i s time on, that the control over foreign policy was to be.vested i n the Empire as a whole,  - 26 and Great B r i t a i n ' s sole control over the conduct of foreign r e l a t i o n s was to be no greater than that of any of the Dominions.  1  Japan was the r e a l issue involved i n the decisions at the Imperial Conference.  Great B r i t a i n hadi in 1902, bound  the Empire to a treaty with Japan, the purpose of the treaty being to preserve the status quo in the Par East, and to l o c a l i z e the impending Russo-Japanese War.  The outcome of  that war had l e f t Japan and B r i t a i n supreme in the Orient, but the r i s i n g German menace i n Europe made i t imperative for B r i t a i n to secure herself  in the Orient, thereby giving'  her the opportunity to focus undivided attention on Europe. Hence, the Anglo-Japanese A l l i a n c e was renewed for a period of ten years in 1911.  The Dominions, with the exception of  A u s t r a l i a who abstained from voting, supported the B r i t i s h action. The question i n 1921, then, was whether or not the a l l i a n c e should be continued. several points of view.  The talks revolved around  A u s t r a l i a and New Zealand were  anxious to have the treaty renewed.  They maintained the  good-will of Japan must be kept i n order to make their geographic position in the P a c i f i c secure.  Canada, on the  1. Dewey, A . Gordon, "The Dominions and Diplomacy", London, Longmans, 1929, V o l . I I , pp.62 -  63.  - 27 other hand, insisted the A l l i a n c e he discontinued.  One  p a r t i c u l a r clause i n the A l l i a n c e caused her great uneasyness.  That clause made the provision that either party  (The B r i t i s h Empire or Japan) would go to the aid of the other i n case of unprovoked aggression hy a t h i r d power. Canada feared the Empire might become involved with the United States through trouhle a r i s i n g between that country and Japan.  Agreement was f i n a l l y reached i n the Conference  when i t was decided that f r i e n d l y co-operation with the United States was to he the f i r s t p r i n c i p l e of p o l i c y , while at the same time maintaining close f r i e n d s h i p and co-operation 1 with Japan. President Harding's i n v i t a t i o n to the Washington Disarmament Conference came while the Imperial Conference was s t i l l i n session.  For some reason, known only to President Harding,  the i n v i t a t i o n did not include the Dominions.  They, however,  had no intention of retreating from the recognition they had won at "Versailles, and immediately took strong objection to the omission, f i n a l l y securing representation as members of the B r i t i s h Empire Delegation.  The arrangements were an  exact reproduction of the practice followed at P a r i s , thereby gaining recognition of their status without formal i n v i t a t i o n . 1. Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire, Vol.11 p. 704.  - 28 Disarmament was the chief topic of discussion,  and, along  with that, the question of maintaining the status quo i n the Pacific came up.  To the complete s a t i s f a c t i o n  of Canada,  the b i - l a t e r a l alliance between B r i t a i n and Japan was replaced with .the Four Power T r e a t y .  1  For the Genoa Conference called in March 1922 to consider the restoration of international commerce i n Europe, the I t a l i a n Government sent separate i n v i t a t i o n s d i r e c t l y to the 2 several Dominions, and received separate  replies from them*  Kemal Pasha and the Turkish Nationalist Army were responsible f o r the f i n a l settlement of the question for Canada as to who was the proper authority to declare war. In September 1922,  in order to prevent the Turkish National  Army from occupying Constantinople, the B r i t i s h concentrated a small force at Chanak.  To ascertain whether or not the  Dominions desired to a i d the B r i t i s h by sending a contingent, in the hope that open warfare could be prevented by a show of force, Mr. Lloyd George cabled the Dominions: The announcement that any or a l l of the Dominions were prepared to send contingents would exercise a favorable influence on the s i t u a t i o n and might be a potent factor i n preventing h o s t i l i t i e s . ^ 1. Corbett, Percy Ellwood and Smith, Herbert Arthur, "Canada and World P o l i t i c s " , Toronto, Macmillan, 1928, p. 88. 2. "Text of the Resolution of the Supreme Council C a l l i n g the Genoa Conference", International C o n c i l i a t i o n American Assoc. for International C o n c i l i a t i o n , N . Y . (Reprinted from the N.Y.Times,Jan.7,1922)Feb./22.pp.27-9 3. Canada, House of Commons Debates,  1923, V o l . 1 ,  P.30.  - 29 Prime M i n i s t e r Mackenzie King answered as to the view of the Canadian Government, that o n l y the Canadian 1 could authorize a contingent.  Parliament  One would he s a f e i n assuming  that the Government o f Canada could have a u t h o r i z e d a contingent, placed  hut that the Prime M i n i s t e r d i d not wish t o he-  i n the p o s i t i o n o f being answerable t o Parliament f o r  an a c t which might p o s s i b l y t u r n h i s government out of o f f i c e ' . The  government d i d , i n 1941, d e c l a r e war on Japan  first  without  c o n s u l t i n g the P a r l i a m e n t .  However, i t was the Chanak a f f a i r which e s t a b l i s h e d the Canadian p o s i t i o n that Canada must be c o n s u l t e d before any act  was committed by the B r i t i s h which might l e a d t o war.  T h i s p o s i t i o n was l a t e r confirmed  a t the I m p e r i a l Conference  meeting of 1926 which w i l l come under d i s c u s s i o n l a t e r . The  r e s u l t s of the I m p e r i a l Conference o f 1923  the  second s i n c e the end of the war--have been s a i d by many t o be  the l e a s t s u c c e s s f u l of the e n t i r e s e r i e s o f Conferences.  The Round Table d i d not h o l d t h i s view, but s a i d : . . . i t marked the c l o s e of a d e f i n i t e p e r i o d of I m p e r i a l development. The system of I m p e r i a l c o - o p e r a t i o n , long regarded as the 'summum bonum' of I m p e r i a l attainment, was a t l a s t put i n t o f u l l and untrammelled e f f e c t . I t p e r f e c t e d the machinery of the B r i t i s h Commonwealth a c c o r d i n g t o the i d e a l s of the c o - o p e r a t i o n i s t school of I m p e r i a l t h o u g h t . 2  1. I b i d . , p. 30 2. The Round Table, December 1923 t o September 1924,Vol.XIV, "Afterthoughts  on the I m p e r i a l Conference",annom.,p.226  - 30 The  -  r e s o l u t i o n put f o r t h a t the Conference may  he  summarized, here,- f o r our purpose i n order t o p o i n t  out  i t s e f f e c t on the t h i n k i n g i n Canada on an event which took place s h o r t l y a f t e r the c o n c l u s i o n was  resolved  of the Conference.  by the Governments i n the Empire that  s p e c i f i c procedure would be f o l l o w e d s i g n a t u r e , and t r e a t y was  to be n e g o t i a t e d  of the Empire.  negotiation,  by any  of the Governments of  of i t s e f f e c t on the  other  B e f o r e n e g o t i a t i o n s were begun,  other  Governments i n the Empire were to be n o t i f i e d , they were i n t e r e s t e d or a f f e c t e d i n or by the might p a r t i c i p a t e i n the n e g o t i a t i o n s .  t r e a t y , they  to be  used at the P a r i s Conference.  t i a t e d was  part  representative  of the Empire, i t was  of  Here then was  that government  227.  when  represent-  same b a s i s  as  nego-  imposing o b l i g a t i o n s t o be signed  only.  by a  1  a statement g i v i n g f o r m a l  the v a r i o u s precedents which had 1. I b i d . , p.  on the  I f a t r e a t y being  a s t r i c t l y b i - l a t e r a l one,  on only one  And,  i n future negotiations,  a t i o n of a l l the Dominions was  one  negotiations,  t o be a f u l l exchange of i n f o r m a t i o n .  the whole Empire took part  was  so t h a t , i f  When more than  Government i n the Empire p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the there was  a  r a t i f i c a t i o n of i n t e r n a t i o n a l agreements. No  the Empire without c o n s i d e r a t i o n parts  i n the  It  r e c o g n i t i o n to  been e s t a b l i s h e d before  1923.  - 31 A l t h o u g h the P a c i f i c H a l i b u t T r e a t y has been mentioned i n another s e c t i o n , i t deserves remention a t t h i s p o i n t . It w i l l  be remembered t h a t , during the n e g o t i a t i o n of the  s a i d t r e a t y , there was  a q u e s t i o n as to Canada's r i g h t  s i g n the t r e a t y on her own b e h a l f , w i t h the U n i t e d The  States.  B r i t i s h Ambassador had been i n s t r u c t e d to s i g n the  instrument Mr.  to  j o i n t l y with  Lapointe.  the Canadian r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ,  Canada's Governor-General, i n a wire  to  the  S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e f o r the C o l o n i e s , suggested t h a t inasmuch as the t r e a t y concerned only Canada, the Mr.  Lapointe would be s u f f i c i e n t .  t r e a t y was  signature of  On March 2,  1923,  the  signed by only the Canadian R e p r e s e n t a t i v e .  n a t i o n a l status of Canada had a g a i n been emphasized. had  a s s e r t e d her r i g h t to s i g n t r e a t i e s without 1 Great B r i t a i n . When the Dominions were not Conference i n 1923,  i n v i t e d t o the  the a p p r o v a l  Turkey drawn up at that Conference. Canadian Government was  Canada  the a i d of  laussane  the Canadian Government r e f u s e d  recommend to Parliament  The  to  of the t r e a t y w i t h The  view of the  stated by the Governor-General to  the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e f o r the C o l o n i e s : (The) Canadian Government not having been i n v i t e d to send r e p r e s e n t a t i v e to the Lausanne Conference and not having p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the proceedings of 1. Dewey, A. Gordon, "The Longmans, 1929,  Dominions and Diplomacy", London,  V o l . I I , pp.137-147.  - 32 the Conference e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y and not b e i n g f o r t h a t reason a s i g n a t o r y t o the T r e a t y on b e h a l f of Canada ... my M i n i s t e r s do not f e e l that they a r e i n a p o s i t i o n t o recommend t o P a r l i a ment a p p r o v a l of the Peace T r e a t y with Turkey and the Convention t h e r e t o . Without the a p p r o v a l of Parliament they f e e l that they are not warranted i n s i g n i f y i n g concurrence i n the r a t i f i c a t i o n of the T r e a t y and Convention. With r e s p e c t to r a t i f i c a t i o n , however, t h e y w i l l not take e x c e p t i o n t o such course as H i s Majesty's Government may deem i t a d v i s a b l e t o recommend.! Mr. Mackenzie King admitted bound, t e c h n i c a l l y , by t h i s t r e a t y .  that Canada would be As he explained t o the  House of Commons on June 9, 1924: L e g a l l y and t e c h n i c a l l y Canada w i l l be bound by the r a t i f i c a t i o n of t h i s T r e a t y ; i n other words, speaking i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y , the whole B r i t i s h Empire i n r e l a t i o n t o the r e s t of the world w i l l stand as one when t h i s T r e a t y i s r a t i f i e d . But as r e s p e c t s the o b l i g a t i o n s a r i s i n g out of the T r e a t y i t s e l f , speaking now of i n t e r - I m p e r i a l o b l i g a t i o n s , t h i s P a r l i a ment, i f regard i s t o be had t o the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s which from the outset we have made t o the B r i t i s h Government, w i l l i n no way be bound by any o b l i g a t i o n beyond that which Parliament of i t s own v o l i t i o n r e c o g n i z e s as a r i s i n g out of the s i t u a t i o n .  2  Canada hereby made the d i s t i n c t i o n between auto-' m a t i c a l l y i n c u r r e d commitments which are " p a s s i v e l y " b i n d i n g on her, and commitments which were d e l i b e r a t e l y assumed and t h e r e f o r e " a c t i v e l y " b i n d i n g . a n e g o t i a t o r and s i g n a t o r of a t r e a t y , c o u l d not be a c t i v e l y bound by i t . to  Unless  she maintained she  Canada was h o l d i n g f a s t  the r e s o l u t i o n of the I m p e r i a l Conference  of 1923.  1. 2. Canada, House o f Commons Debates, 1924, p.2936.  i  she was  - 33 A t r e a t y of a s i m i l a r nature was the Locarno Pact  signed  i n 1925 hy Great B r i t a i n , Prance, Germany, Belgium, and Italy.  Great B r i t a i n , hy t h i s t r e a t y , guaranteed the  e x i s t i n g f r o n t i e r s between Prance and Germany and Belgium and Germany, and agreed  to assist  on one s i d e or the o t h e r .  i n repelling  aggression  The t r e a t y was signed by Great  B r i t a i n alone, the Dominions being s p e c i f i c a l l y exempted from any o b l i g a t i o n s a r i s i n g out of i t . There waB no Dominion p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the n e g o t i a t i o n of the t r e a t y , it  being recognized  that the U n i t e d Kingdom was t o conduct  her own f o r e i g n p o l i c y , l e a v i n g the Dominions f r e e to conduct t h e i r  own.  1  I r e l a n d was the f i r s t  of the c o u n t r i e s i n the Empire t o  make use of a c c r e d i t e d d i p l o m a t i c r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t o f o r e i g n powers.  Canada had maintained  i n Washington a Canadian War  m i s s i o n d u r i n g the war, and when the commission was d i s continued  i n 1920, i t s S e c r e t a r y remained i n Washington a s  an agent of the Department of E x t e r n a l A f f a i r s . there was an o f f i c i a l  I n 1927  exchange of D i p l o m a t i c M i n i s t e r s  between Washington and Ottawa.  The Canadian M i n i s t e r was  empowered t o a c t f o r t h e B r i t i s h Ambassador i n the l a t t e r ' s absence.  T h i s device was soon abandoned, and the Canadian  M i n i s t e r a c t e d only as the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of Canada. F o l l o w i n g 1. C o r b e t t , Percy Ellwood,and Smith, Herbert "Canada i n World P o l i t i c s " , p. 67.  Arthur,  - 34 that exchange, Canada, i n 1928,  arranged for r e c i p r o c a l  diplomatic representation with Prance and Japan. The B r i t i s h Government gave i t s f u l l consent to the appointment of a Canadian Minister to Washington. declared, o f f i c i a l l y , the maintenance  It was  in the B r i t i s h House of Commons that  of a Canadian Minister at Washington "would  not. constitute a departure from diplomatic unity."  1  It was on January 12, 1944 that the Canadian Minister at Washington was raised i n rank to an Ambassador.  The United  States, in turn, raised the rank of i t s Minister in Ottawa, to that of an Ambassador. On November 1, 1945,  the Diplomatic l i s t included o f f i c i a l  diplomatic representatives to Canada from the United States of America, China, B r a z i l , The Union of Soviet  Socialist  Republics, Prance, Peru, Belgium, C h i l e , Argentina, Greece, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Turkey, the Netherlands, p  Cuba, and Switzerland.  Canada did have, p r i o r to  diplomatic representatives i n several countries not above.  1939, listed  The outbreak of'war, however, necessitated the  severance of diplomatic r e l a t i o n s with belligerent  countries,  and, as yet these relations have not been renewed.  There  can be no doubt as to Canada's right to a place in the family of nations. 1. I b i d . , p. 140. ' 2. Canada, Department of External A f f a i r s , November 1, 1945".  "Diplomatic L i s t  - 35 Each year new events occured. r e c o g n i z i n g Canada's p o s i t i o n a s a s t a t e , a s t a t e i n her own r i g h t , y e t s t i l l w i t h i n the B r i t i s h Commonwealth of N a t i o n s .  I t was f o r  the I m p e r i a l Conference of 1926 to g i v e f o r m a l t o t h i s new i n t e r n a t i o n a l e v o l u t i o n . Mackenzie K i n g , before  recognition  Prime M i n i s t e r  l e a v i n g f o r England i n 1926 s a i d i n  the House of Commons: Mr. Lapointe and I f e e l that our one aim and purpose should be t o r e p r e s e n t Canada as a f u l l , s e l f governing n a t i o n — one of that Commonwealth we speak of a s the B r i t i s h Empire, a l l u n i t e d under one King, one f l a g , and one i d e a l . 1  And  t h i s aim was accomplished.  The r e p o r t of the I n t e r -  I m p e r i a l R e l a t i o n s Committee of the I m p e r i a l Conference of 1926  s t a t e s that the Dominions a r e recognized  nations  of an I m p e r i a l Commonwealth.  as autonomous  They a r e "autonomous  communities w i t h i n the B r i t i s h Empire, equal i n s t a t u s , i n no way subordinate  t o one another i n any a s p e c t  of t h e i r  domestic or e x t e r n a l a f f a i r s , though u n i t e d by a common a l l e g i a n c e to the Crown and f r e e l y a s s o c i a t e d a s members o f the B r i t i s h Commonwealth of n a t i o n s . about the s t a t u s of the Dominions. among them, nor a r e they subordinate  There can be no doubt There i s no i n e q u a l i t y to B r i t a i n .  Every  governing member of the Empire i s now the master of i t s  r  1. Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1926, p. 32.  self  - 36 destiny.  I n f a c t , i f not always i n form, i t i s s u b j e c t t o  no compulsion  whatever".  1  C o r b e t t and Smith i n Canada and  World P o l i t i c s tend t o emphasize the words " i n f a c t ,  i f not  always i n form", m a i n t a i n i n g that t h i s was a l i m i t a t i o n 2 on the status of the Dominions. effect  Granted  i t i s , but i t s  i s of no consequence, the " i f not always i n form"  merely r e c o g n i z i n g the continued use of forms by the Dominions which have been e s t a b l i s h e d as customs. . There i s nothing t o i n d i c a t e  the n e c e s s i t y of d i s c a r d i n g these  forms, nor i s there anything t o prevent  their  discontinuance  should the Dominions so d e c i d e . L o r d Durham, i n h i s r e p o r t on R e s p o n s i b l e Government f o r Canada i n 1839 had made a d i s t i n c t i o n and  external a f f a i r s .  between  T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n , through  disappeared, but at the I m p e r i a l Conference  domestic the y e a r s  of 1926 i t was  again brought t o l i g h t i n the r e p o r t under P a r t IV -Subjects a f f e c t i n g beyond the Empire.  the whole Empire; and P a r t V  --Subjects  I n these s e c t i o n s of the r e p o r t  respons-  i b l e government was brought to i t s l o g i c a l c o n c l u s i o n -the r e c o g n i t i o n of the Dominions as i n d i v i d u a l and independent states. 1. I m p e r i a l Conference,  1926 - Summary of Proceedings,  (Kings P r i n t e r , Ottawa, 1926) p. 12. ,2. C o r b e t t , Percy Ellwood and Smith, Herbert A r t h u r , "Canada and World P o l i t i c s " , pp.145-146.  - 37 The  Governor-General has always been a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  .  of the Crown i n h i s c a p a c i t y of head of the e x e c u t i v e government i n Canada. Queen on the advice been pointed continued  In 1867 he was a p p o i n t e d by the  of her M i n i s t e r s i n London.  As has  out p r e v i o u s l y , t h i s p r a c t i c e was soon d i s -  and the Canadian Prime M i n i s t e r a d v i s e d  appointment of the Governor-General.  i n the  The report i n 1926  made i t c l e a r that he was t o occupy, from then on, the same p o s i t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to the Government of Canada as does the King i n r e l a t i o n to the Government of Great He was not,  i n any sense, to be a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e  Britain.  of the  Government of Great B r i t a i n or any department of t h a t Government. A l s o , the r e p o r t General was no longer  of 1926 s t i p u l a t e d that the Governorto be the o f f i c i a l channel of communica-  t i o n between the Dominion Government and that of Great Britain.  A l t h o u g h i n 1918 the p r a c t i c e of d i r e c t  communica-  t i o n from Prime M i n i s t e r had been e s t a b l i s h e d f o r purposes, of expediency by the War Cabinet, the p r a c t i c e had not r u l e d out, a b s o l u t e l y , t h e use of the Governor-General as a medium of communication between the Governments. i t c l e a r that, h e n c e f o r t h ,  The report* made  the o f f i c i a l channel of communica-  t i o n was t o be between Government and Government, d i r e c t .  - 38 T h i s change a b o l i s h e d a u s e l e s s detour and made p o s s i b l e c l o s e r contact between the Dominion and the B r i t i s h Governments. Canadian statesmen formulated Act  the B r i t i s h N o r t h America  of 1867, but i t was the B r i t i s h Parliament  which  passed i t . Later amendments t o the A c t were a l s o passed by the B r i t i s h Parliament,  although i n a l l instances,  amendments were formulated  by the Canadian P a r l i a m e n t .  r e p o r t of the Conference o f 1926 d i d not change t h i s ure.  However,  Parliament  i t d i d state that l e g i s l a t i o n  would be passed only w i t h  The  proced-  by the B r i t i s h  the consent of Canada.  I t was o n l y the w i l l of Canada t h a t was this  these  responsible f o r  c u r t a i l m e n t on r e s p o n s i b l e government.  It i s , i n fact,  no c u r t a i l m e n t a t a l l , f o r the r e p o r t of 1926 s t a t e s the r e s t r i c t i o n , w i l l disappear by the Canadian Government.  whenever a change i s requested The c o n d i t i o n e x i s t s merely  because of a disagreement between the P r o v i n c e s  and the  Dominion as t o the most d e s i r a b l e method of amending the Constitution.  U n t i l an agreement between the P r o v i n c e s  the Dominion, the B r i t i s h Parliament  acts  and  simply as an agent  of Canada. S e c t i o n V of t h i s dealt with  r e p o r t , as was p o i n t e d out above,  the general conduct of f o r e i g n p o l i c y .  I t was  - 39 nothing more than an a m p l i f i c a t i o n of the R e s o l u t i o n made a t the I m p e r i a l Conference of 1923  r e g a r d i n g t r e a t y making.  The Dominions were g i v e n the r i g h t to i n i t i a t e t r e a t i e s w i t h i n t h e i r own  and  conclude  sphere of i n t e r e s t , and none of  Dominions were to he hound by o b l i g a t i o n s assumed by p a r t s of the Empire u n l e s s they wished.  The  the  other  p o l i c y of  c o n s u l t a t i o n between the v a r i o u s p a r t s of the Empire when t r e a t y n e g o t i a t i o n s were i n s t i t u t e d was  also re-affirmed  under P a r t V of the R e p o r t .  IV. P i n a l Steps to the Goal E x i s t i n g a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , l e g i s l a t i v e , and forms were not  completely  Conference of 1926.  i n accord with  Therefore,  judicial  the Report of  a committee was  the  established  by that Conference, representing' Great B r i t a i n and  the  Dominions, to examine and r eport upon questions  restricting  Dominion l e g i s l a t i o n .  i t s findings  1  The  Committee presented  at the I m p e r i a l Conference meeting i n October, 1930. Committee advised the I m p e r i a l Parliament  That  to pass c e r t a i n  l e g i s l a t i o n removing r e s t r i c t i o n s i n c o n f l i c t w i t h  the  proposals made i n the Report of 1926.  A statute  proposed and formulated,  c o n s i d e r a t i o n by  and a f t e r due  was the  1.. The r e p o r t i s commonly r e f e r r e d t o as the B a l f o u r D e c l a r a t i o n , Lord B a l f o u r being Chairman of the Committee formul a t i n g the r e p o r t .  - 40 Dominion P a r l i a m e n t s , R e s o l u t i o n s were made r e q u e s t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n by the I m p e r i a l Parliament a l o n g the l i n e s l a i d down.  The S t a t u t e was i n t r o d u c e d i n t o t h e House o f  Commons by the S e c r e t a r y of S t a t e f o r Dominion A f f a i r s on November 12, 1931, as the S*tatute of Westminster B i l l . Royal Assent was g i v e n the B i l l The  on December 11, 1931.  1  importance of the S t a t u t e of Westminster cannot  be over emphasized, f o r i t d i d , i n f a c t , t r a n s l a t e i n t o law a w e l l understood  body of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s  which had grown up through the y e a r s . of  these p r a c t i c e s .  I t was a c o n f i r m a t i o n  " I t governs the one common bond of  u n i t y i n the Commonwealth, and i t i s a matter of equal 2 concern  to a l l " .  There i s l i t t l e p o i n t i n d i s c u s s i n g  each s e c t i o n of the S t a t u t e , f o r that would e n t a i l a v i r t u a l d u p l i c a t i o n of the m a t e r i a l d i s c u s s e d above on the Report of  the I m p e r i a l Conference of 1926.  However, one p o i n t  should be made c l e a r i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o Canada. s e c t i o n of the S t a t u t e , p e c u l i a r t o Canada only, to  the B r i t i s h Parliament  Constitution.  One  reserves  the r i g h t t o amend the Canadian  This i s p u r e l y a f o r m a l f u n c t i o n , i n c l u d e d  1. Wheare, K. C , Clarendon,  "The S t a t u t e of Westminster, 1931",  Oxford,  1933, pp. 5-6..  2. I b i d . , p; 122 3. The complete text of the S t a t u t e of Westminster, 1931, i n c l u d e d i n the Appendix of t h i s t h e s i s f o r ready reference.  is  - 41  -  a t the request of Canada, because of i n t e r n a l F e d e r a l questions a l r e a d y mentioned above.  T h i s Canadian s e c t i o n  of the S t a t u t e can be removed whenever the Canadians so d e s i r e , and  cannot be c o n s i d e r e d as more than a t e c h n i c a l  reservation. a c t s and  I t i s not s i g n i f i c a n t  i s r e c o g n i z e d by the r e s t  as a completely  independent and  i n so long as Canada of.the world as a c t i n g  self-governing state.  Her •  membership i n the B r i t i s h Empire or i n the B r i t i s h Commonwealth  of Nations  i s no d i f f e r e n t from the membership of  A r g e n t i n a or B r a z i l or the U n i t e d S t a t e s i n the Pah Union.  The  and  degree of c o - o p e r a t i o n depends on the w i l l of  the  a s s o c i a t i o n i n both cases  American  i s entirely voluntary the  people. . Logically,  the d i s c u s s i o n of Canada's s t a t u s i n the  f a m i l y of n a t i o n s c o u l d end a t t h i s p g i n t . place as ah independent and events from 1931  recognized  She had won  state.  However,  to the present emphasize Canada's new  both w i t h i n the B r i t i s h Commonwealth of n a t i o n s and field  of world  a f f a i r s , and,  her  role  i n the  t h e r e f o r e , some mention must  be made of them. Between 1931  and  1945,  i n her r o l e as member of  B r i t i s h Commonwealth of n a t i o n s , three events  the  stood out  being s i g n i f i c a n t i n Canadian C o n s t i t u t i o n a l H i s t o r y —  as the  - 42 a b d i c a t i o n from the throne of H i s former Majesty, Edward V I I I i n 1937; the v i s i t  t o Canada of t h e i r M a j e s t i e s ,  K i n g George V I and Queen E l i z a b e t h , t i o n of War by Canada i n 1939.  i n 1939; and the D e c l a r a -  The l a s t event a l s o had  s i g n i f i c a n c e i n the broader f i e l d Canada possesses  of f o r e i g n  a m o n a r c h i c a l form  i s not a separate kingdom.  King  affairs.  of government but  Her King i s designated as "King  of Great B r i t a i n , I r e l a n d , and the B r i t i s h Dominions Beyond the Seas, Defender of the F a i t h , Emperor of I n d i a " .  The  s i t u a t i o n i s , granted, c u r i o u s , but has no b e a r i n g on the i n t e r n a t i o n a l s t a t u s of Canada as a s t a t e .  Like s i t u a t i o n s  have e x i s t e d before i n the case of S c o t l a n d between 1603 and 1707, and i n the case of Hanover between 1714 and .1837.  The  K i n g a c t s s e p a r a t e l y and d i s t i n c t l y f o r Canada i n matters r e l a t i n g to the Dominion, and does not a c t a t once f o r a l l p a r t s of the Commonwealth. Understanding  t h i s c o n d i t i o n , we can proceed  t o the  d i s c u s s i o n of the A b d i c a t i o n from the throne o f H i s former Majesty, King Edward V I I I i n 1936.  The d e t a i l s of h i s  a f f a i r w i t h Mrs. Simpson need not d e t a i n us, f o r that i s i n the b i o g r a p h e r s ' f i e l d .  The f a c t  that he d i d a b d i c a t e the  throne f o r the "woman he l o v e d " d i d , however, have a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l b e a r i n g on Canada.  - 43 The Preamble of the S t a t u t e of Westminster, 1931, stated i n part: Any a l t e r a t i o n i n the law touching the S u c c e s s i o n to the Throne or the R o y a l S t y l e and T i t l e s s h a l l t h e r e a f t e r r e q u i r e the a s s e n t as w e l l of the Parliaments of a l l the Dominions as of the P a r l i a ment of the U n i t e d Kingdom. 1  Canada gave her consent t o the B r i t i s h A b d i c a t i o n A c t of December 10, 1936, by an O r d e r - I n - C o u n c i l .  And, to  emphasize the Canadian a s p e c t of the monarchy, Canada passed, r e t r o a c t i v e l y , a s p e c i a l a c t to v a l i d a t e the a b d i c a t i o n of Edward.  The Canadian A c t provided the  n e c e s s a r y s a n c t i o n i m p l i e d by the S t a t u t e of Westminster,1931. Even though war was imminent i n 1939, K i n g George VI and Queen E l i z a b e t h made a t r i p to N o r t h America.  It is  e n t i r e l y p o s s i b l e that t h a t journey was made i n order t o f u r t h e r the understanding between Canada and Great but be t h a t as i t may, the v i s i t  Britain,  t o Canada of T h e i r M a j e s t i e s  d i d cause c o n s i d e r a b l e i n t e r e s t the world over. the f o r m a l d u t i e s of the King have always been by a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the King —  I n Canada, performed  the Governor-General.  The p h y s i c a l absence of the monarch had n e c e s s i t a t e d t h i s i n t e r p o s i t i o n of a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the King t o perform  1.  22 George 5, C. 4, The S t a t u t e o f Westminster, 1931.  - 44 the formal d u t i e s .  The R o y a l v i s i t ,  o p p o r t u n i t y , the f i r s t for  however, gave t h e  time i n the h i s t o r y of the country,  the King h i m s e l f to perform these d u t i e s .  For that  o c c a s i o n the Canadian Parliament assembled i n the presence of H i s Majesty speech  from  i n the Senate Chamber a t Ottawa.  the throne was read by the King, and he gave  the r o y a l assent to s e v e r a l b i l l s for  this  The  s p e c i a l l y - passed  i n time  event.  During  the progress of t h e i r M a j e s t i e s a c r o s s the  country they were accompanied s o l e l y by Canadian a d v i s o r s , none o f h i s B r i t i s h M i n i s t e r s being i n the r e t i n u e . F o r l e g a l purposes,' the Canadian S e a l s A c t of 1939 was  passed,  d e s i g n a t i n g the Great S e a l of Canada as a r o y a l s e a l , and a u t h o r i z i n g the King t o use i t . I t a l s o a u t h o r i z e d the K i n g to use, whenever outside the c o u n t r y , any s e a l he might d e s i g n a t e .  T h i s a c t i o n e l i m i n a t e d , i n the f u t u r e ,  the n e c e s s i t y f o r r e l y i n g upon B r i t i s h seals, and forms. Canada a g a i n had emphasized her independence from  Great  Britain. Many w r i t e r s seem t o f e e l that when B r i t a i n i s a t war, Canada a l s o i s at war. 1 assumption.  P a c t s do tend to.bear out t h i s  1. See: ( i ) S c o t t , P.R., "The End o f Dominion S t a t u s " , The American J o u r n a l of I n t e r n a t i o n a l law, January, 1944, pp.34-49.. ( i i ) Stokes, Wm.., "Canada's War Dilemma", Forum, November, 1939, pp.222-225.  - 45 However, the theme o f t h i s t h e s i s , t o t h i s p o i n t , has been t o prove the r i g h t o f Canada t o assume she i s a  state  i n her own r i g h t , and thus i s capable o f a c t i n g i n the f i e l d of i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s independently of B r i t a i n .  This,  I contend has been, and can be proved. War was d e c l a r e d September 3, 1939. war, The  on Germany by Great B r i t a i n on  The Canadian Parliament d i d not d e c l a r e  o f f i c i a l l y , u n t i l one week l a t e r -- on September 10. actions  of Canada d u r i n g  that one week of " n e u t r a l i t y "  c l e a r l y i m p l i e d an automatic b e l l i g e r e n c y , f o r German n a t i o n a l s were a r r e s t e d and trade with the enemy was prohibited. and  But the a t t i t u d e of Germany, a b e l l i g e r e n t n a t i o n ,  of the U n i t e d  S t a t e s , a n e u t r a l n a t i o n , makes i t apparent  that Canada was not c o n s i d e r e d the  outside  as being a b e l l i g e r e n t by  world.  Herr Windels, the German C o n s u l a t e - G e n e r a l i n Ottawa made no attempt t o leave Canada a f t e r the B r i t i s h of war.  Prom h i s speeches and a c t i o n s , which  declaration  included  p r o t e s t s t o the l o c a l press when German n a t i o n a l s were arrested,  i t seems apparent that he considered  n e u t r a l a f t e r September 10.  Canada a  The f a c t t h a t he made no  - 46  -  attempt whatsoever to leave the country u n t i l a f t e r that date hears out As  this  f o r the  e a s i l y be  contention.  1  a t t i t u d e of the U n i t e d  shown by the t e x t of the U.  proclaimed on September 5, 1939, as being  a neutral.  The  first  States,  i t can  S. N e u t r a l i t y A c t ,  t h a t Canada was  considered  d r a f t of the A c t  assumed  the  i n d i v i s i b l e s t a t u s of the Commonwealth d u r i n g  for  i t r e f e r r e d g e n e r a l l y , t o : "The  "The  India".  The  proclama  changed, however, by P r e s i d e n t Roosevelt to  U n i t e d Kingdom, -India, A u s t r a l i a , and New  I r e l a n d , South A f r i c a , and  given  read:  Zealand".  Canada were omitted, pending  t h e i r separate d e c i s i o n s on t h e i r course i n the war. r e c o g n i t i o n was  war,  U n i t e d Kingdom, the  B r i t i s h Dominions beyond the Seas, and t i o n was  the  Thus,  to the Dominions of t h e i r r i g h t to 2  exercise  independent a c t i o n i n f o r e i g n p o l i c y .  Canada, t o impress upon the world her r i g h t t o independ ent a c t i o n i n f o r e i g n p o l i c y , can the f i r s t  c o u n t r y to d e c l a r e war  Harbor a t t a c k on December 7,  c l a i m the honor of on Japan a f t e r the  1941.  Her  being Pearl  d e c l a r a t i o n was  made  1. Soward, P. H., and others, "Canada i n World A f f a i r s , Pre-War Years", Toronto, Oxford, 1941, p. 256. 2. S c o t t , P. R., Journal  "The  End  of Dominion S t a t u s " ,  of I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law,  The  January, 1944,  the  American p.44.  - 47 on December 7  one day before either the United States or  Great B r i t a i n made their declaration. An interesting s i d e l i g h t on the Canadian action on Pearl Harbor Day is the fact that the declaration of war on Japan was made by the Government without f i r s t consulting P a r l i a ment.  This was a d i r e c t reversal of p o l i c y for Canada, for  during the Chanak incident i n 1922, Prime Minister Mackenzie King had insisted that only Parliament could authorize action of this  sort.  During the war, Canada made for herself an enviable place i n the company of the United Nations.  She became the  t h i r d among the United Nations i n naval power, and fourth i n a i r power.  She became a member of the Anglo-American Combined  Pood Board, and the Combined Production and Raw Materials Board.  It was Canada which provided the raw material and  many of the f a c i l i t i e s used to develop the atomic bomb. Canada's role in the war was not that of a Small Power. She rose to a new stature. And, with the conclusion of h o s t i l i t i e s , f u l l share of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the world.  Canada took her  She became a f u l l  partner of the other nations p a r t i c i p a t i n g in the administration of the United Nations R e l i e f and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Association.  She is i t s largest contributor of supplies and i t s  t h i r d largest contributor of money.  - 48 M o n t r e a l became the s e a t of the newly organized I n t e r national C i v i l A v i a t i o n Organization. Peace became the keynote has  of the new w o r l d .  taken her share i n the accomplishment  the U n i t e d Nations Conference  And Canada  of t h a t peace.  At  on I n t e r n a t i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n  i n San P r a n c i s c o , Canada made major c o n t r i b u t i o n s . f u r t h e r e d the case f o r the S m a l l Powers, and won the r e c o g n i t i o n of a "Middle Power" concept.  She  for herself  Canada i s now  conscious of her r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n m a i n t a i n i n g the peace of the world, and i s f u l l y prepared to f a c e these r e s p o n s i bilities. A speech g i v e n by Lord H a l i f a x i n Toronto on January 1944 poses  some i n t e r e s t i n g problems as t o how  best enact her r o l e i n the new of Westminster,  world.  was g i v e n complete  external a f f a i r s .  Canada can  Canada, by the S t a t u t  self-government; she  g i v e n the power t o determine her own  24  was  course i n the r e a l m of  The Commonwealth s t i l l  stands as a u n i t ,  yet the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a c t i o n which r e p r e s e n t s that u n i t i s not v i s i b l y shared by a l l i n the Commonwealth. On September 3, 1939, the Dominions were f a c e d a dilemma of which the whole world was aware. they must c o n f i r m a p o l i c y which they had o n l y share i n framing, or they must stand a s i d e and  with Either partial see  - 49 the u n i t y of the Commonwealth broken, perhaps f a t a l l y and f o r e v e r . I t d i d not take them long t o choose, and w i t h one e x c e p t i o n ( E i r e ) they chose war. 1  The  problem then i s t h i s : Should  Canada, as Lord H a l i f a x  argues i n h i s speech, draw c l o s e r i n t o the Commonwealth i n order to f o r t i f y the p a r t n e r s h i p , or should Canada go own  i n making d e c i s i o n s on f o r e i g n p o l i c y ?  Canada  worked long to achieve her independent s t a t u s .  Should  now  way  her  she  f o r e g o that independence f o r u n i t e d Commonwealth a c t i o n  i n the world? I f , i n the f u t u r e , B r i t a i n i s to p l a y her p a r t w i t h out assuming burdens g r e a t e r than she can support, she must have w i t h her i n peace the same s t r e n g t h t h a t has sustained her i n t h i s war. Wot Great B r i t a i n only, but the B r i t i s h Commonwealth and Empire must be the f o u r t h power i n that group upon which, under Providence, the peace of the world w i l l h e n c e f o r t h depend.^ The argument i s s t r o n g .  Canada, w i t h the other  British  Dominions, can set an example f o r u n i t e d a c t i o n i n government. The B r i t i s h Empire v o i c e can be strong i f the Commonwealth i s a close u n i t .  But w i l l R u s s i a or the U n i t e d S t a t e s or some  other country r e s e n t u n i t e d a c t i o n by the B r i t i s h Commonwealth?  The U n i t e d S t a t e s was  when the League of Nations was  f e a r f u l of the Commonwealth organized i n 1919.  Will  she  or some other n a t i o n r e s e n t u n i t e d a c t i o n by the Commonwealth i n the U.NO.  Canada i s f a c e d w i t h a dilemma.  1. Speech by Lord H a l i f a x b e f o r e the Toronto Board of Trade, Jan.24, 1944. R e p r i n t e d i n " I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n c i l i a t i o n " March, 1944, p.227. 2. I b i d . , pp.229-230.  -  50  Mr. Mackenzie King, in stating the attitude of the Canadian Government on Lord Halifax's speech before the House of Commons agreed with Lord Halifax on the point that the peace of the world depended on maintaining on the side of peace a large superiority of power. However, was the best way of achieving peace to seek a balance of strength between three or four great powers? Should we not, indeed must we not, aim at attaining the necessary superiority of power by creating an effective international system inside which the cooperation of all peace-loving countries is freely sought and given. 1. Canada cannot support the idea that peace should be maintained by matching strength between three or four dominant states.  Canada will s t i l l continue to collaborate closely  with the Commonwealth, as she has in the past.  However,  in matters involving issues of peace and war, or prosperity and depressions, Canada will join "not only with the Commonwealth countries, but with a l l likeminded states, if our 2 purposes and ideals are to prevail". This all goes to point out the important place Canada holds in the world. She is important to the Commonwealth, and her decisions will be important to the world. Canada has come of age. 1. House of Commons Debates, 1944, Vol. I, p.41. 2. Ibid., p. 42.  P A R T  CANADA' S  TWO  ROLE  IN THE LEAGUE OP NATIONS  -52 -  PART  TWO  CANADA'S ROLE IN THE FAMILY OP NATIONS Part I of t h i s t h e s i s gave a glimpse at the V e r s a i l l e s Peace Conference. through p e r s i s t a n t Supreme War  and continued  C o u n c i l t h a t i t was  We  of Canada's r o l e  have seen  how,  e f f o r t , she convinced  the  only j u s t to r e c o g n i z e  the  D o m i n i o n s . i n d i v i d u a l l y a t the Peace Conference.  There i s  no need to r e l a t e again the method used i n g r a n t i n g the Dominions a v o i c e i n the Conference.  F o r our purposes, i t  i s p o s s i b l e t o s t e p d i r e c t l y i n t o the proceedings Conference  and show how  i t handled  of the  the p l a n f o r a League of  Nations. I . Canada's P a r t i n B u i l d i n g the League. I t was Conference  decided'at the f i r s t p l e n a r y s e s s i o n of the to appoint a committee to d r a f t  the C o n s t i t u t i o n  of the League of N a t i o n s .  General Smuts of South A f r i c a  was  of the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s on  chosen t o serve as one  B r i t i s h Delegation.  T h i s was  the  only n a t u r a l i n view of h i s  famous pamphlet, The League of N a t i o n s , a P r a c t i c a l Suggest i o n . The Committee, when i t began i t s t a s k , had before i t  -55 . a d r a f t Covenant which embodied an amalgam of American i d e a s . omitted  British  and  The d r a f t , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note,  the Dominions from the l i s t  The subsequent e f f o r t s  of p o s s i b l e members.  of the Dominions to secure  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a t the Conference convinced  the  separate  British  Government that the Dominions should have the same r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n the l e a g u e . w i t h P r e s i d e n t Wilson,  Lord Robert C e c i l d i s c u s s e d the matter and,  although  the P r e s i d e n t was  not  i n favor of separate Dominion r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , agreed t o i t . The H u r s t - M i l l e r d r a f t of the League Covenant, which was  used  f i n a l l y as a b a s i s f o r the Committee's work, made p r o v i s i o n s f o r the separate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the Dominions and  India  i n the League. Mention had  been made i n some of the e a r l i e r plans f o r  a league f o r an E x e c u t i v e the idea and powers.  Council.  Lord C e c i l concurred  proposed a C o u n c i l c o n s i s t i n g of the f i v e  great  H i s p l a n made no mention of temporary or r o t a t i n g  seats f o r s m a l l e r powers.  The Dominions a t f i r s t  favored  h i s p r o p o s a l s , f o r t h e y were sure of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on Empire  with  the  Seat.  The  s m a l l powers g e n e r a l l y , however, were a g a i n s t  a c c e p t i n g the p l a n , and at the an a t t a c k a g a i n s t i t . Out which was  second meeting they  launched  of t h i s a t t a c k developed the  f i n a l l y adopted -- a C o u n c i l w i t h permanent  plan  seats  -54 f o r the Great Powers, and non-permanent seats f o r the l e s s e r powers.  The way was now opened f o r the Dominions t o secure  d i r e c t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n on the C o u n c i l . had  F i r s t , however, t h e y  to e s t a b l i s h t h e i r e q u a l i t y w i t h the s o v e r e i g n A r t i c l e 4 i n the d r a f t presented  the t e c h n i c a l  states. barrier  -- s o v e r e i g n t y -- t o Dominion membership i n the C o u n c i l . I t read i n p a r t : The C o u n c i l s h a l l c o n s i s t of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the U n i t e d S t a t e s of America, of the B r i t i s h Empire, of France, of I t a l y , and of Japan, together w i t h the R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of f o u r other S t a t e s which a r e members of the League. 1 The Dominions, not p r o p e r l y s t a t e s , c o u l d , t h e r e f o r e , be excluded from membership on the C o u n c i l .  David Hunter M i l l e r .  commented: As t o the Powers represented from time to time on the C o u n c i l , I am i n c l i n e d t o take the view ... that i t was the i n t e n t i o n of the Commission to exclude the Dominions and C o l o n i e s from such r e p r e s e n t ation.^ S i r Robert Borden of Canada saw i n the s i t u a t i o n a serious d i f f i c u l t y . be regarded  For some purposes t h e Empire wished t o  as a u n i t , and f o r others i n d i v i d u a l r e p r e s e n t a -  t i o n was c l a i m e d .  Lord Robert  Cecil insisted,  though, that  the Dominions should be t r e a t e d no d i f f e r e n t l y titan the other  1. M i l l e r , David Hunter, "The D r a f t i n g of the Covenant", New York, Putnam, 1928, V o l . I p.479. ( I t a l i c s mine) 2. I b i d . , p. 480.  Mnations. and  A f t e r numerous c o n s u l t a t i o n s w i t h P r e s i d e n t  the American D e l e g a t i o n  manner acceptable  Wilson  the d r a f t was re-worded i n a  t o b o t h the Commission and the Dominions.  S i r Robert Borden, however, was not c o m p l e t e l y  satisfied.  He wanted a w r i t t e n assurance from t h e Great Powers that the Dominions, under the Covenant, would have the r i g h t to be e l e c t e d to the C o u n c i l . note signed  T h i s assurance was g i v e n  ina  by Clemenceau, Wilson, and L l o y d George on  May 6, 1919. That note has a l r e a d y been quoted i n f u l l i n Part I , but i t i s necessary t o quote the s i g n i f i c a n t  parts  of i t a g a i n .  of the  I t read,  i n part:  "...representatives  s e l f - g o v e r n i n g Dominions of the B r i t i s h Empire may be s e l e c t e d or named as members of t h e C o u n c i l .  We have no 1  h e s i t a t i o n i n expressing Now c o n f i d e n t  our e n t i r e concurrence i n t h i s view".  that Canada was, i n s t a t u s , equal t o any  other n a t i o n , S i r Robert Borden j o i n e d  i n the f i n a l phases of  the Conference and gave a c t i v e a d v i c e and c r i t i c i s m on the d r a f t Covenant. suggesting  He prepared a memorandum on March 10  t o the Conference numerous changes i n the d r a f t .  R e f e r r i n g to A r t i c l e V I I I , that A r t i c l e d e a l i n g w i t h t h e reduction  of armaments and the u n d e s i r a b i l i t y of t h e i r manu-•  f a c t u r e by p r i v a t e e n t e r p r i s e , he complained of i t s being I . I b i d . , p. 489.  ambiguous and  ineffective.  I t was  took the brunt of h i s c r i t i c i s m .  A r t i c l e X, The  though, which  A r t i c l e as i t stood  read:  The High C o n t r a c t i n g P a r t i e s undertake to r e s p e c t and preserve as a g a i n s t e x t e r n a l a g g r e s s i o n the t e r r i t o r i a l i n t e g r i t y and e x i s t i n g p o l i t i c a l independence of a l l s t a t e s members of the League. In case of any such aggression or i n case of any t h r e a t or danger of such a g g r e s s i o n the E x e c u t i v e C o u n c i l s h a l l advise upon the means by which t h i s o b l i g a t i o n s h a l l be f u l f i l l e d . 1  S i r Robert Borden's memorandum made the f o l l o w i n g observation regarding A r t i c l e  X:  I t i s submitted that t h i s A r t i c l e should be s t r u c k out or m a t e r i a l l y amended. I t i n v o l v e s an u n d e r t a k i n g by the High C o n t r a c t i n g P a r t i e s to preserve the t e r r i t o r i a l i n t e g r i t y and e x i s t i n g p o l i t i c a l independence of a l l s t a t e s members of the League. The S i g n a t o r i e s t o the Covenant are c a l l e d upon to d e c l a r e (a) that a l l e x i s t i n g t e r r i t o r i a l d e l i m i t a t i o n s are j u s t and expedient, (b) that they w i l l continue i n d e f i n i t e l y t o be j u s t and expedient, (c) that the S i g n a t o r i e s w i l l be r e s p o n s i b l e t h e r e f o r . The undertaking seems t o i n v o l v e i n i t i a l l y a c a r e f u l study, c o n s i d e r a t i o n and d e t e r m i n a t i o n of a l l t e r r i - . t o r i a l questions between the v a r i o u s s t a t e s who become p a r t i e s t o the Covenant. Even i f such a survey were p r a c t i c a b l e i t i s impossible to f o r e c a s t the f u t u r e . There may be n a t i o n a l a s p i r a t i o n s t o which the p r o v i s i o n s of the peace t r e a t y w i l l not do g u s t i c e . and which cannot be permanently r e p r e s s e d . Subsequent A r t i c l e s contemplate the p o s s i b i l i t y of war between two or more of the s i g n a t o r i e s under such c o n d i t i o n s that the other S i g n a t o r i e s are not c a l l e d upon to p a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y t h e r e i n . I f , as a r e s u l t of such war, the n a t i o n a t t a c k e d o c c u p i e s and proposes to annex ( p o s s i b l y w i t h the consent of a m a j o r i t y of the p o p u l a t i o n ) a p o r t i o n of the t e r r i t o r y of the a g g r e s s o r , what i s the o p e r a t i o n o f t h i s A r t i c l e ? Indeed the A r t i c l e seems i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s of A r t i c l e s XII to XVII i n c l u s i v e . Obviously a d i s p u t e as t o t e r r i t o r y i s w i t h i n the meaning and competence 1. I b i d . , Vol.11, p.  330.  - §7 of the s i x A r t i c l e s l a s t r e f e r r e d t o , under which a d i s p o s i t i o n of the d i s p u t e m a t e r i a l l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t proposed b y A r t i c l e X might be r e a c h e d . A r t i c l e XXIV does not seem to remove the d i f f i c u l t y . A r t i c l e s X I I and XVII r e f e r r e d t o i n the memorandum d e a l w i t h the handling of d i s p u t e s . were, on the whole,  Borden f e l t  that they  defective.  The memorandum was cabled to Ottawa, and the Canadian Government's a t t i t u d e seemed t o a c c e p t Borden's stand on the Covenant.  The issue r a i s e d by Borden, however, was  not e a s i l y s e t t l e d .  Canada was o b v i o u s l y r e l u c t a n t t o be  brought i n t o a European war. .The F r e n c h , on the other hand, whose motive i t was t o g a i n a guaranteed s e c u r i t y , f e l t t h e whole purpose of t h e League would be s a c r i f i c e d were changed t o meet the Canadian p o i n t - o f - v i e w . Americans were s u p p o r t i n g the F r e n c h .  i f Article X The  A l t h o u g h a b o l i t i o n of  or amendments t o the A r t i c l e were d i s c u s s e d , nothing was a c t u a l l y done to change unimpaired  it,  i n t o the f i n a l  and A r t i c l e X found i t s way  Covenant.  Japan dropped a bomb-shell i n t o the Conference when she proposed a s e c t i o n o f the Covenant c o n t a i n a c l a u s e on the status of emigrants i n other c o u n t r i e s .  Japanese people had,  i n the most p a r t , been excluded from other c o u n t r i e s and  1. I b i d . , V o l . I , p . 358.  - 5j6Japan hoped to e s t a b l i s h a more f a v o r a b l e p o s i t i o n f o r her people i n these c o u n t r i e s . p r o p o s a l waB  this  not c o n c e i v a b l y p o s s i b l e .  D e l e g a t i o n no such clause able.  To most of the Western S t a t e s To the Canadian  i n the Covenant c o u l d be  accept-  The B r i t i s h N o r t h America A c t gave the Dominion  Government l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y over n a t u r a l i z a t i o n and a l i e n s , and  no Canadian Government was  f r e e to s i g n a  t r e a t y d e p r i v i n g the Dominion of t h i s a u t h o r i t y .  After  1  c o n s i d e r a b l e debate at the Conference, the Japanese Delegat i o n consented to l e t the matter Labor too had  rest.  i t s stake i n the Peace Conference.  Two  approaches t o the s u b j e c t of labor were d i s c u s s e d at the Conference: a c h a r t e r f o r labor embodied i n the or a separate  o r g a n i z a t i o n empowered t o d e a l w i t h  of common i n t e r e s t to i t s members. t i o n was  e s t a b l i s h e d as a separate  I n t e r n a t i o n a l Labor The  treaties,  question  As  i t was,  questions  the  body known as  organiza-  the  Organization.  of membership i n the O r g a n i z a t i o n  e a r l y i n the d i s c u s s i o n s .  The American  that g i v i n g the Dominions separate  arose  Delegation  felt  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n would i n  f a c t give s i x votes t o the B r i t i s h Empire.  American p u b l i c  1. 30 V i c t o r i a , C. 3 (The B r i t i s h N o r t h America A c t ,  1867)  -' 59 _ o p i n i o n , i t was f e l t , would never a l l o w t h a t . made s e v e r a l appeals to Wilson, and f i n a l l y ,  The on May  Canadians 6,  P r e s i d e n t Wilson decided to o v e r r i d e the a d v i c e of h i s l a b o r experts, and agreed  to separate Dominion r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n  the Labor O r g a n i z a t i o n . read:  The  original  s e c t i o n on membership  "No member, together w i t h i t s Dominions and C o l o n i e s ,  whether s e l f - g o v e r n i n g or not, s h a l l be e n t i t l e d 1* more than one member". Convention the of membership  This was  t o nominate  changed by making the  same as the Covenant of the League i n r e s p e c t eligibility.  F e d e r a l i s m posed Labor C h a r t e r .  a p e c u l i a r q u e s t i o n i n r e s p e c t t o the  Mr. Gomphers and Mr. Robinson  of the American  D e l e g a t i o n wanted an amendment i n the C h a r t e r r e l e a s i n g a s t a t e from  the Labor Convention  consistent with i t . amendment was is a federal  132  The Canadian D e l e g a t i o n b e l i e v e d no  necessary i n the case of Canada.  Although  such she  s t a t e , and a l t h o u g h matters d e a l i n g with l a b o r  o r d i n a r i l y belonged Article  i f i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n was i n -  t o the l e g i s l a t u r e s of the P r o v i n c e s ,  of the B r i t i s h N o r t h America Act seemed wide  enough to confer any l e g i s l a t i v e  power necessary f o r perform2 ing her o b l i g a t i o n s upon the Parliament of Canada.  1. Borden, Henry, ed., " S i r Robert L a i r d Borden: H i s Memoirs", Toronto, Macmillan, 1928, V o l . I I , p.150. 2. 30 V i c t o r i a , C.3 (The B r i t i s h North America A c t , 1867) A r t i c l e 132 r e a d s : "The Parliament and Government of Canada s h a l l have a l l powers necessary or proper f o r performing the o b l i g a t i o n s of Canada or of any  - :6fl Subsequent events i n Canada proved t h i s b e l i e f incorrect.  Although we  wholly  are not here concerned w i t h  Dominion-Provincial aspects  the  of T r e a t y Making Power i t i s  p e r t i n e n t to p o i n t out t h a t a r e c e n t P r i v y C o u n c i l d e c i s i o n h e l d t h a t S e c t i o n 132  of the B r i t i s h F o r t h America A c t d i d  not grant the power to o v e r - r i d e p r o v i n c i a l r i g h t s except i n cases  of Empire T r e a t i e s . . Lord A t k i n s , who  decision,  s a i d S e c t i o n 132  of the A c t  wrote  the  could not be s t r a i n e d  to cover the uncontemplated event of the Dominion of Canada's new  international status.  r o l e , having  executive  The Dominion, i n its  a u t h o r i t y i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l f i e l d ,  c o u l d not o v e r - r i d e the powers granted Provinces  footnote  i n S e c t i o n 92 of the  continued  new  Act.  from previous  and guaranteed  the  1  page:  Province t h e r e o f , as p a r t of the B r i t i s h Empire, towards P o r e i g n C o u n t r i e s , a r i s i n g under T r e a t i e s between the Empire and such F o r e i g n C o u n t r i e s . " 1.  Great B r i t a i n , P r i v y C o u n c i l .  J u d i c i a l Committee,  "Canadian c o n s t i t u t i o n a l D e c i s i o n s of the J u d i c i a l Committee of the P r i v y C o u n c i l , 1930 to 1939". P l a x t o n , Charles Percy 1939, p.278  (ed.), Ottawa, Kings P r i n t e r ,  (For complete study of the q u e s t i o n see "Treaty Making Power i n Canada", p u b l i s h e d by the League of Nations S o c i e t y i n Canada)  -61But now to return again to the Conference at Paris. The Canadian Delegation made several suggestions for modification of the Labour Charter. Clause 8, as it was originally drafted said: "In all matters concerning their status as workers and social insurance foreign workmen lawfully admitted to any country and their families should be ensured the same treatment as the nationals of that Country." 1 Provincial legislation in Canada barred Orientals from certain trades, and Sir Robert Borden in particular was afraid of trouble from the Provinces i f the Clause remained it as"was. His solution was to find an alternative text which would overcome the difficulty so far as Canada was concerned, and yet meet with the general approval of the Conference. This he succeeded in doing, and the text of the clause was changed to read: "The standard set by the law in each Country with respect to the conditions of labour should have due regard to the equitable economic treatment of all workers lawfully resident therein." 2  Actually, this committed a government to nothing. When the Conference had completed its work, the Canadian Delegation was given a chance to sit back for a moment and view its contribution.  On the whole they were satisfied.  1. Glazebrook, G. P. De. T., "Canada at the Conference", Toronto, Oxford, 1942, p. 80 2.  Ibid, p. 81.  :®ej?te  Peace  -62-. Canada had succeeded in becoming an original member ofthe League as well as of the International Labour Organization. In neither was she considered a Colony. For all practical purposes she had been accepted as a State.  The only in-  dication of her "inferior" status was shown in the signature of the Treaty. The United Kingdom Representatives signed for the whole British Empire, and then the Dominion representatives for their respective Countries. This procedure was also followed in signing the League Covenant and the Labour Charter. Although the Canadian Delegation had balked at this method of signature, it did in fact exactly duplicate the manner of their representation at the Conference; in their own right as small powers, and through the British Empire Delegation as a part of a great power, 2» The Attitude of the Parliament of Canada. Under British practice the ratification as well as the negotiation of treaties was a function of the executive. A treaty in the United Kingdom, therefore, need not be submitted to Parliament for ratification.  Lord Milner, the  Colonial. Secretary, cabled the Dominions on July 4th, one week after the signature of the Treaty of Versailles - "It is hoped German treaty may be ratified by three of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers and by Germany before end of July." 1.  1  Canada, Sessional Papers, 1919, Special Session No. 41J  -63-  The cable apparently implied that ratification was to be completed without the formal approval of the Dominion Parliaments. This, of course, was wholly unacceptable to the Canadian Government. In his answer to the cable, Sir Robert Borden informed Lord Milner that he, Borden, was under pledge to submit the treaty to Parliament "before ratification on behalf of Canada.... Kindly advise how you expect to accomplish ratification on behalf of the whole Empire before end July."  1  Although there is nothing to  indicate that the United Kingdom did not have the right to ratify the Treaty for the whole Empire, the British Government agreed to post-pone ratification as long as possible, thus giving the Canadian Parliament time to consider the Treaty, Parliament was called to a special session on September 1st, 1919 to consider the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. The resolution asking for approval of the Treaty by the House of Commons was moved by Sir Robert Borden, and for two days the debates continued. The debates, on the whole, centered on two topics:  Article X.of the League Covenant, and the  relationship existing between Canada and the Empire. Here we are chiefly concerned with the first of the two topics, but some mention must also be made of the second. 1.  Ibid.  -64Th e acting leader of the Liberal opposition, Mr. D. D. Mackenzie, said the most important point in considering the treaty was to see if the status of Canada had in any way been affected by the terms of the Treaty. He was especailly fearful of Article X of the League Covenant, for it virtually implied that the terms of the Treaty would be interpreted by a Council sitting at Geneva. Canada might easily be forced into actions against her own free will if the Treaty were approved. According to Article 8, Canada would have to maintain a standing army to be used, as Mr. Mackenzie put it, in the event of a petty quarrel between small nations.  Who could  tell that Canada might not be put in a position whereby she might have to use arms against her Mother Country? * Mr. Beland used a similar argument in opposing Canadian approval of the Treaty. He claimed that if Canada joined the League, Canadian troops might be called upon , by a Council of nine men sitting in Geneva, to quell disorder in any of the five continents. Council*  2  Canada's hands would be tied by the  Fear of breaking up the British Empire should  Canada be forced to decide against Great Britain in a League dispute was used as an argument against approving the Treaty by Mr. Lapointe. He favored a reservation in the Treaty 1. Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire, 1920, Vol.I p. 94 2.  Ibid p.95  clearly stating that the rights and privileges of the Canadian Parliament would in no way be impaired by approval of the Treaty by Canada. Mr. A. Lemieux contended that Article X 1  involved surrendering Canadian control over her military forces and the defences of the Dominion. Mr. Fielding insisted there be a reservation in- order that the ratification of the Treaty would not surrender the Canadian Parliament's right to determine the part Canada would take in a war.  2  However,  he accepted the Prime Minister's word that the autonomy of Canada would be preserved in any question concerning status, but proposed the following amendment to protect that autonomy. "That in giving such approval this House in no way assents to any impairment of the existing autonomous authority of the Dominion, but declares that the question of what part, if any, the forces of Canada shall take in any war, actual or threatened, is one to be determined at all time, as occasion may require by the people of Canada through their representatives in Parliament." 3  Mr. C. J . Doherty maintained that no such amendment was necessary in the light of the real meaning of Article X. The undisturbed power of the Parliament of Canada would always stand between the operations of the Council under Article X and the people of Canada. The nation is sovereign, and Article X was meant only as a joint guarantee to the political 1.  Ibid, p.96  2.  Ibid, p.97  3.  Canadian Annual Review, 1920, Vol I, p. 108.  -66independence of all members of the League. Should a case even come before the Council involving a contribution of men or money by Canada, she, automatically, would become a member of the Council, and in the Council decision must be unanimous in order to become operative.  Moreover, any  military action suggested would have to be sanctioned by the Canadian Parliament. The vote on the amendment proposed by Mr. Fielding was defeated 112 to 71 and the motion made for approval of the Treaty by Sir Robert Borden was carried without division. In the Senate the same battle was repeated. signing away her autonomy.  Canada was  Canada would be expected to fight  wars in which she had no voice.  There were several suggest-  ions to withhold approval of the Treaty until the United States had made its decision concerning the Treaty - and the League. The Senate, however, joined with the House of Commons in passing a resolution approving the Treaty. 1 An Order-in* Council was passed on September 12th and cabled to London asking the King to ratify the Treaty "for and in respect of the Dominion of Canada." Meanwhile, in the United States, President Wilson was having trouble in securing ratification for the Treaty. He 1.  Journal of the Parliaments of the Empire, 1920, Vol. I p. 100  -67was finally forced to accept defeat.  The United States  would not jjjoin the League. When the Canadian Parliament approved the Treaty independently of the action of the United States the full weight of representing the North American Continent fell upon the shoulders of Canada.  1  It was a great responsibility, but throughout the history of the League, Canada interpreted accurately the pulse of her neighbor to the South. 5.  The League at Work. By virtue of the terms of Part I, Article I of the Treaty  embodying the Covenant of the League, Canada, as a signatory of the Treaty became one of the original members of the League of Nations. Her policy in the League was, on the whole, consistent.  The League Covenant bound Canada to  numerous indefinite commitments for the presevation of the status quo in regions in which she had only a remote interest. Being a North American power, Canada did not feel the need for guarantees of political and territorial integrity as did the European Powers. Her proximity to the United States and her bond of friendship with the United States gave her actual and implicit protection against aggression.  Thus, as the only  representative of North America on the League Assemhly, Canada felt her policy must in no way conflict with the interests or policies of the United States. 1.. Mexico did not $oin the League of Nations until September 18th, 1931.  -68The first Assembly of the League of Nations was opened on November 15th, 1920, and the members presented for con- 9  sideration an avalanche of resolutions having for their purpose the amendment of various articles of the Covenant. It was decided that in view of the numerous proposed amendments "the Council be invited to appoint a Committee to study the said proposals of amendments, together with any which may be submitted by a member of the League, within a period to be fixed by the Council.  The Committee shall report to the  Council, which shall place the conclusions before the Assembly at the next session." i It was a foregone conclusion as to what would happen to the amendment proposed by Mr. Doherty of the Canadian Delegation when he moved "that Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations be and is hereby struck out."  2  The Canadian  amendment was referred to the Committee on Amendments that was set up by the Council in February, 1921.  When the Committee  reported back, it referred the Canadian amendment to an international Committee of jurists which had been established, originally to give an opinion as to the legal scope of Article 18.  The Committee of jurists was asked to give its opinion  as to what obligations Article X imposed on members of the 1.  Records of the First Assembly, 1920, p.161  2.  Ibid, p.279.  \  League over and above the obligations imposed by other Articles in the Convenant. In reporting their findings during the meeting of the Second Assembly in 1921 the Committee of Jurists held as their opinion of the meaning of Article X that changes in the international status of States, territorially or politically, can be made only as a result of peaceful negotiations. All members of the League, therefore, have a twofold obligation; (1) mutually respecting each others territorial integrity and in respecting existing political independence, and (2) maintaining these against all external aggression. The Committee carefully pointed out that the Council, under the terms of Article X could not impose the means to be employed to assist a state which was the victim of aggression.  It  could only advise as to the means to be employed.  1  It was thought that an interpretative resolution might satisfy the Canadians, but the Canadian Delegation was in no way prepared to accept such a concession.  Mr. Doherty declared  in a speech to the Assembly: "Rightly or wrongly we think that we preceive a dangerous principle in Article X. By its wording it seems to lay down the principle that possession can 1.  Armstrong, William Earl, "Canada and the League of Nations", Geneva, Imprimerie Jent, 1930, p. 67-68.  -70-  take precedence over justice."  1  Divergent views in debates  before the Assembly finally led to the acceptance of a resolution to postpone the question for further discussion to the Third Assembly meeting. Meanwhile there had been a change of Government in Canada. The Liberal Party came into power, and Messrs. Fielding and Lapointe were appointed to represent Canada in the League Assembly. The new representatives carried on the same policy so abl/y pursued by their predecessors. The Canadian goal was s t i l l to have Article X removed from the League Covenant. The new representatives, however, were impressed with the hostility to their stand, and therefore decided to compromise. They announced to the Assembly that Canada would be willing to accept an amendment to the Article which would add to it the phrase: "taking into account geographical considerations" and a sentence which would guarantee each- Member State the right to have its own Parliament decide whether or not that state was obliged to go to war should the Council decide on such measures in the case of aggressive action by some other State.  France, as always, s t i l l insisted  upon leaving Article X of the Covenant intact. was therefore postponed for a third time.  The question  2  1. Soward, Frederic H., "Canada and the League of Nations", Ottawa, League of Nations Society in Canada, 1931, p. 16. 2.  Ibid, p. 16  -71When the Fourth Assembly gathered in 1923, the Canadian Amendment was placed on the agenda for discussion.  After  considerable debate the Canadian Delegation decided to press for an interpretative resolution rather than an amendment. This request was presented to the First Committee of the Assembly by Sir Lomer Gouin. That Committee, after careful study, endorsed a resolution which was acceptable to Canada. In essence, the resolution provided that in applying Article X, the Council was to take geographical position into account when recommending action to prevent wars, and that, while the Councils recommendations were to be considered as highly important to all members, it was to be for every individual member to decide for itself the degree of obligation to which it was to be bound,  1  When the resolution was put to a vote the results i l lustrated the stress placed upon Article X by European States. The following States voted in favor of the resolution: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, the British Empire (United Kingdom), Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Cuba, Denmark, France, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, 1. Baker, P. J . Noel, "The Present Juridical Status of the British Dominions in International Law", London, Longmans, 1929, p. 112,  -72Salvador, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,, and Uruguay - a total of 29 countries, Albania, Argentina, Bolivia, Columbia, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Esthonia, Finland, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Roumania, Siam, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia - a total of 23 countries abstained from voting, Persia alone voted against the resolution. Looking closely at the distribution of votes, several interesting facts can be seen. Countries abstaining from the vote, did so, probably, because they disliked the resolution but were not willing to vote openly against i t .  These  Countries included all the new States created by World War I plus Liberia, Siam, and six of the Latin American States. Surely the newly created countries wanted Article X of the Covenant left intact, but they were not willing to commit themselves on the question for fear of causing asme^sty?. France and Belgium both endorsed the resolution, though with reluctance.  The Treaty of Mutual Guarantee which was  being drafted at that time, however, provided the sanctions which they felt were necessary for security, and little could be lost by endorsing the resolution.  It was quite natural  foj? the British Commonwealth Countries to support the resolution, and so was it natural for the three ex-enemy powers represented in the Assembly to do likewise.  -73Persia rejected the resolution on the ground that she was surrounded by Russia, Turkey, and Afghanistan: None of these countries, at that time, were members of the League. Persia's action defeated the resolution under the unanimity rule of the Assembly. However, when the President of the Assembly announced the vote he stated he would not declare the motion rejected.  The support given the resolution  was strong enough to influence the procedure of the Council, if, at any time in the future, it was forced to act under Article X. Canada was thereby re-assured that the Article would not curtail her powers of responsible government. Sanctions were provided for under Article 16 of the Covenant as well as under Article_Xjand it is only natural that that Article also came under the scrutiny of the members of the League early in its history.  Although Canada's part  in the discussions concerning Article 16_were not so active as had been the case on Article X^, she was interested in i t . The Article as it stood in the Covenant provided if any member of the lieague resorted to war in disregard of the Covenant provisions, that act would be deemed an act against all other members of the League. The League members would thus be bound to sever all trade and financial relations, as well as to prohibit all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the Covenant-breaking State.  The League  members would also be bound to prevent financial or commercial intercourse between nationals of the Covenant-breaking State  -74and  the n a t i o n a l s o f any other S t a t e , whether o r not- t h a t  S t a t e was a member o f t h e League.  I n a d d i t i o n to these e c -  onomic s a n c t i o n s , t h e C o u n c i l was impowered t o recommend any m i l i t a r y a c t i o n by the members o f t h e League which the C o u n c i l deemed necessary.  A l l Member S t a t e s agreed t o support  each  others s a n c t i o n s a g a i n s t the Covenant-breaking S t a t e , and t o provide passage through t h e i r t e r r i t o r y o f any f o r c e s used by t h e Members o f t h e League which were c o - o p e r a t i n g t o p r o t e c t t h e Covenants of t h e League.  1  T h i s A r t i c l e p l a c e d Canada i n an awkward p o s i t i o n . Canada, as a member o f t h e League could be f o r c e d i n t o War with t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , a non-league member, by i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h tirade between the U n i t e d S t a t e s and a Covenant-breaking S t a t e , o r worse than t h a t , Canada c o u l d , c o n c e i v a b l y a t some f u t u r e time, be o b l i g e d t o a l l o w passage o f t r o o p s though h e r t e r r i t o r y should a League Member become i n v o l v e d i n a War with the United  States.  Prompted by S w i t z e r l a n d , H o l l a n d ,  and t h e Scandinavian  n e u t r a l s d u r i n g t h e war, Lord Robert C e c i l suggested t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Blockade Commission d i v i s e a p l a n which would p r o t e c t States,which  by t h e i r geographic p o s i t i o n , would  s u f f e r g r e a t danger by e n f o r c i n g t h e s a n c t i o n s o f A r t i c l e 16 2 against a neighboring  State.  1.  Covenant o f t h e League of N a t i o n s ,  A r t i c l e XVI  2.  Armstrong, "Canada and t h e League" p. 107.  -75-  The recommendations of the Blockade Committee that the Council could postpone for any specified State the measures provided for by Article 16 was accepted by the Assembly. The amendment did not admit, however, that a State could withdraw from the obligations imposed by the Article, Although this amendment to Article 16 was more acceptable to Canada than had it remained unchanged, she was not fully satisfied.  By her attitude in the Assembly, it can be seen  that she was willing to accept financial or economic sanctions but she had a definite distasfce for military obligations, 4.  The Problem of Disarmament and Security. Most of the European States were concerned with gaining  a guarantee of their security, and numerous private treaties were being negotiated between these States in an attempt to gain this security.  Thus, the problem of security came up  in the Assembly time and time again. During the meeting of the Fourth Assembly the problem came up once again, this time in connection with disarmament. Article 7 of the Covenant provided that in order to maintain peace, national armaments had to be reduced.  It was the duty of the Council to formulate  plans for such reduction of armaments, and all countries who adopted the Councils recommendations were to be bound accordingly, ^  1.  Covenant of the League of Nations, Article VII  -76The Temporary Mixed Commission was given the task of formulating a scheme on the order of a draft treaty to secure the reduction of national armaments. Before that Commission made any recommendations it considered several plans including both the British and the French recommendations. On the suggestion of M. De Jouvenel, the  French representat-  ive, the Assembly adopted Resolution 14 whioh presented the plan for the proposed Treaty of Mutual Assistance. Resolution 14 contained four clauses, carefully designed to offer a compromise between the two groups of States which had been in disagreement.as to whether the Treaty should strive toward disarmament as an end - the view held by the British; or whether the Treaty should strive for security as its end - the view held by the French. The Resolution proposed that : (1) A reduction of armaments must be general, and (2) to be acceptable i t must offer suitable guarantees. (3)That the obligation to render assistance to a Country attacked should be guided in principle by the geographical position of the obligated Countries (4) That the reduction of armaments should be proportinate to the guarantees of the Treaty. 1 In stating their opinions of the Resolution, the League members discovered how divergent their views were. The Scandinavian Countries demanded no guarante es for themselves, and, therefore, should not be forced to guarantee the security of any other Country. 1.  They did, however,  Armstrong* Canada and the League, p.116  approve of the idea of a general reduction in armaments, The French Government emphasised the importance it placed on military guarantees, and any attempt to lay down a scale of armaments a priori had to he abandoned. Disarmament could not precede measures for mutual assistance. The Netherlands Government felt that Partial Treaties, on the basis of geographic regions, were a step backward, and that only a Treaty obligating all members of the League could be acceptable. ..Canada's position was easily understandable, in as much as it was consistent with her views on Article X and Article 16 of the League Covenant. She was willing to adhere to a general reduction of armaments, but was unwilling to bind herself to a treaty of Mutual Guarantee. Her argument was that the peculiar national conditions and geographic situation would make it difficult for her to adhere to such a treaty.  The third olause, limiting the obligation to  render aid to only those countries attacked in the same part of the globe was also unacceptable.  From first glance,  it appears that this clause might have been acceptable, but Canada, as a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, would be at war whenever any member, of the  Commonwealth was  at war. Thus, the clause was no safeguard against war as far as Canada was concerned, even though it might be considered a safeguard by other Countries,  1  1.  Ibid, p. 119-123.  -78The . Temporary M i x e d Commission, i n c o - o p e r a t i o n w i t h the Permanent A d v i s o r y Commissiqn, went ahead i n p r e p a r i n g a d r a f t t r e a t y c o n t a i n i n g , a s f a r a s p o s s i b l e , the p r i n c i p l e s found i n the s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e v a r i o u s Governments. Draft Treaty o f Mutual A s s i s t a n c e , the f r u i t was p l a c e d b e f o r e t h e F o u r t h Assembly i n the  The  of their  efforts,  s p r i n g o f 1924.  The T r e a t y made p r o v i s i o n f o r s e c u r i t y t h r o u g h a g e n e r a l r e d u c t i o n o f armaments f o r a l l C o u n t r i e s .  I t made t h e s p e c i a l  p r o v i s i o n t h a t n a t i o n s need n o t c o - o p e r a t e i n m i l i t a r y o u t s i d e t h e i r own c o n t i n e n t .  operations  The t r e a t y a l l o w e d s p e c i a l  t r e a t i e s between S t a t e s , g u a r a n t e e i n g s e c u r i t y , but the League C o u n c i l was to have t h e p r i v i l e g e to examine any or a l l o f these s p e o i a l t r e a t i e s .  The League s a n c t i o n s were t o come i n t o  e f f e o t i m m e d i a t e l y upon t h e Commission o f an a c t o f a g g r e s s i o n by any C o u n t r y . specifically,  However, the C o u n c i l was o b l i g a t e d t o name,  the a g g r e s s o r n a t i o n w i t h i n f o u r days o f an a o t  of aggression.  Any a c t i v e measures reoommended by t h e  Council  were t o be adhered to by a l l members o f the L e a g u e , B e f o r e t h e T r e a t y was opened f o r s i g n a t u r e s , the Assembly asked f o r o b s e r v a t i o n s on i t from the Member S t a t e s . the same a l i n e m e n t o f S t a t e s ,  each w i t h t h e same a r g u m e n t s ,  med as, had been t h e c a s e over t h e v o t e on the resolution.  Virtually  interpretative  Those C o u n t r i e s n e e d i n g s e c u r i t y were o f t h e  o p i n i o n t h a t the T r e a t y d i d not go f a r enough, a l t h o u g h t h e y were w i l l i n g t o a o c e p t i t , w h i l e those C o u n t r i e s who f e l t s a f e and f e a r e d o b l i g a t i o n s , were opposed t o i t .  Sixteen  for-  -79S t a t e s , i n c l u d i n g France, the l i t t l e E n t e n t e , and the B a l t i c S t a t e s , a c c e p t e d i n p r i n c i p l e the D r a f t T r e a t y o f Mutual Assistance.  On t h e otherhand, twelve S t a t e s i n s i s t e d they  would not adhere to the T r e a t y .  These S t a t e s , among o t h e r s ,  i n c l u d e d t h e B r i t i s h Commonwealth C o u n t r i e s , the Scandinavian Countries, Spain,  and the H e t h e r l a n d s .  Canada r e j e c t e d the D r a f t T r e a t y on the ground  that i t  " c r e a t e d an o b l i g a t i o n wider i n i t s e x t e n t and more p r e c i s e i n i t s i m p l i c a t i o n than any whioh A r t i c l e X c o u l d be i n t r e p r e t e d as p r o p o s i n g ; and i t proposes moreover to t r a n s f e r the r i g h t to decide upon the scope o f a c t i o n Canada s h o u l d take from the Canadian  P a r l i a m e n t to the  C o u n o i l o f the League o f Nations."1  The deadlock o f o p i n i o n concerning the D r a f t T r e a t y was broken  e a r l y i n 1924  d u r i n g the meeting  o f the F i f t h Assembly.  There had been a change o f Govern ments t h a t year i n both France and Great B r i t a i n .  Mr. Ramsey MaoDonald o f t h e B r i t i s h  Labour P a r t y had r e p l a c e d Mr. Baldwin as Prime M i n i s t e r o f Great B r i t a i n , and, i n France M. Edouard M, Poinoare as Prime M i n i s t e r . between the two men a t the meeting very  1.  H a r r i o t had r e p l a c e d  The p e r s o n a l understanding  o f the i s s u e s c o n f r o n t i n g the  statesmen  of the F i f t h Assembly o f the League o f N a t i o n s  encouraging.  Soward^ Canada and the League, p . •  1  .1  132. ;  2. Toynbee* A r n o l d J . , "Survey o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l A f f a i r s " , London, Oxford, 1924.p.38.  was  -80-  In their opening speeches before the league Assembly, Mr. MaoDonald stressed arbitration as the key to peace and security, and M. Herriot agreed that "arbitration is essential, but i3 not suffioient."  He did, however, repudiate the former .  French position that security oould only be obtained hy force,  1  France and Britain had at last oome to an understanding on the question of security - or at least so i t seemed outwardly. With able assistants, the two Prime Ministers set about the task of divising a draft Protocol of Arbitration and Security. When presented to the Assembly, it was adopted as the "Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes." The ProtocQl, commonly referred to as the "Geneva Protoc&l" had as its main feature arbitration. It was designed to promote disarmament by creating security.  Security was to  be created by outlawing war; and outlawing of war was to be enforced by uniting the world against the would-be aggressor,2 In general, the Protocol provided that all legal disputes between States were to be settled by the Permanent Court of International Justice; any other type of dispute was to be submitted to arbitration. The Protocol defined the aggressor as any State which refused to accept summons to submit a dispute to pacific settlement as provided in the Covenant and 1. Armstrong, Canada and the League, p. 136 2, Rappard, William E . , "International Relations as viewed from Geneva", New Haven, Yale, 1925, p, 156.  -81-, o  the Protocal, to abide by the award of the Court of Arbitration tribunal or unanimous pronouncement of the Council, or to observe an armistice enjoined by the Council pending i t s decision as to the aggressor.  It was to be the duty  of the nations to come to the aid of the victim of aggression, but i t was for the States themselves to deoide i n what manner they were obligated to assist.  The financial and economic  sanctions of the League Covenant were to be used automatically however, and the Council was to recommend what military contributions were to be made, by the Member States.  It was  hoped that through this guarantee of security, a psychological state would be created, making possible a general policy of disarmament.  1  Section V of the Protocol gave r i s e , early in the discussions, to a serious question.  That section supposedly  safeguarded matters of domestic jurisdiction.  The British  Commonwealth of Nations delegations held that such matters should be referred to the Permanent Court whose decision would be binding.  Japan protested this with the plea that i t  was unjust for a nation injured by the aotion of another in a sphere lying within i t s domestic jurisdiction, should be denied pacific redress by the League and then be branded as an aggressor i f i t took steps to define i t s legitimate interests by force. 1.  Geneva Protocal.  In studying the Japanese objection, the  Assembly accepted an amendment which provided that although domestic questions involving international problems were to te submitted to the Permanent Court for a decision, it would not prevent consideration of the situation by the Council or the Assembly. Canada, although not enthusiastic •&£ the original understanding of Section V, was completely un-willing to acoept this amendment.  She maintained that questions of domestic  jurisdiction must be controlled by her own Government, and was not, in any way, the concern of the League. However, the Protocal was accepted by the Assembly on the last day of debates, Senator Dandurand, in his first appearance at Geneva, presented the Canadian attitude toward o  the Protooal. He pointed out that arbitration, security and o  disarmament, the three chief pillars of the Protocol, had long been aooepted and applied in Canada, and that Canada would be prepared to accept the compulsory arbitration and compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court. Regarding disarmament, he pointed to Canada as an example to the World Canada, with its unarmed frontier with the United States. On the question of security, he carefully avoided committing himself, but stated that the question would be studied by the Canadian Government. The British Government had worked closely with the Dominions while the Protocal was being formulated, and now the 1, Soward, Canada and the League, p. 24.  -83-  Dominions felt they should, as far as possible, consult with the British Government on the action to be taken on the Protooal,  Canada was against ratifying i t .  The spokesmen  for both the Liberals and the Conservatives in the House of Commons and the Senate voted for a Government rejection on the Protocol. A clash with the British Government was opportunely avoided by the fall of the MaoDonald Labour Government, the Baldwin Government being returned to offioe at the end of 19S4.  It will be remembered that Prime Minister  MaoDonald had favored the Protocdl when Baldwin had stood in opposition.  Thus, the way was now cleared for a joint re-  jection of the Protocol by the British Government and the Dominions. The official stand of the Canadian Government, as the facts were communicated to the British was that they were willing to give the League wholehearted support on its work in co-operation and conciliation, and were even willing to aooept compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court. Also, Canada was ready to participate in a general disarmament program as long as that program did not involve prior acceptance of the Protocol, But it was not in Canada's interest, or for that matter, in the interest of the British Empire, or the League itself " to recommend to Parliament adherence to the Protooaol, and particularily to its rigid provisions for application of economic and military sanctions in every future war . . . . The effect of non-participation of the United  -84States upon attempts to enforce sanctions and partieularily so in the case of contiguous countries like Canada..... is an important factor.  1  The ^Government of Canada could not  subscribe to the obligations of the Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. When the Council of the League met in March, the British Delegate, Mr. Chamberlain, repudiated the Protocol -with the consent of the Dominion Governments. By this time seventeen States had signed the Geneva Protocol, but the British decision sealed its fate. Canada, in January, 1925, made its first official appointment in an international oapacity when Dr, W. A. Riddell was appointed as the Canadian Advisory Officer to the League of Nations,  The appointment was made necessary by  the increasing number of League Conferences and by the feeling of the Canadian Government that closer touch should be kept with League developments, France's request for seourity had been left unacknow- . ledged with the rejection of the Geneva Protocol. Therefore, Britain proposed in 1925, that a regional pact be negotiated with special reference to the frontiers of France and Germany. Although the British Government was unwilling to sign a universal agreement guaranteeing the frontier of all Europe, 1.  Cmd. 2458. Nos. 11, Maroh 4, 1925.  -85i t would enter into negotiations of a regional character. For this purpose, a speoial Conference of interested parties was oalled at Locarno from October 5th - 16th, 1925; and out of the Conference came the Pact of Mutual Guarantee between France, Great Britain* Belgium, Germany, and Italy. It is this Pact which is commonly referred to as the Treaty of Looarno. By i t , Britain agreed that i f the Rhine frontier were attacked, she would assist the party against *  whom the.attack was directed. The parties agreed that they would not resort to war against each other except for defensive reasons or under Article 16 of the Covenant. For the sake of the Dominions, Article 9 of the Treaty stated: The present treaty shall impose no obligations -upon any of the British Dominions or upon India unless the Government of such Dominions or India signifies its acceptance thereof." 1 . n  Although Locarno was outside the League, i t was embeded in the League system. Wo Dominion representative was in attendance at the Conference, but the Dominions were kept completely informed of the negotiations.  Prime Minister King of Canada took the  attitude that the negotiations were the concern of the United Kingdom and not of Canada. The fact that Canada was a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations might possibly involve 1.  Treaty of Locarno.  her in a war on the side of Britain, hut her participation in such a war need not be active.  There is a distinction  between active obligations and legal status.  Canada was not  a party to the Treaty, and therefore was not actively obligated should Britain become involved in a war because of the Treaty. Canada's stand was that Locarno imposed an obligation on only one part of the Empire - Great Britain. Ear those reasons Canada did not ratify the Locarno Pact," nor did Great Britain expect her to. It was at the Sixth Assembly meeting that Canada was honored by having one of her delegates - Senator Dandurand elected president  of the Assembly. The gesture was especially  significant in view of the Canadian stand on the recently rejected Geneva Protocal. Senator Dandurand had been extremelypopular in the previous Assembly meeting, and with his command of both the English and French languages, he had made an exoellent impression. Canada, and in particular Senator Dandurand, had been duly flattered.. Hot long afterwards, during the meeting of the Eighth Assembly in 1927, Canada was again honored, this time by being elected to membership on the League Council. M embership on the Council had been; in practice, usually on the basis of one-third of the n on-permanent seats going to Latin America, one non-permanent seat to an Asiatic Sta/te, and the remainder going to European Members. At the Seventh Assembly Sir George Foster arose on the day before the Council elections and  -87-  announeed that: "So far as my Country and the other members of the British Overseas Countries are concerned, we have not hitherto made, and are not now making any claim for a seat on the Counoil of the League. But, it is pertinent, and I think it is right at this stage to say to this. Assembly and to the League itself;' that we consider that we have equal rights to representation on the Council and otherwise with every one of the fifty^-six members of the League of Nations* and that we do not propose to waive that right." 1 When the balloting took place,  Canada was given two com-  plimentary votes, and the Irish Free State; whioh had announced its oandidature, received eleven. Canada, duly impressed by the complimentary votes she had reoeived announced her candidature for a seat on the Council during the meeting of the Seventh Assembly. She felt that she might be in a good position to contribute something of value to the work of the was from European complications.  Counoil, detatched as she She also believed that,  unless she asserted herself, the Dominions would be excluded from Council membership in the future.  The British Delegation  and the other Dominion Delegations gave Canada their full support.  The Scandinavian Delegations also gave her their  support. The election resulted in Canada, Cuba, and ilnland gaining the non-permanent seats. With Canada on the League Council, due weight was given, for the first time, to the geographical consideration of North Amerioa which, previously 1.  Soward, Canada and the League, p. 24  -88-  had been without representation on the Council.  It was  indeed a great honor to Canada and of great significance to the British Empire to have one of  its members chosen as a  member of the Council of the League of Nations.  1  Canada, as a member of the Council, automatically became a member of the Preparatory Committee for the Disarmament Conference.  During the proceedings of that Committee, i t is  understandable that Canada should place her full weight on the side of disarmament. When the German Delegate made a motion at the Sixth Session that all armaments should be prohibited, Dr. Riddell of Canada approved the motion. He also supported a proposal by the Chinese Delegate that compulsory military service be abolished. But, in as much as several States were opposed to these proposals, Dr. Riddell suggested that the task of disarmament be attacked more directly, m that is, by establishing a quota system for armaments. The actual work of the Disarmament Commission amounted to little for it merely made a series of unadopted proposals and counter-proposals. Canada contributed nothing in the way of constructive suggestions, although she continued to emphasize her position by standing always on the side of disarmament. Canada attended the Washington Naval Conference of 1921 1922, the Genoa Naval Conference of 1927, and the London Naval Conference of 1930.  The results of these conferences  1. The London Times"; September 16, 1927 - cited in Dawson, Robert MaoGregor "The Development of Dominion Status, 1900 1936 ", 1926, Toronto, Oxford, 1937 p. 354.  -89were largely abortive. A brief mention of them, however, serves to show Canada's legal position at them. Canada was representated at the Washington Conference by Sir Robert Borden whose status was that of a member of the British Empire Delegation. At Genoa Canada had independent represent-? ation, Mr. Lapointe, and Dr. Riddell being her delegates. Colonel Ralston represented her as a part of the British Commonwealth of Nations Delegation at the London Conference.  1  At all.these Conferences, Canada stood for a. reduction of armaments. Although the Kellog-Briand Pact (the Paot of Paris) was technically outside the League, its signatories were, with the exception of the United States, members of the League, and the Paot did have reverberations on the League Covenant. For those reasons, the Pact of Paris must be included in this study. It.was M. Briand of France who suggested on April 6th, 1927, the anniversary of the United States entry into the War, that a treaty between France and the United States be concluded whioh would outlaw war.  To this end, he sent a draft  treaty to Washington on June 20th.  Public opinion in the  United States was, at this time, receptive to such a proposal, and, on December 28th, Mr. Kellog communicated with M, Briand,  1.  Armstrong, Canada and the League,  \iy*  m . p. 181-182.  -90suggesting that the proposed treaty he enlarged to include all the principal powers.  In this proposal M, Briandao-  quiesced. Canada participated in the formulation of the Pact by separate invitation from the United States.  In commenting on  the preliminary draft of the Pact, Prime Minister King, in a note to the United States Minister to Canada, pointed out that Canada would sign the Pact on the condition that it would not interfere with her obligations under the League Covenant. It was the Canadian Government's belief that there was, however, no conflict either " in the letter or in the spirit between the Covenant and the multilateral Pact, or between the obligations assumed under each."l  Prime Minister King  then took the opportunity to acquaint the United States with "the difficulty that the League, a permanent organization," would experience should the United States Government not cooperate in permitting sanctions to be carried out."2 He also emphasized the conciliatory and co-operative functions of the League, and the value of its permanent machinery. The Pact, in its final form, was signed by Prime Minister King on behalf of Canada, and approved by the Canadian Parliament on February 22nd, 1929.  3  1.  Ibid, p. 204.  2.  For text of the note, see: Ibid, p. 203-205  3.  Canada, Debates, House of Commons, 1929, p. 367.  -91It is significant to note that in listing the signatory nations, the British Dominions were listed in Alphabetical order - Australia first, and Canada immediately after Belgium. There was no grouping of the Dominions under the heading "The British Empire" as had been the case with the Treaty of Versailles.  Separate instruments of ratification were pre-  pared for each Dominion by the British Foreign Office signed by the King.  The Canadian Minister in Washington deposited  the instrument binding Canada. This was probably the first occasion on which ratification of an important treaty was effeoted by a separate Canadian instrument, and i t , thereby, reoognized Canada's international status, not merely within the League of Nations, but in the larger international sphere.  1  France, the United States,  Belgium, Canada, Great  Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State, India, Italy, Japan, Poland, and Czechoslovakia were the original signatories of the Briand-Kellog Pact for the Renunciation of War, which was signed at Paris on August 27th, 1928.  Since then other nations have signed the Pact - sixty-  two in total.  They all pledged to seek the solution of dis-  putes or conflicts by pacific means only, and condemned war as an instrument of national policy. Because of her membership in the Council, Canada sat on the Committee on arbitration and security.  In studying  1. Baker, Presant Juridioal Status of British Dominions in International Law'' p, 208•  -92the problem o f a r b i t r a t i o n and s e c u r i t y the Committee d i s covered t h e r e were two groups of d e l e g a t e s i n the  League,  each group having a d i f f e r e n t view o f the problem.  The  first  group, i n c l u d i n g France and her A l l i e s , h e l d t h a t the WeWev&i P r o t o c a l should form a working b a s i s f o r the  problem o f  a r b i t r a t i o n and s e c u r i t y ; the seoond group, made up o f t h e B r i t i s h Empire, t h e Dominions, I t a l y and Japan, b e l i e v e d t h a t the League Covenant p r o v i d e d s u f f i c i e n t s e c u r i t y .  In an  attempt to s a t i s f y both groups, the D r a f t i n g Committee subm i t t e d t o the N i n t h Assembly a G e n e r a l Aot o f Four C h a p t e r s . The A c t p r o v i d e d t h a t n o n - j u s t i c i a b l e d i s p u t e s not s e t t l e d by diplomacy be r e f e r r e d to a C o n c i l i a t i o n Commission e s t a b l i s h e d between the p a r t i e s to the d i s p u t e .  to be  A l l justici-  a b l e d i s p u t e s were to be submitted to the Permanent Court o f International Justice for decision.  I f conciliation  failed,  T  a d i s p u t e had to be r e f e r r e d to an a r b i t i a l t r i b u n a l cons i s t i n g o f f i v e members w i t h i n one month a f t e r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the work o f the C o n c i l i a t i o n Commission.  While p a c i f i c p r o -  cedure was being c a r r i e d on, the d i s p u t a n t s were to agree to a b s t a i n from a c t i o n which might aggravate or extend the dispute.  These p r o v i s i o n s were not to a p p l y to d i s p u t e s  a r i s i n g out o f f a c t s a n t e d a t i n g the T r e a t y , t o d i s p u t e s o f a domestic n a t u r e , or t o d i s p u t e s concerned w i t h t e r r i t o r i a l status. Dr. R i d d e l l , i n the Assembly  debate on the A o t ,  emphasized  the f a c t that.Canada had p r a o t i o e d the p r i n c i p l e s o f con- .  -93ciliation and investigation with success for years, and that she was entirely favourable to the principles set forth in the Act. The General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, providing for arbitration and conciliation, but omitting any mention of sanctions, was adopted by the Ninth Assembly. Canada acceded to the General Act on July 1st, 1931.  1  The problem of financial assistance to States the victim of aggression was also considered by the Committee on Arbitration and Seourity.  The Committee devised a scheme whereby  financial aid would be pledged by League Members to an attacked country. In considering the plan, the Canadian Delegation supported the idea on the condition that it would not increase Canada's obligations under the Covenant. Sir George Poster, in the Third Committee of the Third . Assembly* gave a full explanation of Canada's attitude toward financial assistance in times of war or threat of war. Because of her geographic location it was probable that Canada would not be in need of financial assistance, but she was sympathetic to the.scheme.  The participation of Canada  in any sanctions, would have to be with the approval of the 1. Palmer, Gerald E . , "Consultation and co-operation in the British Commonwealth", London, Oxford, 1934, p. 158..  -94Qovernment and Parliament. He did object to tne plan on one point.  It was based on the pre-supposition that war  was probable and possible - in direct conflict with the Paot of Paris which had renounced War. Eventually, the Convention for Financial Assistance to States Victims of Aggression was submitted.by the Committee to the Eleventh Assemblyw&gr^e it was approved. The Permanent Court of International Justice had been established in December, 1920, following the mandate given under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The text which determined the Constitution, Organization',• Jurisdiction, and Procedure is found mainly in the Statute whioh was approved by the League Assembly on December 20th, 1920.  The text of that Statute was put into a separate  treaty and duly ratified by a number of States.  The Court,  established by the Statute, was competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international oharacter "which the Parties thereto submit to it." An optional clause attached to the Statute provided that any State, upon accepting the optional clause, recognized as compulsory the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: (1)  the interpretation of a Treaty.  (2)  any question of International Law.  (3)  any breaoh of an international obligation  (4)  any question of reparation. 1 4  1.  Encyclopaedia of Europe, London, Stanhope, 1935, p. 18.  -95Canada had rejected the entire Protocol, inoluding the Optional Clause, when the International Court was established. o  Some of the Dominions, however, accepted the Protocal but not the Optional Clause. At the Imperial Conference Meeting of 1926, i t had been agreed that no member of the Commonwealth should sign the Optional Clause until all were prepared to do so.  In 1928, the Canadian Government felt i t should sign  the Optional Clause, and, therefore, advised the other members of the Commonwealth accordingly. The British Government of that day was unprepared to sign the Clause, but, with the advent of the Labour Government in mid-1929, the policy of the British Government ohanged.  Thus, in August, 1929, the Canadian Government was  informed that the British also intended to sign the Optional Clause.  The other countries' in the Commonwealth followed  Britain's lead, and all signed the Clause during the next meeting of the League Assembly - the Tenth Assembly. 1 Mr. Dandurand in signing for Canada, made a reservation in behalf of Canada. He said:"The Dominion of Canada has excluded from the purview of the Court legal disputes with other members of the British Commonwealth for the sole reason that it is its expressed policy to settle these matters by some other methods, and it has deemed opportune to include its will as a reservation although a doubt may exist as to such reservation being consistent with Article 1. Manning, C. A. W., "The Policies of the British Dominions in the League of Nations", London, Oxford, 1932, p. 37 - 40. - .  -96-T  36 of the Statue of the flourt."! This reservation, according to a subsequent statement by the Canadian Government, was simply a matter of policy,  2  The reservation made by Canada was also made by the other Commonwealth Nations - excepting Ireland. Senator Dandurand in March, 1928, plaoed before the League Council the problem of minorities.  The procedure  worked out by the Council - that of protecting the minorities by several unconnected treaties - was not wholly satisfactory. In the Assembly Meeting of 1928, Holland suggested that a Permanent Minorities Commission be appointed to supervise the treatment of minorities. Although the suggestion was not accepted, it did raise a question, and the Counoil made a decision to refer the question to a subcommittee.  This sub-  committee advised a scheme which was adopted by the Council accepting several suggestion made by Senator Dandurand. The most important aspect of the plan was the. right of minorities to petition the whole Council, instead of a Committee of Three as had been the practice previously. September, 1930, ended Canada's three, year term on the League Counoil, and, as a fitting climax, Sir Robert Borden, so instrumental in gaining for Canada a voice in the League, 1. Ibid," p. 40, see also, for the official reservation made by the Commonwealth as a Unit, Cmd. 3452 ^ p. 5 2. See: Hancock, William Keith "Survey of British Commonwealth Affairs", London, Oxford,-1937, p. 607, for detailed discussion.  headed the Canadian Delegation to the Tenth Assembly. The Assembly bestowed upon him a fitting honor, when it elected him Chairman of the Sixth Committee - that committee which dealt with - in the Tenth Assembly - Refugees* Mandates, Minorities, and Slavery. Under the guidance of Sir Robert, the Committee presented to the Assembly a report which was accepted unanimously.  The debate on the report of the Council  to the Assembly was opened by Sir Robert. In his speech he admirably reflected upon the Canadian attitude to peace and disarmament. "Let our faith have vision to look beyond, to . behold the day when war shall be outside the pale of thought or imagination, when it shall be oast forth forever into the outer darkness of things accursed, its brow seared with the brand of eternal infamy," 1 The speech was acclaimed and re-echoed by other speakers throughout the world. In retiring from her seat on the Counoil, Canada had the gratification of seeing another Dominion - the Irish Free State - elected to that ooveted position. With the subsequent election of Australia to the Counoil in 1933, and lew Zealand in 1936, Canada could claim responsibility for establishing the precedent for the principle that.a British Dominion should continuously hold a Council seat. 1.  Soward, Canada and the League, p.. 32,  -98Part I of this thesis devoted a considerable amount of spaoe to a discussion of the Statute of Westminster. For that reason, it is not necessary here to go into the subject again, except to remind the reader that that Statute placed the Dominions, legally, on an equal footing with Great Britain in the field of foreign relations.  The at-  titude of Canada to the League did not change after the passage of that Act, though by i t , Canada's position in the family of Nations, was strengthened. 5.  The Decline of the League. To trace the events in world history which expired  between 1931 and the outbreak of war in 1939, is beyond the scope of this thesis.  Such a study would not be irrelevant  though, for each event had its effect on the League, and on Canada's role in the League. Sketching enough of the trend of events to put Canadian participation in the League in its perspective is necessary for an adequate understanding of Canada's actions. Through out the 1920*s regional groups had operated in the League, and in the 1930s they became more sharply ,  delineated, for, in their efforts to expand, they had continually jostled one another.  The world came to be divided  into two groups; the have and the have-not nations. The depression of 1929 aggravated the whole scene, and brought with it discontent.  The philosophy of nationalism gained  ascendency over the philosophy of internationalism.  Italy  -99-  and Germany tamed to fascist dictatorships, and other States soon followed suit.  1933, saw the resignation of  Germany and Japan from the League. Disarmament agreements were thrown to the winds. War became more possible on the basis of alignment of ideologies as well as on economic and national grounds.  Indeed, the 1930's predicted the beginning  of the end of the League of Nations. It has been generally conceded that the Manchurian Affair was the first great failure for the League. In making such a statement one must be oareful to differentiate between the machinery of the League itself and the League members. Actually, the failure was a failure of the League members to face the full implications of the Covenant. Japan moved into Manchuria on September 18th - 19th, 1931 in full violation of the League Covenant, the Pact of Paris, and the Washington Nine Power Treaty of 1922. Japan had been a signatory to all three. world-wide diplomatie activity.  Her action precipitated  1  In the League the question of Japan's actions was immediately taken up by the Council.  Its first act was to re-  quest the Chinese and Japanese Governments to refrain from any action which might aggravate the situation or prejudice the peaceful settlement of the problem. A Commission of 1.  Toynbee, Survey of Int'l. Affairs. 1951. p. 473  -100Inqulry was appointed, headed by Lord Lytton, to investigate on the scene, the Manchurian Affair,  In the meantime the •  League Council continued in its efforts to mediate between China and Japan. No ii'ove was made during this period to bring Article 16 of the Covenant into play. When the Lytton Report, having been completed in the meantime, came before the Special Session of the Assembly on December 8th, 1932, Canada spoke against the adoption.  She could not support  the Report because i t would, in all liklihood, involve send*ing Canadian Troops to the Par Bast.  Canada, was, of course,  following the attitude of the Great Powers,  1  In stating what he though*was the official attitude of Canada, Mr. Cahan, before the League Assembly, on December 8th, took pains to re-affirm the established Canadian doctrine about the limited scope of Article Z of the Covenant. His speech was a curious oration which seemed to support both sides - supporting Japan's action on the condemning i t on the other.  one hand, and  He stressed the difficulties of  the Japanese position in the Par Bast, hut complained that the Japanese should have communicated to the League, at the time of the Military Coup, an explanation of their conduct and policy, 1, 2.  2  Ibid; 1934, p, 493 Toynbee, Survey of Int'l Affairs. 1933, p. 493.  The Canadian.Public criticised these remarks, which had in fact condoned Japan's action, and in defending his position, Mr. Cahan maintained "that he had merely advised conciliation and avoidance of extreme measures."  1  Speaking  before the House of Commons he defended his statements by;pointing out that at the time of his speeoh extreme measures against Japan were being proposed in the Assembly. The danger of war was implicit in the situation he had tried to 2  ease. On February 24th, 1933, a Special Session of the Assembly adopted unanimously the Report of the Committee of nineteen on the Manchurian Affair, which applied the principle of arbitration to the dispute under Article 15 of the Covenant.  3  The Canadian Government, in full concurrence with the Report, oabled their Canadian Advisory Officer at Geneva to make a statement to the effect that Canada supported the Report.  4  When the Assembly adopted the Report, Japan withdrew from the League. In retaliation, the League punished Japan 1. Carter, Gwendolen M., •'Consider the Record", Behind the Headlines Series. Canadian Institute of International Affairs, p. 17. ~ ,2. Canada, Debates, House of Commons - 1932-1933, p. 50595069. 3. Article 15 makes it mandatory for a dispute "not submitted to arbitration or judicial settlement in accordance with Art. 13,"to be submitted to the League Council for arbitration. 4. For complete text of statement see: Canada, Debates, House of Commons, 1933, p. 2431*  -102-  by adopting the doctrine of non-recognition for the new State - Manchukuo, The United States joined with the league in that action. The league, had, during the course of the Affair, taken no effective action.  The members were unwilling to surrender  their sovereignty for the sake of collective security, In referring to the league's action, the Chinese Delegate, Dr. Wellington Koo Stated: "The absence of any effective action from the League in this case has encouraged those who have all along been proclaiming the belief that might is right. It has, in faot, placed a premium on aggression treaties guaranteeing security may be disregarded with impunity.... We have arrived at the cross-roads of the World's destiny. Our choice lies between an armed peace.. .which.. .postulates war as inevitable,' and a peace based upon oolleotive responsibility,,., i t means, in fact, a war or peace." 1 With that, China gave up hope of aid from the League, The Disarmament Conference of 1932, was unsuccessful for political nationalism held sway,  Canada, in attendance,  had little to offer the Conference save her own shining example of an unarmed State in the presence of a wbrld-which was over-burdened with arms. In 1933, Germany, resigning from the League, defied the Treaty of Versailles and started on the road to re-armament for war. Japan gave formal notioe of her denunciation of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, in 1934. A dispute between Bolivia and Paraguay over the Gran 1. Dr. Wellington Eoo, quoted from Toynbee* Survey of Int ! Affairs. 1933, p, 517. ~ 1  -103-  Ch^co region had been in progress for years, and, between 1933 and 1944 there was open warfare between the two countries. avail.  Efforts to conciliate the dispute were without  Bolivia, in 1934, agreed to accept certain league  proposals for the settlement of the dispute, but Paraguay refused to co-operate.  An arms embargo by 28 League members,  Canada included among them, was consequently raised against Paraguay. Thereupon, in Pebruary, 1935, Paraguay gave notice of her withdrawal from the League. It was to the credit of the neighbouring South American States and not the League for finally bringing the hostilities to an end in October, 1935. Meanwhile, in Canada, we had several incidents in the Parliament which throw light on Canada's attitude toward her role in foreign affairs.  In the House of Commons on February  12th, 1934, a resolution was moved'that a study of Canadian foreign policy, be made so that a definite policy could be formulated.  Prime Minister Bennett refused to support the  resolution on the grounds that Canada was a small nation and therefore not in a position to oarry forward, positively, any declaration of a foreign policy.. A more surprising motion was introduced into the Senate by Senator A. D. McRae on April 17th, 1934.  He moved that  Canada withdraw from the League, and declare a definite foreign policy.  This action, he hoped, would avoid being  drawn into fulfilling any military or treaty obligations.  -104Th e motion was nego'tl'ated-'- after Senator Dandurand had made clear that Canada, under her interpretation of Article X of the Covenant, could be called upon only by the Canadian Parliament to impose military sanctions.  1  Abyssinia proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back in the case of the league.  Italy, in her quest for  living space, invaded Ethbpia in October, 1935. was not long in taking action.  The league  The Council formally named  Italy the aggressor, and two days later, a Committee composed of all member States moved toward the imposition of sanctions 2  against Italy.  It was decided that the measures include:  (1)  An arms embargo  (2)  A ban on loans and credits  (3) (4)  A boycott of Italian imports An embargo on certain key raw materials exported to Italy.  These measures were imposed on Italy on November 18th. The commodities included on the sanctions list were not complete petroleum and its derivatives, iron or steel, and coal not being on the list.  Dr, Riddell urged that the sanctions be  made more comprehensive, suggesting that o i l , iron and coal be included on the list. 1. 2.  Canada, Senate Debates, 1934 p. 237-253 Dr. Riddell was the Canadian Delegate.  3. For the text of Dr. Riddell's proposal see: Toynbee, "Survey of Int'l Affairs, 1935, -Vol. I, p. 274.  -105-  Dr. Riddell's proposal mas received with favor in most countries - France and Great Britain Bxoepted. Retrospection shows that pressure and implied threats from Italy accounted for the British and French attitude.  In any case, their at-  titude negated Dr. Riddell's proposals.  1  In Canada, Dr. Riddell's outspokenness caused considerable embarrassent, and, on December 1st, the Canadian Government disavowed his remarks, claiming the statement as his personal observation and not in any way initiated by the Canadian Government. To emphasise their  disavowanVe,  the Canadian Government  relieved Dr. Riddell of his post at Geneva. At the same time, the Canadian Government stated that the Government's attitude toward the League had not changed, and that Canada might s t i l l support the addition of oil, etc. to the sanctions list.  2  France and Great Britain, through the Hoare-Laval Agreement, put a virtual stop to any action the League might have taken in behalf of Ethiopia.  The Agreement, concluded  on September 10th, 1935, recognized that efforts at conciliation had failed.  In that light, France and Britain agreed to rule  out military sanctions or closure of the Suez Canal, in fact, 1. Ibid, p. 275. 2. Ibid, p, 274.  -106to rule out everything that might lead to war. Because of this Agreement, any effective action in behalf of Ethopia by the league was completely out of the question.  1  Britain  and PRance refused to offer active support cto Etflopia, and the other States, members of the league, were more than willing to follow their lead. Oh June 18th, 1936, Canada announced that the sanctions imposed by the league were unworkable, and thereupon, withdrew her active support from them. Others followed. Ethiopia's fate had been sealed, and so had the fate of the league of Nations. No nation was willing to commit itself to effective action. her past.  Canada's stand in the League was consistent with She was always constructive and^model in the  field of active co-operation in the actual conduct of the League's work, yet, never once had she committed herself to support league actions which might have involved military commitments and war. In this stand Canada had not been alone. The events following the conclusion of the Ethiopian Affair have become history.  On March 7th, 1936, Germany  reoccupied the Rhineland. Ou fuly 19th, 1936, Civil War broke out in Spain, * a civil war between the ideologies of Communism and Fascism. Japan launched a full attack on China proper in 1937. 1.  In 1938 there was the disgrace at Munich.  Toynbee, Survey of Int'l Affairs. Vol II, 1935, p. 184.  -107-  I n 1939  - WARJ War  spread,  l i k e a. r a g i n g f i r e ,  Eaoh c r i s i s  on  came a n d  the  Continent  to a l l c o r n e r s  went, t h e l e a g u e  N a t i o n a l i s m , r e a r m a m e n t , and a l l i a n c e s had out  o f E u r o p e , whioh  being  of the  soon  World.  unable to  act.  military defensive-offensive  forced co-operation  and  collective  security  o f the p i c t u r e . S t a t e m e n t s on  However, i n 1936,  Canadian  Geneva.  effect  that  b e c a u s e o f t h a t , had  He  P o l i c y h a v e been  t h e P r i m e M i n i s t e r made one  House o f Commons t o t h e n a t i o n , and  Foreign  few.  before  Canada was  a  the  small  to take a back-seat  at  said:  "The L e a g u e has a l o n g r a n g e i m p o r t a n c e , b u t © S t e r n a l a f f a i r s mean an o v e r w h e l m i n g d e g r e e i n our r e l a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r members o f t h e B r i t i s h Commonwealth, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e U n i t e d Kingdom, and w i t h t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . I believe t h a t Canada's f i r s t d u t y i s to t h e L e a g u e and the B r i t i s h Empire t o keep t h i s C o u n t r y united." 1 The  League  Canada was nature.  the League  merited  only passive  a l w a y s l o a t h t o assume o b l i g a t i o n s o f a  T h i s a t t i t u d e was  situation  1.  came s e c o n d and  was  the  not  confined  same i n e a c h c o u n t r y .  support.  positive  t o .Canada a l o n e . T h e r e i s no  wonder  failed.  C a n a d a , D e b a t e s , House o f Commons, 1936,. p .  The  3869.  PART THREE CANADA AND THE U.N.O.  -0-0-0-0-0-0-0  -109Canada and the U. N. 0. 1.  Prelude to San Francisco. Victory in World War II for the United Nations was not  yet in sight when the plan for a new and greater world organization first took form in the minds of Allied Statesmen. President Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" speeeh, and the Atlantic Charter drawn up at a meeting between Churchill and Roosevelt were documents addressed to the people of the world assuring them that free peoples do have rights, and with those rights go certain duties.  Only when the people  of the world insist on their rights and assume their responsibilities can a better world be built. These principles were given support in the United Nations Declaration of 1942 - a declaration signed by twenty-six "United Nations" and subsequently endorsed by nine others. The Moscow Declaration of November 1st, 1943, made jointly by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Republic of China recognized:1  "the necessity of establishing at the earliest Apracticable date, a general international organization, based on the principle of the 1. China was not in attendance during, the meeting of the. Moseow Conference from October 19 - 30, 1943, but she did concur in the declaration which came out of that conference.  -HQsovereign equality of a l l peace-loving states, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security." 1 From this declaration stemmed the first constructive work on an international organization.  Each of the four  powers prepared draft documents which.were circulated among themselves. It was these documents which formed the working basis of the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. Canada, not being a party to any of these meetings, joined with the United Kingdom, as did the other Dominions, in a Prime Minister's*meeting in London in May, 1944, and discussed and proposed revisions to the United Kingdom proposals. Representatives of the four great powers met at Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, D.C., from August 21st to October 7th, 1944.  From the conversations held there, the Dumbarton  Oaks Proposals resulted.  It was these proposals that be-  came the working outline for the San Francisco Conference on International Organization.. Although Canada was not represented at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, she did manage to sit on the side-lines and make her voice heard through the United Kingdom delegation, which was in attendance.  Daily meetings were held  1.' Quoted from the text of the Moscow Conference from cPaxt.^<3..;^he. "Four Power Declaration", Article 4. The Canadian Institute of International. Affairs, "The Nations have declared," 1945,.p.16  -111between the United Kingdom delegation and the representatives of the Diplomatic missions of the Dominions in Washington. In this way, the United Kingdom was made familiar with Jthe Dominion's views; the Dominion Governments, at the same time, getting day-by-day reports on the progress of the discussions. The discussions at Dumbarton Oaks left several questions open for future settlement. The most important of these questions - voting procedure in the Security Council - was settled between the Governments of the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom at the Crimea Conference at Yalta in February, 1945, 2.  Canada at San,Francisco. On March 5th, 1945, the United States of America, on  its own behalf and in behalf of China, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, sent invitations to the other United Nations to. attend at San Francisco, a United Nations Conference on International Organization. The Conference was to adopt a charter for an International Organization on the basis of the proposals put forth in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. The Parliament of Canada, upon being notified of Canada's invitation to the Conference, endorsed by an overwhelming majority a resolution approving the Government's acceptance of the invitation.  In doing.so, it recognized that the  -112establishment of a New World Organization was necessary for the well-being of mankind and for Canada. The resolution concluded with the statement that the Charter establishing the international organization should be submitted to Parliament for approval before it be ratified by the Government.  1  Before the Conference at San Francisco was convened, a meeting of representatives of the Commonwealth was held from April 4th - 13th, 1945, in London to discuss the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals.  In this way, representatives of all the  Dominions were able to exchange views and ideas on the proposals. In selecting the delegation to the Conference at San Francisco, Prime Minister MacKenzie King was careful to select representatives from both sides of the House of Commons and the Senate. This selection, the Prime Minister believed, would assure support from the people for the work of the Conference.  Twenty-three persons were selected to  represent Canada, the Prime Minister himself acting as Chairman of the group. Included also in the delegation were the Hon. L. S. St. Laurent, Minister of Justice; Senator the Hon. J . H. King, Government leader in the Senate; Mr. Gordon Graydon, Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons; and Mr. M. J . Caldwell, President and Parliamentary Leader 2 of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. 1. Canada, Department of External Affairs, Conference Series, 1945, No. 2, ."Report on the United Nations Conference on International-Organization", Ottawa, Kings. Printer, 1945, p.8 2.  Ibid, p.9  -113Prime Minister King, in addressing the second plenary meeting of the Conference on April 27th, 1945, presented the Canadian approach to the problems facing the Conference. "The Canadian delegation comes to this Conference with one central purpose in view. That purpose is to co-operate as completely as we can with the delegations of other nations in bringing into being, as soon as possible, a Charter of world security." 1 With that, he went on to pay tribute to Franklin Roosevelt - a man whose loss was felt by "the whole freedom loving world." Referring again to the intentions of the Canadian delegation he said:"We shall not be guided by considerations of national pride or prestige and shall not seek to have changes made for reasons such as these.... The people of Canada are firm in their resolve to do whatever lies in their power to insure that the world will not be engulfed for a third time by a tidal wave of savagery and despotism Nations everywhere must unite to save and serve humanity." 2 The Conference agreed that its agenda would be the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals supplemented by the voting formula adopted at Yalta, as well as certain proposals submitted by China, and amendments submitted by any. member of the Conference by May 4th. The agenda was divided into twelve techlcal committees, Canada having representation on each of them. These Committees were on (1) Preamble, purposes and principles, (2) Membership, amendment and secretariat, (3) Structure and procedures of 1. 2.  Ibid, p. 10 Ibid, p. 11  -114the General Assembly, (4) political and security functions of the General Assembly, (5) economic and social eo-operation, (6) trusteeship system, (7) structure and procedures of the Security Council, (8) pacific settlement of disputes, (9) enforcement arrangements, (10) regional arrangements, (11) the International Court of Justice, and (12) legal problems, "United Nations" was suggested as the organization's name in honor of Franklin Roosevelt, who first used the term in the Declaration by the United Nationa of January 1st, 1942, The Dumbarton Oaks meeting had left to the San Francisco Conference the task of formulating a preamble to the Charter. In writing the preamble, the committee at San Francisco used as a draft one drawn up by Field Marshal Smuts of South Africa.  The Preamble, in the final form, became an intregal  part of the Charter, affirming tne faith of the peoples of the United Nations in the worth and dignity of the individual, as well as in the rules of law and justice among nations. As for the purposes of the Organization, it was agreed by all that preventing war and maintaining security was of prime importance. But, along with that chief aim, the Organization should direct its efforts toward developing friendly relations between members, as well as to work for international co-operation in the economic and political spheres. Many of the delegations at San Franeiseo held that emphasis should be placed on the maintance of peace through justice,  -115-  but to be permanent that justice must be fair.  Hence the  phrase "In conformity with the principles of justice and international law" was added to the first paragraph of Article I.  The Canadian delegation, in full sympathy with this  objective, voted in favor of the addition. The principles contained in the Charter drawn-up at San Franciseo were fundamentally the same as those proposed at Dumbarton Oaks. They are to be found in Article II of the Charter.  It was only on the question of territorial integrity  and political independence, and on the domestic jurisdiction, that there was any .difference of opinion among the delegations It was finally agreed that re»territorial integrity and political independence, force could be used to remove threats of peace and to supress acts of aggression only under the authority of the Organization. New Zealand, in particular, had maintained that the obligation for collective action should be placed directly upon the individual members. Canada along with the United Kingdom and the United States stood in opposition to the New Zealand proposal. As to tie question of domestic jurisdiction, Canada, as well as the United States and the United Kingdom, supported an Australian amendment, which was later passed, limiting the right of the United Nations to intervene in the domestic jurisdiction of a state.  As the Article was* originally  presented in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, it would have been  -116possible for an aggressor state to threaten or use force in a dispute of a domestic nature, in hope that the Security Council might-extort concessions from the state that was threatened. With the passage of the Australian amendment, it became clear that there could be no interference in the domestic economy or internal legislation of members. It was Chapter II Of the Charter, that Chapter dealing with membership, which offered the first great stumbling block to the success of the Conference. Although, it was agreed that states represented at the Conference should become members of the United Nations Organization, there was considerable controversy over the principles which should be followed in admitting new states into the Organization. Should membership be on the basis of universality, as certain Latin American Countries claimed, or should there be definite criteria for membership? It was agreed, finally, that any peace-loving state accepting the obligations contained in the Charter, and having secured an approving vote of twothirds of the General Assembly and the recommendation of the Security Council with the concurring vote of the five permanent members, could become a member of the Organization. Canada was opposed to granting any of the "Big.Five" the power to veto the admission of new members to the Organization, but was forced to accept the majority decision of the Conference.  1  1. Dept. of External Affairs Report on U.N.O. Conference, p. 20 .. .  -117With reference to suspension and expulsion or withdrawal of a member from the Organization, Canada agreed that the withdrawal of any member from the United Nations should be made as difficult as possible.  She also favored suspension  from rather than expulsion from the Organization as the most satisfactory disciplinary action to be taken against a member for persistant violation of the Charter.  The decision of  the Conference on these matters was: (1) Any state had a right to withdraw from the Organization , but no mention of that right would be contained in the Charter, and (2) Provisions for both suspension and explusion should be included in the Charter. The broad outlines for a General Assembly, a Security Council, an International Court of Justice, and a Secretariat' was listed in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals.  To these  principi organs, the San Francisco Conference added an Economic and Social Council and a Trusteeship Council. The Canadian delegation clearly defined its position in respect of the role of the General Assembly in an early meeting of the Committee on the political and security functions of the General Assembly. Canada maintained that the powers of the General Assembly should be as wide as possible; however, responsibility for settling disputes between states should not be included among its powers. That was the direct responsibility of the Security Council. Also, the General Assembly should not, of its own initiative have the authority to make recommendations on a matter being handled  -118-  bjr the Security Council.  But, if the Security Council was  unable to deal effectively with a dispute endangering the 1  peace or security of the word because of the veto of one of the "Big Five", provision should be made for the General Assembly to take over the task of maintaining the security or peace of the world.  1  The Canadian stand was found to be  acceptable to the Conference, and the principles were incorporated into the sections on the Charter relating to the General Assembly. Closely linked with the General Assembly was the Security Council.  One can hardly be discussed without the other. The  Security Council was not a creature of the General Assembly, nor was it responsible to the General Assembly. It should not be considered as an executive committee of the General Assembly, but rather, as a coordinate body. Like the Assembly, all its powers stemmed directly from the Charter itself. The debate on the Security Council revolved around three principal issues.  The smaller states were dissatisfied  with the voting formula adopted at Yalta, whereby any single Great Power was in a position to paralyze the activities of the Council by its veto privilege. 1. Ibid, p. 23 - 24.  Secondly, although the  -119Organization was founded upon the basis of sovereign equality of all its members, the Great Powers, by virtue of their veto power, held a privileged position not shared by others in the Organization. Thirdly, it was held by certain of the smaller states that nations not ranking in status with the "Big Five", yet more influential than the smallest and weakest nations, should have a special position on the Security Council.  1  The Canadian delegation, in taking part in the debates oh the Security Council, asked that any state not a member of the Council be given temporary membership on the Council with full voting rights whenever the subject under discussion affected that State.  The Russian delegation balked at this  request, maintaining that the Security Council would, on occasion, become in size unwieldy, and that it would restrict the Council's power of decision.  In as mueh as the "Big  Five" could not reach agreement over the Canadian suggestion, it was not adopted. Another suggestion by the Canadian delegation was accepted, in principle, however. The amendment provided that any member so desiring shall "Participate in. the decisions" affecting the use of" its own armed forces.  1.  There was no mention made of tempory membership on  Ibid, p. 28 - 29.  the Council.  -120This addition in the Charter was satisfactory  to Canada, for, although she did not demand that her troops be committed only with her consent, she did insist that she have a voice in the decisions which the troops were to execute.  1  Canada's main concern at San Francisco was to gain for herself a recognition in the Charter of the concept of a "Middle Power" state; . Several other nations shared with Canada this concern, Australia being one of them. These nations had made considerable contribution to the strength, of the United Nations and would be counted upon for similar aid in the future.  Canada, recognized the disadvantages of  attempting to write into the Charter too rigid a formula, and therefore suggested that the General Assembly make rules for the election of non-permanent members to the Security Council "in order to ensure that due weight be given to the contribution of members to the maintenance of international peace and security and the performance of their obligations to the United Nations."  2  The "big Five" were, from the outeet, ready to accept this principle, but when it came to be written into the Charter, there was also written into it a provision that due regard 1. The Round Table, September, 1945, "Canada at San Francisco," annon., p. 362-363. 2.  Ibid, p. 363.  -121should also be paid to geographical location. The Canadian delegation was of the opinion that this sop to the "regional bloc" would have cancelled out the "due weight" given to members contributions. Under those circumstances, the rotation procedure that prevailed at Geneva during the life of the League would evolve.  The Canadians would not regard this  as satisfactory. The delegation succeeded, at last, in having written into the Charter Article 23 which provides:" The General Assembly shall elect six other members of the United Nations to be nonpermanent members of the Security Council due regard being specially paid, in the first instance to the contribution of members of the United Nations to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution." 1  The Canadian delegation, for their own interpretation, took the words "in the first Instance" to mean "primarily". Thus, they felt assured of membership on the Security Council oftener than would ordinarily be the case. They had also secured the right to sit in on Security Council discussions when their own forces were to be affected. Canada had hoped for more in theway of recognition of the "Middle Power" conception, yet the recognition she had received was enough to satisfy her. I*  Charter of the United Nations  Article 23.  -122-  Canada, like the other "middle Powers" and "Smaller Powers" had hoped to force some modification of the veto privileges of the "Big Five." but, recognizing the fact that the Russians would undoubtedly be quite unyielding on the point, the delegation reasoned that an organization with the Russians and the veto was better than an organization with neither.  Hence, Canada resigned herself to the Yalta voting  formula with its veto powers,believing that the passage of time might alleviate the suspicions of the Russians.  1  Most important to the success of the new organization was, undoubtedly, its enforcement actions.  The main features  of the enforcement provisions were, like most other aspects of the Charter, formulated in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals. The primary responsibility for the maintenance of World peace and security was concentrated in the hands of the Security' Council.  It was that body which had to make the  decision as to whether or not a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression had been committed.  Once the decision had been made, with the affirmative  vote of seven of its members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members, the Council was free to make recommendations to the parties of the dispute, and/or to impose sanctions.  If recommendations and sanctions failed,  1. The Round Table, September, 1945, "Canada at San Francisco" p. 364.  -123the Council could require forcible action against a distuber of the peace. The Canadian delegation took a positive stand in the discussions on enforcement actions.;  It had three objectives  in mind:It would not support efforts to weaken the provisions of Dumbarton Oaks; it would try to secure the inclusion of an effective provision under which the armed forces pledged in its military agreement by a state not a member of the Security Council could only be called out by the Security Council after that state had effectively taken part in the decision; and i t would try to secure clarification of the provisions on the negotiation of special military agreements.** 1 n  The second objective has already had some mention in the discussion of the Security Council, but it seems relevant to take further notice of i t  f  Obviously, the agreement for representation on the Security Council whenever a decision affecting a pledge of of armed forces was involved, was the old agrument of "no taxation without representation.** "that agrument had a sound basis, and in that light, the Canadian delegation proposed an amendment making i t possible for a member, not represented on the Security Council, to have a temporary seat on the Council whenever the question involving the use of the member armed forces was under discussion.  In speaking of this amend  ment before the committee on enforcement arrangements, Prime 1. Dept. of External Affairs.. Report.on.U.N.O. Conference, p. 37.  Minister King said:" . . . the amendment which the Canadian delegation has proposed would not delay action, since it would only incorporate in the Charter itself, a step towards action which would probably have to be taken in any event. Unless this need for consultation is recognized in some manner in the Charter, the process of securing public support for the ratification of the Charter will be made considerably more difficult in a number of countries other than the Great Powers...."1 The dnadian amendment received general support from the "Middle Powers" and the "Small Powers?, and, although not accepted completely, the Charter was revised to provide for participation "in the decisions of the Security Council concerning the employment of contingents of that g  member's armed forces." As regards the clarification of the provisions on the negotiation of special military agreements, the delegation favored an Australian amendment providing that agreements be concluded "between the Security Council and members or groups of members", as against the plan outlined in the Dumbarton Qaks proposals which contemplated that members conclude agreements themselves to supply the Council with armed forces in order that the Security Council might impose military sanctions.  The Australian amendment was accepted  by the Conference, and written into the Charter as Article 43. 1. 2.  Ibid, p. 38. Charter of the United Nations, Article 44.  -125The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals had minimized the role of the Economic and Social Council, and i t was one of the aims of the Canadian delegation at the San Francisco Conference to increase the authority and position of that Council beyond the scope of studies, reports, and recommendations. With that aim in mind, they put forth five proposals to strengthen its position:(1) to attain higher standards of living and economic and social progress and development (Article 55) (2) to promote eo-operation between the members of the Organization to achieve the economic and social purposes of the Organization (Article 56.) (3) to authorize the Council to make intimate studies and reports on matters falling within its competence (Article 62), (4) to receive reports from members of the Organization on steps taken to give effect to the recommendations of the General Assembly on economics and social matters (Article 64.) (5) to give the Economic and Social Council authority to perform services at the request of members . of the Organization (Article 66.) These proposals were adopted by the Conference, but the seope of the activities of the Economic and Social Council was further extended to include cultural and educational co-operation, public health, human rights and fundamental freedoms. Specialized inter-governmental agencies such as the International Labour Organization, the World Trade Union Congress, the International Postal Union etc., who would  -126likely be brought into relationship with the Organization, were to have their activities co-ordinated by theJEeonomic and Social Council.  The articles in the Charter dealing  with the relationship of these inter-governmental agencies were proposed by the Canadian delegation and adopted by the Conference,  1  Thus, the Economic and Social Council be-  came a fundamental and vital organ in the organization of the United Nations, Dependent territories had not been included among the recommendations in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, and i t was, therefore, left to the San Francisco Conference to dispose of the question.  It was decided to have a Trusteeship Council  included in the Organization, on a footing.subordinate to the General Assembly. The membership formula for the Council was to be on the basis of one-half trustee states holding permanent seats, two or more states who did not administer trust territories but who were permanent members of the Security Council also holding permanent seats on the Trusteeship Council, and the remainder being elected for three year periods by the General Assembly. The number of nontrustee powers on the Council was to be equal to the number of trustee powers, but less than half of the members would be elected while more than half would hold permanent seats. 1. The Articles include, in the Charter, Nos. 57, 59, 63, 64, and 70.  -127The basis of representation assured permanent membership to the permanent members of the Security Council whether or not they were Trustee powers. The Canadian delegation opposed this principle of permanent members of the Security Council being, also, permanent members of the Trusteeship Council, but was forced to give-in to the majority favoring that principle* Written into the Charter too, regarding dependent territories, were statements of the obligations of colonial powers. These obligations were :"first, to recognize that the interests of the inhabitants of all non self-governing territories are paramount; second, to promote the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories by methods specified in a comprehensive schedule; third, to see that dependencies are so administered as to contribute toward international peace and security; and fourth, to set up a United Nations Trusteeship system....to be applied to certain selected territories." 1 Because the Canadian Government was not directly responsible for the administration of colonial dependencies, the Canadian delegation at the Conference took no active part in the discussions relating to this aspect of the dependent territories question. When the International Court came up for discussion, two ideas predominated. One group of nations favored establishing the Permanent Court of International Justice, originated 1. Dept. of External Affairs, Report on U.N.0. Conference p. 49.  -128in 1920 under the Covenant of the League of Nations, as the judicial organ of the United Nations.; Another group favored the establishment of a new Court. Both had points in their favor.  After considerable discussion, however, it was de-  cided that the creation of a new Court would best suit the requirements of the United Nations.  But, because the old  Permanent Court had established important legal precedents, the principle of the continuity of legal traditions was recognized in Article 92 of the Charter.  It reads as follows:  " The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based upon the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an intregal part of the present Charter.'" 1 United Nation members were not compelled to comply with the Courts findings, comply with decisions by the Court in any case to which they became a party. Should a state fail to honor this undertaking, the other party to the case could have recourse to the Security Council, which might or might not take action. The Court was impowered to give advisory opinions on any legal question, and although only the General Assembly and the Security Council were empowered to request advisory opinions, Specialized Intergovernmental Agencies brought into relationship with the United Nations could have access to the 1.  Charter of the United Nations, Article 92.  -129advisory jurisdiction of the Court with the authorization of the General Assembly. 1. The Statute of the International Court of Justice was not included in the Charter of the United Nations, but functions in accordance with the provisions of its own statute.  The Court consists of fifteen  judges, no two of whom are nationals of the same state. A quorum of the Court consists of five judges.  The system  for nominating and electing judges was the same as the system used in the Old Court, and is laid down in Articles 3 - 7 of the Court's Statute.  2  Canada took only a minor part in the discussions on the International Court of Justice, her. only stand being that the new court should resemble as closely as possible the bid Permanent Court of International Justice. One of the most important bodies of the United Nations was the Secretariat,  The space devoted to this body in the  Charter covered only five articles, and of those five, the Canadian delegation was instrumental in securing the inclusion of two.  3  The Civil Servants serving in the Secretariat are to be chosen on the basis of high standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity.  They are not to be responsible to the  2 Charter of the United Nations - Articles 94 and 96. 2! Statute of the Court of International Justice, See: Dept. of External Affairs, Report on U.N.O. Conference. Appendix B, p. 122 - 134. . . . 3. Charter of the United Nations Articles 100 - 101.  -ISOGovernment of the States of which they are citizens, but to the Organization itself,  The head of the Secretariat is the  Secretary-General, who is chosen for an unnamed term of years by the General Assembly with the consent of a l l the five permanent members of the Security Council. In settling the matter of the Secretariat., the work of the Conference was almost finished.  The questions of regist-  ration and publication of Treaties, of obligations by member states inconsistent with the Charter, of the privileges and immunities of the Organization, and of the relation of the Charter to internal law, were handled without difficulty. Now a l l that needed to be written into the Charter, before it was completed, was a chapter on amendments, and a chapter on the procedure for ratification and signature of the Charter. On the question of amendments to. the Charter, the delegation realized that the constitution should not be subjectto frequent alteration, for on such a basis, the work of the United Nations would be ineffective.  Yet, at the same time,  the Constitution could not be too rigid - it must be capable of growth, and be capable of adapting itself to changing conditions.  Realizing this, the Canadian delegation placed  the following amendment before the Conference:"In the course of the tenth year from the date on which the Charter shall come into effect, a special conference of the United Nations shall be convened to consider the general revisin of the Charter, in the light of the experience of its operation." 1 1. p.  Dept. of External Affairs..Report on U.N.O. Conference 66.  -131. This amendment was found to be completely unacceptable to the Big Five powers, and in its place, Article 108 was written into the Charter.  That Article provided that amend-  ments to the Charter were to come into force whenever twothirds of the members of the General Assembly and all the permanent members of the Security Council voted in favor of it.  1  Article 109 of the Charter made provisions for auto-  matically placing on the agenda of the General Assembly, a proposal for calling a conference to revise the Charter. Thus the work of the United Nations Conference on International Organization was completed oji.-J.uly 24th, 1945. The final chapter of the Charter providing, that the Charter would come into force when it had been ratified by the five Great Powers, and by a majority of the other signatory states. It came into force, officially, on October 24th, 1945, when the minimum number of required ratifications had been deposited in Washington, D. C. 3.  The Charter Goes Before the Canadian Parliament. On Tuesday, October 16th Mr. St. Laurent put the  .following motion for consideration before the House of Commons: "Ifcfcat it is expedient that the Houses of Parliament .do approve the agreement establishing the United Nations and constituting the Charter of the United 1.  Charter of the United Nations - Article 108.  -132Nations and the Statute of the International Court of Justice signed at San Francisco on June 26th, 1945, and that this House do approve the same." 1 The debate which followed waged for two days before agreement on the Charter was reached. Generally, the House was in favor of approving the Charter, but one or two members held out. Mr. M. J . Caldwell, in speaking for the C.C.F. Party) asked for a unanimous vote of the House to adopt the resolution approving the Charter of the United Nations.  In  supporting the resolution he reminded the House that Canada was a nation of world-wide associations and interests.  She  could not stand aloof or remain unaffected by events in other parts of the world. To Canada, the maintenance of security and prevention of war was a vital concern. Although the Charter had defects, membership in the United Nations would give Canada a voice borders.  in influencing Conditions beyond her  The Organization would give the hope for closer  understanding and co-operation among the states of the world, it offers the hope for the survival of-humanity. Mr. Low: of the Social Credit Party took a stand quite opposite to that taken by Mr. Caldwell. He very carefully made it clear that although the Charter pretended to affirm the equal rights of nations large and small, it did not in fact, do so.  The Big Five Powers, with their power to veto  1.  Canada, House of Commons Debates, 1945, p. 1247  2.  Ibid, p. 1247 - 1252.  -133any decision of the Security Council to take action, placed themselves above the law. Membership in the Organization is to be open to a l l peace loving nations, but can one call Russia a peace loving nation? "Apparently the Soviet Union is qualified as a peaceloving nation, and yet its neighbours to the West, Finland, the Balkan States and Poland have not had a very happy experience of Russia's peaceful intentions." 1 He we-nt on to show that the general assembly of the Organization was virtually without power. The Organization is nothing more than the attempt of a few nations to rule the world. With a defeatist attitude, Mr. Church, speaking for the Conservative Party, came out for approval of the Charter. He stated quite emphatically that he had never believed the Conference at San Francisco would be successful. "I support the Charter, although that does not mean very much." 2 He then went on to argue for closer ties with the Commonwealth. Internationalism for Canada should start with Great Britain and the Empire. His concluding statement, a fair summary of all he said was:" I wish to support the Charter on the ground that it will do no harm to anyone, but it will not provide security against war...The only cure I know of for the future is to take our stand as members of the British Empire in peace and war alike. If we do that we shall soon find that the co-operation and coordination we have enjoyed with the United States and Russia in war will continue into the peace, so that we can look 1.  Ibid, p. 1255.  2.  Ibid; p. 1266.  -134to the future without fear."  1  What obligations would Canada assume i f she ratified the Charter? That was the practical question which Mr. L. A. Beaudoin pondered.  In examining the Charter he found that  Canada had to negotiate an agreement with the Security Council that she had to make available to the Council, forces, assistance and facilities for the maintenance of peace and security.  She must assume her share of the costs that  participation in the operations ordered by the Council might, entail.  And, lastly, and most important, she must undertake,  as the Security Council might decide, to carry out whatever the decisions of the Council.  The obligations were great,  but Mr. Beaudoin believed it was the solemn duty of Canada to approve the Charter and assume her obligations. Belittling the Charter was the approach taken by Mr. Jean-Francois Pouliot.. He was ready to try the Organization but he had little faith in i t .  He resented the minor role  Canada was given in the new Organization. Yes, Canada led the small nations at San Francisco - " a dwarf would lead other dwarfs." The Minister of Justice, who moved the original motion, closed the debate.  In doing so he asked all the member of the  House "to join with those who represented the Canadian 1. 2.  Ibid, p. 1270 Ibid, p. 1272 - 1276  -135nation at San Francisco in saying that Canada is quite prepared to take whatever risk may be involved in joining this organization, because the other risk, that of not having an international organization, is something of such consequence that one dare hardly envisage it." 1 The Charter received the approval of both the House of Commons and the Senate, and the instrument of ratification was sent to His Majesty in London for signature.  He signed  it on November 1st, and the instrument was deposited with the government of the United States of America on the 9th November, 1945, by the Canadian Ambassador in Washington. Canada thus became an original member of the United Nations. 4.  The United Nations meet in London. The first session of the General Assembly of the United  Nations was conceived: in London on January 10th, 1946. The Canadian delegation headed by the Minister of Justice, Mr. St. Laurent, included also Agriculture Minister James Gardiner, Secretary of State Paul Martin, Hume Wrong, Assistant Under Secretary in the External Affairs Department and Vincent Massey, High Commissioner to the United Kingdom.E Routine business occupied the major portion of the time in the Assembly's first session.  The first business to be  considered by the General Assembly was the elation of the President of a session of the General Assembly. Mr. Gromyko of the Soviet Union delegation made the first nomination 1. 2.  Ibid, p. 133E Time magazine, January 14th, 1946, p. 15.  -136Mr. Lie, the Foreign Minister of Norway. Poland, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, and Denmark supporting the nomination. No other candidate was recommended, but after the ballot was cast and counted, the results showed that Mr. Lie 'had received twenty-three votes as against twenty-eight for Mr. Spaak of Belgium. Mr. Spaak was therefore declared elected, and he took his seat as President of the Assembly.  1  The next important point on the agenda was the election of the si? non-permanent members of the Security Council. It will be remember that according to Article 23 of the Charter, due consideration was to be given in the first instance, to the contribution of United Nations Members to the maintenance of international peace and security. Canada, with this point in mind hoped to be elected to the Council. However, before a ballot was cast, Mr. Manuelsky of the Ukrainian delegation suggested that the non-permanent Council members be chosen.on an equitable geographical distribution. This suggestion, had the effect of overshadowing, in the minds of the delegates, the clause in Article 23 of the Charter providing that due regard, in the first instance, should be paid to the contribution of members to the maintenance of peace and security.  When the votes had been  cast and counted the following relevant results were 1. United Nations, Journal of the General Assembly, first session, Number 2, p. 26 - 28.  137^ obtained:Brazil Egypt Mexico Poland Netherlands Canada Australia  Forty-seven votes. Forty-fivs votes. Forty-five votes. Thirty-nine votes. Thirty-seven votes. Thirty-three votes. Twenty-eight votes.  1 For election to the Council, a State had to receive a two-thirds majority vote - that is, thirty-four votes. Therefore, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, Poland, and the Netherlands were declared elected. In as much as neither Canada nor Australia received a two-thirds majority vote, the Assembly cast a second vote, as directed in rule 74 of the provisional rules of procedure. That rule provided:"If, when only one person or members is to be elected, no candidate obtains in the first ballot the majority required in rules 69 or 70, a second ballot shall be taken, confined to the two candidates obtaining the largest number of votes. If in the second ballot the votes are equally divided, and a majority is required, the President shall decide between the candidates by drawing lots. When a two-thirds majority is required the balloting shall be continued until one candidate secures two-thirds of the votes cast." 2 The results of the second ballot again gave neither Canada nor Australia a two-thirds majority. The third balloting resulted in the same impasse.  Thereupon, Mr.  St. Laurent of Canada arose before the Assembly and very generously stated:1. 2.  Ibid, Number 4, p. 69. Ibid, p. 70.  -138The members of the Canadian delegation fully realize how embarrassing it must be to their fellow delegates to go on balloting between two of the Dominions of the Commonwealth, with each of which they have always had such cordial and mutually satisfactory relations. I therefore beg leave, Mr. President, to propose that no further ballots be taken but that the election of Australia to the Security Council as the sixth non-permanent member thereof be made unanimous." 1 Mr. W. R. Hodgson of Australia thanked the Canadian delegation for their generous gesture.  Thus, Australia  became the sixth non-permanent member of the Security Council  Canada, by her action, although failing to gain a  coveted and well-deserved seat on the Council, gained the admiration of the world. Eighteen members were elected to the Economic and Social Council, b-clng-includod-  which, -wa*-Canada^/as  r-^cio  J <?J .  Article 97 of the United Nations Charter provided that the Secretary-General, who is the Chief Administrative Officer of the Organization, should be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security 2 Council. The discussions of the Security Council on the question of who should be recommended for the post of the SecretaryGeneral were held in a closed session.  The.United Nations  Journal of the Security Couneil gives no account of the proceedings which took place. 1. 2.  Newspaper reports revealed,  Ibid, p. 71. Charter of the United Nations, Chapter XV, Art. 97,  -139however, that the United States delegation put forward the name of Lester B. Pearson, Canadian Ambassador to the United States, for the post.  The Russians disliked the prospect  of a North American filling the position, and countered with the names of two obscure eastern Europeans. After several days of manoeuvring, U. S. Delegate Edward R. Steiitinius suggested Trygue Lie as a "compromise candidate".  The Compromise  Candidate was apparently acceptable to the Big Five and to the rest of the Security Council, for it issued a communique stating that:"it was unanimously agreed to recommend to the General Assembly the name of Mr. Trygue Lie, Foreign Minister of Norway, for the post of Secretary-General." 1 In the Assembly, only three votes were cast against Lie.  With this almost unanimous vote of approval, he was  instituted as the first Secretary-General of the United Nations.  The "High Command" of the U.N.O. was thus completed -  Belgium's Spaak, President of the General Assembly, Australia's Makin, President of the Security Council, and Norway's Lie, Secretary-General, The first session of the United Nations was not concerned solely with routine business matters though. The problem of maintaining the peace of the world required consideration. 1.  Numerous situations in all parts of the world,  Journal of General Assembly, first session, No. 18, p. 355  -140called for attention.  The real work of the Organization  had just begun. At the United Nations first session in London, the Security Council heard Iran's charge against  f-t*s*»  *f Russian Troops in Azerbaijan and Russia's counter charge against British Troops in Greece and Indonesia; it rejected the Albanian appeal for immediate admission to the United Nations, and it witnessed Russia's first use of the veto power to block a U. S. plan for withdrawing French and British troops from Syria and Lebanon. TJie. General Assembly chose Westchester - Fairfield as the permanent site for the Organization; rejected Russia's demand for forcible, repatriation of refugees; elected Spaak as General Assembly president; and voted a twenty-two million dollar annual budget for the Secretariat. The Economic and Social Council under the Presidency of Sir Ramoswomi Mudaliar, called for a conference on International Health for June 20th. The Military Staff Committee set up an executive in New York to begin work for a United Nations Police Force. A special Commission created by the General Assembly, the Atomic Control Commission, was scheduled to meet in March for its first meeting. The International Court of Justice received its first case, the British - Guatemalan dispute over British Honduras. This Court will hear the case in April in the Hague. Canada's John E. Read will sit as one of the judges.  ti  -141The second session of the United Nations i s scheduled to meet i n New York, the Security Council meeting to be held about March 21st, and the. General Assembly's on about the 3 r d of September. , What the outcome of the second meeting w i l l can now p r e d i c t . are tremendous.  be,no-one  The problems f a c i n g the United Nations W i l l the Organization be able to maintain  the s e c u r i t y and peace of the world?  That question i s i n  the mind of every peace l o v i n g nation and i n d i v i d u a l . What contribution can Canada make?  What w i l l be Canada's  future r o l e i n the family o f nations?  CONCLUSIONS  -143OONCLUSIONS Canada, since Confederation in 1867, has gradually increased her control over domestic and foreign policy, until today only a few vestiges of Imperial authority remain. International recognition of her autonomy was achieved when she was granted separate representation and signature at the Paris Peace Conference and when she gained individual membership in the League of'Nations.  The Statute of Westminster, 1931,  -  gave formal legal recognition from Great Britain of Canada's independent status.  True, certain Imperial ties were left  to insure the continuation of the British Commonwealth of Nations.  George VI is s t i l l , theoretically, King of Canada,  and will remain so.  The British Parliament is s t i l l the only  authority competent to amend the Canadian Constitution, but this restriction on autonomy was retained at the request of the Canadian Government. In civil lawsuits,  Great Britain's  Privy Council, is yet Canada's court of final appeal. Parliamentary action to sever that bond is now in process. Canada has felt a new and vibrant awareness of national identity, and of her power and prestige in the world. She is eagerly anticipating the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag and a distinctive Canadian citizenship. Let it not be said that  the world is unaware of the  "New Canada", for Canada has become one of the three great trading nations in the world. With a population of only i  -144twelve million, she became, at the war's end, the fourth most potent fighting power among the United Nations, and had the third largest and strongest Navy. debtor nation to a creditor nation.  She has turned from a She,  along with the  United States and Great Britain, holds the secret to the automic bomb.  This fact alone places Canada in a top place in  the councils of the world.. My purpose in this study has been to present,  objectively,  the role played by Canada in the now defunct League of Nations* and her part in the newly organized United Nations. no attempt has been made to. evaluate, subjeotively,  Until now the  Canadian roles In those two international peace organizations. It is the purpose of these conclusions to draw the strings together - to point out the reasons behind Canada's policies and to evaluate the results of those policies. When Canada entered the League of Nations she did so with the understanding that she was willing to co-operate with the other nations of the world for the promotion by peaceful means of a l l international methods having for their object the peace of the world.  This did not mean, Canada maintained,  that the Parliament of Canada would surrender i t s freedom of decision. Articles X and XVI of the League Covenant were not compatible with Canadian policy, and  throughout the history of  the League, Canada worked for their elimination.  She was in  oonstant fear that, under the obligations imposed upon her by  -145~ Article X, she might become involved in a European war against her will, or that under Artiole XVI, oiroumstances might arise necessitating belligerent action on the part of Canada against the United States. li^ther situation would be repugnant to Canadian politioal philosophy. Thus, it is understandable • that whenever the principle of sanctions appeared - in the Assembly Resolution XIV, the Draft Treaty of Mutual Assistance, the Geneva Protocol, or the Locarno Paot - Canada refused to aoquiese. When, on September 29th, 1936, the Canadian Prime Minister spoke before the League Assembly, he declared that:"Canada had no absolute commitments to apply military -or even economic sanctions against an aggressor named by the League.* 1 1  Canada was not the only country holding fast to such a policy.  Exoept for France and the countries created by the  Treaty of Versailles, most other League Members stood in the 7*  same position in regard^*sanctions and indefinite obligations as did Canada. Canadian foreign policy based on the statements and actions of Mr. Mackenzie King, as analyized by Mr. Escott Reid in 1937 included:1. Price, Vincent, "Canada and the World Security." A series of pamphlets entitled, Canada must choose, Toronto, Ryerson, 1945, p.24. ~  (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)  -146S Maintenance of the unity of Canada as a. Nation. Priority of British and American relations over League Relations. Non-intervention in European and Asiatie affairs Freedom from any obligation to participate in military sanctions of the League or defense of the Commonwealth Freedom from any obligation to participate in economic sanctions Necessity for obtaining Parliamentary approval for participation in military sanctions, or war. Willingness to participate in international inquiries into economic grievances. 1  Iha words ."freedom from any obligation" did not mean, necessarily, the "absence of intention" to support League policies.  Canada was on guard always to protect her newly  won autonomy, find, to maintain that autonomy, she could not permit the freedom of deoision to pass from the hands of her Parliament, nor could she allow her cultural, historical,- and political p^f affiliations with the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States to be alienated.  When the final  test on Canadian policy did come - war with the Axis powers, Canada did not hesitate or waver.  She committed herself  wholeheartedly to the fight for the freedom of the world. Behind the Canadian policy in the League were certain political and geographical considerations peculiar to herself only. Canada, from the beginning of her history, has had close ties with the United States. Although at times situations have arisen between the two countries which were not always 1. Reid, Escott, "Canada and the Threat of War", University of Toronto Quarterly, January, 1937. p. 242-253.  -1479 conducive to the most oordial relations, those differences were always settled without resort to war.  Over the years,  effective international machinery for the solution of the consequences of the interlocked destinies of Canada and the United States has been devised.  The boundary between them has  been unfortified since Canadian Confederation.  Canadians"and  •fee-Americans cross and recross the border unhindered, and oordial relations exist between the peoples of the two countries and between'the Governments of the two countries. It would be unthinkable for a Government in Ottawa to ignore the attitude of Washington in a decision having international consequences. QJhe two countries are as one.  Their destinies are interlocked.  And so i t i s with the British Commonwealth of Nations and Canada too.  Although Canada i s proud and jealous of her  independent status, she, nevertheless, would not consider disassociating herself from the Commonwealth.  The sentimental'  ties with i t are stronger than the p o l i t i c a l bonds.  And;  although Canada w i l l not allow herself to be obligated by the Commonwealth, there can be l i t t l e doubt as to the role she would take in an issue involving the Commonwealth. When the question of joining the League of Nations came before the Canadian Parliament, some argued that Canada should abstain from membership in the league as long as the United  1. Par a complete analysis of the interplay of Canadian, American, and British policies, as well as the influence of those policies on each other, read: (oont. on next page.)  1  -148States stood  outside.  This contention  was  overridden  Canada w a n t e d i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e c o g n i t i o n and to m a i n t a i n  the  Imperial Unity  t h o u g h she  entered  influenced  by  did  the  t h e League, her fact  n o t w a n t , i n any  United  States through  s t e p s were t a k e n public  of the  b e c a u s e she  Commonwealth.  policy  i n i t was  t h a t the Americans stayed  way,  to come i n t o  without  regard  League.  for their  effect  wanted  But, always  out.  c o n f l i c t with  some a c t i o n o f t h e  because  Canada the  Thus, on  few  American  opinion.  On  t h e home f r o n t ,  the p o l i t i c a l  d i v i d e d i n t o numerous l a r g e a n d Canadians, the  d i v e r s e groups;  Imperialists, English-speaking  e r a l s , the  Conservatives,  constantly  stressing  n a t i o n a l a f f a i r s , and i a m e n t can  decide  the  C.C.F. , and  by  stressing  on p a r t i c i p a t i o n  groups.  were g r e a t e r t h a n  A  great the  the  Frenoh-  Canada^" the  Lib-  Communists.  By  5  the  the p o i n t  that only  extent,  to  United  Parl-  satisfy  positive policy, refleoted  extent,  .  i n f o r e i g n wars, Canadian  League, would have p r e c i p i t a t e d p o l i t i c a l o b l i g a t i o n s t o any  a l w a y s been  Canada's freedom o f a c t i o n i n i n t e r -  Governments have been a b l e , t o a g r e a t most o f t h e s e  scene has  in  disunity.  especially  the  Assuming  i f those o b l i g a t i o n s  S t a t e s a o o e p t e d , w o u l d have b e e n  a policy  difficult  to d e f e n d  before  Footnote  continued  from p r e v i o u s  the  Canadian e l e c t o r a t e .  page:  B r e b n e r , John B a r t l e t , " N o r t h A t l a n t i c T r i a n g l e " the i n t e r p l a y o f Canada, the U n i t e d S t a t e s and. G r e a t B r i t a i n , T o r o n t o , R y e r s o n , 1945.  -149- -  French Canada, comprising thirty percent of the population, is jealous of its rights as a minority.  It opposed any'  extension of Canada's commitments to the Commonwealth and to the League. The religious allegianoes of the population have, always merited consideration from Canadian Governments.  Forty percent  of the population is Catholic and, during the Italo-Ethopian conflict, Catholio French Canadian opinion was isolationist or pro-Italian in contrast to the pro-League attitude of English-speaking Canada.  In the Spanish Civil War, Quebec  sympathized with General Franco. Geogrphy played its part in influencing Canada's policy in the League also.  Canada, situated as she is between ooeans  on the East and West, with the Artie ice-barrier to the North, and a friendly, non-aggressive United States to the South, could, at Geneva, coyly point to hersKf as a perfect example of a nation without fear of aggression and without aggressive designs on others.  Why should she be concerned with sanctions?  Indeed, the chief eritioism that can be leveled against Canadian policy in the League of Nations is that i t was prevailing negative in character. When war loomed on the horizon in 1939, the Canadian publio awakened to its responsibilities.  However, i t was too  late to avert war for the League was already dead. Canada, therefore, accepted her share in the struggle which ensued.  -150-  It  is difficult to analyze the reasoning behind Canad&'is  decision to enter the war.  The principle of Imperial unity  and sympathy for Sreat Britain accounted, partially at least, for i t .  But the fact that the Axis Powers were trying to  enslave the world with an ideology foreign and repugnant to democratic principles was one of the underlying factors in the decision.  Canada could not sit idly by and watch the  destruction of a l l she stood for. After more than five years of war, victory for the United Nations came into sight. yet ahead.  The task of preparing for the peace lay  And again Canada was ready.  She assumed res-  ponsibilities in the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Association, in the Bretton, Woods Monetary Agreement, and in the United Nations.  r  -  1  The problem of "recognition" is no longer a concern of Canada.  Her independent status has been won and acknowledged.  The question now is what Canadian interests are involved? What .contributions can Canada make in the international community? . World markets are necessary for prosperity in Canada. Economically, her position is vulnerable.  A general confidence  among a l l nations, thus promoting multilateral trade on a free basis, is neoessary to a well-rounded Canadian economy. In the realm of security, the picture has changed drastically in the past ten years.  Once i t was possible for  Canada to be complacent about security, protected as she was  -151-  from distant areas of international oonfliot by the British • Navy, and living next-door to the  United States, whose  Monroe Doctrine would be extended to cover her in any threat, of danger.  The situation is different now.  range of attack from  The increasing  the air ha3 brought Canada within a few  flying hours of Europe and Asia.  The Agtio ice-barrier on the  top of the world has become merely a link between Russia and the United States in the oircle air routes.  The atom bomb  has drastically reduced the protective effectiveness of armies and navies.  Neutrality for Canada in another war  would be put of the question. small.  The world has suddenly grown  In discussing Canada's future, account must now be  taken of her vulnerability in terms of security as well as in terms of economics. The United Nations has been established in the hope that future wars might be averted.  The Organization i s based on the  principle of power for peaoe; an idea vastly different from the basis of the League of Nations, which hoped to maintain peace through a collective moral outlawing of war.  The  United Nations has the power at hand to enforce i t s decisions. Though the procedure to be used in applying that power has not yet been devised, a military oouncil is now working at the details.  The League of Nations had no armed forces at  i t s disposal and no power to aot to stop aggression or threatened war. Eoroe, in the United Nations, is in the hands of the  -152,,  Security Council, or more correctly, the "Big ilwe" members of the Security Council.  A l l hope for success for the Or-  ganization depends on the continued co-operation of the "Big Five" for they are the ones who must be in complete agreement before any positive action can be taken when the peace o f the world is threatened.  Their use of the veto power oan  make or break the United Nations..  To speculate at this time  on the ohanoes for success of the Organization is not the purpose of these conclusions. However, i f the United Nations sucoeedrin establishing world security, the Security Council will become inactive. Its work will be done. force.  There will be no place for power and  National sovereignties will be replaced by world  government.  Non-politioal questions will continue to present  problems though; problems of trade and commerce, communications, minorities, social welfare, etc. difficult, for she  Canada's role will be  is ao intimately and inter-dependently  assooiated with Great Britain and the United States.  Though  she will be able to take an active part in the work of the Organization, she will have to take into consideration American and British public opinion.  Should the United States  in its trade policy, try to invade British markets, the United Kingdom might suggest the revival of the Ottawa Agreements for the Commonwealth. Canada would thus be plaoed in a oritioal position.  Her decision would have untold effects.  Undoubt-  edly, her course of action would be to steer Britain and the  -153United States Into an understanding. Yes, i f the United Nations is successful, Canada's role will be a prominent one. If* on the other hand, the Organization fails; i f the veto emasculates the Security Council, and power continues to be the basis for an unstable and uncertain peace, Canada's role will be equally difficult.  The United Kingdom can not  for long hold the place of a great power without the Dominions and India. Britain and the United States, among the "Big Jive" symbolize our way of life.  For Canada to draw  herself into a shell - to leave the Commonwealth, and to ignore the United States, would mean the fall of Britain from a place of importance in world affairs. alone,  The United States,  would be left to balance the soales.  She, without  Britain, could not force a peaceful solution on a major issue.  If peace is to be maintained on the basis of a balance  of power, Canada is an important factor in making the delioate scale balance.  To the United States she is important for  the defense of the continent; to the United Kingdom she is essential for  Imperial defence.  It is she who would provide  training grounds and war material in any future conflict. Until the future of the United Nations has been deter-  mined, Canada can best play her part with a distinctive Canadian - „• policy of constructive, independent action in close cooperation with the British Commonwealth of Nations and the United States, as well as with the rest of the nations of the world, large and small.  The success of the United Nations will  depend upon close eo-operation and understanding with all nations.  BIBLIOGRAPHY  -155SEOONDARY 30UR0E3 BOOKS: Armstrong, W. E. - Canada and the League of Nationa; the prohlem^of peace. Geneva, Imprimerie Jent, 1930. A doctoral dissertation, employing official League material. Iraoes the actions of Canada at Geneva, but giving little mention -* behind those actions. Baker, P. J . N. * The Present Juridical Status of the British Dominions in International Law* London, Longmans, 1929. An exhaustive and systematic study on the subject. Excellent documentation. An invaluable aid in the preparation of this thesis. Borden, Sir R. L. Canada in the Commonwealth, from Conflict to Co-operation. Oxford. Qlaredndon, 1929. Aotually, a series of lectures given by Borden, portraying the leading features of Canada's history. Borden, Sir R. L . , Memoirs. Toronto, Maomillan, 1938, 2 Vols. An important source for aspects of Canada's wartime policy and the years immediately following the war. However, there is no analysis of Canadian foreign policy in the two volumes. Bradshaw, P., Self-government in Canada and how it was achieved, the story of Lord Durham's Report. Toronto. McWlelland. 1903, An interesting yet complete and authorative work on the history of Lord Durham's Report.  -156-  Brebner, J . B., North Atlantio lEriangle. Toronto, Ryerson, 1945. The most recent work treating with the interplay of Canada, the United States, and Britain. Canadian foreign policy is discussed chiefly from the economio standpoint. Cloifr'e H. MoD., Canadian Government and Politi08. Toronto, Longmans, 1944. f  A readable examination of Canadian political institutions, excellenl for background in the field of Canadian- Government. Corbett, P. E . , and Smith, H. Panada and World Politics; a Study of the Constitutional and International Relations of the British Empire, i'or on to. Maomillan . 1928. A Constitutional study of Canada in her relations with the Empire. The major emphasis is on Canada as part of the Empire and not Canada as an independent state. Dafoe, J . W, Canada. An Amerioan Nation. New York, Columbia, 1935. An insight and intrepretation of Canadian North Americanism, and its influence on Canadian foreign policy. Dawson, R-. MaoQ., The Development of Dominion Status. 1900-1936, London, Oxford, A brief constitutional history of Canada with all important constitutional documents and other illustrative sources included in the work. Dewey A. G., The Dominions and Diplomacy. the Canadian Contribution. London. Longmans. 1929. ?  An exhaustive study of the reconciliation of Dominion and United Kingdom foreign policies.  -157Farbman, F. (ed) Enropa. London, Publications, 193IT! An Encyclopaedia of yearbook,  Europe  Europa  - a statistical  Glazebrook, G. P. Del, Panada at the Paris Peace Conference, Toronto, Oxford, 1942. A comprehensive study of Canadian action at the Paris Peace. Gonferehoe. The author i n cludes interesting accounts of the Conference participants at work. Glazebrook, G. p. deT, Canadian External Relations to 1914. Toronto, Oxford,"1942, A study giving a f u l l coverage of Canadian external relations in the early period of her history. Hopkins, J . C. (ed), Canadian Annual Review. 1920, V o l . I , ; A good source book, giving contemporary opinions on Canadian Foreign Policy. Keith, A . B . The Constitutional Law of the British Dominions, London. Macmillan. 1955. t  The work gives an analysis of the position of imperial relations as of 1931. The author purposely avoids predictions as to what might happen, constitutionally, in the future, as a result of the Statute of Westminster. Keith, A . B,., Dominion Autonomy in Practice.' London, Oxford, 1929. An interesting study of the development of Dominion autonomy. Outdated since the passage of the Statute of Westminster, 1931.  -158K e i t h , A. B., The Governments o f the B r i t i s h Empire, London, M a c m i l l a n , 1935* An exhaustive work, d e a l i n g i n the main, w i t h r e c e n t changes i n the s t r u c t u r e of the B r i t i s h Empire. K e i t h , A. B., Responsible Government i n the Dominions. Oxford, Clarendon, 1928, 2 V o l . The work, complete i n every d e t a i l , d i s o u s s e s the o r i g i n and development o f r e s p o n s i b l e governments i n the Dominions. S e c t i o n s d e a l w i t h each Dominion s e p a r a t e l y . Kennedy, W. P. M., The C o n s t i t u t i o n o f Panada. London, Oxford, 1921H ;  A keen a n a l y s i s o f Oanadian C o n s t i t u t i o n a l .development. Latham, R. T. E . , The Law and the Pommonwealth, i n Hanobck, W.K., Sur vey o f B r i t i s h Pommonwealth A f f a i r s . Toronto, Oxford, 1937, Vo. I , pp.510-  un  A d i s c u s s i o n o f the Unity i n Pommonwealth Law, w i t h l e g a l cases c i t e d . MacKay, R. A., and Rogers, E . B., Panada Looks Abroad. T o r o n t o , Oxford, 1938. " A c u r r e n t and r e t r o s p e c t i v e treatment on Oanadian f o r e i g n p o l i c y . I t has, i n c l u d e d i n i t , a com.prehensive b i b l i o g r a p h y . Manning, P. A. W., The P o l i c i e s o f the B r i t i s h Dominions i n the Leag-ue o f N a t i o n s , London. Oxf o r d , 1932. An a b l y w r i t t e n and w i t t y study from the approach o f p e r s o n a l i t i e s and t h e i r o p i n i o n s .  -159-  M i l l e r , D. H., The D r a f t i n g o f the Covenant, Hew York, Putnam's, 1938, 2 V o l s . Probably the most complete and e x t e n s i v e work on the s t o r y o f t h e d r a f t i n g o f the Covenant, Complete documentation i s i n c l u d e d w i t h a running commentary o f the proceedings a t the Conference. Excellent.' Palmer * G. E . , C o n s u l t a t i o n and Co-operation i n the B r i t i s h Commonwealth, London, Oxford, 1934, A study s e t t i n g out the p r i n c i p l e s upon which the v a r i o u s governments o f the B r i t i s h Commonwealth have agreed to co-operate.. The work i s w e l l documented, and a l s o i n c l u d e s a b r i e f desc r i p t i o n of the machinery used i n c o n s u l t a t i o n and o o - o p e r a t i o n . Rappard, W, E., I n t e r n a t i o n a l Relations as viewed from Geneva, New Haven, Y a l e . 1925. A thorough study o f the League, w i t h p a r t i c u l a r emphasis on the f u n c t i o n s o f the League. Rappard, W, D . Oxford, 1931.  f  The Geneva Experiment, London,  The r e v i s e d l e c t u r e s , & s e r i e s o f four on the League o f H a t i o n s , g i v e n by Mr. Rappard before the London School o f Economics. They cover a d e f i n i t i o n o f the League, C o n s t i t u t i o n a l developments i n the League, and an e x p l a n a t i o n o f the purposes o f the League. A l t h o u g h b r i e f , a good background i s given to any more i n t e n s i v e study o f t h e League. S c o t t , J". R.,  Canada Today. Toronto, Oxford, 1938.  A competent- survey, emphasizing domestio p r o blems, b u t d e a l i n g w i t h f o r e i g n a f f a i r s a l s o . Shig/se* L. B., Canadian-American R e l a t i o n s , 1849-1874, Toronto, Ryerson, 1939. An exhaustive p i e c e o f r e s e a r c h work. However, i n the main, i t i s o f l i t t l e v a l u e f o r the purpose of t h i s t h e s i s .  -160Skelton, 0. D . , Life and'letters of Sir Wilfred Laurier, New York, Century, 1922. The intimate biography of the man so instrumental in shaping Canadian external policy for so many years. Soward, P. H . , Parkinson, MaoZenzie, and McDermot, Panada in World Affairs. London, Oxford, 19&1. An admirable work dealing with Panadian foreign policy. The period covering the years 1935 - 1939 by Prof. Soward i s especially useful. Temperley, H. W. U . , A History of the Peace Confer en oe of Paris, London, irowde, 1920-24. 6 Vols. Probably the most oomplete history of the Paris Peace Oonference ever written. Of l i t t l e value for this thesis inasmuch as the Oanadian role i s treated with the role of every other nation, and for that reason appears to be insignifioant. Toynbee, A, J . , Survey of International A f f a i r s , London, Oxford,annual. The series gives a year by year analysis of international a f f a i r s . Canadian foreign policy, when mentionedj is set in i t s broader setting. Toynbee, A . , The Conduct of British Empire Foreign Relations since the Peace Settlement. London, Milford, 1928. A compact, but nevertheless masterly study of the diplomatic machinery and relations of the Empire. The League of Nations and Qommonwealth relations are covered to 1927. Wheare, K, P . , The Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status. Oxford. Clarendon. 1938. An admirable work limited to an explanation of the Statute of Westminster upon Dominion Status.  161Wheare, K. 0., The .Statits of Westminster, 1951. Oxford, Clarendon, 1955. A study of the effeot of the Statute of Westminster on Dominion-Status. Both generally and specifically. Wittke, C. F . , A History of Canada. Toronto, MoClelland, 195bZ The Standard text on Canadian History. Helpful in gaining a broad view of the currents of p o l i t i c a l action in Canada. PERIODICALS "Afterthoughts on the Imperial Conference", The Round Table.- V o l . XIV,.pp. 225-256, December 1923  to.September  1924.  An appraisal of the work of the Imperial Conference of 1923. Angus, H. P . , "Canada and a Foreign Policy" Dalhousie Review. Vol XIV, pp. 265-275, Oct. 1934. The author asserts that Canada's free to have or to not have her own foreign .policy, I f the Canadian choice is in the affirmative, the choice is in the deoision between "Peace plus National Atonomy" and Peaoe plus International Justice." w  Bolles, B . , "Pillars of the United Nations," Foreign Policy Reports. Vo. XXI, No. 18, pp. 246-255, 1 December, 1945. An evaluation of the International Economic and Social Agencies of the United Nations. Bruchesi, J . , "A Srench^-Canadian View of Canada's Foreign Polioy," Canadian Papers 1958. Canadian Institute of International Affairs, Series A, No. 2, pp. 17-22.  -162A representative view of French-Canada s isolationism and i t s lack of sympathy with the League of Nations. 1  Buell, R. L . , "International Action on the Lytton Report, * -Foreign Policy Reports. Y o l . VIII, No. 18, pp.208.-218, 9 Nov., 1932. 1  A disoussion of the possibilities open to the League in acting on the Sino-Japanese dispute over Manchuria. The Report of the Lytton Commission is discussed also. "Canada at San Franscisco," Round Table. No. 140, pp. 362-365, September, 1945. A brief discussion of the stand taken by Canada at the San Eranoisco Conference on Inter-c national Organization. Carter, G. M . , "Some Aspects of Canadian Foreign Policy after Versailles," The Canadian Historical Association, Report of the- Annual Meeting, May 24-25, 1943, pp. 94-104. The author singles out the one Canadian contribution to the League Assembly - that of strengthening i t . She also discusses Canada and Artiole X and the rejection of the Italian plea for enquiry into raw materials. Corbett, P. E . , "Isolation for Canada?" Universit, of Toronto Quarterly. V o l . I , No. 1. pp 120-131, Ootober , 1936. An attempt to analyze the possibility for Canadian isolation and neutrality in the event of war. De Wilde, J . C , , "The League and the Sino-Japanese Dispute", Foreign Policy Reports. Y o l . V l l l , No. 10, pp. 108-118, 2o July, 1932. The author traces the dispute through the League.  -163Gelber, L . M . , "Canada's New Stature," Foreign Affair s-» V o l . 24, No. 2, pp. 277-289, January, 1946. A discussion of the "New" Canada and the relationship of the ?new''Canada and her old political affiliations, , Green, J . F . , "Canada in World Affairs," Foreign Policy-JReports. V o l . .XIV, No. 8i pp. 86-96, 1 July," 1938. A good concentrated survey on Canadian Foreign policy. Humphrey, J . P . , "Dumbarton Oaks at San Francisco", the Canadian Forum. V o l , XXV, No. 291, pp. 6-10, A p r i l , 1945. A comparison of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals and the United Nations Charter* "International", 'i'ime, Vol XLV, No. 18, pp. 15-18, 30 A p r i l , X34T. News-description of p o l i t i c a l conflicts at San Franoisco Conference, "International", lime, Vol XLV, No. 19, pp, 117th May, 1945. . " News description of opening sessions of San Francisco Conference. "International", fime, Vol. XLVI, No, 1, pp. 14-16, 2nd July, T32F. News - description of proceedings at §an Francisco Conference. Journal of the Parliaments of the Empires various editions ; 1920 - 1938. 1  A summary of important discussions in the Parliaments of the various Dominions.  164Lewis, M. M . , "The International S'tatua of the British Self-Governing Dominions", The British Yearbook of International Law; Vol. 3, pp. 21-41, 1922 - 1923. " A discussion of the position of the Dominions in International law from 1840 to 1922. Lowefr? A . R. M . , "Canada and the New World Order," The Canadian gorum; V o l . XIX, No. 220, pp. 44-46, May, 1939.A plea for a positive Canadian foreign  policy.  Luxton, G . , "The United States and the Commonwealth," Canadian Papers, 1958, Canadian Institute .ojFTja^erTiaHol^ Series E , No. 3, pp. 1 - 17. An appraisal of the influence of the United States on Canada, and suggestions for the possibility of Canadian-American co-operation for defense purposes. MaoKay, R. A . , "Canada and the Balance of World Power" The Canadian Journal of Eoonomios and P o l i t i c a l aoienoe. V o l . 7. Ho. 4. pp. 229-245. May, 1941. A summary of pre-Munich and post-Munich Europe, and the influence of the events on Canadian policies. McHenry, D. E . , "The S_an Francisco Conference: An Appraisal", The Canadian Forum"; V o l . XXV; No. 293, pp.-62-63, June, 1945. The author attempts to analyze the main features of the United Nations Charter. Reid, E . , "Canada and the Threat of War," University of Toronto Quarterly. VdYl pp. 242-253, January, 1937. A discussion of Mr. King's foreign, policy.  -.165R e i d , E. M.; "Mr. MacZenzia Z i n g ' s Foreign P o l i c y , 1935-36," Canadian J o u r n a l o f Eoonomios and P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , pp."""*86-97 February, 1937. A c l e a r t a b u l a t i o n , on the p a r t o f Mr. R e i d , o f Mr. King's f o r e i g n p o l i c y a f t e r the I t a l o Ethiopean c r i s i s . S o o t t , F. R., "Canada's Future i n the B r i t i s h Pommonwealth.".Foreign A f f a i r s . V o l . 15, Ho. 3, pp. 429-442, A p r i l , 1937. ' A summary o f the f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g Canada's a t t i t u d e towards the Commonwealth. S c o t t , F. R. , "How Canada entered the The Canadian Forum. V o l . XIX, Ho. 229, 344^346, February, 1940.  War," pp.-  The author p o i n t s out the f a c t t h a t the Canadian p a r l i a m e n t had no v o i c e i n the Canadian d e c l a r a t i o n o f war i n 1939. S c o t t , F. R., "The tfnd o f Dominion. S t a t u s , " The American J o u r n a l o f I n t e r n a t i o n a l law,Vol 38 Ho. 1, pp. 34-49, January, 1944. The author a s s e r t s t h a t the Dominions have aohieved complete independence and p o i n t s out why and how t h a t independence was a c h i e v e d . S o o t t , E. R.. "The Permanent B a s i s of Canadian F o r e i g n P o l i c y , ? For eign A f f a i r s ; V o l . 10, Ho, 4, pp, 617-631, J u l y , 1932. A c l e a r and c o n c i s e d i s c u s s i o n of the economic, geographic, r a c i a l , and p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e s on Canadian f o r e i g n p o l i c y . Text o f the R e s o l u t i o n o f the Supreme C o u n c i l c a l l i n g the Genoa Conference," I n t e r n a t i o n a l Conciliation';' Ho, 170, pp, 45-47, January, 1922; r e p r i n t e d from the Hew York Times. January 7th, 1922.  -166The A t t i t u d e to the I m p e r i a l Conference i Round T a b l e . V o l . XIV, pp. 132-137, December, 1923 to September, 1924* The p l a c e o f the I m p e r i a l Conference i n Commonwealth a f f a i r s , w i t h s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e t o Canada i s presented to the r e a d e r * T r o t t e r , R. "Canada and World O r g a n i z a t i o n , " The Canadian H i s t o r i c a l Review.Vol. XXVI, No. 2, pp. 128-147, June, 1945. A d i s c u s s i o n o f Canadian p o l i c y i n the l i g h t o f world o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r the p r e s e r v a t i o n o f peace•• Tupper, C. H., "Treaty^Making Powers o f the Dominions," J o u r n a l o f the S o c i e t y o f Comparative L e g i s l a t i o n ; V o l . W l . P P . 6 - 1 5 . 1917. A d i s c u s s i o n o f the t r e a t y making powers o f Canada a s evolved to 1917. W i l l i a m s , W. L., "The B r i t i s h Commonwealth," F o r e i g n P o l i c y R e p o r t s . V o l . IX, No. 3, pp.26-36, 12th A p r i l , 1933. A c o n s t i t u t i o n a l survey, i n c l u d i n g a d i s c u s s i o n o f I m p e r i a l U n i t y i n the B r i t i s h Commonwealth and the b a s i s o f Dominion autonomy. PAMPHLETS C a r t e r , &. M « , "Consider the Record - Canada and the League e f N a t i o n s , " Behind the H e a d l i n e s ; V o l . 2, No. 6, Toronto, 1942^ The r o l e played by Canada i n the League o f Nations from 1919 - 1936. League of Nations S o c i e t y i n Canada, The T r e a t y making Power i n Canada, a b r i e f t o the Royal Oommission on D o m i n i o n - P r o v i n c i a l R e l a t i o n s ; Ottawa, mimeographed, January, 1938. The problem o f t r e a t y i m p l i m e n t a t i o n i n Canada i s p r e s e n t e d , and suggestions a r e made as to how  -167best the problems arising out of conflicts in Dominion and Provincial realms of authority can be met. Price, V , , "Canada and World Security", Panada must choose; Toronto; Ryerson, 1945.. The author discusses the San Francisco Conference, and the role Canada can play in the future in the United Nations. Soward, P. H . , Canada and the League of Nations; Ottawa, 1931. A good but brief guide to the role played by Canada in the League of Nations until 1930, Its brevity makes i t of no practical use for detailed studies. "The Nations Have Declared," Documents issued by the United Nations, The Canadian Institute of International A f f a i r s ; Toronto. 1944. Inoludes documents issued at Cairo, Moscow, Teheran, also, the Pour Freedoms, Atlantic Charter, U.N.R.R.A., Constitution, I , L . 0. Philadelphia Charter, United Nations Agreement. PRIMARY SOURCES Official CANADA  Publications: By order of Parliament, Sessional Papers, Ottawa, Zings Printer. Nos. 10 29A 41J 208 . 232A Dominion Bureau of.Statistics, The Canada Year Book. 1945, Ottawa, Kings Printer, 1945. External A f f a i r s , Diplomatic L i s t , November 1945, Ottawa, Kings Printer, 1945.  168-  External A f f a i r s , Report on the United Nations Conference on International Organization; Conifer ence S e r i e s , No. 2, Ottawa, Kings Printer, 1945. Parliament, House of Commons;* Official Report of Debates;' Ottawa, Kings Printer. Parliament, Senate, Official Report of Debates. Ottawa, .Kings Printer. Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, Report.... Ottawa, Kings Printer, 1940, 3 Yob. GREAT BRITAIN Colonial Office, and Foreign Office, British Command Papers, London, H. M, Stationery Office. Cmd. Nos.  3452 2458 2525 (Protocol of Locarno Conference.) 4126 (Lausanne Conference Act.) 22 George 5, Chapter 4, The Statute of Westminster. .1931. ' ,30 Victoria, 'Chapter 3, the British North America Apt? 1867. Privy Council, Judicial Committee, Canadian Constitutional Decisions of the JuatTbial Committee of the Privy Council; 1930-1939. (Plaxton. W\ P. led) - Dept . of Justice, Ottawa, J . 0. P*Jfttenaude, 1939. 1  LEAGUE OF NATIONS League of Nations Journal of the Assembly. UNITED NATIONS Journal of the United Nations Economic and SocLjl Counoil (First Session.)  -169Jotarual of the United Nations, General Assembly, (First Session.) Journal of the United Nations, Security Council, (First Session.) United Nations Conference on International Organization,3an JTranoisoq , 1945, Pub, 'in co-operation with the library of Congress, London, New York, United Nations Information Organization, 1945, 15 Vols.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0105855/manifest

Comment

Related Items