Evening Post. FRIDAY, JULY 2, 1926. CANADA'S GRIEVANCES

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 2, 2 July 1926, Page 6

Evening Post. FRIDAY, JULY 2, 1926. CANADA'S GRIEVANCES

"Another injustice to Ireland" is a complaint which had almost passed into a proverb during the last half-century of British rule, but has fortunately ceased to have any serious application since the patient was allowed to minister to herself. With Canada, howover, upon whose constitutional status in the -Empire the autonomy conceded to Ireland was expressly modelled, the ease is different. While Irish discontent is disappearing iir the enjoyment of the privileges which Canada has enjoyed for more than half a century, those same privileges are apparently insufficient for Canada herself. The status of a British Dominion, wfilch from its combination of security and irresponsibility is probably more enviable than that of any other small nation in the world, ia becoming irksome to the biggest of the Dominions. Canadian discontent is fortunately much less general and less explosive than was that of Ireland ten years ago, but being also less plausible and more peevish it strikes a detached observer as much funnier. The procedure of the Lausanne Conference, was wrong because, though Canada took no interest in its deliberations, could not' have helped them in any way, and is not an independent nation, she ought to have been independently represented. The omission was at first declared by her Government to have relieved Canada from the obligations of tho Lausanne Treaty. The express exemption of all the Dominions which on that account was included in tho Locarno Treaty drew from the Government no gratitude or approval, no expression of a readiness to come in, no expression of any opinion at all. When Britain does the wrong thing she hears about it. When by chance she stumbles into the right thing nothing is said. Some of her children aro very hard to please.

Canada's aspirations to a foreign policy of her own were revealed in the Halibut Treaty and in the desire to have her own ambassador at Washington. But her ardour in the second of these projects has- cooled, sinco it received the approval of Downing Street. To some Canadians, though not yet to their Government, the occasional reversion by the Privy Council of the decisions of Canadian Courts is another invidious sign of vassalage which a free people should refuse to tolerate. And now the long list of grievances is capped by the. discovery that, even in her domestic policy, Canada is denied the elementary. y rights of self-govern-ment. It is true that this is only the personal discovery.of Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, who, though he is described by the "Round Table's" Canadian contributor as "the vigorous and able representative of Labour," represents what is in Canada a politically insignificant power. But, as in the case of the remarkable resolution moved by the same gentleman in March, "that Canada should refuse to accept any responsibility for complications arising from the foreign policy of the United Kingdom," the unfortunate silevce of the other leaders gives a factitious importance to a non-representative utterance. What the leader of Canadian Labour now says is: '

The decision of the GovernorGeneral not. to grant a dissolution to Mr. Mackenzie King is an indication that Canada is not an autonomous country.

It is indeed a marvellous misconception which finds in, an essential safeguard of Canadian democracy the proof of an external dictatorship. The GovernorGeneral of Canada has not substituted his own will for that of the people of Canada, and he would be quite unfit for his office if he had. As the representative not of a despot but of a constitutional ruler, his .duty is to subordinate tho exercise of the Royal prerogative of dissolving Parliament to the requirements of democracy. It was not the people or the Parliament that asked for a dissolution, but the leader of a party which represented a minority of tho people and a minority of the House. Before dissolving Parliament at the instance of the defeated leader

it was His Excellency's duty to see whether any other loader could form a Government which would command the confidence of the House, and Mr. Meighen, as the leader of the largest party, was of course the man to choose. The theory of democracy is that the will of tho people is represented by a majority of the House which it has elected. If Mr. MeiglTon can continue to command the confidence of • that majority, as he has done in tho first two divisions, he will remain, in office, and it will be as the representative not

of tlie Governor-General but of the people. Yet His Excellency's action in helping to realise the will of the people without tho inconvenience and expenso of another General Election is represented by a democratic leader as another, injustice to Canada --arising .from the Imperial connection! Mr. Woodsworth, as we have indicated, represents but a small fraction of the people of Canada, and tho question arises whether on Imperial issues tho leaders of the principal parties also do not often misrepresent the .majority. Though we inevitably judge of the attitude of a people from that of its Government and its Parliament, there certainly appears to be a much wider gap in Canada between the politicians and popular opinion as represented by tho Press than there is in this country. Here, for instance, is a delightfully refreshing condemnation by tho "Montreal Star" of the stand-off attitude which is often so prominent at Ottawa: — Nine-tenths of clio American p»riple are just as foolish as they wero in 1916—they still think that by some 1 shuffling Wilson can "keep them out of tho War." Yet men with a cloae knowledge of world currents predict that the United States will be one of the principal protagonists in the '' next war,'.' and it will be somebody etae's turn to bo "too proud to light." If this is ...true, it will bring Canada much nearer to the firing line—geographically. Canada therefore has a prime and close-at-home interest in establishing and defending peace throughout the world, no matter what she may think of "tho Empire's wars." We ought to be upholding the hands of the men in the Old World who are struggling with all their might for peace. Is there no leadership on either side of the House in Ottawa? The "Montreal Gazette" was equally outspoken in its comments ou Mr. Woodsworth's resolution above quoted:— A hundred such resolutions would not protect this country in the event of war between Great Britain and another first-class Power. Canada would be at war and liable to attack, all the Woodsworths of Parliament to the contrary notwithstanding, and would most certainly be attacked by a belligerent whose interests might be promoted by such action. Flying a mongrel flag that is British on ono side and something « else on the other will not ensure immunity; the only way in which "complications" of a major kind can be avoided is one which Cana is are not prepared to adopt. Canada can escape British responsibilities by formally ceasing to be British, and by no other means. Does the gentleman from Winnipeg want this? Though "the gentleman from Winnipeg" may desire a "mongrel flag" there is reason to hope that the heart of the people is sound and will so appear when the next call comes.