RECURRING ALARMS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 27 May 1925, Page 4

RECURRING ALARMS.

CANADA AND THE MOTHERLAND

WHAT THE BIG DOMINION

WANTS..

Recurring incidents suggest the i m ~ pres.siou that existing Relations be-, tween Canada and the Motherland are not so smooth as they ought to be, writes John it. Rone, in a dispatch from Toronto to the Daily Mail. There was controversy about the Ohanak episode with its Ohurchillian-Lloyd Georgeian alarum; controversy as to Canada’s representation at the "Washington Disarmament Conference; controversy about the signing or the Halibut fisheries Treaty between Canada and the United States; controversy about a new treaty concerning armaments on the Great Lakes; controversy about a Canadian Ambassador at "Washington —not yet appointed; controversy, about Canada’s exclusion from the Lausanne Conference and her subsequent refusal to ratify the Treaty.' And, a few weeks ago, refusal by Canada (with other Do. minions) to accept Mr. Amery’s invitation to a March Conference to . discuss the Peace Protocol, indicates continuing lack of team-work and clear understanding. During the period covered by these episodes four different Governments, representing widely divergent points of view, have held office in England. In Canada not one of the issues mentioned has disclosed any serious cleavage between parties. The deduction is that the trouble is more deep-seated than one that might be raised by the ascendancy of a particular political party either here or in the United Kingdom. The issue is as to what voice Canada shall have in the control of foreign relations and how that voice shall be expressed. A vital corollary relates to Canada’s responsibility for and participation in future wars. Sir. Wilfrid Laurier, who had the gift of expressive phrasing, laid down the axiom, “When England is at war, Canada is at war.” A modification of this declaration points out that in the event of war the degree to which Canada. shall participate will be determined by the Canadian Government and Parliament, which, of course, controls the purse-strings. Thus, while in the Great War Canada contributed to the limit of her resources, she circumscribed her contribution in South Africa, and to other minor enterprises contributed not at all.

Another aphorism of Laurier was his appeal to the Motherland, “If. you want us to help you, call us to your councils.” But nrevious to 1914 Canada was not called to councils. And when the smoke of the Great War cleared away, Canadians reflected on the fact that on the events leading up to a convulsion which involved Canada in lai'ge-saerifi'oes and led' her along the way toward bankruptcy, Canada herself had exercised not one tittle of influence. Canadians, without criticising British conduct of pre-war diplomacy, determined that a similar situation should not recur. Hence Canada took her seat at the Peace Conference, Canada signed the Treaty of Versailles, Canada secured membership in the League of Nations —all gestures to the world that henceforth Canada proposed to assume in advance some responsibility for her commitments. Since Versailles have occurred the episodes outlined at the beginning of this article. They demonstrate the difficulties that beset the course on which the Dominion has set her compass. If these episodes and the circumstances surrounding them are examined it will be observed that Canadian policy seems to be crystallising as follows: In a limited field, chiefly her relations with the United States, Canada seeks control of lier foreign affairs, unfettered except for decent, consultation with other parts of the Empire; for foreign policy elsewhere she wishes to be consulted when her interests are affected, not necessarily otherwise; and she wishes further that the degree of her liability in any contingency shall bear a relation to the degree' to which she is consulted and committed jn advance. It will be observed that this is a substantial modification of. Laurier’s general plea, “Call us to your councils.” It is now appreciated that consultation, even if only formal, means liability. In the case of Lausanne, Canada was not called to council. The sequel was that Canada declined to ratify the resulting treaty, though accepting it as automatically ending the technical state of war which previously had existed between Canada, as part of the British Empire, and Turkey. By declining to ratify Canada professed to wash her hands of at least moral responsibility for carrying out the terms of the treaty. In theory this policy no doubt seems more unyielding than it would be in practice. In the sense that she was not previously consulted Canada had no moral responsibility for the Great War. And if we were back in 1914 there is no reason to suppose that Canada would act otherwise than she did then.

In questions affecting tho settlement of Europe, Canada has a substantial interest. In Egypt, in Turkey, in Persia, even in India, points of great importance in British Imperial policy, the interest of Canada (and herein she differs from Australasia) is remote. These are points that will be of service in appraising what Canada’s attitude is likely to be on issues as they apise. A proposal that is finding favou r in several quarters here is that Canada should maintain a diplomatic representative in London, , and that Britain should maintain a similar representative in Ottawa, who would function just as other Ambassadors do. These envoys would be distinct from the High Commissioner in one case, and from the Governor-General in the other. Indeed, in connection with the GovernorGeneral it is specifically advanced by some constitutional students here that he should cease altogether to represent. the British Government and should become purely a Viceroy. The suggestion of an interchange of Ambassadors is based on the belief that conferences, even the regular Imperial Conferences, have outlived their usefulness, and that what is needed is machinery to provide uninterruptedly full information and clear understanding, so that there shall, be an end to actuations in which the British and Canadian Governments appear to be acting at cross-purposes.