bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 4 (1986) — Winter 1986 // Hiver 1986, pp. 18–19
China’s leaders speak with missionary zeal of the significance of the ’Long March’ in their country’s unification, and this year celebrate its 50th anniversary. Americans derive national inspiration from the observance of their Declaration of Independence. Canadians could recall a less dramatic and revolutionary but no less significant Declaration of Independence in the proclamation of ’Dominion Status’ just 60 years ago on November 18, 1926. But somehow we seem to have lost track of this event and when we might be celebrating our acquisition of equal status with Great Britain and the attainment of national sovereignty, we have reduced our National Day to a mere birthday bash (complete with fireworks) making us simply a year older.
Perhaps the cavalier dropping of the designation Dominion Day by a handful of legislators late one Friday afternoon a couple of years ago, removed the link between the creation of a New transcontinental Nation “from Sea to Sea” by our fathers of Confederation on July Ist, and Dominion status. This would have been an appropriate occasion for reference to our Diamond Jubilee by Governor General, Prime Minister or Secretary of State, but no such allusions appear to have been made, in any of the ceremonial observances.
Can ignorance and apathy be credited with another victory? Anyone can read about the independent sovereign relationship of Commonwealth members and Dominion status in Webster’s Encyclopaedic Dictionary although some of our legislators have been less successful in getting much enlightenment from le Petit Robert, which lists Canada simply as a specie of apple.
Commemorative stamps have traditionally carried historic messages to the general populace, reminding us of events in our glorious past and inspiring us to envisage future shared achievements. The value of history it has been said, lies in the perspective it gives us as we take up the problems of the present. The easiest approach to an understanding of today’s challenges may well be through knowledge of our past. A nation’s history, after all, corresponds to an individual’s memory, facilitating the linkage between past and future. This may suggest the possibly hazardous consequences of a lobotomy performed on an institutional memory. But one can search in vain through the plethora of commemoratives in our stamp catalogues without even catching sight of a postal issue marking one of the most significant landmarks on our way from colony to nation. This is particularly strange given the frequent references to cultural and national sovereignty.
Neither the 50th anniversary of our Declaration of ’Independence’ on November
18, 1926 nor its formal enactment some five years later in the Statute of Westminster (1931) have been recognized. Postal selections for the latter 50th anniversary date in 1981 portray reproductions of the Vancouver Island Marmot and a rare 18th century musical instrument on display in a Vancouver exhibition — no doubt revealing Ottawa’s concern for the West. But no trace of the significant event marking the changed role of the Governor General — no longer performing the additional services as an agent of the British Government and signifying the radical transformation from Empire to Commonwealth, is to be found amongst the collection. Perhaps in sweeping the embarassing ’Customs Scandal’ under the carpet in 1926, Prime Minister King managed a triple coup by including an altered role for the GG and his responsiveness to both the PM and Canadian Cabinet for Ministerial advice. Lord Byng of Vimy certainly acted in the best traditional role of protector of national conscience and interest in refusing to allow King to escape censure of the House of Commons by seeking a dissolution and new elections – even though the subsequent election campaign was won on a very bogus ’constitutional’ issue with which this wiley politician succeeded in pulling the ’colonial’ wool over the eyes of a gullible electorate. Some inaccurate historical accounts continue to misrepresent these events, but our Documents Series, Vol. 4, pp. 10/11 (External Affairs DCER), reveals the naked truth.
It may not be too late to remind Canadians — and perhaps other Commonwealth members who have forgotten — of our political origins in the Commonwealth nursery where many developing countries (now over 50) have successfully achieved their goal of nationhood. We don’t appear much better with 75th anniversaries either, and even missed marking our own with the publication of a history of the Department. Although we sent a three vessel flotilla of Canadian ships to take part in the Royal Australian Navy’s 75th Anniversary regatta we let our own Navy’s 75th slip by last year with very little fanfare. How can we develop a distinctive IDENTITY if we ignore all the elements which make us different, our roots? Perhaps Canada Post could demonstrate its improved capacity by rushing out a special Commemorative before the end of the year. Otherwise I guess we shall have to wait for a Centennial stamp in the year 2026 or 2031.
The Treaty Power and the Dominions
(Canadian House of Commons Debates, March 30, 1927, pp. 1705-7)
Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice): Hereafter treaties will be made and signed, not by and for the British Empire, but by and for Great Britain and such other portions of the Empire as may be concerned in those treaties. Heretofore, even though we might be interested in any treaty of any description, if we were not represented during its negotiation and at the signing of it, the treaty was entered into nevertheless in the name of the British Empire as a whole. The change in the wording of the treaty in this regard is of the utmost importance. There will be no longer any need of the provision which has been known as the exclusion clause, such for instance as was incorporated in the Locarno Treaty. That clause was to the effect that the treaty in question could be enforced in any of the Dominions only after they had agreed to come within its provisions. Such a clause, as I say, will no longer be necessary; it will serve no useful purpose for the reason that we shall be involved in any treaty only if we are a party thereto. Treaties will be made by the King not in the name of the British Empire, but on behalf of Great Britain and whatever other section of the Empire may be a participant in and a signatory to the negotiations.
Another important change concerns the appointment of plenipotentiaries representing the King in connection with negotiations leading up to treaties and the signing of those treaties. When a few years ago I was appointed plenipotentiary to negotiate a treaty with the United States it was stated by constitutional writers that no real change had been made inasmuch as my appointment by His Majesty the King was the outcome of an Order in Council passed by the Imperial Government. The same with regard to the issuance of powers and the ratification that must take place after the signing of a treaty. That ratification was also made by His Majesty the King upon an Order in Council of the Imperial Government and not of the Canadian Government, even where Canada was concerned. Now treaties signed on behalf of Canada will be signed by a plenipotentiary appointed by His Majesty the King upon a recommendation of the Canadian Government, and the issuance of powers will be made also upon the recommendation of the Government of Canada. In the same way the ratification of treaties will be carried out upon the recommendation of the Government of this Dominion. All the other formalities which, according to constitutional writers, have been adhered to as symbolic of the unity of the Empire have been discarded as being no longer in harmony with the conditions now prevailing among the nations of the Empire; for, as I have pointed out, the one great symbol of unity now is His Majesty the King. Let me observe that for this as for most of the other matters included in the report there is no need for any legislation; all that is needed is to harmonize the practice and usages with the present constitutional position of the Dominions Mr. Garland: Just how far does the principle of equality of status extend? Does it extend, for example, to treaties involving assistance in the event of war?
Mr. Lapointe: No, I am sure it does not, and this by reason of these words:
It must however, before taking any steps which might involve the other Governments in any active obligations, obtain their definite assent.
In any case where any other Government may be involved in active obligations – and the hon. member is referring to a case in which there would be such obligations – then the definite assent of the Government involved must be given.
Mr. Garland: Is this the implication of the Minister’s remarks, that Canada in future will hold a neutral position unless she has given her assent to participation in such a treaty?
Mr. Lapointe: The discussion of that phase of the matter would lead me into a long argument.
Mr. Garland: But it is so essential.
Mr. Lapointe: I say that Canada will always be free to take whatever steps she thinks fit. She will not be bound to any active obligation.
Now, as to foreign affairs, the outstanding feature of the report is, I believe, the definite recognition that neither Great Britain nor the Dominions are committed to any active obligations except with the assent of their own governments or parliaments.
Report of the Imperial Conference, 1926
1926 II. Status of Great Britain and the Dominions
The Committee are of opinion that nothing would be gained by attempting to lay down a Constitution for the British Empire. Its widely scattered parts have very different characteristics, very different histories, and are at very different stages of evolution; while, considered as a whole, it defies classification and bears no real resemblance to any other political organization which now exists or has ever yet been tried.
There is, however, one most important element in it which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development – we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
View the original scanned pages →
Originally published in bout de papier, Vol. 4, No. 4 (1986) — Winter 1986 // Hiver 1986, pp. 18–19. Read the rest of this issue →
