1917-04-30

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. J. D. REID:: In accordance with the request of the hon. member for Russell 
(Mr. Murphy), I lay on the Table several Orders in Council in connection with the transfer of ships.



INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I notice by the press a report-I do not know whether it is correct or not-that representations have been made by the Canadian Government to the Government of the United States suggesting the appointment of a commission to take into consideration matters of dispute between the two countries in reference to fisheries. I should like to inquire of the Government if there is any foundation for this press report, and if so, what matters in dispute it is proposed shall be referred to a commission for settlement.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: This matter was brought to my attention the other day by an hon. member-I think the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), but perhaps by my hon. friend from Halifax. I communicated with Sir George Foster who is at present at Washington representing the Government, and I am informed that there is no truth in the report.



HEAD TAX ON CANADIANS ENTERING UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It was rumoured a long time ago that the United States proposed exacting a head tax of $8 upon Canadian citizens entering that country. Will the Government inform the House if this rumour is correct and, if so, if they are taking any steps to remove this exaction which will be very irritating to Canadians?


Hon. W. J. ROCHE (Minister of the interior) :: I understand that a new Immigration Act passed by the United States Congress does levy a tax of $8 on Canadians as well as those from other countries. The matter has been taken up by Sir George Foster with the United States Government.


Mr. NESBITT:: They do not levy a head tax on travellers.


William James Roche: The head tax is levied on those who enter the United States to reside there permanently; but according to the Act, if it is in force, $8 head tax will be levied even on Canadians who go into the

United States ' temporarily, the amount to be refunded upon their leaving the country again.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They do not exact that.


William James Roche: The Act does not come into force until the 3rd of May.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They have not exacted the tax so far.



MISUSE OF MAILS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. TURRIFF:: I have here a clipping, which I just received this morning, from the Carlyle Herald, Carlyle being a town in my constituency. The clipping reads:
Here is a begging letter which is being circulated in "chain" form by the responsible officials of one of the largest corporations in Canada:-
Mr. T. E. Kirkpatrick, of the New York Central Railway Company, has sent me the following letter, which I pass on to you:-
Owing to the scarcity of anesthetics, operations that cause indescribable pain have to be performed without their aid to mitigate suffering. We make a complete appeal to you to contribute 24 cents towards the purchase of chloroform to use . in the hospitals of the Allies.
Please send five copies of the appeal to your friends and put No. 148 on your letters. Do not fail or the chain will be broken.
Please send the money to Miss Elizabeth Whitman, Superintendent of Nurses, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, 218 Second Avenue, New York City.
Now, the above letter, hinting as it does, of conditions of indescribable misery among the boys at the front, is one of two things. It is either the meanest, most despicable fake yet exposed or the most damnable disgrace to our Government that could very well be imagined. Personally, we feel sure it is a fake. In spite of the size of the corporation circulating the appeal, and the undoubted integrity of the signatory, we would refuse to send even two cents-to New York-on the strength of the appeal. We refuse to believe that the Allies have to cadge shillings in Carlyle for chloroform.
I have no doubt that this is a fake; but if it is a fake, then our Canadian mails are being used to extend this fake in order to collect money. It is possible on the other hand that this nurse, Miss Elizabeth Whitman, may be all right, but I think the matter is of such importance that the Postmaster General and the Minister of Militia should look into it.


Mr. PATENAUDE:: I will make inquiries into the matter.



CONSCRIPTION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MACDONALD:: In view of the position taken by the Government through the Premier last year that they were emphatically not in favour of conscription, and of the letter of the Minister of the Interior published in the western United States, and1 of advertisements published by the Interior Department to the effect that conscription was not deemed, either advisable or necessary in Canada, I would like to ask the Minister of Militia and Defence whether it is the intention of the Government to change their policy in. regard to enlistment and provide for a policy of conscription, or whether they intend to put in force .compulsorily the .provisions of the Militia Act.


Mr. KEMP:: The question to which my hon. friend refers has not yet had the consideration of the Government.



PRIVATE JOSEPH MARCIL.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL:: I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Militia and Defence to a letter that I received from Louis Marcil, 1425 St. Dennis Street, Montreal, stating that his son, Joseph Marcil, who is the only support of an aged father and mother, has enlisted in the Forestry Battalion and gone to the front. He has assigned $25 a month to his parents but they have received nothing since he has gone. Mr. Ross of the Patriotic Fund, Montreal, and Major Hudon have communicated with the department, but no reply has been received. I will send the letter over to the minister and shall be glad if he will look into the matter.


Albert Edward Kemp: I shall be very glad to have the letter.	,



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 8, to incorporate The Bishop of Mackenzie River.-Mr. R. B. Bennett.

[Stage Direction]
Further consideration in Committee-Mr. Rainville in the chair-of Bill No. 14, respecting the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited, and to authorize it to change its name to " United Grain Growers, Limited."-Mr. Bradbury.
On section 6-grouping of shareholders in local societies based on territorial districts.
Mr. BEAD  BURY@: There does not seem to be anything very unusual about this section, which provides for the abolition, by by-law, of the right to vote by proxy. Under the proposed form of government, the shareholders will be grouped in local societies based on territorial districts, and the societies will be represented at the meetings of the company by delegates. The reason for this change is that in such a large company as the Grain Growers' Grain Company, with something like 18,000 members, there is danger of a few men collecting a large number of proxies, and then it would not be a fair representation at all, so the proposal is to have delegates. I am authorized to say that this form of government is not a new one. It is now applicable and applied in the Aioerta Co-operative Elevator Company, with which the Grain Growers' Grain Company proposes to amalgamate, and has been found to work very satisfactorily. It is also the form of government applicable to the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company. As this form of government has already been adopted by these two companies with which the Grain Growers' Grain Company proposes to amalgamate, i do not think the committee will make any serious objection to this section. I might quote the following from the last Annual Report of the directors of the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited:-
At the present time out of 18,000 shareholders not more than 300 attend the meetings in person; not more than 2,000 of the remaining shareholders are represented by proxy, and a great many of these send their proxies in to the annual meeting to be distributed among the delegates present. The effect of this is that not more than 20 per cent of the shareholders are represented in any way at shareholders' meetings, and this unquestionably leaves the way open for a group of designing shareholders to secure control of an annual meeting. It is a notorious fact that a few years ago one shareholder came to the meeting with over 250 proxies which he was entitled to vote. Half a dozen shareholders coming armed with a similar amount of proxies could at our annual meeting do Just as they pleased. Discussions have frequently taken place in the past at our annual meetings as to the advisability of doing away with proxy voting, and opinions have been expressed of the danger that lay in this system. This was particularly discussed at the annual meeting two years ago when the following resolution was unanimously passed:
"That in connection with By-law No. 51 dealing with the proposed amendments to the Act incorporating the Company, the Board of Directors are hereby instructed to take the necessary steps, and to use their fullest possible powers to have deleted from the charter those sections of the Act permitting proxy voting."
The above resolution was passed at the annual meeting held November 4, 1914.

By the substitution of delegate voting a great many more of the shareholders can be directly represented than is possible at the present time, the idea being that the shareholders, when formed into a local group, will have an organization as a group that would be registered in the head office books of the Company. They will meet once a year, or oftener, and select a delegate or delegates to represent them at the annual meeting. The expenses of the delegates to the meeting will be paid by the Company, and when they return to their locals they will be expected to report to the shareholders composing them the result of the Company's Annual Meeting, and to give them any information they can as to what business has been done in the past year. This is the same principle as that by which delegates are appointed to attend the Annual conventions of the Grain Growers' Associations and the United Farmers of Alberta.
As pointed out this is the form of government in the Alberta Farmers Co-operative and the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Companies. The Directors of the Alberta Farmers Cooperative Elevator Company are firmly convinced that it is a much superior method to that at present in practice in The Grain Growers' Grain Company, and your Directors are in unanimous agreement with them in this respect.
This is pant of the report made at the meeting of the Grain Growers' Association, and I think it covers the point.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I do not know whether I am in favour of this Bill or agaurst it, for I do not understand it. If some legal gentleman would tell us the effect of the changes proposed to be made in the by-laws by omitting certain words and inscribing others, we should know better what we are doing.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I am much in the same state of mind as the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham). I observe, for instance, that section 5 may be acted upon without section 6 toeing acted upon. That is, the company would have the power to abolish voting by proxy altogether without adopting any substitute, and if this were done shareholders would have to be present in person if they wished to have a share in the management, of the company. Personally, I should like to hear from the Chairman of the Private Bills Committee, by which the Bill has been considered, as to the effect of these changes and the reasons for them.


William Thomas White: 
George Perry Graham: As some words of the
old statute are omitted and others substituted, there should he some person to tell us what the old statute is and what the effects of each change will be. Otherwise, we are working in the dark.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Personally, I do not see the object of doing away with voting by proxy-the fact that the Company is a large one does not seem to me a sufficient reason, for there are many companies in the world much larger than this that vote by proxy. Under the Bill, power is given to the directors to vary the districts for which representatives shall be chosen. Is not that putting a great deal of power in the hands of the directors? They might not give proper notice of changes, and I think that provision should be made that notice shall be given before the districts are varied. I tried to follow the statement of the promoter of the Bill (Mr. Bradbury), but did not quite catch why this change from proxies to delegates is wanted.


Mr. BRADBURY:: The reasons were given by Mr. Orerar, the President of the Association, before the Private Bills Committee the other day. He seemed to convince the committee that everything was all right. He handed me the statement which I have read to this committee. The main reason why they want proxies done away with, I think, is because of the two companies with which they are amalgamating. Neither of these companies allow proxies and the Grain Growers are asking to be amalgamated with these two companies.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What are the other companies?


George Henry Bradbury: The Alberta Co-operative 'Elevator Company and the Grain Growers Company amalgamated with the Saskatchewan Co-operative Elevator Company and with the United Farmers.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Is not a delegate a proxy? What is the difference?


George Henry Bradbury: I presume that would
be so, but a delegate would be chosen at a meeting of shareholders.


George Perry Graham: A shareholder acting as a delegate will vote for a certain number of shareholders besides himself. Really he will have a proxy for the society he represents.


George Henry Bradbury: That question was asked and the understanding is that a delegate would only have one vote.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He will, not have a written proxy but he will represent a certain number of shareholders.


George Henry Bradbury: He will only have
one vote.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But every delegate having one vote will represent a number of others who would vote if there were proxies.


George Henry Bradbury: Perhaps. I think this will appeal to some hon. gentlemen who know how proxies work out at political conventions. It is really on the same principle. The proxies might come in the pocket of one man and the Grain Growers are trying to protect themselves against that sort of thing. However, I accept the suggestion of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think I should point out the principal reason why the Grain Growers Grain Company are asking for

this change in their form of Government in order to do away with proxy voting. There are over 18,000 shareholders. Each of these shareholders has a vote; that is a man with one share has the same voting power as a man with ten shares. There have not yet been at any of their annual or other meetings, I understand, over 300 shareholders out of 18,000. On one occasion a man came in with some 400 proxies. It would be the easiest matter in the world for three or four men to spend a little time or a little money, in writing for proxies, come to the annual meeting, vote the president and directors out of business, change the whole system and set aside the wishes of the great majority of shareholders. This has been found to work well in actual practice with the Saskatchewan Cooperative Elevator Company, another huge company, not connected with the Grain Growers Grain Company, but a company that handles between 10,000,000 and 20,000,000 bushels of wheat a year. They have some 230 elevators throughout Saskatchewan and applications are in for some 300 more. They adopt the same system in their government. The Alberta Co-operative Elevator Company also adopt the same principle, and it has been found to work very well. This request comes from the Grain Growers Grain Company, and it is based on a resolution passed unanimously by their directors. Personally, I think it is in the interest of the individual shareholders that this change in the government should be made, when you consider the fact that under the amalgamation their shareholders will extend from here to Banff. . While I think it is right, I am quite agreeable to the suggestion made by the hon. Minister of Finance that the matter should stand over until another day in case there is any real objection. At the present time I do not know of any real objection to it.


Arthur Meighen: Is the wording the same as in the provincial statutes, which enable them to appoint delegates for these two Alberta and Saskatchewan companies?


John Gillanders Turriff: I could not say.
Progress reported.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 40, to incorporate La Society des Artisans Canadiens Frangais.-Mr. Achim.
Bill No. 41, respecting The Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Currie.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. McKENZIE:: 1.	Is the Minister of Justice aware as to whether or not the Post Office Department excluded from the mails The Racing Form, published in the United States?
2.	Is the Government aware as to whether or not the said publication is finding its way into Canada through the agency of the express companies?
3.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Justice to take Such steps as may be necessary to prevent the coming into Canada of the said publication through the agency of the Express Companies ?


Mr. DOHERTY:: The Minister of
Justice has no information upon the subject of these questions except that upon inquiry of the Deputy Postmaster General he is informed that the attention of the Post Office Department was called to the fact that the Daily Racing Form was publishing racing tips, so-called stable information, and practicing other incitements to betting, and an order prohibiting the paper was therefore issued by the Post Office Department on 25th February, 1916. Subsequently, however, the publishers of the Daily Racing Form wrote to say that the issues which had been specially objected to as containing Tacing tips had been sent by mistake to Canadian subscribers; that the Canadian edition was not intended to contain advertisements of sellers of tips, and that it was the intention of the publishers to conform scrupulously to the terms of the Miller Bill as regards this Canadian edition. In view of this assurance the order prohibiting the paper was withdrawn. So far as known to the Post Office Department the promise has been faithfully lived up to, and there would now appear to be no reason under the post office regulations why this paper should be excluded from the Canadian mails. In view of the above information, the minister does not feel called upon to take any steps against this paper at present.


TREATMENT OF THOMAS KELLY IN PENITENTIARY.
Mr. MOLLOY:: 1.	Has Thomas Kelly, who is confined In the penitentiary In Manitoba for offences committed1 in Winnipeg in connection with contracts with the former Provincial Government there, been given any special treatment different from the other prisoners?
2.	If so, what are the concessions given him, and for what reason are they given?

3.	Has any request been made for his discharge?
4.	If so, what reasons are alleged why he should be discharged?
5.	What action has the Minister of Justice taken in respect to the request?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 1 and 2. When Kelly was received at the penitentiary the cutting of his hair, his criminal identification and his wearing of prison clothing was postponed upon the erroneous understanding that judicial proceedings were still pending affecting the finality of his sentence.. It was represented that he had considerable .business pending which required his personal direction, and for that reason his solicitors and members of his family were permitted to converse with him at reasonable times in the presence of the warden. He was in a very critical state of health as certified by the prison surgeon and by a consulting physician who was on that account called in upon the advice of the prison surgeon. For that reason his wife was permitted to provide a chair for him, and his diet was regulated according to the recommendation of the prison surgeon. When it was ascertained that there were no longer judicial proceedings pending affecting his case directions were given for his identification, hair cutting and prison clothing, but the execution of these was postponed upon the recommendation of the prison surgeon, who certified his belief that in view of Kelly's condition, bordering upon a complete nervous breakdown, any change in his treatment with regard to accommodation, diet, exercise, etc., would precipitate this threatened breakdown, and strongly advising in consideration of Kelly's health, no changes of treatment for the present. Subject to the above Kelly received no special treatment different from other prisoners, nor did the treatment which he so received differ from that which would have been accorded to other prisoners in the like condition.
3.	Yes.
4.	His advanced age; very bad state of his health; large family; two of his sons at the front; his expressed willingness to make restitution of any m.oney which it may be legally ascertained he is liable for; and that though he was sentenced on the 18th November last he has been imprisoned in connection with the offence, continuously since 1st October, 1915.
5.	Matter is awaiting receipt of further information, which steps have been taken to obtain, before it is submitted to Governor General.


HARBOUR MASTER OP QUEBEC.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	What is the salary of Captain Murray, Harbour Master of Quebec?
2.	What was the salary of his predecessor?


Mr. REID:: 1.	$3,500 per annum. Captain Murray up to the time of his appointment was master of the Canadian Pacific Railway liner Empress of Britain. He was selected for the position by reason of the special qualifications he was known to possess, and was appointed at the time extensive works were authorized in connection with the new organization of the Harbour Commission.
2.	$1,750 per annum.
CAPT. HOHLiOCODY.
* Mr. CARVELL:
1.	When was Captain Hollocody appointed by the Quebec Harbour Commission?
2.	What are his functions?
3.	What is his salary?


John Dowsley Reid: 1,	2 and 3. The Quebec Harbour Commissioners, with whom the appointment of a harbour master for that port rests, have advised the Department of Marine and Fisheries that no such man as Captain Hollocody is in their employ, and there is no record of such man ever having been employed by that commission.


POSTMASTER AT STEEUARTON, N.S.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	When was W. G. Miller made postmaster of Stellarton, N.S. ?
2.	Is he a returned soldier?
3.	Why was the change made in the postmastership from Alex. Inglis to W. G. Miller?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	13th March. 1917.
2.	No.
3.	It became necessary to make a change in the postmastership owing to the conduct of the postmaster. The postmaster was guilty of .tampering with correspondence passing through his office. The post office inspector reported that it was not possible to receive any reply to communications sent from his office on official matters, and it was only by writing to the assistant postmaster that results could possibly be obtained. He was reported to the department as openly insubordinate both to the public and to the department. His failure to recognize the sacredness of correspondence passing through his office and his refusal to answer official correspondence in regard to matters pertaining to the department con-



stitutes an insubordination which it was impossible to gloss over and the postmaster was changed.


PASPEBIAC WHARF.
Mr. MARC IL:: 1.	Has any work been done by the Department of Public Works on the wharf at Paspe-biac, Quebec, belonging to Robin, Jones and Whitman?
2.	If so, what was the nature of the work, and the cost of same?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Repairs, (b) In 1914 planks were renewed at a cost of $98.54, and $15.75 was paid for the transportation and installation of a pile driver.


SHIGAWAKE POST OFFICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is a new Post Office being opened in Shigawake, Township of Hope, Bonaventure County, or has one been lately opened there?
2.	If so, at whose request, where is the office situated, and who is the postmaster?
3.	What is the distance between the new office and existing offices?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Yes, a new post office has been authorized under the name of " Shigawake East.'
2.	(a) Mr. D. Champoux. Ob) On lot 356, Front Concession No. 1, township of Hope, (c) Mr. W. D. Sullivan.
3.	(a) If miles east of Shigawake. Ob) 3 miles west of Port Daniel West.


NEW RICHMOND WEST POST OFFICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	On what date was the New Richmond West Post Office re-opened?
2 How long had it been closed?
3.	On whose report, or at whose request was
it re-opened?	.
4.	What is the nature of the service given
at that office?


Esioff-Léon Patenaude: The New Richmond West post office was closed on the 14th February, 1916, and has not since 'been reopened.


ST. CHARLES DE CAPLAN WHARF.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the public wharf at St. Charles de Caplan, Quebec, been damaged lately by ice?
2.	If so, to what extent, and when will such damage be repaired?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) About $2,500 will repair the damage. (b) As soon as Parliament has voted the necessary appropriation.


MARIA BEACH PROTECTION.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	What was the total amount expended on the work for the protection of the beach at Maria, Quebec (a) previous to 1911, and (b) since that date, respectively?
2.	Is the work completed'?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the Government to go on with the uncompleted part of the work?


Mr. REID:: 1. (a) $1,916.13; (b) $2,398.98.
2	and. 3. The work is completed.


RUISSEAU LE BLANC BREAKWATER.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	What amount of money has been spent on the breakwater at Ruisseau le Blanc, Bonaventure County, since 1911?
2.	How much, if any, of the said work has been carried away by the ice and tide?
3.	How much of this work, if any, is still to be completed?


John Dowsley Reid: i
1.	$4,985.99.
2.	No information that any part has been carried away.
3.	This work is completed.


PAYMENTS TO SIR CHARLES DAVIDSON.
*Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	What is the annual amount paid to Sir Charles P. Davidson of Montreal, as pension as retired Judge of the Superior Court?
2.	What amount, if any, did he receive as a Commissioner since his appointment by the Dominion Government?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1. $8,000.
2. So far as Department of Justice is aware, $5,225 as Commissioner re Army Contracts.


Mr. PAPINEAU:: 1.	Has Sir Charles P. Davidson been paid anything by the Government as Commissioner entrusted with the inquiry on war contracts since 1st December, 1915, to 1st April, 1917?
2.	If so, how muoh has he received as fees or remuneration and expenses, respectively?^
3.	Have all the claims requested by him been granted or settled?


Charles Joseph Doherty: 1 and 2. Yes. $1,000 on account of fees.
3.	Final settlement has not yet been made. PAYMENTS TO HON. MR. DOHERTY. Mr. LANCTOT:
1 What is the total amount received by the Hon. Mr. Doherty, Minister of Justice, since 190S for his pension as a retired Judge; as a member of the House of Commons and as Minister of Justice, respectively?


William Thomas White: The Hon. Mr. Doherty has received the amounts authorized by the statute in each case.


ELROSE MAIL &quot;SERVICE.
Mr. McCRANEY:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department received any correspondence with reference to the establishment of a Mail Car service on the Elrose branch of the Canadian Northern Railway, Province of Saskatchewan?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to grant a Mail Car service on this line?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 1.	Yes, a petition-was received from the patrons of the different offices asking for the establishment of a mail car service on this branch of the Canadian Northern railway.
2.	Authority has been given for the placing of a mail car service on this line. As soon as the necessary arrangements can be made the new service will be inaugurated.


ST. JEROME POST OFFICE.
Mr. ETHIER:: 1.	Was the Minister of Public Works authorized to spend a certain amount for improvements and embellishment of the post office site in the town of St. Jerome, Terrebonne County, Quebec ?
2.	If so, when was the amount voted, and how ,much did it amount to?
3.	How much of this amount has been spent to date, and for what purpose?
4.	Out of the total vote, how much has the Government spent from May, 1915, to date?
5.	Have the projected improvements and embellishments been finished? If not, why?
6.	Will they soon be completed?


John Dowsley Reid: 1 and 2. Yes; a vote for |1,400 was granted through the Main Estimates for 1914-15 to -complete grading of grounds, etc.
3.	Pilling $648, levelling $334.21, grading $380.40, trees $35; $1,397.61. The cost of the retaining wall on the river front was paid out of the General Vote fox Quebec Dominion Buildings. -
4.	$35 for trees.
5 and 6. The -improvements have been finished.


LOUISEVILDE POST OFFICE.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Who recommended Mr. Bourque, of Hull, as contractor for the construction of the post office at Louisevil'le?
2.	Has Mr. Bellemare, member for the County of Maskinonge, where this post office is situated, given a letter of recommendation In favor of Mr. Bourque?


John Dowsley Reid: 1 and 2. No one; only one tender was received after public advertisement, that of Mr. Bourque, and the contract was awarded to him. There is no letter from Mr. Bellemare recommending that the contract be awarded to Mr. Bourque.
57 i
BUTTER AND CHEESE PURCHASES. Mr. BOYER:
1.	What quantity of butter and cheese has been bought by the Government of Canada for the British Government?
2.	What dates were these purchases made?
3.	What are the names of the parties who have acted on behalf of the Government in the matter of said purchases?
4.	What was the price paid the producers for each purchase of butter and cheese?
5.	What commission, if any, has been paid to or drawn by the Government agents for their services?


Mr. BURRELL:: ' 1. None.
2, 3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.


TRAINING CAMPS IN CANADA.
Mr. McCOIG:: 1.	How many Military Training Camps does the Government own in Canada?
2.	How many acres of land does each camp contain?
3.	How many are in use for training purposes at the present time?
4.	Has the Government taken any steps to produce food stuff on any of these lands not being used for training purposes?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	The Government owns fifteen military training camps in Canada.
2.	The acreage of each is as follows:
Ontario-Barriefield	(including rifle
range), 581-79 acres; Borden, 14,872-6 acres; Niagara (Ft. Mississauga and Ft. George), 421 acres; Niagara (Camp ground and rifle range), 380 acres, London, 80-73 acres; Feta-wawa, 70,400 acres.
Quebec-Three Rivers rifle range site, 307-48 acres; Valcartier, 12,480 acres; Farn-ham, 1,318-44 acres; Levis, 1,308-69 acres.
Nova Scotia-Kentville (Aldershot), 966-66 acres.
New Brunswick-Sussex, 300 acres. Manitoba Camp Hughes, 89,400 acres. Saskatchewan Area set aside for training purposes, 69,269-3 acres.
Alberta Area set aside for training purposes-, 65,120 acres.
Note.-Calgary Camp (Sarcee Indian Reserve).
3.	Aldershot, N. S., Camp Borden, Ont., are in use by the Imperial Government for Royal Flying Corps. Camps are not in use generally, as weather is considered too cold.
4.	No. It has not yet been decided to what extent these, camp grounds will be required during 1917.


IMMIGRATION FORMS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1. Is the Minister of Interior aware that Form 23, which is handed to passengers com-

ing to Canada from New York, Boston or other United States points by the railroad officials, is not printed in French?
2.'Will the minister kindly give the necessary instructions to the department so that said Form 23 be printed in both languages?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Department has been instructed to print Form 23 in both languages.


PICTOU RURAL ROUTES.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 1 How many rural mail routes have been opened in the County of Pictou since January 1, 1916?
2.	Where are these routes?
3.	Who are the contractors in each case?
4.	What is the amount paid to each contractor?	.	,	. .
5.	What Post Offices have been closed in the County during the same period?


Mr. PATENAUDE:: 
FALSE CREEK DREDGING.
Mr. KYTE:: 1.	How much has been paid the Pacific Dredging Company for work performed at False Creek, Vancouver, to date?
2.	When was said Company incorporated?
3.	Who is its President?
4.	Who is its Secretary?


Mr. REID:: 1.	$796,070.57.
2.	No information.
3 and 4. tOomtracit was signed Iby John Lynn Davidson, President, and Stuart Cameron, Secretary.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What amount has been spent on the Hudson Bay Railway and approaches thereto in the Bay, since January 1, 1912?
2.	Is the work going on?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	$17,790,587.74.
2.	Yes.
UNIFORM INTEREST ON JUDGMENTS. Mr. BUCHANAN:
1.	Has the Government been asked to fix by statute a uniform interest rate of six per cent per annum on judgments in all the Western Provinces?
2.	Has the Government taken any action on this request?
3.	If not, does it purpose doing so?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Legislation fixing a uniform rate is under consideration.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

['It includes all.\nOn the motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.', 'Tuesday, May 1, 1917.']
Mr. BOULAY:: .
1.	How many Americans have enrolled in Canadian Regiments since the commencement of the War?
2.	How many natives of the British Isles are
so enrolled in Canada since the 1st of August 1914?	'


[".\n1.\tHow many Americans have enrolled in Canadian Regiments since the commencement of the War?\n2.\tHow many natives of the British Isles are\nso enrolled in Canada since the 1st of August 1914?\t'"]
Mr. SINCLAIR:: For a copy of all correspondence in the Department of Public Works bearing date after September 1, 1915, relating to wharves, breakwaters and other public works in the County of Guysborough, Nova Scotia.


John Howard Sinclair: For a copy of all correspondence in the possession of the Department of Public Works bearing date after September 1, 1915, relating to wharves, breakwaters and other public works situate ' in the County of Antigonish, Nova Scotia.


Mr. HUGHES:: For a copy of the correspondence between the Prime Minister and the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence, which led to the latter's resignation or dismissal from the Government.


Mr. BOYER:: 
Gustave Benjamin Boyer: For a copy of all letters, petitions, correspondence and telegrams exchanged between the Government, the District Engineer, and any other person^ concerning either the construction, repairing or purchase of the wharves at lie Perrot South, the Church in the village of lie Perrot, Village of Vaudreuil, Pointe Cavignale, Hudson, Rigaud, Graham, Pointe Fortune and lie Perrot North, since 1904. Also a copy of all specifications and reports already brought down at my request in relation to above prior to, and since 1904, giving a statement of the amounts that have been paid for such construction or repairs, showing to whom they were paid.


Gustave Benjamin Boyer: For a copy of all letters, petitions, correspondence and telegrams exchanged between the Government, the resident engineer and all other persons concerning the dredging work done at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Pointe Fortune, Ottawa River Channel between He au Foin and lie Paquin, Graham channel, Rigaud channel, Hudson Heights channel, lie Perrot Church, lie Perrot South wharf and lie Perrot North wharf, since 1904. Also a statement showing the amounts paid to different persons or companies for such work, giving the dates of payment, along with a copy of the estimates already brought down at my request regarding the above, previous to 1904.


Gustave Benjamin Boyer: For a copy of all letters, petitions, correspondence, telegrams and reports exchanged between the Government, the resident engineer and all other persons, concerning the construction and repairing done to the wharves at lie Perrot North, South and at the Church ; Village of Vaudreuil, Pointe Cavagnale, Hudson, Graham, Rigaud and Pointe Fortune since 1904. Also a copy of all data and reports regarding above already produced at my request relating to documents prior to 1904, showing the amounts of money paid for such construction and repairing, and to whom paid.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams and other documents relative to Stellarton Post Office, Pictou County, and any changes or proposed changes in the Postmastership at that place.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: For a copy of all letters, papers, telegrams and other documents relative to the establishment of the Canadian Government Railway Employees magazine, showing the circulation thereof, the cost of production, receipts, and the persons employed in connection therewith, giving a statement of the amount received by said persons from the Railway in any capacity.


Mr. KYTE:: For a copy of the applications for Arbitration Boards made to the Labour Department by the Provincial Workman's Association or its officers and the United Mines Workmen of Nova Scotia or its officers. Also a copy of all letters, copies of letters and other documents relating to this matter, along with all letters, papers, other documents and Orders in Council relative to the appointment of a Commission to investigate labour and other conditions in the County of Cape Breton.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams and documents relative to the purchase of land in Vancouver, B.C., for the purpose of an armoury, since January 1, 1913.



John Gillanders Turriff: That, in the opinion of this House, the necessary legislation should be enacted to provide that members of the House of Commons should be elected by a system of proportional representation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a good deal of hesitation that I bring this subject to the attention of the House, particularly for the reason that when a member brings up a motion of this kind he should be better posted on the subject than I am.
This subject is coming very much to the front in all democratic countries. Not only in the British Isles, but in the overseas dominions as well, the matter is being discussed and in many of the British dependencies the principle of proportional representation is being adopted. Even in Canada a good deal has already been accomplished. In the city of^ Ottawa a few years ago a vote was taken on the subject as applied to the elections for the city government, and on that occasion a majority of two to one declared itself in favour of proportional representation. Application was made to the Ontario Legislature that the city charter be so amended as to permit the application of the principle, but so far that has not been done. In Alberta the United Farmers elect their officers under the principle of proportional representation, and the city of Calgary has passed the necessary legislation to enable it to use the system in electing its municipal government.
This question is absolutely free from political bias. The adoption of a system of proportional representation would have no effect on the standing of the parties, except, possibly, that both parties might lose a few members, due to the fact that other groups of thought throughout the country would be enabled to elect a certain number of representatives to the House. I know that this subject is one that the average member is not very fam-
4	p.m. iliar with. I knew nothing whatever about it until two months ago, when I decided to bring the matter up.
I have spent some little time looking into it, and it might be just as well for me to endeavour to explain to the House what proportional representation would involve.
The object of proportional representation is that the majority should rule in every case, that the minority should be represented in the House in proportion to its support throughout the country, and that any considerable body of opinion-labour socialists, our nationalist friends, or the farmers-would, if they felt that no other party carried out their views, be enabled to elect to the House a number of members in proportion to their strength.
In order to bring about proportional representation certain methods have to be adopted. First of all, you have to do away with the single-member constituency. You cannot have proportional representation as long as you have constituencies that return only one member to the House, or two members, as in the case of Ottawa. It would >be necessary to arrange the present constituencies ingroups of three, five, seven, nine, or any number which might be deemed expedient. From what I have read, I -think that five or seven of the constituencies as arranged at present would form the ideal constituency for purposes of proportional representation.
Many members of the House may be more familiar with the subject than I am, and all that I expect to accomplish at the present time is this: -after there has been a debate I would consider it advisable that -a committee be appointed to look into the matter and report to the House. I do not desire or anticipate that the principle of proportional representation should be applied at the next Dominion election, nor do I consider that it would be advisable to go so fast as to adopt proportional representation for the whole of Canada at the next following Dominion election. If the committee should investigate the matter and

report that the present system is not altogether satisfactory and that some improvements could he made by adopting a system of proportional representation, then it might be advisable before the second election comes round to do what they are now doing in Great Britain-adopt it in certain cases; apply it to large cities or to groups of constituencies that are not too large and where the population is somewhat dense.
The method of voting under a system of proportional representation is not an untried one.
Proportional representation has been in force in many European countries and in some of our own British overseas dominions, and in no case where that system of one man, one vote has been tried, has it been abandoned and the old system brought in again. There may be one exception to that statement. The system was tried in the municipalities of Australia, although not in the form that is usually adopted now, and I understand that it was not continued, but that is the only case of that kind that I ever heard of. In order to carry out a system of proportional representation, four or five of the present con-stituences would be joined together, one of the advantages of the system being that a candidate does not require to secure a majority of the votes in that large constituency. As an illustration, let us suppose that Ottawa, with its two seats, and the counties of Carleton and Russell were joined together, four ridings to elect four members. Were it not for the dividing line of the Ottawa river between the two provinces, I would add the county of Wright to make five; but let us take the four, and let us suppose that 20,000 votes were cast in those four ridings. All that any candidate has to get to be elected will be one-fifth of that vote plus one, because there are only four men who can get 4,001 out of 20,000 votes.


George Perry Graham: That one shuts them
out.


John Gillanders Turriff: The short system
adopted to ascertain the number of votes necessary to elect a candidate is to add one to the number of seats, divide the number of votes cast by that and add one to the result. Under proportional representation, the system of marking the ballot is somewhat different from what it is at present. The ballot would be printed with the names of all the candidates. In a constituency such as I have described, including Ottawa, Carleton and Russell, there
would be four Liberal eondidates, no doubt, four Conservatives, and there would also likely be a labour candidate, a socialist candidate, a Nationalist candidate or an Imperialist candidate. There might be several different groups of thought throughout the constituency and they would each nominate their candidate.
Hon. CHAS. MARCIL: What abou,t women candidates?


John Gillanders Turriff: There might be some
women candidates. I hope to see the present Government shortly adopt the principle of equal suffrage, and in that case we may have some women candidates, but let us leave that out of the question at the present time. Under proportional representation every vote counts; no man loses his vote. Let us say that in this four-seated constituency of Ottawa, Carleton and Russell, my leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, is one of the Liberal candidates, his right hand man, Mr. Graham, another candidate, Mr. Lemieux the third candidate and Mr. Murphy, the present member for Russell, the fourth candidate.


George Perry Graham: Those would be all the candidates you would need.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am sure my hon.
friends on the other side would have four candidates (also, including doubtless Sir Robert Borden; and Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden being the leaders of their respective parties, there is no doubt that both of them would poll many more first-choice votes than the necessary quota. Out of 20,000, they would require only 4,001. Sir Wilfrid Laurier might easily poll 6,000 votes, or 2,000 more than he required. My hon. friend Mr. Graham-


George Perry Graham: I would need votes in Carleton.


John Gillanders Turriff: -might not get very many votes in Carleton, and he would require a few extra votes. This is the way in which that would be remedied. Each man has four choices. He marks on the ballot the figure one after his first choice, the figure two after his second choice, the figure three after his third choice, and the figure four after his fourth choice. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, we will say, gets 6,000 votes, or two thousand more than he requires. After Sir Wilfrid Laurier was declared elected, the balance of the votes over 6,000 would be divided amongst the other candidates. One-third of the ballots on which Mr. Graham was marked second choice.


S04 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
would go to him. For instance, if there were 1,000 ballots marked Mr. Graham for second choice, 333 votes would be credited to him, and if that was sufficient to elect him, well and good. But if Mr. Graham' had received 4 001 ballots on which he was marked first choice, he would be declared elected, and the balance over and above the number of votes necessary to elect Sir Wilfrid Laurier would go to the next choice, Mr. Lemieux or Mr. Murphy, and so on down through the whole list, the over-plus, after one man was elected, being transferred to the next man; and similarly with the Conservative candidates.
In a constituency such as I have described, the labour men would be able to elect at least one man if 4,000 voters or anything like that number, marked the labour man as their first choice. If the labour candidate -was short a few hundred votes, he might still be elected by the ballots on - which he was marked as second or third or even fourth choice. In discussing this question, people have occasionally asked me, what better off should we be if we had in the House more labour men, or Socialists or Independents, instead of representatives of the two big parties that have always ruled in this country, Liberals and Conservatives? Well, my idea is this, and I think my right hon. leader would -agree with me if he were here, and the Prime Minister also-, or any other man who has had experience in governing in Canada. I think it would be better for the people of Canada, and immeasurably better for the Government, whichever party happened to be in power, if instead of having a certain amount of dissatisfied public opinion throughout * the Dominion, which never in the ,past has found itself properly represented in proportion to ite strength in our legislatures or on the floor of this House-in my opinion it would be better to have that body of opinion represented in the House, rather than remain unrepresented and dissatisfied outside, because all who have been any time in the House know there is no place like the House of Commons to rub the corners off a man, and where a man of extreme views so quickly finds hie level; it does not take them very long to find out what can and what cannot be done by Parliament. If the labour party were represented -in this House according to its strength in the country, if instead of having one labour man in this House, we had ten., I am quite satisfied that it would, be of advantage to the House and of advantage to the labour party, 
because they would soon find out that it was not the easiest thing in the world with the legislative machinery we have at present to put their theories all into practice.
There are other advantages in this system, and one of the main ones is this: proportional representation in my judgment would strike a heavy blow, a body blow, to bribery and corruption in elections, and for this reason. We all know that in singlemember constituencies where the vote is close and the majority around one or two hundred, particularly in the older-settled parts of the .country, the politics of the voters is pretty well fixed; yon can generally tell about how many Liberal and how many Conservative votes there will be at any election. In a constituency like that it is possible for some interests, or a combination of interests., who were able to swing say one hundred or two hundred votes, probably one hundred votes would be sufficient, to go to a candidate and say: "You only have a narrow margin, but if you will vote in our interests on certain lines, or vote against certain other interests, we will swing our full support in your favour. If not, we will vote against you." Under proportional representation that kind, of thing could not be done to anything like the same extent, and the candidate would be freed from that sort of pressure. That, to my mind, would be one very, very great advantage. Under proportional representation, if I have sized it up correctly, you would get a better class of candidates. Lots of good men have been kept out of politics for the simple reason that they did not want the strenuous work of fighting a close election, with all the unpleasantness that it involves. But in a five or seven-member constituency a big man who was well known in the district might put up as a candidate, because if five members were to. be elected he would only require one-sixth of the. vote, plus one, or if seven were to be elected one-eighth of the vote plus one, and that would do away with the necessity of making a close personal canvass like many of us have to make at the present time, because every one of us has to get one more than half the total number of votes .polled to be elected. But under proportional representation, where only a percentage of the vote is required to elect a man, yon would get a better class of candidates, and that would be to the advantage of the electors, and of advantage to the country as a whole.
Proportional representation would also do away with certain anomalies that exist

at the present time, but before dealing with that I will take up one or two other objections that are sometimes made. One objection is that under proportional representation the parties in Parliament would be very evenly divided. That is true, you would have it more evenly divided than at the present time. But in every case you would have the majority ruling. We are not exempt from the possibility of a very even division of the House under the present system. In the province of Ontario a comparatively few years ago, the Hardy Government was returned by a very small majority. When the late Sir George Ross became Prime Minister and went to the country, he had a majority of only three, as I recollect it, and yet he held office for several years. And we see the same thing to-day. In the province of New Brunswick there is a very small majority-
Mr. CARVELL:: It is big enough.


John Gillanders Turriff: My own opinion is that we have better government when the majority is not too large, whatever party may be in power.


George Perry Graham: The majority in New Brunswick is bigger than that in Prince Edward Island.


John Gillanders Turriff: But under the present system we face the possibility of a still worse evil, for you may have a majority in the House when that majority is representative of an actual minority of the popular vote. This could not happen under proportional representation; it is one of the anomalies that this reform would do away with.
This is not a new proposal. It was brought up in this House by the late Mr. Monk, who was a very ardent supporter of proportional representation. The late Sir Richard Cartwright was also strongly in favour of this reform, and made a speech on the subject in the Senate, of which he was then a member. Sir Richard Cartwright gave some very striking instances of small majorities in the country being represented by large majorities in the House. He said:
Let me suppose that one side controls 100,000 voters, and the other side controls 90,000, and that there are 190 representatives to be elected. It is perfectly just and right, it. appears to me, that 100,000 voters should return 100 representatives, and that those who control 90,000 should return 90 representatives; but it is not fair that those who control 100,000 voters should return 150 representatives, and that those who control 90,000 should return but 40. Yet that is what I have seen.
He then gives the following table:
Statement showing the total Liberal and total Conservative vote in the Province of Ontario in the Commons general elections for the years 1882, 1887, 1891, 1896 and 1900 :
Total Vote.	Majority	Members Elected.	Year.	Lib.	Con.	Per Cent.	Lib.	Con.1882	131,618	132,615	1 of 1	37	551887	170,371	174,080	1	40	52>1891	179,451	175,639	1	44	481896	185,415	179,181	Nearly 2	48	441900	193,417	199,138	U	37	55
So it will be seen that our present system, while it has worked fairly well in a general way, may result in very great anomalies. This misrepresentation in .the House of the votes cast in the country has not been onesided by any means, for in many cases the Liberals have had the advantage. The year I entered this House, 1904, our friends came up from Nova Scotia with eighteen members, -and not a single Conservative, .though the Conservatives had polled one-third of the votes. Had we had proportional representation the members from Nova Scotia would have been twelve Liberals and six Conservatives, and I am sure that everybody will agree, whether on .this side of the House or on the other, that it would have been much better to have had the parties in Nova Scotia represented in proportion to their voting strength. Look at the present representation of the province from Which I come. Saskatchewan. We on this side have nine out of ten of the members elected from that province. Nobody will say that on the basis of the votes cast we are entitled to nine members and the Conservatives to only one. Had we voted under the proportional representation system the returns would have 'been about three Conservatives to seven Liberals. And the same is practically true of Alberta. But when we come to British Columbia we find that in this same election of 1911 our friends on the other side of the House elected seven members, and we did not elect one. Were the Liberals of that province fairly represented we should have on this side of the House at least two or three members from that province. It would be much better if there were two or three Liberals from British Columbia and three or four Conservatives from Alberta and Saskatchewan. There would be a better representation all around.
I could read many more figures on this phase of the question, but I think I have read enough to make the point clear that under our present system parties are not represented in accordance with the popular vote. Now, I may he asked where propor-

tional representation is in operation. Let me read one paragraph from a little journal called Representation, one of the issues of the year 1908:-
It cannot be too often impressed upon politicians at home that, in one form or another, proportional representation is in force in Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Wurtemiberg, Japan, Cuba, and Tasmania.
I may say that in Finland, while they have constituencies electing as few as three members, there is one constituency that elects twenty-three members. And, of course, the larger the constituency the more exact the representation, for there is less waste, in the division of the vote. Then, in addition, when the Government in Great Britain, a few years ago, was struggling with the Bill to give Home Rule to Ireland, it was found that there would be difficulty because in the southern part of Ireland, where the Nationalists are in force, in a single member constituency, thp Unionists would not get in at all. They would not have a single member from the southern portion of Ireland. Practically the same thing would occur in some of the northern portions of Ireland; the Unionists would have absolute control where they were in the majority and the Nationalist would not have a looK-in. Therefore, you would have Ireland divided north and south. The British Government, seeing the difficulty there, adopted the principle of proportional representation for the election of senators in Ireland. I am speaking now subject to correction because I have not followed this very closely, but I have been told that later on, when it was expected that the Bill was going to be put in force, it was amended so that the principle of proportional representation should be applied to the election of members of the Legislature as well as to the election of senators. '	[DOT]


An hon. MEMBER:: What Bill is that?


John Gillanders Turriff: The Home Rule Bill that has not yet been put into force. But what is far more important, to my mind, as showing the trend of public opinion in Great Britain even at the present time with all the troubles of the great war on their hands, is that the whole subject of elections has been dealt with and dealt with very vigorously by a committee known -as the Speaker's -Committee and this committee has been selected to represent the Liberals, the Unionists, the Nationalists

and the Laborites-the two -main parties and the two main groups. They have brought in a report. I have a copy of that report under my hand. This was a conference on electoral reform and I have here the findings of that committee. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that outside of the question of proportional representation, they have brought in a very drastic report, a report that is of a very radical character when you consider the present existing conditions in Great Britain. This committee represented all the parties in the House of Commons. It is expected that the report will be adopted by Parliament and that in the next election in Great Britain the principle of proportional representation will be applied to a considerable extent. They deal with the metropolitan district excluding the city of London. Well, the city of London proper is only a email constituency a mile square which elects two members. They say:
For the purpose of this rule the Metropolis, (excluding the city of London,) shall be treated as a single area and divided into constituencies returning not less than three nor more than five members.
The Metropolis, as I understand, returns some fifty odd members and now they will all, with the exception of the city proper, which returns two members, be elected under the proportional representation system. They further say:
Provided that constituency entitled to return more than five members shall be divided into two or more constituencies each returning not less than three nor more than five members.
That is in the largo counties that return a number of members and in which the population is somewhat dense. I am perfectly well aware that it has been argued, and argued with -some force, that England is a small country geographically as compared with ou-rs and is densely populated and that what might work very satisfactorily in Great Britain -might not wprk -satisfactorily here. Personally, I would not like to see proportional representation put suddenly into force all over Canada. I think that would -be going -too fast. I would like to see it tried in a district represented by a number of members; try it, for instance, in the city of Ottawa.


George Perry Graham: Try it in Toronto.


John Gillanders Turriff: In Toronto, Montreal,
Winnipeg, Vancouver, 'St. John or any ,of the large cities. It could be tried out there and if it is found to -work well then it might be adapted to other constituencies.

Another objection lias been raised that it would be expensive for the candidate. I do not believe that. I represent a considerable area. Personally I would like to see Saskatchewan divided into three constituencies, a southern with five -seats, a central with six seats and a northern with five seats. I would much rather campaign the whole of the -southern portion of Saskatchewan -containing five constituencies, s.ome of them very large, and I could do it on a good deal less money than it costs me to canvass one local constituency as closely as you have to canvass it if you want to he sure pi election.


Mr. WILOOX:: How much does it cost
you now?	.


John Gillanders Turriff: Seventy-eight dollars.


Mr. M. CLARK:: No, cents.


John Gillanders Turriff: Leave it at that. As to the matter of cost, I feel sure that the objection is not a good one. We do know *that where there is a big constituency we have to spend months in driving around either in livery rigs or in automobiles. I do not know whether my Ron. friends on this and the other side of the House have had the same experience with liveries as I have had but they are very expensive in election times when you are driving around and going to meetings. I am satisfied that in a large constituency, composed of three or five of the present constituencies, any candidate could canvass it fully as cheaply, and in my judgment, more cheaply than the present single member constituency. I do not think that the objection is a very valid one. Another objection, and I think possibly it has more to it than the one I have ju-s-t dealt with, is that the candidate could not become so well -acquainted with the electors in a three or four constituency seat. That is an objection but I think that most men representing a large constituency geographically do not know anything like all the electors as it is. Then, instead of having .one man around a constituency, you would have three or five candidates on each side and others besides. So that the electors would become more conversant with the questions of the day in constituencies where there were half a dozen or a dozen candidates canvassing than where there were only two. Another thing that has been urged against the system is that it would affect party Government. Well, I have read everything I can get my hands on in this connection, and to my mind the great bulk of the argument is
exactly the other way. It would not affect party Government at all; the parties would remain just the same, except that I think the two main parties would be somewhat less numerous in the House, and there would be groups that might affiliate with one or the other, and that in my judgment would not be a bad thing for the country. It is absolutely non-political in that respect.
The objection that I think would appeal more than anything else to the general public is that you could not get the returns of the elections on the night of the election as quickly as we get them at the present time. If you had large constituencies electing five members, in all probability it would be the next day before you would have the final returns. I have here an account of a test election taken in Great Britain, in which something over 21,000 votes were east, and in six hours they had the returns completed absolutely. In very large constituencies like Manchester, where there would be 70,000 votes cast, it was suggested that they would have all the returns completed within twenty-four hours. Thus the delay in getting the final returns would probably be one day. I think that is not a very serious matter, and that it would be better to wait for one day for final returns if, by waiting for that day, you had a better election and a better representation. So that that objection, to my mind, although it is the most serious that has been raised, is not by any means a grave objection. I have a number of leaflets illustrating how a test election is held, and shall be glad to give one to any member who wishes to examine further into the subject. There is no doubt that when you first look at the system it appears very complicated. But if you handed the rules of the game of baseball to a man unacquainted with that game, they would look very complicated to him. I admit that it looked very complicated to me when I first looked into it two or three months ago; but- the more I have examined it and the more familiar I have become with the working out of the scheme, the more simple I have found it. In Tasmania they have a local Legislature of thirty members, and since 1896 those members have all been elected under the proportional system of representation I am here advocating, one man oue vote, a transferable vote. They have tested this scheme and have found it to work very well. They have there three different systems of electing members. They elect their members to the Federal House by the or-

dinary system of the single constituency, such as we have here. It has been found that there are fewer spoiled ballots with proportional representation than with single constituencies, so that the objection that the system is too complicated does not hold at all. In Belgium they have found that this system works extremely well, and they would not think of going back to the old system.
I would suggest to my hofi. friend who is leading the House (Sir Thomas White) that if he thinks the subject is worthy of any further consideration it might be advisable to appoint a committee and gather information on it. There is a proportional representation association in the city of Ottawa that is capable of supplying a great deal of information, and any committee of this House that might be appointed would be able to get all the information necessary. I know that if we had a committee the association in the Old Country would probably be willing to send a man over to explain the system; but that would not be necessary as I think there are men here who have for years been working in connection with this matter of proportional representation and who could give all the information that could be desired, and all that would be necessary to enable us to come to- a conclusion whether or not it would be a good thing for Canada to try to bring about a change. It might be that after looking into this question a committee might decide that it would be better not to adopt the new scheme, that there would not be sufficient virtue in it to make it worth while changing the system. There is no doubt that it is quite a serious matter to change the whole method of electing members of Parliament. I leave the matter with the House, and my hon. friend who leads the House (Sir Thomas White) will decide whether or not it is desirable to go further with the matter.


Hon.   S@: general way; we do not get down to details. There is a rough judgment of the electorate upon the Government of the day and upon the Opposition as they are viewed by the electorate, and the result is that the Government is sustained or the Government is defeated. One naturally inquires, in connection with the subject, what would be the advantage of departing from the present system and adopting the system of proportional representation. By our present system, under the British North America Act, there is a fixed number of representatives returned from each province, the basis being the population as determined by the decennial census and having relation to the fixed numbeT of 65 provided by the constitution for the province of Quebec. The anomalies of our system are many; the defects are many. In a city such as Toronto or Montreal you may have a representative with a constituency of 100,000 or 150,000 people; on the other hand, you may have a constituency of only a few thousand in population returning its member to the House of Commons. The result is an inequality of representation, although I believe there is a great deal to be said for the rural part of the community having a greater representation, in proportion to population, than the cities, and that principle, I think, has been generally recognized in connection with the question of representation in the House of Commons. Undet our system, as I have pointed out, the public affairs of the country and of every department thereof are pretty thoroughly discussed in Parliament. Every section is represented. One would naturally like to see a more equal representation, but that is not something to be accomplished at an early date, because changes of this nature, very far reaching in their character, are not likely to be brought about suddenly. Any change involving disturbance in .the limits of constituencies and the representation of those constituencies must, like an organic change, come very slowly, that is, having regard to practical considerations of which we must never lose sight. The public, after all, are not governed very much by academic arguments; it is practical considerations that appeal to them. They seldom take or support a step until the wisdom of it is clearly seen and appreciated.
My hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) has mentioned that he thinks it is an advantage for a Government to have a small majority. I do not agree, and I doubt if many men in this House agree with him in that. On the one hand, I think it would be a great mis-
fortune if an opposition should be unduly weak; on the other, I think it would be a misfortune that a Government should have an overwhelming majority. But that a Government should have a substantial working majority is essential to government in a country such as ours. A Government that is dependent upon merely two or three votes for a majority is at the mercy of conditions that do not make for good government. The two extremes are objectionable; the medium, a good substantial working majority, is the thing to be desired.
This question was brought up in the House, I understand, in the session of 1909 at the instance of the late Hon. Mr. Monk. It was debated at some length, and finally referred to a select committee of the House. I have made inquiry, but I have not been able to ascertain that the committee held any meetings, much less made any study or investigation into the subject. That showed that there was not a very great deal of interest in the subject at that time, and I think there must necessarily be still less interest in it at this time when we are engaged in a war that is engrossing our attention and absorbing our energies from day to day. As the matter, however, is one that is attracting a great deal of attention and has many strong advocates, I see no objection to the appointment of a select committee, provided that my hon. friend thinks that course is advisable. For myself, if I were bringing the matter to the attention of the House, I should be content at this time, with a war on, and with the House engaged as it is, with bringing the subject to the attention of the House and having it discussed. If my hon. friend desires that a select committee should be appointed, the Government is entirely agreeable to that course. I leave that to my hon. friend to consider. If he desires to have a select committee appointed, then I would suggest that he alter his motion to this effect:
That a select committee of five members of this House be appointed to consider and report on the advisability of enacting legislation to provide for the election of members of the House of Commons by a system of proportional representation, and that such committee have power to send for persons, papers and documents.
My hon. friend must have observed that it is not necessary to call experts and political thinkers who have had this question under consideration in Great Britain, to aid the committee in its study and investigation of this subject. There are many in

this country who have made this question a special subject of study, and who, without doubt, could give the committee useful information; but I would submit to my hon. friend that unless he is reasonably certain that if a committee be appointed, it will take up this subject, will study it, will investigate it, will call before it those men who may be able to give it advice and assistance, he might better just content himself with bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I do not think there is anything further I can usefully add. We have all listened with much interest to my hon. friend and are indebted to him for the very fair manner in which he has expounded this subject for our consideration.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew) :	Mr. Speaker, it is possible for a
Government and even for a Parliament to get into such a frame of mind that it is afraid of everything new. We have not to go so far as Russia to find out that the world is moving along very distinct democratic lines, and unless the Government or Parliament keeps slightly ahead of the movement, it will get pushed off the national map as a party. We have come to the point in Canada when we have to be more radical in all our legislation than we have been in the past. The war has taught us and is teaching us certain lessons; but above all things it is teaching us that our ideas on any subject are not as immovable as they were a few months ago. We are looking at things from a new view point, and he, whether he be in a high position or in a low one, who refuses to yield to this pressure, will, I think, find himself away behind in the advancement of everything that is for the national good and for the personal good as well. We have had our fixed theories on tariff; we have had our fixed theories on forms of government, and we have had our fixed theories on taxation. But, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the mind of the public, yes, the mind of the entire world, is in a state of evolution, and before very long we shall find ourselves considering things from altogether different viewpoints than ever before. If the war do not bring about that result, then one of the results which I look for will not have been attained. In western Canada, for instance, from which nay hon, friend conaes, we have people from the various countries of the Old World. They are not slow people; they have come to our new country looking for
better things than they found at home; they are in this country looking not only for better opportunities for making a living, but looking also to Parliament for more advanced ideas, and we will have to meet these views, not only by tariffs, by special taxation, but with just such measures as my hon. friend has brought before the House to-day. That we have succeeded under our present form of government, which is based on what we have always thought the best form of government in the world, is not a sufficient guarantee that the same form of government is the best for the future. Our basic principle has always been representation by population. Now, under our present method, as it works out under the Redistribution arrangement, this Parliament is not based on representation by population. I will give the Minister of Finance a concrete case. Take the constituency which he or some one else will represent after the next general election, the riding of Leeds and Brockville. The adjoining riding is represented by the Minister of Customs. Now, the riding represented 'by the Minister of Customs has about 17,000 people, whereas the riding represented, or to be represented, perhaps, by the Minister of Finance, has over 35,000 people. Now, that is not representation by population, but in this House, and in the Government -no, I would not like to say in the Government-but in the House at all events the Minister of Customs has as much te say as the Minister of Finance; that is to say, he is an entity in the House. Now, that is not representation by population. Either the constituency of Grenville will be overrepresented, or Leeds and Brockville is going to be under-represented. When we make our redistribution after the decennial census, as my hon. friend says, we should keep as close as possible, and that is largely done now, to a certain unit representation. but there are cases such as I have pointed out where one member represents twice as many people as the member in tlhe adjoining constituency. Under proportional representation that condition would not exist; not only a part of the population, but all the population would ibe represented. The two ridings I have mentioned, and I only cite them because I know the conditions, are not represented at all from the viewpoint of Liberalism, to put it mildly. But there are a large number of people in those ridings who entertain those views, and their representative in this House does not repre-

sent those views. I would not for a moment suggest that representatives in the House here do not look after the interests of their constituents, whether Liberal or Conservative; I do not mean that at all, but I say that the principles which they hold 'have no mouth-piece in this House.
Take the city of Toronto as another example. Now, it will be admitted that there are in that city many thousands of men who are opposed to the general policy of this Government, and who have no mouth-piece in this House. There are also in that city thousands of men who 'believe in the principles of the labour movement more thoroughly than in the principles of the two great parties, and under the present system these men have not a direct voice in the legislation of this country. Again, the province of Ontario, for instance, has only fourteen Liberal members in this House, but no one will say for a moment that that represents the Liberal view of the province of Ontario from the number of votes cast, and the same applies to the other side of the House in other places.
What I want to point out is this: The conditions that will arise in this country in the near future, and which may be present with us even now, are such that we must not hang our hats on what has been in existence heretofore. Canada is a new country full of democratic thought, and into this country are coming men of democratic and advanced views. It is because of those views that they have left their own countries and come to us, and we will have to enact legislation that will in a measure meet those views, and I am inclined to think that the legislation in this particular instance is of the proper-character. Something along that line ought to be done. My hon. friend says that municipalities have not the cabinet form of government. Some place have, in a measure. In Montreal, Toronto and Ottawa, for instance, they have what is called a Board of Control, which although elected at large, is really the executive of the municipal body; they prepare and bring before that body matters for legislation, matters of policy, and matters of practice for the carrying out of what is best for the municipality. In a minor degree the board of control is a cabinet, and the principle of cabinet government seems to be evolving more and more. So the objection raised by the Minister of Finance does not apply, 
because the larger cities already have a form of cabinet government.
On the question raised by the Minister of Finance as to the connection between the people and the Executive, I am not going to say much. In discussing these matters we must not forget that we are in an altogether different position from our friends across the line. Their Cabinet has rio seat at all in Congress or in the House of Representatives. In this country the members of the Cabinet are not only directly responsible to Parliament, but to a group of electors as well. They have a seat in our legislative body, where they answer directly to the representatives of the people. The Cabinet of the United States has no seat at all, either in the Upper or Lower House, and does not have to meet the representatives of the people face to face to discuss public matters, except that the President occasionally goes on the floor of the House and makes a statement.
Proportional representation, in any opinion, would do two things: First, it would give to minorities an opportunity to be represented according to the democratic age in which we live, an opportunity which they do not now possess. I might say in passing that the different viewpoints represented in this House-I am not speaking of men who are merely in sympathy with certain views, but of men who are actually the advocates of principles-these principles are our chief concern, and the views of these men expressed on the floor of Parliament would have a two-fold effect. They would have an effect on the men who heard them and on the country generally, and the arguments that would be advanced and the discussion that would take place, and in which these men would have a prominent part, would have a direct influence on their own minds, and by co-ordination we would get the best from these different viewpoints thus brought together.
And men with extreme views might vsee that there are other angles from which these questions might be discussed. This would lead to better legislation on the whole than we have at the present time. Another great advantage is that it would do away with the grievances that certain classes have because they are not represented on the floor of this House. You may ask: why do they not get representation? It is easier to ask the question than for these parties to elect representatives. In many cities labour organizations run candidates. But even though these candidates have the unanim-

ous support of the labour organizations, they find themselves opposed 'by the candidates of the two strong parties, one of whom is pretty sure to win. Such minorities are apt to think that there is something unfair in our election methods, and I think there is some justification for that complaint. Propomtiiioinial l-epresemitaibion, ie pipacitiiee, I believe, would go far to justify itself by bringing into this House men voicing different views, which would result in better legislation. The Minister of Finance touches a very vital point when he speaks of the question of majorities in the House. Conditions might arise when the best interests of the country might not be advanced by men who had not the interests of the country supreme in their minds taking advantage of the fact that the majority in the House was very small. Suppose that through some peculiar forgetfulness on the part of the electorate three or four men got into the House who were not strong in their views as to what was best for the country. Even in a House with 250 members these three or four might decide the fate of a government. I .think it would not be well for the people to have .a system that would bring about that result. On the other hand, we know that a government with a small majority behaves itself 'better than one with a large majority. Besides, I do not believe that the difficulty indicated by the Finance Minister would arise in practice. I do not think the majority could be, in practice, so reduced as to make this a real difficulty. We have a country of such vast extent, and the membership of the House after next election will be so large that there is no practical danger that the majority of one party or the other would be so small as to be influenced in that way.
Proportional representation, I believe, would make for cleaner elections. There would be many candidates in a constituency, and so the clash between two men only, which is now the rule would be avoided. Ih some cases, when this clash is on, money is expended-so I have heard. But I am of opinion that when the number of ciaindidialtee. iiis large, ais would be the case under proportional representation, there would not be the opportunity for illegal expenditure that there is now. Further than that, the territory covered would be so vast that there would be less concentration of effort along the lines I have indicated.
The one objection that I see to proportional representation is that pointed out by the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White). That objection is that our terri-58
tory is so large and our population so sparse that, with larger constituencies, great labour would be entailed upon the candidates. Certainly, it would make it impossible for the candidate to canvass every man in his ridding lae to isomeitiknieis ithiinkts to hag. to do now. But would that be an unmixed evil? I believe that the system that we have fallen into in this country under which the candidate feels it necessary to meet'every man personally and say, "How do you do," without reference to the great principles which divides the parties, does not uplift public life. Many men are elected because they are good fellows. I am not taking objection to that, for that is one qualification of a public man that he can get along with quite well. But I fear that we have to a certain extent failed to grow, on lines of public sentiment, public principles, public opportunities, and public policy. We get down too often to the question of which candidate is the better chap, which will [DOT] shake hands with the larger number of people, who will attend the more quilting-bees and give more to this or that object. With proportional representation, I believe, we should rise above that, and candidates would not be judged by these smaller things, but first by the policies they advocate, and secondly by their character and ability to carry those policies into effeot.
I believe this matter should be further investigated and. more widely discussed. This is a splendid subject for discussion before our Canadian clubs and by public men everywhere. I would suggest that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) allow his motion to stand for a day or two, that he may decide what course it is best to pursue.


Mr. W. A. BUCHANAN (Medicine Hat):: I cannot say absolutely, from the study I have given proportional representation, that it would wipe out all the evils existing under our present system of representation, but I think it certainly would aid in that direction.
Within my own recollection political [DOT]parties have not been represented in the legislatures of the provinces and in this House in proportion to the votes recorded in the elections. I have found our friends across this floor complaining in years gone by that they did not have the representation in this House which the popular vote entitled them to, and as to the election of 1911, we on this side have the right to make the same complaint. This evil would be



largely removed under a system of proportional representation. That system would not wipe out the rule of the majority, but at least it aims in the direction of securing proper representation for minorities. In nearly every country cases also have arisen where minorities in the popular vote actually returned majorities to the representative body. That should not be. To remove the possibility of these evils and bring about more representative government, and what we are aiming at is to have as perfect a system of representative government as possible, proportional representation provides a solution. We recollect the recent election in the United States. While the system there is entirely different from that existing in this country, still I might mention that for a few days it was possible that a president would be elected who did not represent the majority pf the voters. The electoral vote in two states practically returned the popular candidate. If the electoral vote in these two states had gone Republican, the minority candidate would have been elected President of the United States. A system of that kind should not exist and we should try to avoid it. I want also to mention the city of Toronto, not because it sends ait the present time all representatives of the ComsieirviaJtdrve. .party, but foir the purpose of pointing out that by this system it would be possible for the minority in that city to elect at least one representative. There are also cases where our Conservative friends 'are in the minority, where they do not secure any representation, and where, under this system, it would be possible for them to do so.
I believe that by the adoption of the principle of propoirtdonial srepraseinitaitiion we would secure a better class of representatives because under the existing system, as my hon. friend from South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has said, public life does not appeal to many men to whom it should appeal and whom it would be to the greatest advantage of this country to have in the House. There is the question of the personal canvass. That is largely due to our small constituencies. We are forced into it largely but under the larger constituency plan that practice would be more or less put out of business. In that way we would remove one o.f the weaknesses of our ipres-ent system and there would be an appeal to better and bigger men to come into public life and serve their country.
The hon. Finance Minister (Sir Thomas Whitel has entered into a defence of the 
party system. I believe in the party system. I do not know of any better system, but if we could introduce some system that would give independence a greater pppor-tunity for expression of opinion in this House it would >be better for Canada. While we have the party system, we have far too much partisanship. If we could get rid of some of our partisanship by giving an opportunity to independent men. to come into tbits Pjanli'aimemit, amid into the leigiislaitiures of the provinces, it would be better for Canada and for the provinces. I presume I can call myself a partisan. At the same time I sometimes agree with my opponents and I believe there are hon. members on the other side of the House who sometimes agree with expressions of opinion from this side of the House. But under our party systems we dp not always express ourselves as we think. Under this new system, we would have men in this House who would express themselves as they think and who would be more or less independent. It may be possible even for strong advocates of the party .system to see evils in it but if under some other system of electing representatives, we could do something to remove these evils, to improve public life and to bring into public affairs a higher type of men, we would be doing something for the advantage pf our country.
I have not made a very close study of proportional representation, but, as I said at the beginning, the very little information I have about it, appeals to me as something tbait would 'baling, lafoouit an. .ianpirowemieint in the character of our representation in this House laud iki the provincial iLegiislaltuire. In my own city we have what we call a commission form of government. We have no city council. We have three paid commissioners who control the affairs of the city. I think it is the only government of its kind in Canada. There are other forms of commission government in Canada but of this particular type the city of Lethbridge has the only one. Each year one of these commissioners retires and we have a preferential ballot for use in these elections. In the municipal election two years ago, on the first ballot, the retiring commissioner would have been elected by a majority of vote but by counting the preference ballots he was defeated. He would have been elected over the second candidate but he would have been the minority representative, talcing into consideration the total vote. By this system under which there are first, second and third choices

another candidate was returned who was the majority representative of the people voting. Our people are satisfied with the system. It is somewhat the same as proportional representation. The man who has a majority on the first ballot but who.is in the minority as compared with the popular vote does not like the system. This system, in my judgment, is the best means of getting the opinion of the electors as to the most *suitable man for the office. That is our system of electing this commission government and it works out well. I believe we will find it worth while to take up the proportional representation system in Canada in order to bring about a proper representation of the opinion of the people of Canada in our Parliaments.
Mr. G. W. K.YTE (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, the subject of proportional representation received its first impetus in Canada through the interest and activity of Earl Grey, one of our distinguished Governors General. It is well known that for many years he had manifested a very lively enthusiasm on this question and to him is due credit for the interest in the subject that was manifested at that time throughout this country.	I was	a member ofthe	committee	that was appointedby	Parliament	in the	session of
1910 for the purpose of inquiring into this question with a view of ascertaining if it might be made applicable to our conditions in Canada. The late Hon. Mr. Monk, who was a strong advocate of the principle, was elected chairman of the committee. After the committee was appointed, we organized and held our first meeting, but unfortunately before a second meeting of the committee could be convened Mr. Monk became ill. He was obliged to go south for his health, and he did not ag in appear in the House during that session. Next session another question arose which for the moment transcended all other questions that engaged the attention of this country, and the consequence was that for the time being the subject of proportional representation was set aside. I am glad my hon. friend from Assiniiboia (Mr. Turriff) has taken this opportunity of bringing it .to the attention of the House. I listened very, attentively to the speech of the Minister of Finance in which he expressed the belief that proportional representation, while it might be suited to the forms of government in force in European countries, was not of a nature to fit in very well with the oonsti-581
tution of Great Britain and her dependencies.


William Thomas White: I said it might not.


George William Kyte: It might not fit in. I might recall once more the name of Lord Grey. He ie a gentleman who is certainly familiar with the workings of the British constitution. He is not only a stateman who has occupied a high and distinguished place in the British House of Commons, hut he is descended from a long line of eminent statesmen who during the last one hundred years took a very prominent part in the government of Great Britain. Lord Grey could not find in the principle of proportional representation, anything inconsistent with the ideas of the British form of government as it exists at the present time, and I can scarcely imagine that if such an objection should exist in regard to it, it would not appeal to the imagination of Lord Grey himself. There are, however, other objections which might be urged, perhaps successfully, to the principle. It might be said that while the system of proportional representation may work out very well in the more densely populated countries of Europe, it could not be as successfully worked out in Canada. It is pointed out by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) that in order to apply the system successfully it would be necessary to enlarge our constituencies. Unfortunately in Canada we have not as dense a population as there is in countries of Europe where the principle has been adopted, Belgium, Switzerland and Finland. Some of our constituencies in Canada are already very large, and if we were to apply the principle of proportional representation to our rural constituencies and enlarge the area of some of those now existing in order to have four or five candidates voted upon by the electors, we would be imposing upon the candidates obligations which under present circumstances and conditions they could scarcely discharge. With regard, however, to our cities, I think the principle might be well worked out. There are cities in .Canada that at the next general election will return five, six or seven representatives each, and it does seem to me that if we take into consideration the benefits that could be achieved under the improvement suggested by my hon. friend for Assiniboia, we might well seek to apply it to those cities. I do not think it could be successfully urged

that we ought not to take up consideration of this question because it is a new one or one that has not been pressed strongly on the minds and imaginations of the people of this country. There is one subject that appertains to the election of members of the House of Commons that has made rapid strides in the last few years; I refer to women suffrage. Not so many years ago women suffrage did not find an advocate in the House of Commons. Certainly it did not find an advocate din many of the 'tegte-latures of the provinces of Canada which within the last two years have adopted the principle of women suffrage. The adoption of ithait principle by these degiilsliaitiuireia ba^ given encouragement to its advocates, and it is hoped that it will bring about great reforms, advantages and benefits to the people of this country. So it is with proportional representation; a beginning has to be made with all reforms, and I know of no better time than the present to begin to take into laocount ithe benefits aind advantages that might be involved .ini the principle of this resolution.
I shall refer for a moment to a speech delivered by Mr. Asquith, the former Premier of England,in the British House of Commons, a year ago last August, when the subject of electoral reform was discussed. He said:
With regard to the Parliament which is going to undertake the work of reconstruction after the war, it is eminently desirable that you should provide an electoral basis which will make that Parliament reflective and representative of the general opinion of the country, and give to its decisions a moral _ authority which you cannot obtain from what I may call a scratch, improvised; and makeshift electorate. Let us toy all means use the time-those of us who are not absolutely absorbed in the conduct of the war-in those months to see if we cannot work out by general agreement some scheme under which, both as regards the electorate and the distribution of electoral power, a Parliament can he created at the end of the war capable and adequate for discharging these . tasks, and commanding the confidence of the country.
I submit that those statements might very well be translated by the members of this House in respect to problems that will arise here after the war, and for the purpose of conceiving the best possible means of meeting the changed conditions that will arise therefrom. The speech of Mr. Asquith was made upon a resolution moved by a member of the House of Commons who sought to bring the question of proportional representation once more to the attention of Parliament. As a result of that 
motion a strong committee was appointed to take up the question. As was to be expected, our respected ex-Governor-General, Earl Grey, was made chairman of that committee; and among the names on it we find'those of such well known statesmen as Viscount Gladstone, Sir Frederick Banbury, the Bight Hon. Lloyd George, the Bight Hon. Sir Harry Samuel, and Sir B. Finlay, the present Lord Chancellor of England. The movement is making great headway in Great Britain, and I think it might well receive some attention from the members of this House. The advantages that will be derived from the adoption of that system have been elaborated by hon. gentlemen who have already spoken, but two features appeal to me as being especially important. These are the diminution of charges of bribery in elections, and the putting of the party political machine out of existence. Any scheme of reform which would have those two results we should hieiartaily support. , It will be limpoiseiblte for the corruptionist, the man who has a personal interest in seeking the election of a particular candidate, to successfully effect his purpose under proportional representation, because he would not know whose vote it would be in his interests to purchase, whereas where there are only two candidates and two parties, as at present, every elector is bound to vote for one or the other, if he votes at all. So the man who has a personal and dishonest interest in seeking the election of one candidate has only to go to an elector and seek by means of the influence, corrupt or otherwise, which may be at his command, to secure the support of that elector for his particular candidate. But under proportional representation, where there is a first, second, third or fourth choice, i*t waflil be absolutely impossible for the man with a corrupt intent to direct his energies to the elector in such a way that his vote will be cast for the particular candidate whom the corruptionist is seeking to elect.
Another advantage would be that it would put the political party machine out of commission. I do not know that there is anything in the public life of this country that has done more to impoverish it than the existence of the party political machine. The results of this are not quite as apparent in Canada as in some parts of the United States. In the United States the party caucus and the party primary are a part of the recognized legal machinery in relation to the selection of candidates and the holding of an election. Some years ago I

happened to 'be in a town in one of the states of the American Union upon the day on which 'both political parties held their caucuses. According to American law, a man who votes at the primary of one party must swear before he is permitted to vote that he has not voted in the primaries of the other political ptarty within a year. In this particular town I first visited the caucus of the Democratic party. I found that the number of votes being polled was exceedingly small, out of all proportion in its minority to the number of voters supporting the Democratic party in that town. I asked my friend: Is it possible .that the voters here to-day fairly represent the number of Democrats in this district? He said: No, you will find the Democratic voters at present over in the Republican caucus. There is one man seeking to get on the Republican ticket. He is not persona grata to his political friends, so he has hired the Democratic vote for the day in order	that his name may
be put on the Republican ballot. I went over to the Republican caucus and I found an enormous number of men lined up to the ballot box. My friend pointed out to me a throng of people seeking another way up to the aisle towards the platform where the ballot boxes were. He said: "You see all those men going up to the ballot box? They are all Democrats who have been asked by the Republican candidate to poll their votes in his behalf." I said to him: "That probably explains why the Democratic vote is so small." He said: "Certainly. These men could not go to the Democratic caucus, because if they did they would be challenged and would have been unable to vote here, as they would then have voted in the opposite caucus during the year." I said: "When it comes to an election, will these Democratic voters vote for the Republican candidate whom they are now nominating?" "Oh, certainly not; when the election comes around they will vote for the Democratic party." The party machine is not quite as bad in Canada as this illustration shows it to be in some parts of the United States, but it is bad enough in all conscience. A man who seeks public honours in this country must in many places undertake all expenses and go through all the worry of two elections. If he is actually determined to obtain a position in public life and is seeking these honours, he must first go out and make terms with the party machine in order that the party machine will support his nomination. It
very often happens that a man who is most competent, most deserving and who would be the most effective representative, is not the one who is most anxious to seek the party nomination. As a matter of fact, in many instances the very reverse is the case. The person who seeks a nomination, who hae time upon his hands, and who has the money to spend to secure the nomination, is not always the man who would make the best representative if he were elected to Parliament. Under this system of proportionate representation the party machine would not be as successful in placing its candidates in Parliament as it is at the present time. The choice of electors for the first, second, third or fourth candidates that are to be elected under this system absolutely prevents the possibility of the party machine ultimately electing its candidate should it succeed in getting its candidate selected in one of the party caucuses.
_ These considerations have come to me in the course of a casual study of the subject of proiportiiomiail repireeeinliattiion. At the time when I was selected as a member of the committee I gave some attention to it, and I was extremely sorry that the illness of the late Mr. Monk prevented us from resuming our meetings. If we had been able to resume them, I am quite sure, from the interest that Mr. Monk took in the matter and from the stimulus which Lord Grey gave to the movement, that a very comprehensive and interesting report upon *the .subject, of proportional representation would have been presented to Parliament as a result of the deliberations of that committee.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. B. COPP (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock, I was about to say a word or two in reference to the proposed motion of my hon. friend from Assiniboia. As the question, however, is somewhat new to myself and, I believe, new to a number of other hon. gentlemen, it may be well for us to have a little further time for reflection, and I therefore move the adjournment -of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. L. S'CHAFFNER (Souris) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, an early opportunity should be taken to endeavour to have removed the embargo on Canadian cattle entering the British Isles.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to detain the House for more than a few moments in regard to this question of the removal of the embargo which has existed since 1892 on Canadian cattle entering the British market. Although this question has not been before the House of Commons recently, it is by no means a new oinie. ilmimiediattely 'after the embargo was placed upon Canadian cattle in 1892, members of the Federal House, some of whom are still members, brought forward long and very effective arguments why this embargo ishould never have existed, and why, after it was put into force, it should be removed. In 1905, the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. William Smith), who is still member for that Riding, Mr. T. S. Sproule, the then member for East Grey, and the hon. member for the St. Lawrence Division of Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike) who is laJiso stiil']) member for that oorustiiituieincy, made long and what should have been conclusive arguments why this embargo should cease to exist. I do not purpose repeating those arguments to-night, because I do not think that is necessary, but the time would: be well spent if the House were to discuss this question once more.
Previous to 1892, a very large cattle tr%de had grown up, especially in Ontario and western Canada, and in looking over the history of what has occurred since the embargo was put into force, I was surprised at the effect which that embargo had upon the Taising of stock in this country. Farmers and others who are engaged in this particular industry seem to have become discouraged, and it is remarkable how the number of cattle has diminished, and how discouraged the people have become in producing more stock. It may be argued that this is not an opportune time to discuss this question when prices are so high.
I micitice iini ito-diay's papier the statement itlhiait even tlhe packers of this country are suggesting that Qamiada should have two meatlesis daiyisiai week. I miajiintatn

and I have maikitadirued for ia yeair or two-that it is high time that the Canadian people and their representatives in this House began to think of the conditions which must occur

after the termination of the war. I believe that a short discussion on this question of the removal of the embargo and a request to the Government and the Minister of Agriculture, in particular, that special measures be taken for the removal of the embargo, will do much to enhance Canada's prosperity. There seems never to have been any good reason for the imposition of the embargo. The stated cause is that our cattle contain a disease called contagious pleuro-pneumonia, but I believe that one old cow out of all the cattle shipped to the old country was responsible and has been responsible for the condition in which we have been placed so far as our market for cattle in Great Britain is concerned. This subject is important as an after-the-war question, because I believe, so far as the raising of cattle is concerned, we are going to return to conditions somewhat similar to those which existed before 1892. A great many young men from western Canada and Ontario have gone out of banks and out of stores and have gone to the front, and I feel convinced that such young men, when they return, will not be content to go back to their indoor occupations, but will desire to go on the farms. Although that is not the opinion of every one, it is certainly mine. We have heard members of this Government and gentlemen who are not in the Government advocating a great increase in production. I am one of those who are very much pleased that we have free wheat, but I am also one of those who believe that in the future, when all our soldiers return and agriculture at once becomes, as it ought to be, the supreme occupation of Canada, the high prices that the farmer is receiving to-day will not be maintained. Just before the war the farmers in the West were not getting, by any means, paying prices for wheat, because 70 or 80 or 90 cents a bushel will not, under any condition, prove a paying proposition. We hear some members of the Government, and some gentlemen who are outside of the Government and outside of this House continually advocating mixed farming. No one can gainsay the advantages of mixed farming, because tlhe argument is absolutely sound that we should not put all our efforts into the raising of wheat-and I am speaking now more particularly of western Canada, although perhaps the same argument applies to Ontario and the eastern provinces. After the war wheat will not remain at the present high price, and perhaps it will not command even a paying price.

Thus it may become necessary for us to go in for mixed farming, *which, to speak plainly, consists of growing wheat and raising different kinds of stock, and it is u.p to us right now to 'have this embargo removed .if possible.
Before taking my isea't, I should like to quote .something ithiait was placed! oin Hansard many years ago, in 1893, in reference to this poor old cow that was accused of having had pleuro-pneumonia, and which has been responsible for the embargo ever since; and while on this point, let me say it was proved by my hon. friend from St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) and by others who spoke at that time, that Canada possessed the cleanest record in regard to the health of our cattle of any country in the world, and the same is true to-day. I took the pains of consulting Dr. Torrance, the Veterinary Director General of Canada, and he told me that we have not, and never have had, any pleuro-pneumonia among our cattle.
What was the cause of all this trouble? It seems that the cattle that iwe call Stockers were formerly taken over to Great Britain, where, on the splendid English pastures, they developed into the very finest of beef. Our cattle when finished were superior to any that came from Ireland, that great agricultural country which has produced so many cattle; and I am convinced, after reading all the arguments, and according to the best information that I ©an get, that the embargo was purely a case of self-interest and self-protection om the part of the Irish rather than because of any danger of pleuropneumonia. In the Sessional Papers of 1893 we learn that:
A portion of the lungs of the affected animal was sent to Principal Williams and Professor W. G. Williams of the new veterinary college, Edinburgh, and naked-eye microscopic examination convinced those experts that bronchopneumonia, (the well-known cornstalk disease of America,) had been mistaken for pleuropneumonia contagiosa. I have subsequently examined the lungs and microscopic sections made from them, and I had no difficulty in recognizing that the pathological appearances presented were identical with those of the cornstalk disease, which I had the opportunity of seeing in Washington in 1890 by the courtesy of Dr. D. E. Salmon, the distinguished chief of the bureau of animal industry of the United States. The differences in the post-mortem appearances and in the actual seats of the two diseases, make it extremely unlikely for any one versed in morbid anatomy to mistake the one for the other. In pleuro-pneumonia contagiosa the true seat of the disease is not in the bronchial tubes, although the smaller of these become gorged with an inflammatory coagulated exudate.
Broncho-pneumonia, not unknown in this country, is not a specific disease like pleuropneumonia contagiosa, but one which originates spontaneously when animals are exposed to cold and wet, especially after being heated, as cattle are during transit by rail and sea. It may fitly be compared with influenza in the human species, not of the recent epidemic type, but of the old and familiar form of a severe cold.
That was the opinion of one of the most eminent scientific men in England at that time. The embargo, however, was put on, and it was impossible for us to send our cattle over to England to be finished as we had done formerly. Our farmers used to have a very profitable market in the Old Country not only for finished beef, hut also for short-keeps, which were sent over to England and finished on the splendid pasturage there.
What happened when this embargo was put on by England? A large number of breeders in Ontario and the West were at that time asaiiisliing ehont-keap ©aititle far export, and they were compelled to hold them here as they were not finished sufficiently for export. Trainloads of calves were shipped to Winnipeg, killed and placed in cold storage. The same thing occurred in Calgary and Toronto. Great numbers of our young cattle have been shipped across the line to the United States in recent years. Our American friends realize how excellent and profitable Canadian-raised cattle are, and American buyers are to be found on the Toronto and Winnipeg stock yards buying all the young cattle they can get. J have some figures here of the Toronto and Winnipeg stock yards and find that from Winnipeg 1,306 head were shipped in the month of June, 1916; in July, 1,564; in August, 4,895; in September, 6,977; in October, 9,087; a total from Winnipeg to the United States of 23,829 in five months.
It might be asked why I am bringing up this question now, with prices so high and cattle so scarce. My object is entirely for the benefit of the farmers of this country and of our	young	men. As	you
know, Sir, Canada is to-day sending thousands of her best young men overseas to fight in the cause of freedom. They are over in France to-day fighting the baltitile of iliibemty By-tansd-by itbey Villi come back. I feel that I should 'be remiss in my duty if I did not raise my voice, i'f I did not do the best I can in my humble way, to make provision for the occupation for these young men when they return. I say this resolution is opportune, for, it seems to me, never in the history of the Empire did Great Britain recognize as she does to-day what Canada is and what the
[Stage Direction]
name Canada means. I believe that Great Britain can be approached to-day in the interest of this great Dominion as never before, and. perhaps, no such opportunity will ever offer again. I am sure that it is the opinion of every member of this House that this Government, through the Minister of Agriculture, should put forth every effort to the end that this embargo upon our Canadian cattle, which has existed since 1892, and, as I claim, has existed unjustly, should be removed, and that we may once more have the freedom of the markets of Great Britain.
Mr. ROBERT BICKERDIKE (Montreal, St. Lawrence):: I congratulate the hon.
member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) on the stand he has taken, but I am afraid he will find that we shall fee received as we have always been received in England on this subject. I have been fighting this cause ever since it needed a champion in this House and out of it. I do not exactly accept what the hon. member for Souris says, that there was no disease amongst our cattle, for I claim that there was a disease and a very bad one, but they gave it the wrong name. They called it in Great Britain pleuro-pneumonia; they should have called it protection, because it was as a matter of protection for the British agriculturist that this embargo was first put on and continued to this day. There is no doubt about that. What the hon. gentleman says is perfectly true-the herds in Canada are the healthiest in the world. I probably know as much about the cattle business as any hon. member of this House, for I think I was the largest shipper of cattle from Canada; I shipped 40,000 head the last year our cattle were allowed to go into England-and that was 40,000 too many. No question about it, the poor old cow was used as an excuse to get the votes of the Irish and English farmers. It was represented that we had disease in our cattle, but as the hon. member has said, there was no disease-except the one I have just mentioned.


Oliver James Wilcox: As the hon. member (Mr. Bickerdike) is familiar with this subject, can he say how much the price of cattle in Ireland was reduced by the competition of the Canadian cattle?


Robert Bickerdike: I could not answer that question. Of course, it must have been reduced, for in some years we shipped as many as 150,000 head, and these, being store cattle, they would come into competition with the Irish cattle, as the hon. member rMr. Schaffner.]
for Souris lias said, Mr. Long, who was then Minister of Agriculture, refused to take any steps in the matter. This subject has been up in this House many times, as the hon. member has said, and it has been brought forward by the Scotch farmers, deputation after deputation having been sent to make representations to the British Minister of Agriculture in favour of removing the embargo. But all this has been without success, and I am afraid we shall have no better results now.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have no desire to oppose the resolution, but like my hon. friend from Montreal, (Mr. Bickerdike) I have no hope that it will lead to anything. There has been a great change in the cattle industry of this country since the embargo was put on. The putting on of the embargo was a shock to our people, but, as so often happens, t/hey have adapted themselves to the change. Our people now finish their own cattle and the slaughter-houses in Canada have greatly increased. The hon. member fox Souris (Mr. Schaffner) talked about Americans coming in and buying cattle. That is purely a mattter of competition. If Americans will pay more for the stackers, as they are called, than the English or Canadians do, the Americans will get them. The farmer is a peculiar individual, he is going to sell where he can get the best terms; but .perhaps, he its not miore .peculiar in that than any other class of the community. I am glad that nearly all our people in Ontario who formerly sold stockers in the Old Country to be finished by the Scotch farmer, now finish their cattle themselves. One result of this is that the resultant fertilizer is kept for the farms of Ontario. The embargo seemed a great jnisfortune at the time, but it did not altogether prove to be a misfortune. Many of onr people are in favour of having the embargo lifted, but many others aTe not in favour of it.


Robert Bickerdike: It wouild not do any harm.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No, it would not do any harm, I have already said I am not opposing the resolution. To lift the embargo would mean that the Englishmen would come in to buy our stockers, and unless he offers a better market than the Americans can offer, or better terms than the Canadian farmer can secure by finishing the stockers for himself, he will not get them. Taking off the embargo will mean three markets for our cattle instead of two.


Martin Burrell: Though this question is an old one, as the hon. member for Souris has said, it is a question that is very much alive. The facts are substantially as my hon. friend has related them, and as they have been touched upon by the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike). There was an alleged case of pleuro-pneu-monia in 1892, but I do not think that there has been any doubt in men's minds since then that it was only an alleged case, and that the examination which took place proved absolutely that there was no case of contagious pleuro-pneumonia. Within the next few years after the imposition of the embargo, no fewer than 3,000,000 head of Canadian cattle were sent to the British market and slaughtered on arrival, and not one of them showed evidences of disease. Since then, as has been pointed out, not only has the .case been debated in this House, but representations have been made by the Canadian Government on various occasions, and also, as my hon. friend has pointed out, by delegations from Scotland and various parts of England, in favour of the removal of the embargo as being against the interests even of the Scotch and English agriculturists. However, the several British Governments have seen fit to retain the embargo, which I might say was made statutory within two or three years after it was first placed, and has been kept in that position ever since. It did not seem worth while to argue very much, for the authorities there took the ground the embargo was justified by the danger to their own herds of the disease being brought from this country. It was spoken of as purely a matter of health. I am not going to touch on the point raised by my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Lawrence, because I do not think it is my bfisiness to say what motives may or may not be imputed to our kinsmen on the other side of the water. But I can say that the ground they took, that the embargo was justified as a health measure, was Pot sound. The right hon. leader of th'e Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when Prime Minister, took up this matter at one of the Imperial Conferences, and brought it before the Minister of Agriculture, that office being held at that time, I think, by Mr. Long. The British authorities took the position that, with a border line three thousand miles long for Canada to guard, and there being many cattle diseases in the United
States, it was especially necessary that they should take any necessary means to safeguard the health of their animals against any possible importation of disease from the United States via Canada.
I might point out to the House that while we have never had a disease of the first class and contagious character, such as pleuro-pneumonia, or foot and mouth disease, in Canada, our friends on the other side of the water, who embargo us, have a great many times had serious diseases for which we have been compelled to embargo them. In reference to the condition of our cattle and the danger of disease 'from the United States, I would like to point out to the House, because it is interesting, that they have had no less than three outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in the United States, the last of which was of an extraordinarily serious character, lasting nearly a year, and entailing the slaughter of thousands of cattle and inflicting a loss of millions of dollars on the various states and the federal authorities of the United States. In spite of that, owing to the vigilance of our own veterinary service, and the extraordinary precautions which we thought we were justified in taking, we came out at the end of the outbreak with absolutely not a single case in the whole of Canada. That is why I say that the argument that they have tried to sustain has proved absolutely unsound. There has been nothing gained practically by pressing this matter very much of late years from the fact that it was taken up on a number of occasions, but the attitude of the British Government was such that it became scarcely a dignified matter to press it further, because it Was a matter entirely within their own jurisdiction. The last time that it was taken up was, I think, in 1913, when I had an informal talk with the Right Honourable Walter Runci-man, who was president of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. We discussed the question pretty thoroughly, but it was quite obvious that there was no good in pressing the matter officially any further, and so we let it drop.
There will be no two opinions as to the desirability of removing this embargo in so far as the embargo reflects upon the health of the herds of this country. It does reflect upon them to a certain extent. While there cannot be any two opinions on that point, because there is no justification for the embargo on that ground, I am quite aware that there may possibly be a difference of opinion as to the economic results

which followed the imposition of the embargo and the economic results which may follow its removal. It is true, as the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) pointed out, that there are some people in this country who think that the embargo was perhaps not an unmixed evil in that it led to the finishing of our cattle and therefore helped the fertility of the farm. I am sure also that it helped to build up our great packing industry, and led undoubtedly to the strengthening of the big export trade in meats which also is a very important question. Nevertheless, I would like to put myself on record in this House as believing that the stability of our cattle industry, which, I think is of supreme importance tp the agriculture of this country, would be benefited by the removal of the embargo because it is desirable that the farmer should have two outlets, that he should be able to sell his product for export as well as to the packing houses. As a matter of fact, the western farmer and the eastern farmer have sold a good many stackers to the United States which trade we have tried to counteract this year as far as we could and I am glad to say that there has been a notable change in that regard and that a very large number of cattle at the Winnipeg and other markets which otherwise would have been disposed for slaughter, or have gone to the United States, have been bought in and sent back to the Canadian western farms.
I believe it would be a permanent benefit to have the embargo removed. The depletion of the herds of Europe that is going on now is appalling and must have its effect in every part of the wprld. In France, especially, and, of course, in Belgium, Serbia, and other countries which have 'been ravished by our common enemy, that de-plettikm has to .be made up aindf it. will take a long time to make it up. I doubt not that in so far as this continent may be able to supply it, there will be a strong demand for cattle of all kinds, especially in France and Belgium, after this war is over, and we hope it will be finished by driving the common foe out of those countries. As France has not been disposed to impose any restriictiioinj, they apparently, hawing no fault to find with our cattle, it would be regrettable if the Government of Great Britain should maintain a restriction against one of her dominions against which France and her other Allies impose no restriction whatever.
May I say to the House, and to my hon. friend who brought up this resolution, that

when my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (.Sir Robert Borden) left for England to take up, first, questions affecting the war, second, questions regarding the making of peace and, third, problems 'after the war, he asked the various members of the Government to put before him any statement of questions that they thought it important we should have taken up. It seemed 'to me that from the point of view of agriculture, there was no more important question than the one which my hon. friend has brought up, and so I took the opportunity to prepare a very careful case, or brief, on the whole subject dealing with it from its origin in 1892. I think we left no argument untouched and put the matter in .such shape that the Prime Minister would be able 'to lay it before the British Government in the hope that we would be [DOT]able to make some headway at this particular time.
I do not altogether agree with my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike). because, although I know that the efforts that he and many others have made, have not met with very much response, I am not altogether as sceptical as he is at this particular time. I believe that this is the psychological moment and for various reasons which I am not now going to touch on, I think there is strong hope that the British Government, at this particular time, may see their way to do what they have not been inclined to do for twenty-four years, and that the result may be the removal of the embargo. I am quite hopeful of it. I want to assure my hon. friend again that the matter has been placed before the Prime Minister in the strongest possible way, and | am confident that he will put it before the Imperial authorities in an equally strong way. I will not say more than that, because, after all, it is within their right and within their power to do as they like; it is a domestic matter, and whatever may he our views we have to abide by their decision. In view of what I have said. I will ask my hon. friend, as this practically fulfils the spirit of his resolution, if he would be good enough to withdraw it, because we have already taken the question up and dealt with it in a way that we hope will give practical results.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I see no reason, why this resolution should not be adopted as expressing the opinion of this House. I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) that whether we adopt it or not it will have very little effect

upon the results. I would be very sorry, indeed, as a Canadian citizen and a member of the House, if there was any disposition on the part of the people of this country, after this w.ar, to go to Great Britain and use as an argument to get something we want our participation in this great struggle. I do not think that position will be taken. My hon. friend from St. Lawrence is a little bit wrong in his diagnosis of the cause of the trouble. That may ibe attributed to the fact that he has had [DOT] little experience along medical lines, and. therefore, is not practised in the art of diagnosis. He said that the trouble was not due to the disease of pleuro-pneumonia, but to a disease called protection. I think he would have been more nearly correct had he said that the disease was free trade as they have it in England. I might remind my hon. friend, if he will accept- my correction of [DOT]has diagnosis ialk).ng ibhiait (Mme, ithiait iait one time that was a battle -cry of the party he supported. What was really the reason w'hy Great Britain placed this embargo upon our cattle? I think the hon. Minister of Agriculture suggested the reason without putting it in plain words, being a very modest man. Let us look back to the time when the embargo was placed upon our cattle in 1892. In 1891 there was a political party in this country declaring for unrestricted reciprocity, for breaking down all tariff walls between Canada and the United States. British statesmen, whatever may be said of them, cannot be characterized as men who are not alive to what is going on in the world around them. They no douibt looked the situation over as it was in Canada, and while they were not apprehensive of any danger to their herds from any disease in Canada, they naturally thought that if an irresponsible party like the Grit party was to get into power, take down the tariff walls and allow American cattle to come in here free, as that disease was rampant .among American cattle they would, by admitting cattle from Canada free, be opening their doors to cattle from both Canada and the United States. At this time when English statesmen were wondering how to get out of this great difficulty some person-I do not attribute this to the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike), who is in the export trade-sent over an old cow showing some symptoms of disease, and the British Government said: Now, this is our opportunity,1 we are a free trade country and all that, we have to have an excuse to offer, and while the danger that we are apprehensive of is that this Liberal
party will get into power and remove the barriers, allowing American diseased cattle to come free into Canada, we must protect ourselves against the possibility of this party coming into power in Canada; this old cow which had been sent over by some exporters from Montreal or elsewhere has provided us with the excuse we want; we will simply raise that as the cry, that we are afraid of disease in Canadian cattle, and we will put an embargo on. I think possibly that is the true estimation of why this was done. It was really a measure of protection on the part of a free trade Government such as they have in England. It was a part of a policy known to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House as free trade as they have it in England which, -of course, was inscribed on their banner for one election. They will bear me out when I say that they have had a new motto inscribed on their banner for every election.


Robert Bickerdike: That was since the cow.


John Wesley Edwards: The best way to get this embargo removed from Canadian cattle-and I am free to say I should like to see it removed-is for hon. gentlemen opposite to announce publicly here on the floor of this House to the country that they have departed from the error of their ways in regard to trade matters, that they are no longer going to hobnob with these free trade principles and doctrines; and that England will not be in any danger from that source in years to come, if, unfortunately for Canada, they should come into power. If they as a party would only give an assurance of that kind, the Minister of Agriculture could go over to England and ask for the removal of the embargo and it would be granted at once, as soon as the authorities there knew that there was nc danger of cattle from the United States being mixed with ours and so carrying the disease to England. While I think there is not at the present time as unanimous an opinion in favour of the embargo being removed as there was some years ago, still it can do no harm, and I should be very much in favour of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaff-ner).


Mr. WILLIAM SMITH (Ontario S.):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution moved by the hon. member for Souris should appeal to members of this House in a number of ways. My name has been mentioned in connection

with a somewhat similar resolution which was moved a number of years ago; but if I remember rightly that resolution was on the line that the British authorities should appoint a Commission to investigate diseases, if any, to be found in the herds of Canada. At that time Canadian breeders were looking for a market in South America. They were paying enormous prices in Great Britain for pure bred animals and it was thought that it might be possible to gain a footing there. My object was to prove that there was no disease among the herds in Canada. That has been stated very strongly here to-night, and I think it can be borne out in every way. So far as the resolution is concerned, it appears to me that it could do no harm. It will have a bearing rather more in the future than at the present moment. We have not enough cattle in Canada to-day for our own purposes, and it is possible that we will not be looking for a market on the other side of the water. The day may come when mixed farming will play a part and will possibly be the great hope of our western farmers, and they will go in extensively for the breeding of cattle. It appears to me that to-day we would not hear so much about free wheat if the Canadian western farmer had been alive to his larger interests. He has had nearly three years since the war commenced to prepare for the production of cattle, and the wheat for which he complains that he cannot now find a market might have been used for the feeding of live stock in the western provinces. But looking to the future, it appears to me that the number of our cattle may greatly increase, and if this motion were adopted to-night it would not do any harm. I should have preferred had the Minister of Agriculture allowed it to pass.


Martin Burrell: In suggesting that it should be dropped, I meant simply that the matter was already under consideration. But there is no objection to the motion being carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that no further appointments be made to the Senate of Canada until after the next Federal elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I move this resolution not as an academic question, but rather as a practical question, to be fairly considered by this House, and I would ask

for a fair expression of the opinion and judgment of the House upon it. The resolution is a fair, just and timely one and should be accepted by the House; and from the Government we should have a declaration of acceptance of the principles which it sets forth.
On October 7, 1916, the present Parliament would have ended had it not been for the fact that during the last session of Parliament an Act was passed in the form of an amendment to the British North America Act extending the term of this Parliament for the period of one year. Since October 7, 1917, this Parliament has been a war emergency Parliament and the Government a war emergency Government. It was the obvious intention of Parliament and, I think, the opinion of hon. gentlemen of this House who voted upon the resolution favouring the extension of Parliament, that the business which should engage Parliament and the Government during the year's extension should relate entirely to war, the incidents of war, and such civil affairs as, in the interest of the State, required immediate action by Parliament or the Government. It would appear, upon reference to the speech delivered to Parliament upon the opening of the session by His Excellency, that the purpose of the extension was to enable the Government to carry on during that period the affairs relating to the war without encountering the distractions of an election. Upon that ground the question was placed before hon. gentlemen and ft was with such circumstances in view that the House consented unanimously to the extension of the twelfth Parliament of Canada for one year beyond the constitutional period. The wisdom of this extension was doubted by some. It was thought by many hon. gentlemen, although that opinion was not expressed in Parliament, that the extension might do violence to the well-settled provisions of the British North America Act, which is our constitution. That was the view held by some hon. gentlemen opposite. During the debate on the extension of Parliament resolution last session, some hon. gentlemen referred to a statement made by the Minister of Public Works, some time previous to the occasion to which I refer. It was his view that the people of Canada were being robbed of tbeir rights and liberties because the Government were not appealing to the people. The statement, of the Mfnister of Public Works, then read to Parliament, was as follows:

Is it, then, any wonder that the cry comes, from every individual that one meets and that understands the conditions, in tones louder than thunder, demanding that this Parliament be dissolved, that the rights and liberties of the people of this Dominion be granted to them under our form of democracy and that that form of democracy be restored to them?
The Minister of Public Works evidently felt very strongly against an extension of Parliament. He thought that to abstain from an appeal to the people was an unjustifiable attack upon democracy. Possibly his views at that time were rather extreme, and were not shared by many hon. gentlemen in this House. In any event, the extension of Parliament was unanimously granted, solely for the purpose, as I have said, of enabling the Government to carry on the affairs of state specifically referable to the war, free from the distractions and turmoil of an election. It was hoped that after the expiration of the extension the situation in Europe would be such as to permit the Government to make an appeal to the people.
Many vacancies have occurred in the House of Commons since the extension of Parliament was granted. During a period arranged between the parliamentary leaders, vacancies caused by death or otherwise were filled by the election of a member holding the same political views as the former representative of the constituency. It is my recollection
9 p.m. that this arrangement, which was a fair one, was not fully carried out. Some differences, I think, occurred between the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government and the right hon. leader of the Opposition as to the proper course to be pursued in the event of a voluntary or enforced vacancy. I think they were unable to come to a clear understanding as to the exact meaning of the arrangement they had made in its application to such cases. During the last year and a half or two years no vacancy occurring in the House of Commons has been filled unless it was a vacancy occurring by the elevation of a member to the Cabinet. There are many vacancies to-day in the Commons, but I doubt if anybody feels deeply aggrieved because of that. The rule, just or unjust, applies to both political parties; therefore very little has been said about it.
Hon. gentlemen know that our Parliament is composed of two bodies, a Senate and the House of Commons, the members of the latter being elected by the people and those of the former being appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the Executive.
My resolution asks for a declaration that from now on until the election of a new Parliament no further appointments be made by the Government to the Senate. It is so eminently reasonable that it mu3t impress hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House that no other arrangement is fair to the country or to an Opposition. If no vacancies in the House of Commons are filled by reason of an arrangement between the party leaders, that rule should apply with equal force to vacancies occurring in the Senate, namely, that there should be no appointments made, or, if any are made, that the vacancies should be filled by the nominees of the party leaders, in accordance with the same rule as was in force in this branch of Parliament for a time at least.
An Opposition is a constitutional institution; it is a part of the establishment of the Government; it is a part of the fundamental law of this country and of all other portions of the British Empire. The Opposition is referred to frequently by speakers in and out of Parliament as His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and its rights have been well established and recognized for a great number of years in the constitutional history of the British Empire. It is unfair that during that period, that is, from the 7th day of October, 1916, up to the dissolution of Parliament, that the party -which is in office Iby f!he grace of am Opposition parity 'Should exercise .the niighit which ilt wiouilid ordlilniardily properly exiercise, of making lappoiinitimieintsi to- the ISemaibe of Cainiadiai. I oanmet comiceive of iany argument that can be adviainiceid .agiaiimBt my eomibenltiiiomi ;if^ is simply 'applying to the (Senate the terms of the agreement made between the party leaders in respect of vacancies in this branch of Parliament. It is not fair for the dominant political party, in office by the grace of the Opposition party, under an extension of the Parliamentary term, granted to them for one purpose alone, to take upon themselves the making of appointments to the Senate. I trust that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House will look at the matter in the same way as I do, and if so, there will be little doubt as to the course this House should pursue this evening in respect to this resolution. I do not think it is necessary that I should say anything further upon itba rcBofaitioini. Bt is so eminently fair that I trust some member of the Government, speaking for hon. gentlemen on the other side, will immediately say that

the principle of the resolution is accepted. I cannot ask the Government to revoke appointments that they have recently made to the Senate, although I submit, in all fairness, that those appointments were unfairly made in pursuance of a power which should have been left in abeyance, if justice were to be done to the Opposition party.
My attention has been called to a fact which I had forgotten, namely, that in request to the western provinces, the power has been bestowed upon the Government of making additional appointments to the Senate just prior to dissolution, and I understand that that power was confirmed by an Act of the British Parliament. I am not clear in my mind as to the exact course which Parliament took in respect of this matter; but at least, I assume that hon. gentlemen opposite understand the mattter to which. I lefer. If by Statute or otherwise the Government had the power granted to them prior to the war and prior to the extension of Parliament, one could not fairly ask that the Government forego the right of making those appointments. That is a power granted to them by Statute prior to the extension of Parliament, and it is one which I hardly think hon. gentlemen on this side of the House could very well ask the Government now to forego. Therefore, I feel that I should amend my resolution by adding to it the following words, which I think express what I have in mind:
Excepting, however, the additional appointments to be made from the western provinces of Canada prior to the dissolution of Parliament.
I beg to move the resolution as amended.
My attention has just been called to the fact that the Act which provides for the appointment of additional senators to the Senate of Canada to represent the group of western provinces does not take effect until the termination of the now existing Canadian Parliament, and, of course, if that is correct, there is no necessity of my amending the resolution, and consequently I shall not have to amend it.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: I understand that by the rules of tlhe House, the hon. member cannot amend his own resolution.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I propose withdrawing the suggested amendment.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the resolution moved by the hon. member is by no means of an ordinary character. There are some phases of the subject which naturally

he would not touch on and which would not ordinarily come to the mind of an hon. member whose attitude was wholly favourable to the resolution. The hon. .member's resolution seems to be based on the lassiuimptiioini tihiait ithe prerogative of appointments to the Senate of Canada is purely a matter of party patronage. The appointments to the Senate of Canada are made on the recommendation of the Governor in Council, and under the constitution of Canada are part of the duty of the Government. The Senate of Canada is one of the three factors in the fabric of our constitution, and the matter of appointments to that Senate is toy no means on a mere party patronage footing. The appointments are on the footing of appointments to the public service, and would be better compared to the subject of the appointment of judges, the filling of the judiciary caused by vacancies. There is at the present time an. unusual situation. The West of this country is inadequately represented in the Senate now.


George Perry Graham: And in the Commons,
too.


Arthur Meighen: And in the Commons
as well. As the hon. member has his mind on the Commons, I might as well touch on that phase of the subject first. There are at the present time, I believe, about fifteen or sixteen vacancies in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Miacfeam) Aa I believe ooirireat that for some time after the outbreak of war vacancies were filled by acclamation, the acclamations taking place in accordance with, an understanding that the candidate so elected should toe of the party that the retiring or deceased candidate belonged to. That practice was followed for some time. The hon. member states that then there was some misunderstanding as to the continuance of the practice. Well, I do not know that "misunderstanding" is the word that properly describes it. The subject fortunately is dealt with in correspondence that passed between the leader of the Government and the leader of the Opposition. The leader of the Government proposed that the election of members to this House should continue unconditionally along that line. It was his desire in furtherance of his well-known attitude to prevent schism and federal electoral contests during the war, that by-elections should be avoided. As a consequence he made the proposal, in writing, that vacancies should be filled according to that

method. The leader of the Opposition, in the exercise of his right, did not see fit to accede. As part of another arrangement, however, he did agree that the practice should be followed in part, and part only, namely, in the case of vacanies caused by death, tout not in the case of vacancies caused by resignation. That was his election; that was his choice. That being the case, vacancies caused by resignation, if they were to be filled at all, would have to be filled only after election contests, which it was the desire of the Government, and which I think it is the desire of the people of Canada, should be avoided. As to the responsibility for that choice, the leader of the Opposition took it; it was his right; but the responsibility is hiss and his alone. As a consequence, there are a number of vacancies in this House. There are a number in the West, a number in the central provinces, and a number in the East, but the West is under-represented in the Commons on that account. Furthermore, Western Canada is under-represented in the Commons by reason of a growth in the population of that country, and the fact that the British North America Act provides for a revision only upon a decennial census. The continuance of this Parliament intensifies that situation, and as a matter of fact there is to-day a very, very substantial under-representation of the four western provinces as a result. I agree with the hon. member for Halifax that in the western' country, as in other provinces, we are prepared to forego our rights in that regard with the idea that we achieve a greater object in the avoidance of an election in time of war. However, the fact remains, and it has its import with respect to the resolution.
As to the Senate, the West is again very much under represented, and I do not hesitate to say that the responsibility in this regard lies with hon. gentlemen opposite, or rather I should say with hon. gentlemen above. Some four years ago an address was introduced in this House looking to the amendment of the British North America Act, with the object of securing for the four westerm provinces a normal (approach to a more equitable representation in the Upper House than they had heretofore enjoyed. This, of course, was necessitated by the increase in population, which had been so marked in that section of Canada. Up to then Manitoba was represented in the Senate by four, Saskatchewan by four, Alberta by four, and British Columbia by three; and as against that Ontario had
twenty-four representatives in the Senate, and Quebec twenty-four. The Maritime Provinces had their numbers fixed by Confederation, twenty-four for the three provinces, the three together being on a parity with either of the two major provinces. The address at that time was to provide that there should be six representatives from Manitoba, six from Alberta, six from Saskatchewan, and six, I believe, from British Columbia; that is to say, there was an increase of fifty per cent, or of two members for each of the four western provinces. The Bill was introduced in 1912; I may be wrong, it might have been early in 1913, but my recollection would place it in the year 1912-a long time, it will be observed, before the war broke out. The Bill passed this House with the consent of both parties, I believe, and went to the Senate, where, at the dictation of the Senate majority, it was mutilated to this extent: they felt, for some reason that never found any lodgment in my mind as a logical one, or I might use a stronger term, Mr. Speaker, if I were not in the House, that it should not go into effect until the termination of the present Parliament of Canada. Why it would be right on the termination of this Parliament, and wrong at that time, the under-representation being most emphatic when the Bill was before the Senate, is very hard indeed to conceive. The responsibility for that constitutionally is upon the Senate itself, but as a matter of fact the responsibility is on that portion of the Senate of Canada whose political sympathies are in accord with those of hon. gentlemen opposite. On them rests the responsibility of depriving four provinces of this Confederation for four long years of their fair representation in the Upper Chamber. The province of British Columbia, for example, has at the present time one representative in the Senate, and if this resolution were passed that province would have to be content to remain with this solitary representative, while the province of Prince Edward Island, whose population is very small compared to that of British Columbia, and the other provinces east of Manitoba have the representation they have. Surely that could not be argued as just to British Columbia; a more gross and palpable injustice could scarcely be inflicted.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How long have these vacancies existed?


Arthur Meighen: For some time. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will argue that

they should have been filled. But it does not lie in the mouths of hon. gentlemen to say at one and the same time that these vacancies must not be filled until after this House is dissolved, or after a general election, and also that they should have been filled already.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: But the Government party have had the opportunity of filling such vacancies.


Arthur Meighen: But hon. gentlemen opposite cannot complain that they were not filled, because the hon. member (Mr. A. K. Maclean) himself is asking that they should not be filled-


George Perry Graham: The Government cannot blame us that the positions have not been filled.


Arthur Meighen: I am not attaching responsibility to the Opposition for that, but for asking us that the seats shall not be filled until after the general election, something which they themselves seem to feel is a palpable and manifest injustice to British Columbia.
Now, the hon. member argues that the extension of Parliament was eriven as a matter of grace. I do not think I should comment on that further than to say that when the resolution for extension was introduced, it was stated by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) in laneuase the purpose of which, if not the words, I remember, ithiait ilt was tmoit being asked as a matter of grace or because of our needs, but was simply .submitted to this House, and particularly to the members of the Opposition, and they were to decide whether they deemed it in the interests of this country that that extension should be granted, having regard to the times we were passing through. I apprehend that it being granted, the rights, duties, and obligations of the Government remain exactly as they were before. One of the duties of the Government is to see to it that the Upper Chamber is, within such reasonable limits as may be allowed, kept at its strength. The hon. gentleman says the extension was given only to enable the Government to conduct such of its business as appertains to the war. I cannot accede to that. The Government was absolved from no duty whatsoever by the extension of the term of Parliament. True, its duties with regard to war were primary and paramount, but it could not be said to be released frpm its other duties each in its pro-[Mr. Meighen.p
per order and subordination. Let me cite a plain illustration. One of the duties of the Government is to see to it that the judiciary is properly maintained, numerically and in point of qualification. Can it be said that if vacancies exist on the bench they should not be filled, because the extension of the term of Parliament was given to enable the Government to continue the war? I might give many other illustrations of the same character and which the hon. gentleman must admit are exactly in line with appointments to the Senate, unless he is prepared to say .that filling vacancies in the Senate is purely a matter of party patronage. I would suggest that to place the Senate on that footing is not to maintain that respect for the Upper House which the rules of this House call for.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not care whether you call it party patronage or not, if you admit that the Government has the appointment.


Arthur Meighen: We have the appointment, just as we have the appointment of judges, and I put these appointments to the Senate upon the same footing. I did not say this was political patronage, but I say that this resolution can only be justified on the assumption that appointments to the Senate, are matters of political patronage, and I do not think that is a fair or dignified position in which to place the Senate. The passing of the resolution would leave a large portion of the country in a condition of gross under-representation, in the Senate even more gross than that which it suffers under by reason of the actipn of friends of hon. gentlemen opposite in this House. The functions of the Government are still just as wide and as important as they were before the extension, and from those duties the Government cannpt absolve itself. Nor could it fulfil its duties as a Government were the resolution to pass.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (South Renfrew) : This question, as the Solicitor Generali (Mr. Meighem) hiae .aaiiid, .its .a very important one. I am glad he takes the ground that appointments to the Senate are not a matter of party patronage. I think I have heard, perhaps not the hon. gentleman himself, but members who are very close to him inisiinuiaibe some years ago ithait these appointments were matters of party patronage. This much, I think, all members of the House will agree to, that, in the

main, whichever party is in power, that party notices that the 'best men to go into the Senate are its own supporters. Call that by any name you like, but I would not for a moment say that it was derogatory to the Senate, because I am of the opinion that, on the whole, the Upper Chamber of Canada is a great credit to the country, and that its members bring to the consideration of many questions that we discuss in this House a mature experience and utnlbiiaised judgment ,wlhiiich, perhaps, 'sometimes some of us in the heat of political conflict might not possess. The Solicitor General has referred to the question of the under-representation of the West in the Senate, but I would call his attention to the fact that the West is under-represented also in the House of Commons. My hon. friend argues that a portion of this Parliament ought to have new representation from the West, but the other portion is debarred under the British North America Act from having any similar increase. There is only one way by which Parliament as a whole can give to the West a proper representation, and that is by a general election. But the Solicitor General intimates that that would not be a good thing for the country, and says that the West, like the East, is prepared to get along without its full representation until the war is over. If that argument be good in one case why not in another? If it be good for .the House of Commons, why not for the Senate?


Arthur Meighen: We do not need an election in the Senate.


George Perry Graham: But while the hon. member is willing that one section of Parliament should be fully representative, he is willing that the other section, though it represents the people directly, should not be fully representative. In other words, that the branch of Parliament which is appointed by the Government should be filled up to its capacity while the people should be deprived of having their representation sent to the House of Commons. The Government, in the words of my hon. friend, has the right to do that thing, but they say that the people ought to be deprived of their representation in the other Chamber. The reason for which the Senate made a certain amendment, I think, is quite clear. As stated by the Solicitor General, this extra representation comes after the decennial census is taken. That is why there is a shortage of representation in the West in both Houses. The Senate takes the ground, and rightly so, that this new 59
representation would come when Parliament in its entirety would have that representation, when the people would have a chance of voting on the extra representation in the House just as the Government would have the right to complete the representation by appointments to the Senate. They did add an amendment which is not unfair to the people, but which is eminently fair to the people, and much fairer to the people than that the Government should send its appointees to the Senate while the people were deprived of the right to send their representatives to the House of Commons. What does the section say:
The first section of this Act, paragraphs 1 to 6 inclusive, shall not take effect until the termination of the now existing Canadian Parliament.
I am not going to argue when that time arrives, but one thing is sure, that this Government accepted that amendment when it said that new appointments to the Senate fricim western Oaraaidia could miaft 'be made till after the dissolution of Parliament. Some eminent lawyers say that these appointments could not be made until the new Parliament is elected. I leave that to the House to discuss. But, it is certain that new appointments cannot be made until after the dissolution takes place. I think that is not unfair.
The Solicitor General gave an outline of a certain arrangement or understanding that had taken place between the two leaders. In the main I think he was correct although he adroitly attributed-I would not say motives-but a certain frame of mind to the leader of the Opposition, although he admitted that he had a right to be in that frame of mind if he so desired. As I remember, this is what occurred: An arrangement vras made by which certain constituencies then vacant should be allowed to return their members to the House of Commons in the bye-elections without a contest, the members so returned to be of the same political stripe as their predecessors. That was fair when the vacancies took place in the ordinary course through the death of the member. But a condition arose-I do not want to go into the horrible	details-under
which .1 submit neither the Minister of Finance nor the Solicitor General nor any -hon. member on that side of the House would say it was reasonable that the con-stitutenoies of Carleton in Ontario .and Kings in Nova Scotia would come under any such arrangement on account of the



manner in which they had become vacant.
It was possible-yes, more than possible- that one ot the very gentlemen who was asked to retire by the leader of the Government would have again been elected ^ by acclamation in one of these constituencies. Under these circumstances the leader of the Opposition very rightly took the ground that he could not consent to these constituencies having their representatives returned by acclamation. Then, in Manitoba, two members retired, not for appointments to positions, though, they both received appointments since. They retired solely for political purposes. Sir James Aikins and now Senator Sbaripe, then members of this House, retired for the purpose of accepting the leadership and management of the campaign of the Conservative party in Manitoba. In view of these two retirements for the purposes named, I ask hon. gentlemen opposite if they think the leader of the Opposition would have been doing his duty to the people of this country had he consented to successors being elected to these two gen>
tlemen without a contest. These are the constituencies that were in question. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, the argument of the Solicitor General as to there being a departure by the leader of the Opposition rather vanishes, because he adhered .to his former proposal in so far as vacancies would occur through death to allow successors to be appointed, but this arrangement could not apply to members who had retired under the conditions which I have named.
The Solicitor 'General says Senate appointments are not party patronage, but appointments have been made for party advantage. It was understood 'that we were to have no bye-elections and if, under the amendment to the Act made by the Senate itself for the representation in its own body, it having a perfect right to decide that question for ditiself, itheee conditions exist both east and west with respect to the Commons, why should the Government take advantage of the situation to appoint their own men to one branch of this Parliament while by general consent on the one hand and by statute on the other there were to be no members elected to the House? Technically speaking, the Government have a perfect right to do it, but I believe if the spirit and intent of the arrangement had been, camied cult nio. lappointmenit would' have been made to the Senate under the present circumstances. The member for Halifax is not questioning the right, but he is calling 
the attention of the House and the country to the fact by way of resolution that while no vacancies are filled in the House of Commons except by the consent of the parties, the Government should not exercise its technical right and appoint members to the Upper Chamber.


William Thomas White: 
George Perry Graham: I put it the other way around.


William Thomas White: So long as I put it properly.


George Perry Graham: Improperly from my
standpoint.


William Thomas White: Will my hon. friend correct me?
Mr.. GRAHAM: Put it the reverse way.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend said in substance: You have vacancies in the House of Commons; you do not fill these; but you do fill the vacancies in the Senate, or you are unwilling to say you will not fill them.


George Perry Graham: That is better.


William Thomas White: It seems to me that there is a perfectly clear distinction for precisely the same reason that the extension of Parliament was granted. Why was the extension of Parliament granted? Was it because there was any thought of party advantage or disadvantage? Not by any means. The extension was granted because it was the consensus of opinion 59J
in this House and in this country that it woultj be a monstrous thing to hold a general election in Canada in time of war.


George Perry Graham: Notwithstanding the ballots?


William Thomas White: That was the
reason for extending the life of Parliament.


William Pugsley: Who ever said it would be a monstrous thing?


William Thomas White: If my hon. friend thinks that the term monstrous is not strong enough, then if he rises to his feet I know his power of language and he will be able to employ a term which will express the proper degree of turpitude of such a suggestion.


William Pugsley: It is too strong altogether.


William Thomas White: Last year we had the greatest war in the history of the world, progressing upon a scale unparalleled in human history. We had our soldiers going overseas; we had them by tens of thousands at the front. We had the papers filled, as they are to-day, with lists of casualties; we had homes darkened with sorrow, and hearts broken with grief. We had this country carrying a burden of care such as never before


William Pugsley: Even including this
Government.


William Thomas White: The Prime Minister then came down to this House and said: Our view is that there should be an extension of the life of Parliament. That was acquiesced in by the Opposition. Why? We all realized the situation that would result from a general election at that time. Here were ministers of the Crown engaged practically day and night in the discharge of the onerous duties devolving upon them in this war.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Labour-


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Labour is doing his part.	[DOT]


William Thomas White: The Minister of Labour has exceedingly heavy duties devolving upon him in connection with this war. How it would be possible to carry on a general election with the duties, urgent, immediate, and all-important, devolving upon ministers of the Crown at the time an extension was granted, I think no one can conceive. Those were the grounds,

and in addition to those grounds the further ground of the public turmoil and the excitement that would take place over this country and the diversion of the activities of the people from the war, the all-important question of the hour, to the hustings and an election campaign, with the ensuing disturbance, not to say the ill-will that might result. All those considerations apply to contested elections to the House of Commons because it is the people's Chamber, but not at all to appointments to the Senate. The Government of the day is empowered, authorized and obligated under the constitution to fill vacancies in the Senate, and that is what this Government has been doing. It is one of the ordinary duties devolving upon Government, and the Government is discharging it, and would not, I think, be justified in undertaking to refrain from discharging it. The mere fact that some party advantage may accrue to this side or some disadvantage to the other side is at this time of no national significance. If hon. gentlemen opposite had chanced to be in power when the war broke out, an extension would have been granted in the same way, and they would have gone ahead exercising the powers of Government, including the power of making appointments to the Senate. It chanced * that this Government was in at the time war broke out, and we proceeded and have beein proceeding with out daiities, .aamryfflng on the affairs of tire country, including the prosecution of the war, the making of appointments, and all other duties devolving upon us. So that, analyzing this down (to (the very last ajniailyeiiis., my toon friend s only grievance is molt, ittoait itbe public dinlter-leat lie in .any way infringed, on, molt ittoait here is any detriment to any province or any section of Canada entitled to senatorial representation, but simply this: you should not make these appointments because you would probably make them from those who are friendly to the Government and not friendly to us. I do not believe that the public are very much interested in that question at this time. They would probably say: Well, the Conservative Government is in power; if the Liberal Government had been in power they would have continued to carry on the business of government inclusive of making appointments to the Senate. But there is a very clear distinction when it comes to holding election campaigns throughout the country in time of war, and that is the distinction which I believe the public will rsir Thomas White.]
make. I have been unable to discover any reason whatever, except from a purely party standpoint and the consideration of alleged party advantage, why this resolution should be adopted by the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
Michael Clark: That was in 1915.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That was in April, 1915.


William Pugsley: Wild applause from the Government benches.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: At the time my hon. friend the Solicitor General and the Minister of Finance were declaring
10 p.m. that the people of Canada should not have senatorial representation until the voice of the people was heard, as their colleague, the Minister of Public Works, said these words.


Arthur Meighen: We could not help ourselves. We would lose the Bill.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If hon. gentlemen
wanted to settle the question at that time, and if they were not preparing for an election, all they had to do was to let the matter run a year or two until they should have a majority in the Senate that would have carried the Bill.


George Perry Graham: They printed the ballots; too; what is the good of talking?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In 1915, when the
Minister of Public Works declared that the people of Canada were crying for an elec-'t'i'Cin im tboraeis, of thunder, foe liimnnediialtely proceeded to have the ballots printed and sent over to England. After Parliament rose he went to the city of Montreal and, in those thunder-tones in which he usually utters his declamations, he announced that the time had come for the people of Canada to say which party should rule. The Minister of Finance, therefore, should remember when he speaks to us about elections, that, beyond a shadow of a doubt, he and his colleagues had decided in 1915, while war was on-whatever stopped them, we do not know-that there would be an election.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then what did the Minister of Public Works mean when he made the utterances to which I have referred?


William Thomas White: I suggest that
my hon. friend ask the Minister of Public Works. He is not quoting the Prime Minister, and he is not quoting any of the ministers here to-night.


William Pugsley: He spoke in the presence of his colleagues.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Surely you are not gicfing back ion your ooilleagiuie. Iin Ithiait very session tfee Minister of Justice made careful preparations for taking the votes of the soldiers across the seas. Then came the announcement of the Minister of Public Works; then came the printing of the ballots; then came the speech in Montreal -and for some reason the matter ended. I repeat that the Minister of Finance- whatever he may say now-together with his colleagues, decided that there should be an election during war time. When the Solicitor General and his colleagues accepted the amendment pf the Senate in April, 1915, declaring that there should be no additional senatorial representation until after the termination of Parliament, they either settled the principle definitely, or they settled it with the full knowledge and belief that there would be an election in 1915 within one or two months. This Government is the .only one in all the Dominions of the Empire which has during the war pursued its functions upon purely partisan lines, which has carried out a system of patronage in connection with military and public expenditures, notwithstanding the fact that the extension of time was given, as the member for Halifax very well says, by the grace of the Opposition. In Australia there have been two elections since the war began, and a coalition Government has gone to the country now. In the meantime, in Australia, under the coalition Government, if any appointments are made, such as judges or appointments of that character, they have been made upon lines entirely free of any question of party interest; they have been made for considerations which are behind the existence of the Government as a coalition Government. The same principle applies in South Africa and in Great Britain. The only question that my hon. friend from Halifax has submitted-and he foiais done so in .a very reasonable way

its this: seeing that has Goveimi-nremit bias tad rife term of office extended by
y-34

the grace of ithe Opposition'; iseed'ngithat (there its mo i public dmltenesit that will suffer by permitting these vacancies in the Senate to exist any more than any interest suffers by permitting vacancies in the House of Commons to exist, will the Government agree to this principle that, until the termination of this Parliament and until the people of Canada say who shall govern this country after the war is over, the vacancies in the Senate shall not be filled? If hon. gentlemen make an appeal to the country or to this House to sink party considerations on account of any reason they may put forward why such party considerations should be disregarded, is it an unreasonable proposition on the part of my hon. friend to say to hon. gentlemen opposite: Will you not also, pending the termination of the war and the decision of the people of Canada as to who shall govern them, sink party interest, and seeing that no public interest shall suffer, let these vacancies in the Senate remain unfilled? If hon. gentlemen opposite are sincere.in asking that the first interest before this country should be the performance of our duty in regard to the war, they should give us an illustration of what they can do in great, big, broad lines, by sinking party considerations and refraining in the public interest from making appointments which can be justified only for partisan reasons. My hon. friend's proposition is a reasonable one, and I fail to see how, if hon. gentlemen opposite do not accept it, they can expect from the opposition in the future that consideration which we have given them in the past. How is it possible for this Government to come before the people of	Canada and say: in
regard to our administration of the war, in regard to the performance of our several duties we have not acted in a partisan way, we have done that which was broad and generous and big upon this question and therefore we are entitled to favourable consideration from the Canadian people and the party that are opposed to us, if they decline to accept this reasonable request put forward by my hon. friend from Halifax, when manifestly in the judgment of the people of this country there is no public interest which would suffer by holding in abeyance vacancies in the Senate, just as no public interest suffers by holdlimg tin 'abeyance vtaaainicfes tin the House of Commons?


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, from the outbreak of hostilities to the present moment, I think it has been

possible to contend that every Canadian whose patriotism was at once strong and enlightened, had one object before him, altogether paramount to anything else that could occupy us as public men in this country, and that object is the winning of the war. Another proposition can be laid down as to the method by which that object could best be obtained. For the winning of the war, it was absolutely necessary for strong and enlightened men to combine, irrespective of previous differences, to preserve the national unity. Those propositions are obvious. They prevail in Germany; they prevail in Britain; they are not questioned there for a moment. When the question of the extension of the term of Parliament came before us last year, these considerations animated both sides of the House. I would not say that the Government are in power by the grace of the Opposition; I do not think that is quite a fair way to put it; the government are in power under an extended term of Parliament because last year the Opposition shared with the Government the two views which I have just said are the views which have prevailed with Canadians whose patriotism was at once strong and enlightened once the war broke out. It was perfectly obvious that for a continuance of those conditions'-and I agree with my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that the general question of extension will , be far better discussed when it is again before Parliament-it is necessary that there should be give and take between the two sides of this House, because after all whence does the threat to national unity come? It must come and can come only from an outbreak of partisanship. That is possible on the part of an Opposition; it is obviously equally possible on the part of the Government benches, and the duty to refrain from partisanship on the part of the Opposition must be enforced upon the Opposition by the example and the conduct of the Government and their supporters. I think that my reasoning up to this point would require my hon. friend the Solicitor General in his very best form to puncture it, even by methods of which I am not at all sure that he always approves himself. It is no use speaking to plain men about appointments to the Senate being the same as appointments to the judiciary. Of course, during the war, it goes without saying that the judiciary must go on, and I should be sorry to think that appointments to the judiciary are largely political

at any rate in any British country; but as my bom. friend' from Souith Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has pointed out, there is such a uniform course of action in regard to appointments to the Senate that a strong suspicion of partisanship regarding the matter does arise. The two cases are not alike. There is really strong ground for suspicion that appointments to the Senate are very generally political. I do not put this thing on the ground of the interest of the Government. I do not say the Government are in power by the grace of the Opposition; they are in power during an extended term of Parliament on a mutual understanding that party politics should be dropped and that the Government and the Opposition should achieve glory for their position in history as politicians and as statesmen by dropping their politics and uniting for a common purpose of paramount importance. All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient.	Is it wise for
the Government	who, I take it,
assent to every proposition I have laid down hitherto, to offer provocations to the Opposition that are only human? Is it in accordance with the general principles animating the country, animating the people, and, I hold, animating Parliament last year? I put it on that ground. Is it a wise thing? Ig it not certain to have the effect of leading the political parties to lock horns and destroy the national unity, and to that extent interfere, I would say terribly if not monstrously, with Canada's efficiency in the prosecution of the war? I do not want, in the words I am using, to refer to conditions in the spring of 1915 at all. I am too intent, Sir, upon the main objects which I say command the attention of Canadians at this time to want to refer to that. I am glad to be able to say that the Government, for some reason or another, did not have an election anyhow, and I am prepared to give them credit for that. The country knows perfectly well, of course, that there were members of the Government at that time who were thinking in terms of elections. I do not think it possible to convey any other impression to the country than that. I do not want to be unfair to anyone, but' that speech on the Senate could not \eave any doubt in any reasonable mind as to what the emergency man of the Administration was thinking about anyhow. But I noticed from their countenances that many of the other members of the Administration from the Prime Minister downwards were filled with doubts
as to the procedure of the emergency man. That I took to be the psychology of the Cabinet at the moment. I do not think cabinets always agree, not for a moment, but the fact remains and will go down in history that the Government did not have an election, and from that day on they have kept reasonably before them-and I have conceded it fully to them from this side of the House-the objects which I have said ought to command the consensus and agreement of Canadian opinion at this time. Now, in view of that, I would ask the Government to hold over a final decision on this question, if need be, until the Prime Mimisiteir returns, .and umltiil the subject can be carefully discussed and considered in the Cabinet. Because, after all, if an election comes, tremendous blame will be attached by the country to the party which brings on that election if it comes at a time when our men aTe falling in thousands, and when it is bound to have the effect of harming to- a dreadful extent the national unity.
I think the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) made an admirable speech in presenting this resolution, a speech of very great moderation, and of very strong reason. I do not think that what he advanced has been met by the speeches we have beard from, the other side and I would ask the Government to give the most careful consideration to the views I have tried to put before them in these few words.
Motion (Mr. A. K. Maclean) negatived on division.


George Perry Graham: Might I be allowed a
word of explanation? We would certainly have asked for a vote on this resolution but for the fact that an arrangement was entered into by the whips on Friday night thalt there would -be mo. division on Monday.


William Thomas White: That was my understanding. The motion is lost on division at the request of the Government. I may be allowed to observe that the motion as it stands includes all appointments from this date forward, which would cover the vacancies at the present time.


William Pugsley: It includes all since
last year.


William Thomas White: It includes all.
On the motion of Sir Thomas White, the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Tuesday, May 1, 1917.