1922-05-10

POPULATION BY AGES

Mr. McDONALD (Timiskaming) :: How many people are there in Canada of the ages of fifty-five, sixty and sixty-five years?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: According to the census of 1911 (latest census year for which the information for all of Canada is available)

there were in Canada 52,945 persons of the age of fifty-five, 52,433 of the age of sixty, and 33,910 of the age of sixty-five years.



LIGNITE COAL

Mr. GOULD:: 1.	What is the present estimated cost of briquet coal per ton at the Bienfait mines?
2.	What heat units per pound does the lignite briquet, at Bienfait, show?
3.	In the process of investigation, is the board tied down to the process of briquetting only?
4.	Is the briquetting of the aforementioned coal the only feasible means of efficient mechanical treatment?
5.	Has the board taken into consideration the burning of lignite coal in pulverized form?
6.	If not, why?
7.	What was the initial estimated cost of completing the experiment?
8.	What amounts have been expended by, (a) The Dominion Government; (b) The Manitoba government; and (c) The Saskatchewan government, in relation to the whole work carried on at Bienfait?
9.	What prospects are there of any valuable by-products as a result of the investigation that is taking place?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil) :: 1.	The Lignite Utilization Board at present estimates the cost of briquettes at $12.25 per ton f.o.b. plant at Bienfait, Saskatchewan.
2.	About 11,500 B.T.U. per pound.
3.	The immediate objective of the Lignite Utilization Board is to demonstrate a process of producing a carbonized lignite briquette for domestic consumption.
4.	The process of briquetting carbonized lignite is the only method known to-day likely to be successful in preparing a suitable fuel for domestic consumption from low grade lignites.
5.	Yes; but such method is not suitable for domestic heating.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Four hundred thousand dollars was the cost estimated by a committee of the Research Council in 1917. (Preliminary investigations delayed the commencement construction of the plant at Bienfait until 1920.)
8.	The Dominion Government has expended $445,000, which sum will be decreased by an amount of $35,000 due from the province of Manitoba; the Saskatchewan government has expended $205,000, and the Manitoba government $170,000.
9.	The question of by-products is, in the main, one of markets, not one of technical possibility. There is no question that byproducts can be produced.
In connection with the work at Bienfait, it must be borne in mind that, as the

Questions
objective of the whole undertaking is to produce a domestic fuel, the process is designed to permit the greatest possible number of B.T.U.'s to be left in the lignite residue. If the objective were the removal of the maximum amount of by-products a much poorer residue would be the result. The recovery plant installed at Bienfait ,is, therefore, only for the purpose of removing the lignitic tars and pitches from the gas, in order that the pipes, flues and other passages may not become clogged up.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-RIGHT OP WAY AGENT

Mr. SAVARD:: 1.	Does the Right of Way Agent of the Department of Railways and Canals do any work in connection with the Canadian National Railways?
2.	If so, of what nature?
3.	Does he receive any remuneration from the Canadian National Railways over and above his departmental salary?
4.	If so, what amount, and is the Civil Service Commission aware of the fact?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	The Right-of-Way and Lease Agent of the Department of Railways and Canals lias always looked after such matters in connection with government railways and canals. When the Canadian Northern was taken over, the position of Right-of-Way Agent of that road was vacant through death. It was considered an economy to have the departmental Right-of-Way and Lease Agent take over that work in addition to his previous duties.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	$1,000. Civil Service Commission is aware of the fact.



AUTOMOBILES IMPORTED

Mr. COOTE:: 1.	How many automobiles were imported into Canada, what was the value of same and what was the amount of customs duty collected thereon, during each of the last five years?
2.	How many of said automobiles were valued at less than $1,000, and how many over that amount?
3.	What was the value of automobile parts or accessories imported, and the amount of customs duty collected thereon during each of the said years?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	Automobiles: Passenger			
Fiscal				
Year	Number	Value	Duty Collected	1918.. .	. 16,118	$11,317,245	$3,961,035	751919.. .	. 6,473	5,326,510	1,864,278	501920.. .	. 10,805	11,204,461	3,920,544	601921.. .	. 5,907	8,399,537	2,936,004	831922.. .	. 7,181	9,501,362	3,278,258	28
Automobiles: Freight
Year Number Value Duty Collected
1918..	..	964	$ 1,275,179	$ 446,312	651919..	..	1,744	2,274,748	794,745	551920..	..	2,274	3,831,084	1,338,386	281921..	..	1,706	3,578,938	1,240,452	421922..	..	806	1,537,765	533,541	392.	Information not available.
3.
Fiscal Year	Value	Duty Collected1918	
$ 6,671,419	$2,050,973 091919	
6,660,770	2,095,035	711920	
12,674,823	3,966,277	071921	
11,760,367	3,642,198	281922	
10,211,791	3,053,875	00



DOMINION TRADE

Mr. COOTE:: What was the total amount of Dominion trade in each of the three fiscal years, 19001901, 1910-1911, and 1920-1921?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: Fiscal Year 1900-1901-
imports entered for consumption $177,700,694 Exports	 194,509,143
Total Trade	$372,209,837
Fiscal Year 1910-1911-
Imports entered for consumption $451,745,108 Exports	 290,000,210
Total Trade	$741,745,318
Fiscal Year 1920-1921-
Imports entered for consumption	$1,240,158,882
Exports	 1,210,428,119
Total Trade	 $2,450,587,001
UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS Mr. CHURCH:
For a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or any official of that department, and the. Minister of Justice or an.y official of his department, in reference to judgment given by Mr. Justice Morrison, of British Columbia, in regard to the mode of appointment of persons to act as nautical assessors to assist the Dominion wreck commissioners in the investigation of wrecks and other marine casualties.


Mr. SEGUIN:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, requests, and the report of the Griffen-hagen Company, regarding the higher employees of the Montreal Post Office.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, memoranda, memorials, petitions and other documents, in the possession of or under the control of the Government, relating to claim of residents of Canada for the independence of Fastern Galicia.
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) moved:
Whereas the Special Committee on Proportional Representation appointed at the last ses-
Proportional Representation

sion of the late parliament, reported in favour of the adoption of the Alternative Vote method of election in all single member constitue.mcies where more than two candidates were running for election, and also found much merit in the system of true Proportional Representation,
And whereas the recent general election has fully demonstrated the many serious anomalies of the existing electoral system,
Therefore, be it resolved:
That, in the opinion of this House the Alternative Vote method should be adopted for use in future elections for this House in all single member constituencies where more than two candidates are running for election,
Also that, in the opinion of this House, for the purpose of demonstrating the working and effect of the true Proportional Representation system, one or more multi-member constituencies should be constituted as early as possible in which that system should be applied at the next general election.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the remarks which. I venture to address to the House to-day can make little or no appeal to those who do not believe in democracy. That there are many such in Canada, I am well aware; that there may be some in this House, I can well believe; but I have confidence that the majority of Canadians, both in and out of this House, do believe in democracy, in spite of its many weaknesses and bundlings. Democracy, indeed, is yet but an infant painfully learning, first to creep, and then to walk, and suffering many a tumble while growing in strength and stature. Some day democracy will grow up, and it is to those who look with faith towards that day that I make my appeal.
This is not the first time this question has been before this House, but inasmuch as there are many here to-day who have not been here in previous years, I think it well at the outset to make a brief statement of what consideration has been given to this question by previous parliaments.
Beginning then on the 15th March, 1909, the late Hon. F. D. Monk moved a resolution calling, among other things, for a select committee to investigate proportional representation. In his speech, which occupies about thirteen pages of Hansard, there is a vast amount of evidence given in favour of this new electoral method. There was considerable debate on that occasion, and finally the hon. Mr. Fielding moved a slight amendment to the resolution, and in that amended form the resolution carried unanimously. However, the matter was left over, it being then fairly late in the session and nothing further was done at that time. At the next session, on November 17, 1909, the late Mr. Monk again brought the matter up, and after a short discussion the
[Mr. Good.,1
House again endorsed the motion unanimously. On the 25th November, a committee .was named composed of the following gentlemen, Messrs. W. L. Mackenzie King, Monk, Turcotte, Burrell, Magrath, Wilson and Kyte. This committee did not meet that session, but were reappointed on February 8, 1911, on the motion, I think, of the same Mr. Monk. I find no record of the activities of that committee. However, on April 30, 1917, Mr. J. C. Turriff, now in the Senate, moved a resolution in favour of proportional representation, and in the course of the debate, Mr. Kyte, who was a member of the committee, stated that the committee had met once, but that owing to the illness of Mr. Monk, the chairman, nothing further was done. Mr. Turriff's resolution was not brought to a vote, the debate being adjourned. Early in 1919 a Royal Commission on Industrial Relations was appointed and reported in favour of proportional representation. On July 5, 1919, in reply to a question in this House, Sir Robert Borden said:
I should he very glad indeed to have a Speaker's Conference established for the purpose of considering the important question-
Namely proportional representation.
-to which my hon. friend has directed my attention
* I recognize its importance
and I will be prepared to have a Speaker's Conference appointed at the next session of Parliament.
This promise on the part of Sir Robert Borden was not carried out. I do not know why; and we find that on April 4, 1921, Mr. J. A. Sexsmith, the Conservative member for East Peterborough, moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, in order to give each voter an equal share in the representation, some system of proportional representation should be adopted, and that a special committee of this House should be forthwith appointed, charged with an inquiry into the different systems of proportional representation, with a view to recommend one of these for adoption.
Mr. Sexsmith supported his resolution with a very large volume of evidence and argument, and the debate was engaged in by the following members of the then House: Mr. Levi Thomson, Mr. J. W. Edwards, Mr. Andrews (Centre Winnipeg), Hon. Mr. Oa'lder and Messrs. Denis, Harold, Crerar, Cockshutt, McMaster, Steele (South Perth), Mackenzie King and Thompson (Yukon). I may say in passing that when Mr. Calder spoke he suggested an amendment to the resolution moved by Mr. Sexsmith, and finally, after

Proportional Representation
a debate of four hours, the amendment suggested by Mr. Calder was unanimously adopted. Now I want to place upon Hansard in this connection the statement made in that debate by the present Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King. He said, as reported on page 1553 of Hansard of the year 1921:
Proportional representation, so far as I can see, is a juster system than any we have at the present time, in that it gives the electors, whether of a minority or a majority, their fair share of representation in Parliament, where their views can be aired ; and it seems to me that it also gives greater freedom in that it allows the greatest possible latitude to every citizen in expressing his choice of who shall represent him in parliament, because proportional representation is founded on the true democratic principles of justice and freedom, and as it gives better expression to those principles in our electoral machinery, I, for one, strongly favour its adoption.
The committee which was then formed in response to the resolution which was carried unanimously was composed of the following members of the House: Messrs. Blain, Calder, Crowe, Currie, Davidson, Denis, Harold, Manion, McMaster, Molloy, Pardee, Sexsmith, Simpson, Sinclair, Thomson and Whidden. This special committee thus appointed met on the following dates: April 8, 14, 22, and May 12, 21 and 28th. It had submitted to it a large amount of evidence from Mr. Ronald H. Hooper, honourary secretary of the Proportional Representation Society of Canada; Mr. J. R. McNichol, Toronto; Mr. J. A. P. Haydon, speaking for Mr. Tom Moore, of the Trades and Labour Congress, and Mr. C. G. MacNeil, speaking for the Great War Veterans' Association. The committee reported on May 30, 1921, and I may say in passing that I have here the evidence submitted to them during those sittings. It is embodied in four pamphlets which contain a large quantity of very valuable evidence on this subject. The instructions given to that committee were as follows, in the amendment which Mr. Calder introduced to the original motion:
That in the opinion of this House a special committee of this House should he appointed to consider the subject of proportional representation and the subject of the single transferable or preferential vote, and the desirability of the application of one or the other, or both, to elections to .the House of Commons of Canada, and to report thereon to the House, and that such committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses under oath.
This committee reported on May 30, 1921, in part, as follows:
Your committee has come to the conclusion that at this time it is not prepared to recommend the application of proportional representation in the next general election as a method of electing members to the House of Commons.
Permit me, in passing, to comment on that paragraph in the report.
It is somewhat vague and does not indicate whether or not the committee was prepared to recommend a partial application of proportional representation in the next election, or whether it was not prepared to recommend the universal application of the system to all constituencies in Canada. Continuing, the report says:
The committee, however, was impressed with many of the arguments advanced by the advocates of this system, and believes that the system merits further study and investigation by the Canadian people.
Your committee believes that in constituencies where more than two candidates present themselves the adoption of the alternative vote offers a solution of the difficulty inasmuch as by such method the candidate finally declared elected would represent the choice of the majority of the electors.
Your committee is of the opinion that this system will give a truer reflection of the desires of the voters in the various constituencies than will be obtained where more than two candidates run under our present method of counting the votes.
That was the situation last year. The committee reported in substance as I have just read, but Parliament did not, for some reason or other, take the matter up again. I presume that it was late in the session, other business was pressing, and probably the matter was set aside. We come now to the present year and to the resolution which I have asked the privilege of moving to-day. This resolution asks for two things: first the adoption of the alternative, or transferable, or preferential, or contingent vote-all of these names are applied to it-where three or more candidates are running in a single member constituency, and in that respect it would meet with the support and endorsation of the committee last year. It goes no farther, but it goes just as far. Secondly, this resolution calls for the application of proportional representation in a small way in certain constituencies. I am not asking the House on the present occasion to give an unqualified endorsation to the principle of proportional representation, or to authorize its application in any definite number of places, or in any particular constituencies in this country, but I am asking the House to authorize the trying out of proportional representation in certain constituencies.

Proportional Representation


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Toronto would be a good place for that.


Mr. GOOD:: It has already been tried with great success in Winnipeg, and, as the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe) suggested, Toronto, I think, is another place where it could be tried out to great advantage.
I propose to examine the two parts of the resolution separately, the alternative vote, in the first place, and proportional representation in the second place. What, then, is the need for the alternative vote? I have before me a table giving an analysis of the returns of the Canadian general election last fall, and I would like permission to have this table inserted in Hansard. It is not very long, and it might convey in a very concise form the information which I wish to present to the House. I will read the table and give the House the particulars, and then suggest, if the House is agreeable, that the information be printed in tabular form, rather than as I read it. This is a statement by provinces of the three, four and five cornered contests, with a record, by parties, of the members elected by a minority vote of their constituents. I find that in the various provinces which I shall name there were the following three, four and five cornered contests:
Ontario	 60
Quebec	   25
New Brunswick	 4
Prince Edward Island	 3
Nova Scotia	 8
British Columbia	 8
Manitoba	 10
Saskatchewan	 10
Alberta	 12
Making a total of 140 constituencies in which more than two candidates ran. Now out of that 140 the following numbers were elected on a minority vote:
Ontario	 48
Quebec	  1
New Brunswick	 1
Prince Edward Island	 3
Nova Scotia	 3
British Columbia	 5
Manitoba	  5
Saskatchewan	 3
Alberta	 5
Making a total of 74 constituencies where the present representatives sit in this House as minority representatives. I do not wish to imply that these representatives have no right to sit in this House. It is quite possible that, under a better system of election, they would still be here, but we do not know about that. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be very much better for themselves, for this 
House and this country, if we knew that these gentlemen who have been elected under the system that we have had in existence for many years, were entitled by virtue of being supported by a majority of their constituents who voted at the election, to a seat in this House. The distribution of these 74 minority representatives among the different parties appears in a statement I have before me. I will not give it for the various provinces, but will give the totals, to save time. They are as follows :
Representatives elected by minority vote
Liberal party	 22
Conservative -party	 28
Progressive party	 21
Labour and Independent party..	3
I may say that, in a few instances, members were elected who received barely, or not much more than, one-third of the total vote.
In the Ontario election of 1919, if my information is correct, 74 out of 111 constituencies had three, four, or five cornered contests. I wish to submit to the House, arising out of that situation, a section of the report of the committee of the Ontario legislature appointed about two years ago to consider this whole matter. I wish to state that in the report of that committee there is an unqualified endorsation of the alternative vote where more than two candidates are running, and I wish to state further that a bill is, I understand, being introduced into the Ontario legislature this year to give effect to that recommendation. I do not know whether the bill has yet received its first reading, but when I was in Toronto a little over a week ago I read the draft of the bill which had been prepared, so that there is no doubt this matter will receive very shortly the consideration of the legislature of Ontario, and I feel quite confident that either this session or next session, at all events bercre another provincial election is held in Ontario, the alternative vote will be adopted.
I do not know that it would be wise or necessary to take up the time in explaining to the members here the method whereby this particular system of voting can be applied. As, however, there may be in this House possibly some members, although I think very few, who do not understand the method of applying the system, I will endeavour to explain it very briefly. The ballot papers are just the same as they are

Proportional Representation
at the present time. The names of the candidates running are arranged on the left hand side of the ballot paper in alphabetical order, and the blank spaces to the right are just the same as they are now. But the instructions to the voters are different; the voters are instructed to place the figure "1", or the common "x" mark, after the name of the candidate whom they choose first, the figure "2" after the name of the candidate who is their second choice, the figure "3" after the name of the candidate who is their third choice, and so on to any extent which they wish. This gives the voter an opportunity of transferring his vote from a candidate who has no chance of being elected to his second or third choice. Under our present system, every voter in a three, four or five cornered contest is placed in a most embarrasing and unfair position, and a grave injustice is done to him. Hon. members must know of many instances where voters have been placed in this unfair and embarrassing position. In the election of 1917, there were three men running in our constituency, and I 'remember being greatly puzzled and troubled as to how I should register my vote, because I had to consider which one of the two candidates whom I preferred above the third had the better chance of being elected. No voter ought to be compelled, by an electoral system, to consider a matter of that sort, a matter which, in the nature of the case, is utterly irrelevant; and it is unnecessary to embarrass and perplex and worry an elector with such a situation. If, on that occasion, I had been allowed to express my preference as between two of the candidates, to put my first preference down as No. 1, and my second choice as No. 2, I would have had no hesitation at all, and my wishes would have been respected. I remember, on that occasion, hearing of a man who confessed that he had voted, not for his first choice, but for his second choice, because he thought his second choice had the better chance of being elected, and he wanted to defeat the third man. I submit to all hon. gentlemen in this House, who have any regard for fairness and justice, that no elector should be placed in that position, and that if a system, which can be changed, places electors in a position like that, it is our duty to change the system in order to give the electors a fair show and a square deal.
Furthermore, not only is this embarrassing to the elector; it is unfair to the total electorate and to the country. It is
discreditable to this Parliament to allow a situation like that to continue, particularly when we have so many three, four and five cornered contests as we have had recently, and as we are likely to have in the near future.
If we have any regard for the principle of democracy, we must surely go to this extent, at all events, that the representatives of the electorate in the House should be returned here by a majority of their constituents. We can do more; but that is the least we can do. And when we find, at the present time and in the present House, 74 members who sit here on a minority vote, such a condition of affairs is discreditable to this House, and we are not doing our duty to this country and to the electorate, if we allow such a condition to continue any longer. Therefore, with respect to the alternative or transferable vote, quite regardless of any system of proportional representation and having reference only to our present electoral system of single member constituencies, we ought to provide that, where more than two candidates are running, every elector should have the privilege of recording his second or third choice, as the case may be, so that, in the event of his first choice not having any chance of being elected, he should not lose his vote, but should be privileged to record his vote and to have it counted in the final result. If we do that, then we shall guarantee that, on every occasion, a member who sits in this House sits here as the representative of the majority of the electors in his constituency.
Now, why should we not stop there and say: That is sufficient? I will answer the question-because even if you go that far, inevitable inaccuracies will occur under the single member constituency system. The alternative vote will bring us back again only to the situation which we had before there were more than two parties; to the situation where a representative sat in this House by reason of the fact that he was elected by a majority. We shall get only that far, and I am going to submit to this House some evidence to show that that is not enough; that that will not get us where we ought to go and ought to be. I wish to cite some figures in connection with various elections to show the extraordinary inaccuracies and injustices that are bound to prevail to a greater or less degree under the system of single member constituencies, no matter whether we have the alternative vote or not. Let
Proportional Representation

us take first the British Columbia provincial elections of 1912. I find that the Conservative p'arty on that occasion-and in order to save time, I will give the figures in round numbers-polled a vote of about
51.000	and got 31 representatives and also an additional nine by acclamation. The Liberal party polled about 21,000 votes, and they did not secure a single representative in that legislature. The Socialist and Independent party, with a total vote of about 12,000, secured two representatives. Therefore, in that particular case,
21.000	Liberal voters in British Columbia were totally unrepresented in the provincial legislature. Let us take the federal elections of 1904 in Nova Scotia. The Liberals polled about 56,000 votes and secured 18 representatives; the Conservatives polled 46,000 votes and did not secure a single one. Take the federal elections in British Columbia in 1911: the Conservative party polled a vote of 25,000 odd, and secured seven representatives; the Liberal party polled a vote of 16,000, and did not secure a single representative. So there you have the reverse situation from that which existed in Nova Scotia in 1904.
Here are the results, for the whole country, of the federal elections in 1896. The Conservative party at that time polled a vote of 416,000-I am giving only round numbers-and secured 88 representatives; the Liberal party polled a vote of 405,000 and secured 118 representatives. So that you have in that election a minority of the total vote securing a very considerable majority of the representatives. Independents at that time polled a vote of 76,000 and secured 7 representatives.
The Manitoba provincial elections of July, 1914, give this result: Liberal vote, 74,000, representation 21; Conservative votes,
68.000,	-less, mark you-and representation, 25, along with 3 other representatives who were elected by acclamation. The Independent party, with a vote of nearly
8.000,	secured no representation at all.
Take the Canadian federal elections of
1908: the Liberal party secured a vote of
594.000,	getting a representation in this House of 135; the Conservatives, with a vote of 552,000, secured a representation of 86, so that the representation of Conservatives at that time was disproportionately decreased. In the federal elections of 1911 the Conservative vote was 669,000 and the representation 134; the Liberal vote was 625,000, almost as great, and the re-

presentation only 87,-a reversal of the situation in 1908.
Let us now come to the situation in Great Britain. The returns for the general elections in Great Britain of December, 1918, give the following results-the last column indicates the number to which the party is entitled by the vote registered:
Coalition	Votes	Seats	Seats in Proportion togroups	polled	obtained votes	Coalition-Liberal. .	1,500,000	103	73Coalition-Unionist.	3,500,000	285	184Coalition-Labour..	48,000	3	3
In the last case you have an accidental equality, and the same thing occurred in the case of the National-Democratic party, which was entitled to 12 seats, having regard to the vote polled, and obtained 12. In the case of the Independent-Unionists, however, the seats obtained were 25, whereas they were entitled to only 20. The total vote was 5,500,000; seats obtained, 428; number of seats in proper proportion to vote polled, 292. I shall not give the details as to the vote polled by the nonCoalition groups, composed of Liberal, Labour, Socialist and Farmers, Co-operatives, National party and Nationalists, and Independents, but the total was slightly over 4,000,000 and the representation secured was 81, although they were entitled to 217. You see, therefore, that in that particular election the Coalition with its allied groups was disproportionately represented, whereas the non-Coalition groups did not secure their fair share of representation.
The Transvaal provincial elections of April 1914, show the following result:
Seats in
Party	Vote polled	Seats proportion obtained to vote	Labour	26,000	23	16Unionist	12,000	2	7South African parties.. ..	6,000	1	3
In the Ontario elections of 1919 a Conservative vote of 386,000 won 25 seats; a Liberal vote of 336,000 won 29 seats; a Farmer vote of 256,000, considerably less than either of the other groups, won 45 seats; a Labour and Independent vote of
173,000	won 12 seats. In the Alberta elections of 1921, 97,00 Liberal votes elected 15 representatives; 81,000 Farmer votes elected 39 representatives; 32,000 Conservative votes did not elect a single man; and 30,000 Labour votes elected 3.

Proportional Representation
May I refer also, amidst a great mass of similar evidence, to the situation in the New York aldermanic elections in November of last year. About 250,000 Democratic voters elected 33 aldermen; 258,000 Republican voters did not elect a single representative. I have here some other results of elections ih the United States, but possibly I had better forbear reading them. The figures are even more astounding than in the case of the Canadian and other elections to which I have referred, showing that under the single member district system you sometimes get the most extraordinary results. I have in mind an election in Indiana. I have not the facts before me, but speaking from memory I think it was about the year 1912. At all events, in this particular election the Republican party was split into the Progressives and the Stand-pat Republicans, and the vote was so split in the various constituencies that the Republican party did not secure a single representative in the state legislature; the Democratic party, with a minority of the total vote, secured the total representation. In the next election, when the two factions in the Republican party had become reunited, the Republicans secured every one of the representatives. Now there is a situation, Mr. Speaker, that I think we ought to face very frankly. It does not always happen, but if it does not happen it is only by accident. It may happen at any time that you have the pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other, and I submit that it is a very unwise thing, it is a very harmful thing, for any such condition of affairs to exist.
I come next to the Canadian elections of last fa'll. I have prepared here a very exhaustive analysis of the results of the late Canadian general elections. The figures are given according to provinces; I will just explain briefly the information which this set of tables contains. In the left hand column I have the constituencies; following I have the various parties-Progressive, Liberal, Conservative, Labour, Independent and miscellaneous, and under each heading I have the name of the candidate and the vote which he secured. On the right-hand side I have three other columns giving the number of votes counted, the number of names on the list, and the percentage of the votes polled to the total vote. I think this may be useful for other purposes than that which I am using it for on this occasion. At the bottom I have the following information for each province: the number of candidates
running for each party, the total vote for each party's candidates, the percentage of the total vote obtained by each party, the number of candidates actually elected, and the number who should have been elected according to the votes polled.
I now leave that rather extensive set of tables and turn to a condensation of them. On the first page I have stated the votes polled for the various parties by provinces, and I have added those votes together to determine the representation, on the basis of the total votes polled in the whole Dominion which each of the parties should have got in the last federal election. I find that representation should be as follows: Liberals, 96 members; Conservatives, 73 members; Progressives, 55 members; Labour, 4 members; Independents, 7 members.
On the next page I have an analysis of these figures by provinces. I think this page might well be inserted in Hansard because the information is conveyed in very concise form, but if this is not permissible I shall have to read out the figures. I have shown here the seats actually obtained by the various parties, with the number of seats which they were entitled to by reason of the total vote polled.
In Ontario the Liberals secured 21 seats, they were entitled to 45; the Conservatives tives secured 37 seats; they were entitled to 32;


Mr. McMASTER:: Do those figures refer to the last general election?


William Charles Good: Yes. The Progressives
secured 24 seats, they were entitled to 23; the Labour and Independent parties did not secure any representatives; they were entitled to two.
In Quebec the Liberals secured 65 seats, they were entitled to 45; the Conservatives failed to secure any, they were entitled to 13 seats; the Progressives were similarly unsuccessful, they were entitled to 3 seats; the Labour and Independent parties fared no better than the Conservatives and Progressives, they were entitled to 4 seats.
In New Brunswick the Liberals secured 5 seats, they were entitled to 6; the Conservatives secured 5 seats, they were entitled to 4; the Progressives secured one seat, they were entitled to one.
In Nova Scotia the Liberals secured 16 seats, they were entitled to 8; the Conservatives did not secure any, whereas they were entitled to 5; the Progressives also failed to get any representation, while they

Proportional Representation
were entitled to 2; and finally Independent and Labour parties failed to get representation though entitled to one member.
In Prince Edward Island the Liberals secured 4 seats, they were entitled to 2; the Conservative representation was zero, they were entitled to 2 seats; the Progressive, Labour and Independent parties did not secure a single seat; nor were they entitled to any-they might have been entitled to a fraction of a representative, that is all.
In British Columbia the Liberals secured 3 seats, they were entitled to 4; the Conservatives secured 7 seats, they were entitled to 3; the Progressives secured 3 seats; they were entitled to 2; the Labour and Independent parties failed to win a single seat, they were entitled to 1.
In Manitoba the Liberals secured 2 representatives, including one who styled himself an Independent Liberal; they were entitled to two; the Conservatives did not secure a single seat, they were entitled to 4; the Progressives secured 12 seats; they were entitled to 7; the Independents and Labourites secured 1 seat; they were entitled to 2.
In Saskatchewan the Liberals secured 1 seat, they were entitled to 3; the Conservatives did not secure a single seat, they were entitled to 3; the Progressives secured 15 seats, they were entitled to 10.
In Alberta the Liberals did not secure any representation, they were entitled to 2 seats; the Conservatives were
4 p.m. equally unfortunate, they were entitled to 3 seats; the Progressives secured 10 seats; they were entitled to 6; the Independents and Labourites secured 2 seats; they were entitled to 1.
In the Yukon there is just one representative, a Conservative. The vote there was very small.
I have a supplementary table, Mr. Speaker, giving an analysis of the vote in the island of Montreal and in the city of Toronto which may be of interest to hon. members.
In Montreal the Conservatives polled about 44,000 votes, they did not elect a single representative; the Liberals polled
166,000	votes, they elected 12 representatives; the Labourites and Independents polled 22,000 votes, they did not elect any representatives.
The representatives which these parties were entitled to are respectively: 2 Conservatives, 9 Liberals, 1 Labourite or Independent.

In the city of Toronto the figures are: Conservative vote, about 44,000, seats obtained 6, seats entitled to 3; Liberal vote
26,000,	np seats obtained, seats entitled to 2; Labour and Independent vote 14,000, no representation, entitled to 1 seat.
Now, Sir, I should like to draw attention to this point. The Liberal party in this House is, under our present system, disproportionately represented. I am not attaching any blame to them at all on that account; it is not their fault.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It was the electors' fault.


William Charles Good: Whether that be so or not, I cannot say, but at all events they are disproportionately represented. There is a disposition on the part of any party that has more than its fair share of power to be rather well satisfied with the situation for the time being. But I would submit to the Government and to the Liberal party that there is another side, and a very important one, to that question. All elections under our system show that the swing of the pendulum is very severe at times. In Australia a few years ago there were two main parties in a general election, the Labour party and the Anti-Labour party. If my memory serves me right, the Anti-Labour party secured a disproportionate amount of representation. The Labour party were sore and disappointed and they protested, but the other party snapped its fingers at them; it was well satisfied with the results on that particular occasion. But the next election reversed the situation with a vengeance, and the Labour party was able to snap its fingers at the defeated Anti-Labour party. This is unfortunate.
Let me submit to the House some figures from two of our federal elections, those of 1908 and 1911, to illustrate this danger. In 1908 the Liberals polled 594,000 votes, and secured 135 representatives; the Conservatives polled 552,000 votes, and secured 86 representatives. The Liberal party had a majority of 49, but the majority they were entitled to according to the popular vote was 7. In 1911 the Conservatives polled, in round figures, 669,000 votes, and obtained 134 representatives, while the Liberals polled 625,000 votes and obtained 87 representatives. The majority for the Conservatives was 47, almost as great a majority as the Liberals had obtained in the previous election, while, according to the popular vote the Conservatives were entitled to a majority of only

Proportional Representation
9. I wish to point out in that connection this fact: that the Liberal party in the election of 1908 won their majority of 49 by majorities in . 49 constituencies amounting in the aggregate to only a little over 6,000 votes. A change of somewhat over half of that vote, had it been properly distributed, would have wiped out their majority. In the 1911 election a similar situation existed with respect to the Conservative party, that is they won their 47 majority by combined majorities of only a little over 5,000 votes, and if a little over one-half of that had switched, it would have wiped out the total majority in the House. So I think all hon. gentlemen will see that under our present system all kinds of extraordinary results may follow an election. You cannot tell what is going to happen. If we are to regard our political life as a sort of game or interesting gamble, that may be all right, but if our viewpoint ought to be, and I think it will be, more and more, that we are gathered here to represent the various parties and opinions and elements in this country and to legislate for the benefit of the whole, I say it is wrong for us to allow any system to remain in existence which may cause such extraordinary and unfair results. It seems to me, therefore, that the Liberal party on the present occasion, or any party which may be over represented in any parliament or legislature, ought to recognize that the present method is a very unsafe foundation upon which to base any policy. The simple fact that a party has a majority in the House is not a satisfactory foundation.
I have pointed out some of the very extraordinary and very bad results that occur under the present system in single member constituencies, and I wish now to contrast with that some of the results that follow under proportional representation.
I wish to read a few figures to show the extraordinary accuracy with which proportional representation reflects the public will as expressed by the vote.
In the Tasmanian House of Assembly in the years 1909, 1912, 1916, and 1919, there were two parties running, Labour and anti-Labour. In 1909 Labour was entitled to 11.69 representatives, and secured 12; anti-Labour was entitled to 18.31, and secured 18. I shall not take the time of the House to read the figures for the other years, but the results were practically as accurate. In the Belgian parliament, in the elections of 1908, we find that the [DOT]104
Catholics secured 3 seats, and were entitled to 36; the Liberals and Socialists secured 43, and were entitled to 44; the Christian Democrats, secured 1, the number to which they were entitled. In the parliamentary elections in Finland in 1909, the Social-Democratic party obtained 84 seats, and was entitled to 80; the old Finn party secured 48, and was entitled to 47; the young Finn party secured 28 seats, and was entitled to 29, and so with the three other parties that were running. I have also the figures for the New South Wales election of 1920, but I shall not read them for time is passing. The figures I have already given show that under this better and more scientific system of elections, the various groups of thought and parties in a country secure fair representation. In conclusion, I may point to the Winnipeg election of June, 1920, which was another admirable example of the accuracy which is obtainable under this new system.
Some men in Canada regard proportional representation as a fad. I was very much amused, in reading the evidence submitted before the committee last year, to find one gentleman, who does not happen to be in the House this year, making an assault upon one of the witnesses, charging him with all kinds of horrible things, and denouncing proportional representation as a " new fad," and I know not what. In answer to that objection, if I may so call it, I wish to state that proportional representation is not a fad. It has been seriously considered by, I think, most of the civilized countries in the world and has been adopted by a great many of them. I have here some figures in that connection which I should like to place before the House in as brief a form as possible. They are taken from the Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law of January, 1921. I will first enumerate the various countries of Australasia where the system is in force and I will give the data in somewhat scrappy form so as to save time.
In New South Wales, First attempt made in 1862. Proportional representation enacted for election of Legislative Assembly in 1918. Used in 1920.
Queensland and Victoria. Use the transferable or alternative vote at the present time.
Tasmania. Proportional representation adopted in Tasmania in towns of Hobart and Launceston in 1896. Used in elections of 1897 and 1900. Repealed in 1901 owing to its limited application.
That is the application to just these two towns.



Proportional Representation
Adopted again in 1907 for whole island and used there in the years 1909, 1912, 1913, 1916, and 1919.
I may say that in 1917 there was an amendment to the law which provided for the holding of by-elections, a matter which I shall take up a little later.
New Zealand: Attempts first made in 1878. First established 1914 for election of the Legislative Council. Suspended during the war. It is to be used this year, 1922.
I have no information as to whether it has been used or not this year.
In 1914 it was made permissible for municipalities and used by the city of Christ Church and the borough of Woolston in 1917.
South Africa. Established by the South Africa Act of the British Parliament in 1909 to be applied to the Senate and the Executive Council, and to the Executive Committee of the Provincial Councils.
In the United Kingdom-
And I* would like hon. members to note this.
In England proportional representation adopted <for certain constituencies in 1918, also used for the election of the House of Laity in the Church of England, National Assembly 1920; and a Bill for the municipal use of proportional representation passed the House of Lords in 1920.
Scotland. The Education Act of 1918 provided proportional representation for school board elections, held in 1919.
I may say that I have-but it is not in my possession at present,-I left it with another member-a large sheet showing the detailed results of the last proportional representation elections for the Glasgow School Board.
Ireland. Government of Ireland Act. 1914, established proportional representation for election of the Irish Senate.
I will not read all the details for I wish to hurry on.
The Local Government Act in Ireland, 1919 established proportional representation for all local elections; the Home Rule Act in 1920.
India. The Government of India Act, 1919, provided for the use of the single transferable vote in several different elections in several of the provinces.
United States. Proportional representation has only been adopted so far in a number of cities.
Continent of Europe.
Switzerland. Proportional representation was introduced into Canton of Ticino in 1891 and adopted, in 1919, after having spread gradually through that country, by the Swiss Confederation for their federal elections.
Belgium. P.R. was introduced in 1895. Used for parliamentary elections 1899 and used ever since then. In use at the present time.
Bulgaria has used it since 1914.
Denmark since 1909 for municipal representation; since 1915 for parliamentary elections.
Holland since 1918.

Sweden since 1909.
Finland since 1906.
Norway for municipal purposes (optional) since 1896.
Germany since 1918-1919.
Austria since 1919.
Luxembourg since 1919.
Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Italy, and France in part, have recently adopted proportional representation.
In the South American countries there has been some considerable adoption of this new system of election ;
I might mention the following Canadian cities as having adopted proportional representation recently. I will not give the dates although I have them here: Winnipeg, Vancouver, Calgary, Regina, Saskatoon, Moose-jaw, North Battleford, Port Coquitlam, B.C., and West Vancouver. As to Canada apart from that-and we are more particularly interested in Canada-I submit the following facts:
Toronto District Labour Council has used proportional representation since 1898, and later other organizations followed suit.
In 1916 the city of Ottawa petitioned the Provincial government for permission to use proportional representation.
In 1916 the Alberta Legislature passed permissive legislation for Calgary and Edmonton. In 1917, 1918, 1919 Calgary used the method.
And there are further details, which 1 have not time now to read, as respects British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.
I may say that I have here the report of the Ontario committee which was appointed about two years ago to investigate this matter. It contains a lot of evidence and the recommendation for the adoption not only of the alternative vote but of proportional representation in four different grouped constituencies in the next provincial election.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have before me here in very concise form the aims of proportional representation, as outlined in the organ of the British Proportional Representation League, which I would like to place on record. They are as follows:
Our aims.
1.	To reproduce the opinions of the electors in Parliament and other public bodies in their true proportions.
2.	To secure that the majority of electors shall rule^ and all considerably minorities shall be heard.
3.	To give electors a wider freedom in the choice of representatives.
4.	To give representatives greater independence from the financial and other pressure of small sections of constituents.
5.	To ensure to parties representation by their ablest and most trusted members.
Now, in regard to the method of application of proportional representation, I

Proportional Representation
doubt whether at this hour, in view of the fact that there are a number of other speakers to be heard, I should take any time in explaining that method; but I would like to read in that connection from the evidence submitted last year to the Parliamentary Committee which I think puts it in a very pleasing, clear and definite way. I will read from the report of the committee of last year as follows:
Hon. Mr. Calder: Why do you speak of three groups of Conservatives and two groups of Liberals of 10,000 each?
Mr. Hooper: I will try to visualize it for you in a general way.
Hon. Mr. Calder: You propose one constituency for the city of Toronto?
Mr. Hooper: Yes, and the members would be elected in this way: Imagine the candidates to be spaced out at intervals on some large open space, and imagine each elector, as he arrives, walking up to, and standing beside, the candidate he most prefers. Now it is comparatively certain that one candidate-
Possibly more than one I may interject- -will be outstandingly popular and that a large number of supporters will soon be gathered around him. It will be seen that he has a sufficient number of supporters to secure his election, and therefore other electors who might still desire to vote for him, will be asked, not to waste their votes upon one already elected, but to select a second choice from among the other candidates still in the field. In this way then, we will ultimately have all the electors grouped around the various candidates of their choice. But so far we have only elected one-
Possibly two I may interject.
-we desire to elect five. The next step then, will be to declare defeated the candidate who has the fewest number of supporters. The voters gathered around such defeated candidate will be asked not to lose interest in the election and go home defeated and sullen, but to make a second choice among the other candidates available. In this way the lowest candidates will be eliminated one after another, and their supporters will be asked to make other choices until, finally, five candidates only will remain, each of whom will have a quota of supporters standing beside him. In this way five groups would be formed of the electorate of Toronto each of whom would obtain a representative in Parliament.
In the second paragraph, -which I will not read, the witness goes on to explain how, by the use of the single transferable vote and the methods of proportional representation, the same freedom of choice of the electors will be secured under our ordinary balloting system.
I have now come to the last section of my argument, and that is a consideration of the advantages of, and the objections to, proportional representation.


Ernest Lapointe: I think the hon. member has not explained the method by which the alternative vote is used.


William Charles Good: I think I explained the use of the alternative vote in a single-member constituency, where the voter has the privilege of expressing his choice and thus giving instructions to the returning officer to use his ballot for the second or third man, in case his first choice should not have any chance of succeeding in the election. That had reference to the election of members in single-member constituencies, and if the hon. minister who has just asked1 the question will pardon me from going further into it, and will read Hansard to-morrow, I think he will understand that part of it. I do not wish to take up time repeating what I have said, but the same system of voting is used in proportional representation, but applied slightly differently. To explain briefly: the surplus votes of those who get more than the quota are distributed according to the second, third, or fourth choices as expressed on them, and after the surplus votes are distributed, the *returning officer starts at the 'bottom of the list and distributes' first the votes of the man who is at the bottom of the poll, according to the expressed wish of the electors themselves, and so on upwards, until there finally remain the required number of candidates elected.
Returning to the advantages and disadvantages (or objections), I call attention first to a rather singular letter which appeared in the Citizen not long ago signed by T. W. Quayle, of Ottawa. 1 do- not know the gentleman at all, but it is a very extraordinary letter, and it is practically, so far as I can understand it, a defence of majority representation, which, of course, we get under the old-fashioned system. If there are any hon. members who will defend majority representation as a proper system, it seems to me we might just as well poll our party votes in a lump, and give instructions to the party leaders to select Committees to help them out in whatever way they liked. That would be the logical outcome of a system of majority representation. Nay more, it might be worse than that, because it might result in this- in fact, that is the logical result-that the leader of the majority party would be given carte blanche to govern the country. That, I think, is the ultimate logical outcome of the theory of majority representation. I would like to call the attention of the House, in reply to this objection, to the very necessary distinction between majority rule and majority representation: majority rule we must have, but majority
1G44

Proportional Representation
representation we need not and should not have.
In the second place, proportional representation provides for a reasonable security of tenure of office in the case of outstanding men. That is not so under the old system, and I call attention to the fact that in 1895 John Morley, one of the most celebrated of English statesmen, was defeated in his constituency and removed from the arena of political life for a number of years, to the great disadvantage of the public life of his country. I point also to certain instances in Canada in recent years. In the election of 1919 we saw the defeat of Sir William Hearst, former Premier of the province of Ontario. I think I may express the opinion, without endorsing Mr. Hearst's policies that it was not a good thing for the province of Ontario that Mr. Hearst was removed from the public life of Ontario; and under another system, no doubt, he would have been permitted to remain in public life. I call attention also to the defeat of the right hon. member who leads the Conservative party in this House (Mr. Meighen) in the last election in Portage la Prairie, and to the difficulties which occurred after that in finding a seat for that right hon. member. I may say also that there are not very many, although there may be some, who would wish that the right hon. member from Grenville should have been deprived of the opportunity to participate in the public life of this country, and I am not one of those. I regard the right hon. gentleman as a very useful member of the House, and if he could only get rid of his partizanship he would be an extremely useful man in this Chamber. I may also point out that the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), a man of undoubted ability and integrity, who has had long experience in public life in the West, had all kinds of difficulties in finding a seat in this House. These are some of the things that are inevitable under the old system, but under the other system, with the multi-membered constituency, it would be relatively easy for men of outstanding ability to secure election, and the membership in our parliamentary bodies would be more continuous, and not so spasmodic or so excessively fluctuating as at the present time.
In the third place, I wish to answer the objection which has been registered against proportional representation, that it will lead to small government majorities, and that small government majorities are a mis-

fortune. I submit that the allegation cannot be substantiated. What is the situation at the present time? What is the situation in Ontario, where under the old system the government has a bare majority of one or two? What is the situation at Ottawa where the Government has no majority at all? Consider the last British Columbia provincial election, when a minority vote gave the government a majority of two seats under the old system. In New South Wales, in 1910, Labour secured a majority of two and had to carry on with that majority. The government of the Australian Commonwealth, in the years 1913 and 1919, secured a majority of only one. In New Zealand, in 1915, under the old system, the government secured a majority of one. I submit, the facts do not at all substantiate this charge, indeed proportional represen. tation will yield a small government majority only when the parties are evenly divided. And now, as we have more than two parties, we have an entirely new situation. You are practically never, not, at least, in the near future, going to get a situation, so far as we can see, where we have only two parties in this House and those pretty evenly divided. I submit further, that proportional representation will increase the strength and stability of governments in two ways: first, by improving the personnel-and I have some evidence to submit in that connection-second, by enabling a government to conform to the will of the people. I may just interject at this point that I am very glad to observe the disposition on the part of the Government to modify their policy in accordance with the opinions and wishes prevailing in this House. I wish to endorse what was said yesterday in that respect. In this connection, I desire to quote from a speech delivered by M. Georges Lorand, a Belgian, in London in 1914. He said in part:
The various political parties were represented-
That is since 1900, when proportional representation began to be used.
-by their ablest men and leaders whilst under the former majority system prominent men passed half their political lives outside the House.
I mentioned a few minutes ago the case of Mr. John Morley, who was ousted from public life in Great Britain because of the old system.
The Belgian government, prior to the war, remained in office for thirteen years, and at one time it had a majority of only 6 out of 166 members. Why did it stay

Proportional Representation
there? Because it correctly gauged public opinion. A government is more stable, even with a small majority accurately obtained under proportional representation, than with a very large majority inaccurately obtained. In fact, under the old system, political elections are pretty much of a gamble, and at any time a party, not controlled by the highest and most patriotic motives, might be tempted to try its luck in an election. I could submit also some testimony from ^Tasmania in that connection, and testimony by Mr. Asquith and Lord Robert Cecil; but as the time is passing, I refrain. Perhaps, I may submit just one of these testimonies. In a speech delivered by the Prime Minister of Australia on February 12, 1914, at a time when they were under the old system, he said:
The present position of affairs is impossible -
There arc tremendous financial anti
business problems requiring treatment and when we attempt to deal with them, we find ourselves "burked" and "scotched" by our opponents.
There you have the situation as it exists under the old system. I may say, by way of comment, that as anything may happen in an election under the old system a party may, if it is unscrupulous, try its luck in order to snatch an advantage, and the public interests will be thereby sacrificed. I have quotations from Mr. Asquith who has had a very long experience in British politics, and also a quotation from Lord Robert Cecil, but I shall not take time to read them on account of the lateness of the hour.
In conclusion, I should like to repeat that the allegation that proportional representation encourages small government majorities, and is therefore, not to be desired, cannot possibly be sustained. The evidence is wholly to the contrary.
Mr. LE4YIS: While the hon. member is on this point, I should like to ask him a question. He said that the allegation as regards proportional representation encouraging small government majorities cannot be sustained. Will he kindly tell the House how he would deal, if proportional representation had been in effect in Canada during the last election with a House composed of 96 Liberals, 55 Progressives, 73 Conservatives, 7 Independents and 4 Labour members? There would have been no majority of any party unless we had some different form of coalition between two parties to form a majority at all. Will the hon. member kindly explain that?


William Charles Good: The situation would be different only in degree, not in essence, from the situation which exists at the present time, and the difficulties that we would have faced then would have been absolutely the same as the difficulties which we face now. In my judgment, while this is not altogether relevant to the question, I consider that we should turn our attention to some new constitutional methods of getting the best results out of a House like this where there are a number of parties. Perhaps, without taking further time to reply, that might suffice.
I come next to a charge which has been made against proportional representation, and in my observation-and I have had a good deal of experience in discussing this matter for a number of years-this is the greatest objection which has been levelled against proportional representation, namely, that it encourages the formation of groups and that, as groups are,-I will not say undesirable, but rather disagreeable to those people who wish the two party system to be maintained, therefore, proportional representation is undesirable. In that respect, I wish to submit the considered opinion of a committee appointed in 1909 or 1910 by the British Parliament in connection with this matter. Let me read just a sentence from this report which is well worthy of consideration. The committee states:
We are inclined to think that the multiplication of small parties feared by opponents, and the encouragement of the independent member hoped for by advocates, are alike exaggerated in the evidence given before us.
Just as in the previous case, I desire to point out that groups have arisen and are bound to arise under the old system, and we are not getting away from the difficulty that is raised by the formation or extension of groups, by sticking to the old system of election. In England, the Parliamentary Companion of November, 1920, gives twelve groups as composing the British House of Commons. In France, under the old system of election-and I would like to mention that there are some people who point to France as a horrible example of proportional representation-groups existed, and the attempt which was made at proportional representation three years ago, was made in an endeavour to overcome difficulties created by the great multiplicity of groups. In Belgium too, we have some testimony, part of which I should like to read. This is from a book entitled "How

Proportional Representation
the World Votes" by two professors of Yale University:
Proportional representation in Belgium has not increased the number of small parties, as was feared before its adoption .... Its desirability is no longer open to serious question. The leaders of all the chief political parties, and the bulk of the voters seek, not to abolish proportional representation, but to make it more perfect.
I have two other quotations along the same lines, one from Mr. J. Fischer Williams, an English writer on political subjects in a book entitled, "The Reform of Political Representation," and testimony also from M. Georges Lorand, Liberal leader in the Belgium House of Representatives. I will not read this because time is passing rapidly; but all this is testimony from people who have had actual experience, and it goes to show that proportional representation does not encourage the formation of groups, but only enables groups to be properly represented. In fact, M. Lorand, says that instead of encouraging the multiplication of groups it rather encourages the consolidation of various sections or groups into larger groups, at the same time permitting the greatest freedom within them. I submit also that in Canada at the present time groups are a condition, not a theory, and that we have to face the situation; we have to provide such electoral and constitutional machinery as will give us the best possible results under existing conditions. As an example of this, and in proof of my statement, I simply refer again to what I have already pointed out, that in the last Dominion elections 140 constituencies had three, four or five-cornered contests.
Let me for a few moments refer to the connection between proportional representation and the spoils system. I think there is an obvious advantage in having a constituency represented by a number of members from various political groups. Let me submit in that connection this testimony from the treasurer of Tasmania, who speaks after some years of experience:
Districts still demand assistance , from the government, but every electoral district-they are large-returns mixed representation, some supporters of the government and some supporters of the opposition. Under such a system there can be no discrimination between electoral district and electoral district in the appropriation of moneys.
We who have studied or watched Canadian politics for the last twenty or thirty years know how much evil has been done through the distribution of patronage in the various constituencies. Proportional

Representation, I submit, is a measure which is calculated to make that distribution of patronage very difficult, if not impossible.
Again it is alleged that proportional representation is un-British. Now, that is a ridiculous, an absurd statement. I have here-I will not take time to read it-a quotation which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press of January 7 of this year, containing an extract from a document prepared by a number of very prominent Britishers in which the principle of proportional representation was heartily endorsed. We have also the British report to which I have referred, indicating that the British Parliament and people are considering the matter. We have another report of the Speaker's conference held in 1917, which I understand the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) has here and may make some reference to. The subject, therefore, is being considered and regarded favourably by the British people.
I pass on to consider another objection, namely, that by-elections would be difficult, if not impossible, under proportional representation. Some people are staggered at the prospect of holding by-elections in multi-member constituencies. But there are ways of getting around the difficulty. In every new thing difficulties are involved; we ought to face them and solve them as far as possible.	In the first
place, then, in order to provide for by-elections we may do as, I think, is done in Winnipeg: each member elected may choose his own district in the order of his election, and in the event of his vacating his seat the vote would be polled only in that particular district; it would not be necessary to poll the whole constituency. That is a possible way out of it; it puts us back under the old system for the time being, for the purposes of by-elections. There is another system in vogue, in Tasmania, I think, and possibly elsewhere, under which a re-examination is made of the ballots used for the election of the member dying or vacating his seat, and the man next in order takes his place. I may say also that in Belgium a number of supplementary candidates are voted on at the principal election and on the same ballot paper, for the purpose of filling vacancies. It is also possible to co-opt a member for the time being, just as a board of directors in the case of a vacancy will elect somebody to fill the vacancy until the next meeting of the shareholders is held. Finally, something that we can

Proportional Representation
always resort to if other measures fail, or are regarded as undesirable, is this: we can poll the whole constituency. Although it may be a little expensive, it would not in some cases be a bad thing to reconsult the people.
Then again the statement has been made that a tremendous amount of labour would be involved under proportional representation in canvassing a large constituency. At first sight that seems to be a great difficulty, and it has been brought up time and time again. I submit, however, that the difficulty is imaginary rather than real. For example, in a single member district with 100 voters the candidate must get at least 51 of those votes to be elected; he must canvass or speak to the electors or in some way secure that percentage of the votes. But if you take a ten-member constituency with 1,000 voters, a candidate in ordeT to be elected needs to poll a minimum of only 92 votes. It can re'adily be seen, therefore, that the difficulty has been grossly exaggerated. I would like to point out also that the practice of going round and shaking hands with every elector and otherwise personally communicating with him is disappearing; electors are voting now for candidates on their records as men who know something about public affairs, and on their integrity; also on the platforms of their parties. I think that the conditions are becoming such that this difficulty will be greatly minimized in the future.
I would point out also that under our present system, the small floating or purchasable vote in every constituency has a tremendously exaggerated influence, and a candidate may feel it necessary or desirable to cater to the desires of this class of voter. That is a most unfortunate and deplorable thing in our public life. I may say, too, that elections <are likely to be cheaper under proportional representation; experience has shown that to be a fact. Where you have joint candidates running as representing any party, as happened in Winnipeg, the labour of canvassing and speaking at the various meetings may be divided between the various speakers. Literature may also be got out jointly. I recall that in the city of Ottawa last December two Progressive candidates-I do not know about the others-got out their campaign literature jointly. That shows the advantage of this system from the point of view of expense of either canvassing or otherwise conducting a campaign. I have some evidence in that respect from Winnipeg, but I prefer at this hour not to submit it.
The last point I wish to deal with is the charge that proportional representation would be difficult, if not impossible, to carry out in large sparsely-populated areas. I am not asking the House to apply proportional representation at this time to our large and sparsely-settled1 constituencies. But I would like to point out that the difficulty existing in a five or six-member constituency in my section of Ontario would be no greater than that which now exists in many constituencies in our newer country in the West-in Alberta or British Columbia. In fact, we can form group constituencies in lower Ontario which are very much smaller, and which can be covered very much more easily by candidates, than was the case in the last election in our north country. I venture to state that there are hon. members here who can give personal testimony to that effect.
Let me also submit to the House that the island of Tasmania, about the size of New Brunswick, is divided into five constituencies, six members being elected from each constituency. They have no particular difficulty there in applying this system. In Australia the senate is elected by proportional representation, each state being polled as a single constituency, and neither have they any particular difficulty there with the system.
Now I turn to Sweden. I quote the leader of the Liberal party in the First Chamber of the Riksdag, who stated in the course of a speech in London:
Although I was in favour of proportional voting, I nevertheless hesitated about the advisability of adopting it in Sweden, In view of the vast extent and sparse population of the country. The experience gained up to now of the method in actual use does not, however, lend support to the misgivings that I cherished. My anxiety lest the then prevalent keen interest in the conduct of public affairs might wane and grow slack has not turned out to be well founded; the various schools of political thought have been represented in right and due proportion, and as a rule by those men whom they severally most favoured. A return to the majority voting cannot be looked upon any longer as a business proposition.
I have in my hand a letter received a short time ago from Mr. Alfred J. Gray, of the British Proportional Representation Society, with reference to elections in Australia under this system. I shall not read the letter, but its testimony is along the same lines.
I submit, therefore, that although there are difficulties in connection with the adop-

Proportional Representation
tion of this system in large areas, we do not need to consider those difficulties because we are not suggesting its adoption over the whole country at the outset. The second part of my resolution, as hon. members have no doubt noticed, calls only for the formation of certain trial constituencies-some cities have already adopted the system, for instance, the city of Winnipeg -and in that way we shall, without committing ourselves to any wholesale endorsa-tion of the principle, start in a careful and cautious way, testing it out as we go along.
In the past this question has been discussed in this House without reference to party. I appeal to the House that it shall continue to be so treated. It is too important to be dealt with as a party question; on the contrary, it should be considered as a great fundamental question affecting the composition of this House- the representatives of the nation who have to decide all national issues. Therefore, I hope that this resolution will receive the unqualified and unanimous endorsation of this House, and that when the next redistribution bill is brought down steps will be taken to put it into effect.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members are under a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) for the carefully prepared and exhaustive discourse with which he has favoured the House this afternoon on this very important question. His speech shows deep research, and he has travelled more or less over the known globe in bringing to our attention places where the system which he advocates has been in successful operation.
I would invite the attention of the House to the moderation of the suggestions made by the hon. member. He directs our attention first of all to the fact that last year a committee of this House investigated the question of the alternative vote and proportional representation. I was a member of that committee, and I recall that we heard numerous witnesses and deliberated for some time upon the question. We came to the conclusion, unanimously if I do not forget, that we should adopt the alternative vote in connection with single-seated constituencies in which more than two candidates presented themselves for election; we offered no definite statement as to the wisdom or unwisdom of proportional representation-that is, true proportional representation.
The hon. member for Brant now proposes that we should adopt the findings of
fMn Good.]
the committee in regard to the alternative vote, and that we should make an experiment in regard to proportional representation in two or more great city areas, dividing them up and electing a sufficiently large number of members to give proportional representation a fair trial.
Now, the hon. member resembles to a certain extent that great leader of the Liberal party, Edward Blake, for it was said of him that after treating a question there was very little left to be said by any one else, and that is the condition which I am happy to say I find myself in on this occasion. But there are one or two matters to which I would like to draw the attention of the House.
First of all, just how does this proposed alternative vote work? Let me take the typical case of a constituency in which three candidates present themselves, one, we will say, belonging to the National Liberal and Conservative party-I perhaps made a mistake; I think the name "National" has been dropped, and that it is now merely the Liberal-Conservative party, at any rate, that party which sits next the Speaker on the left-hand side of the Chamber-a representative of that party presents himself; a member of the Liberal party, without prefixes or suffixes, also presents himself; and then the third candidate presenting himself-or herself-will be on behalf of the Progressive party. We will call those three candidates, A, B and C, the names appearing in alphabetical order. Instead of being asked to make the usual cross, the voter will be directed to merely indicate on the ballot paper the order of his or her preference, 1, 2, 3. The votes will be counted, and the first thing those who count them will have to do will be to make three piles of those ballot papers which have the figure 1 put opposite the name of one or other of the three candidates.
Let us follow that operation. On the first count, candidate A has four thousand first choices, and we make a little pile of the four thousand ballots. Candidate B has three thousand first choices, and we make a pile a little smaller. Candidate C has two thousand votes. What is the result? Under the ordinary system A would be elected by a handsome majority, but he would not have had any majority at all. That is to say, out of nine thousand votes he would have had only four thousand. So what is done? C is regarded as being out of the race and his ballot papers are counted and transferred in accordance with the second choices appearing thereon. Suppose C's support-

Proportional Representation
ers were evenly divided in their second choices between A and B, we would transfer one thousand of C's to A, and the other one thousand of C's to B. In this way A would have four thousand on the first count, plus one thousand added to him on the second count, or five thousand. B would have three thousand on the first count plus one thousand given him on the second count, or four thousand. A would therefore be elected by a majority of one thousand. If, on the contrary, it was a constituency in which the representative of the Liberal-Conservative party had by some strange happening got 4,000 on the first vote, and the Progressive, indicated by C, had come third, naturally all the Progressives would have given their second choice to the Liberal, and in that case B would receive the whole 2,000 second choices of the Progressives and would be elected over A, the Liberal-Conservative.


Ernest Lapointe: It seems a fine system.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is a good system because it allows those persons who fundamentally hold the same doctrines, the same beliefs, the same aspirations, and the same desires, to give their first choice to those who may perhaps be personally more attractive to them, and their second choice to those with whom they are in closer union than the representative of the third party. That is the advantage of the alternative vote.


Mr. CRERAR:: In that event, when C is dropped, the second choices really become the first choices of those voters for the other candidate.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Exactly. It is just like this. Suppose I was a voter in that constituency. I would then have presented to me this problem. There are three candidates. One is a Tory, to use the short word, sometimes objected to but often used, one a Liberal, and the third a Progressive. Now, of course, my desire would be to vote first with the party with which I have been associated for many years, and my second choice would, of course, be for the Progressive candidate, so if the Liberal came at the foot of the poll my vote would not be lost but would go to my second choice, who was, after all, my alternative choice. It is the alternative vote. I say I want the Liberal elected, but in the unfortunate event of the Liberal being at the foot of the poll, I want the Progressive to have my vote. It is perfectly simple, and should work out satisfactorily, as I trust and believe it will.
It was Burke who said that the virtue, the spirit, and the essence of the House of Commons consists in its being the express image of the nation, and we want to get a House of Commons which will accurately reflect every important strain of public opinion in the country. That is practically what Mr. Asquith also said. There should not be, he said, an important strain of public opinion in the country unrepresented in the House of Commons. The alternative vote will help to a certain extent, but proportional representation, I believe, will help even further. We had an election in Montreal last April, if I mistake not, in which two city charters were submitted by referendum to the electors, and I was surprised to find that even some members of the legal profession seemed to regard proportional representation almost as the name of some newly discovered breakfast food. They did not seem to understand it at all.
The mover of this resolution has not attempted to describe to any extent the mechanism of the counting of the voting given under proportional representation. Perhaps he was wise in not attempting before a large committee to describe exactly how the votes were counted, but let me just say this: In order to get the full benefit of the results of proportional representation, you should have a constituency electing at least five members; it should1 be large enough to elect that many. I do not think it needs to be any larger. I am inclined to think that when Winnipeg in the provincial election was created a single constituency elect-ihg ten members, that was going rather far, and perhaps it would have been better to have created two constituencies electing five members each. The work of the voter is simplicity itself. He has only to indi-cote on his ballot paper by the figures 1, 2,
3,	4, and 5, as the case may be, the order of his preferences among the candidates, and the counting of the votes merely consists in giving effect to what is really in the voter's mind. I put the figures 1, 2, 3,
4,	5 down on the ballot paper. What do I intend to convey by that act? I intend to convey first, that if my first choice has got more votes than are necessary to elect him, you are to transfer my vote to my second choice. If my second choice has got more votes on the count than are necessary to elect him, you are to transfer my vote to my third choice, and so on; and inversely, if my first choice on the first count has so few votes that he is hopelessly out of the

Proportional Representation
rate, I want you to transfer my vote to my second choice. If my second choice on the second count is hopelessly out of the race,
I want you to transfer my vote for my second choice to my third choice. The theory is simplicity itself. The actual counting of the ballots requires a certain amount of what the Oxford under-graduate denominated as "that low cunning which enables one to understand figures," but after all, men can be got who understand figures; that matter can be very easily arranged. It may take a little longer to count the votes, but that is a matter of no very great importance. The important thing is that wherever the system has been tried, it has been found to give an accurate representation or reflection of the different strains of public opinion in the constituency.
What are the results of the present system? The present system has had some good results, Mr. Speaker, 'because by reason of it we are found here, but it also has had, in the past, let us say, some bad results. It has often given incorrect verdicts. I think the most strikingly incorrect verdict that came from the people was in the election in Great Britain in 1886. Gladstone was supposed to have suffered an overwhelming defeat when he went before the people with his Home Rule proposals in 1886, but, as a matter of fact, he had a popular majority of over fifty thousand. If that popular majority had been reflected in the representation of the House of Commons of that day, it is quite possible thalt the last half century almost, forty years at least, of strain and struggle and bloodshed in Ireland might have been avoided. That is one of the most striking instances, I believe, of the incorrectness of our present system. Under our present system it does not depend on how many votes you get; it is where you put them. Sir John A. Macdbnald, that great politician, not only in the larger sense but in the lesser sense, understood the situation and arranged the Ontario constituencies so as to hive the Grits; that is, in those districts where the Grits were in the majority he put them all together so that the Liberal-Conservatives could have a greater effect upon the elections with their votes. You might have two cities with precisely the same number of Liberals and Conservatives in each, and you might so arrange the constituencies that one of them would be overwhelmingly Tory and the other overwhelmingly Grit. It is not a question of just how many votes you have got:

it is how you sprinkle the majorities over the constituencies.
I am inclined to believe that in this country, as in Belgium before they had proportional representation, our present system serves to accentuate sectional, religious and racial differences. With all respect the Liberal party may be somewhat over represented according to the votes in this House. But so is the Progressive party, and what is the reason for it? Because they represent, and over-represent and exaggerate, the sectional feeling obtaining in those parts of the country where the greatest majority was obtained. That, I think, is true. Just the same, to some extent, as far as Quebec is concerned, the Liberal party in the House over-represents the Liberal feeling in the province of Quebec. There are Liberals in the West whose voices are not heard and cannot be heard in this House-they are unrepresented. There are Conservatives in Quebec whose voices are not heard and cannot be heard in this House because they are unrepresented. Toronto for years and years, has not elected under the present system a single representative to support the Liberal party, although I do not think I am far wrong when I say that forty per cent of the people who live in that city are very faithful followers of the Liberal party. It is a mistake, from the national standpoint, that the citizens of any section of the country, because of their geographical position, should find themselves cut out from active, efficient and effectual participation in the affairs of the country. These are thoughts which strike me as worthy of emphasis. However, the matter has been so amply dealt with that I hesitate to delay the House longer. What is asked for is the acceptance of a principle which, I think, will recommend itself to every one- the principle of the alternative vote in single-member constituencies, and merely to give a trial to the system of proportional representation in one or two, or more of our large urban areas.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South) :: I happen to be deeply interested in this question of proportional representation. Had I been aware that it would actually come up to-day I would have been better prepared than I am. Proportional representation is splendid in theory, but it must be regarded with respect of its practical application to the form of government under which we live. And my contention is that it is not adaptable or suit-

Proportional Representation
able to the British system of responsible government. I see some hon. members smiling; they will perhaps agree with me before I am through. You can use proportional representation in the case of the French and American systems of government where the system is a representative one; but under our system of government -which is essentially a responsible system of government, where the Cabinet is responsible to the House, and the members are responsible to the people, giving thereby an elasticity which is not equalled by any other system of government-proportional representation will accentuate difficulties and will not aid the people in the solution of public problems. As to proportional representation in municipal affairs, I am thoroughly in support of it. In provincial and municipal affairs it may be proper; but in the case of the federal constitution -of this country it certainly is not sound. The idea of the system is to give representation to groups of people. One man may be a prohibitionist, another may live in some section where the racial sentiment is strong; there may be another section of the community where the religious element is emphasized; and another where the people are in favour of public ownership; and so there are different groups of people who, from economic or other motives, or by reason of political affiliations, may be influenced by the idea of differentiating one vote from another. Proportional representation will send into Parliament a certain proportion from each of these groups according to their numbers in the country. But when they get into Parliament how are they going to form a government that will be able to control the majority of the House, and carry out the system of responsible government as it has been developed under the British constitution primarily since the time of Charles I? Suppose we had five different groups in this House. Let me take the instance of France where they have seven or eight different groups, each one basing its political existence upon certain definite ideas with which the others do not agree. Now a matter comes up in the chamber for decision,


William Charles Good: Was my hon. friend in the House when I explained what had happened in France during the last fifteen or twenty years with respect to the formation of groups?


Leon Johnson Ladner: Unfortunately, I did not hear the hon. member. But I have had
the advantage of reading Lord Bryce's " Modern Democracies " in which that aspect of the question is very ably dealt with. My hon. friend's position, however, does not interfere with my contention at all, because France has an entirely different form of government from ours. You could defeat the French government in the Cham-bre des Deputes and a new cabinet could be formed there without having to hold a new election. Under the British system, where there is a vote adverse to the government it is bound to appeal to the people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Well, that is substantially the accepted view although some provinces do not carry out that principle; they are changing the British system but they may be changing it for the worse. Anybody who has taken the trouble of studying- historically our Constitution will realize that it has been built up, step by step, on solid foundations, not on theories but to meet the practical exigencies of the case during the period of some nine hundred years. And so a system has been established which makes the government amenable to the popular demand. Take the United States, and what do we find there? During the course of the great war, President Wilson carried out an unpopular policy but it could not be changed because he was in office for a fixed period of time. His policy was afterwards shown to be absolutely contrary to the prevailing public opinion in the Republic, and he was thrown out of power. But what happened in the meantime? There was confusion in their legislation and confusion in their policies with respect to international policies. The government could not act and be sure of its decision in dealing with foreign powers; it was compelled to wait until the four-year term of the then President had expired. But a change came and there was given to the world the real national policy such as the Republican party has now established.
Now, in this Parliament we might have five or six groups as I was going to argue a moment ago. We will suppose that one group is prohibitionist, another is in favour of government control, a third is indifferent to both these things but is in favour -of paving streets all over the country, or some such policy as that. By political manipulation it is possible for a man to put a resolution on the Order Paper which would test the position of the ministry. But the representative in the cabinet of a

Proportional Representation
group whose interest as a group was affected could not approach the consideration of the question from the standpoint of the public welfare, as a minister could who was sharing responsibility with the rest of the cabinet. In order to save his political existence he must adopt an entirely different policy, knowing that the group that placed him in parliament will take him away if he does not conform to their sectional and narrow view. Now, that is the practical application of the theory of proportional representation.


William Charles Good: My hon. friend said he did not hear me discuss the question of groups. I want to ask him whether he heard anything of what I said?


Leon Johnson Ladner: If the hon. gentleman puts it that way, I may tell him that I heard very little of what he said, and if I had heard it, I do not think my view would be changed by the hon. gentleman's argument, having read the words of Lord Bryce and a number of other constitutional authorities for the past fifteen years. I do not speak without having previous information; I come here with some elementary knowledge of this subject, and hon. members in this House are equally well informed, and can deal with this matter on its merits. But there is one point and it is a simple one, namely, that we have a responsible system of government, with a joint responsibility of each member of the Cabinet for the whole. When you divide your House up into groups, and then form a government, what is the result? They will get men from these different groups, just as they do in France. In that country they get the groups together. Strong outstanding personalities are gathered together by a leader, and they form a government. How does this method work? They change governments once a month; they cannot have a strong government. They have a system of representative government, and when there is a division among them, they are not sent back for re-election. But what would be the result in our country? You have a Cabinet of seventeen ministers. Supposing you had eight groups, and each member of a group came here by reason of his allegiance to a particular idea

prohibition or whatever it might be, but his outstanding ability makes it necessary for him to join the Cabinet. Then his responsibility extends beyond his sectional idea, and his responsibility is to the whole country. Suddenly he is confronted with
fMr "Ladner. 1
a resolution perhaps pertaining to the question that affects his group particularly, but the rest of the group decide that such a resolution is not in the best interests of the country, and, upon due consideration, he rather has that idea himself. He is then placed in the position that he must either stand by the joint responsibility of the government or must commit political suicide by going against the group which put him in power. Therefore, when you have the group system you destroy the bulwark of the system of democracy under which we have been operating; that is the principle of responsible government. The majority control the House, and the government is in a position to carry out its policy.


Mr. EULER:: Have we not the group system under present conditions?


Leon Johnson Ladner: We have observed that where group systems are developing, strong governments are going down. They do not act together.


William Daum Euler: Is there anything at all in the present system that prevents the formation of groups of any indefinite number?


Leon Johnson Ladner: There is nothing to stop any number of groups getting into Parliament and any government being formed on the group system, but what will happen is this: that some wise ingenious fellow will insert, in between the ideas of his groups, a resolution with a direct purpose of testing the strength of character of the ministers, and making a minister say whether he will stand by his country in a broad way, or whether he will preserve his political existence by standing by the particular group with the particular idea on which he was elected.


William Daum Euler: What is there to prevent the same thing now under present conditions?


Leon Johnson Ladner: I think that now, for the first time since Confederation, we have seen the operation of a group system such as would often occur under proportional representation, and, considering the consequences as we have them to-day, and as we witnessed them in the militia estimates the other day, who would say that that group system is in the public interest?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We have had a very excellent presentation of the merits of proportional representation, and particularly the value of the transf 1 i

Proportional Representation
ferable vote in single member constituencies, from my hon. friend from Brant, (Mr. Good) who evidently has given the question a great deal of study, and I think the House is indebted to him for the information that he has placed before us, even if we fail to agree with him. My hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) has also, in seconding the motion, given to hon. members a very clear exposition of the manner in which this reform is carried out in actual practice. It is, I think, a fact that legislative reforms, in the history of British parliamentary government, have usually been of slow growth. If we study the development that has taken place in the British form of government-which, after all, Mr. Speaker, is, I think, by general consent recognized throughout the world as perhaps on the whole the best form of government in existence-we find that the changes that have taken place, from time to time, have developed and been brought to fruition as the result usually of much discussion and agitation. It is a testimony to the characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon race in matters of government that they desire to be certain of the value of the changes that are sought to be brought about, before absolute effect is given to those changes. The British form of government, which we have adopted in Canada, rests upon a very definite principle-the right of the people to rule themselves. That principle was established in England, long before it was established in any other part of the world, with the exception of the Netherlands. My recollection is just indefinite enough at the moment, that I cannot give the precise dates upon which responsible representative government, as we have it in Britain and in Canada, came into practice in the Netherlands, but at any rate, as far as the great powers of the world are concerned, this form of government first came into effect in Great Britain. Our experience and practice of it has brought home very clearly this conclusion, that we get the best results from it, when we have the machinery that most exactly expresses the will of the people, and that is absolutely necessary, resting, as it does, on the right of the people to rule themselves. We get, let me repeat, the best results in actual practice when we secure the most complete and exact representation of the people's will in the matter. I know there are those who think differently. In that respect I would include by hon. friend who preceded me (Mr. Ladner), but, nevertheless, to the
students of our form of government the statement that I have just made is a fair and correct statement. My hon. friend from Brome quoted Burke. Burke was one of the greatest statesmen of his day, and he, perhaps, more clearly than anyone else of his time, recognized the soundness of the principle I have just stated. What does proportional representation seek to do? It seeks to advance one step further in carrying out this idea of getting as exact a representation of the people's will in the matter of government as it is possible to do. That is the whole purpose of proportional representation. That is the whole purpose and effect of the application of the alternative system of voting, or, as it is often termed, the transferable vote in single member constituencies. This method, this principle, as applied to democratic forms of government is not a new thing; it has been in effect, it has been tested, in many countries of the world; it is being tested even in Anglo-Saxon countries. As the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) has shown,-and I commend his speech to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), who apparently was not in the House when that vspeech was delivered-proportional representation is not only not incompatible with democracy, but entirely compatible with it, and I maintain that it is essential to the fullest functioning of democracy. It has been adopted by Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland in Europe, to speak only of European countries which have had it in practice for a number of years.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does my hon. friend not recognize the difference in the forms of constitutions of those countries from that of this country; and does he not think that to adopt proportional representation here involves a change in our constitution so as to make it similar to that of the French where the term of office of the chief executive is for a fixed definite period?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, I think nothing of the kind, and before I am through, I hope to convince my hon. friend that he is wrong. Proportional representation has been in effect in those countries. It is true their form of governmental machinery may differ slightly from ours; but in those countries their form of government rests upon the principle of the right of the people to rule themselves, and if the machinery in existence to give effect to that differs slightly from ours, that does not affect the

Proportional Representation
principle of the reform which I am discussing. I would draw the attention of the House also to this fact that while those particular countries have had this method in effect for many years, you have less disturbance, and the fullest and freest functioning of democracy as regards the rights of the people in their government.
My hon. friend from Vancouver South asserted quite vehemently that proportional representation is not adapted to the British form of government. I think he will agree with me that the overseas Dominions of the British Commonwealth have, in effect and in practice, the British form of Government which he was discussing, and this principle has been applied in some of those states. It has been applied in municipal elections in Great Britain, and with very great success. Not only that, I find that my hon. friend from Vancouver South is not in very good company when he takes the position that he has taken. I have in my band a leaflet of the Proportional Representation Society of Great Britain, a society formed a number of years ago for the purpose of educating public opinion in that land to the need and the value of this reform. And whose names do I find associated with that society? I find the out-^ standing names in all the political parties in Great Britain. At that time-and this was in 1920-the president was Earl Grey; the vice-presidents were the Right Hon. Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the Right Hon.
G.	M. Barnes, the Right Hon. Lord Birken-head-my hon. friend from Vancouver South would certainly not call Lord Birkenhead a Liberal, at that particular time at any rate-Viscount Burnham, the Right Hon. Lord Robert Cecil, who was one of the pillars of the Tory party in Great Britain; the Right Hon. Sir Donald Maclean; the Right Hon. the Marquis of Lansdowne, who has been an outstanding statesman in Great Britain, and who belongs to the particular political faith to which my hon. friend from Vancouver South 'is apparently glad to give his adherence; the Right Hon. Viscount Milner, another political associate, if I might so term it, of my hon. friend-all down the list, the outstanding men in all political parties in Great Britain have given their adherence and support to the furtherance of this reform.
I might be permitted to quote Mr. Asquith, who, I think, will be generally recognized as an outstanding British statesman. Shortly before he resigned as Prime Minister in Great Britain, speaking on the pro-

posal that this reform should be investigated, Mr. Asquith used these words:
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 by 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 be created at the end of the war capable and adequate for discharging these tasks, and commanding the confidence of the country.
A Speaker's Conference was formed in Great Britain in the year 1916. I find in that Speaker's Conference the outstanding men of the British House of Commons, men drawn from all political parties. And that conference, in the various suggestions of electoral reform which it brought down to the British House of Commons, recommended precisely the reforms which my hon. friend the member for Brant has submitted to this House this afternoon namely, that proportional representation could with profit be applied, and that, in single member constituencies, the transferable vote could also, with profit and use to the development of the British governmental system be applied in Great Britain.	.
Some hon. members probably imagine ihat this reform has had no application in Canada. It has had; in the province of Manitoba, proportional representation was applied to the city of Winnipeg in the last changes which were made in the election law. In the last provincial election of Manitoba, in 1920, the city of Winnipeg was one large constituency electing ten members. I am not going to detain the House with any statement as to the effect of that change and regard in which it was held by the people of that city. I will quote simply the opinions of the leaders in the Manitoba Legislature upon the result of that principle as applied in Winnipeg in the last provincial election. Mr. Thomas Johnson, who was then Attorney General of Manitoba, made this statement:
I feel that I can truthfully say that I have not now and never have had a single regret for the efforts made by me personally in connection with the introduction of this reform into our election laws. The proportional representation system gives a more truly representative legislation than the system of single-member constituencies. The electors of Winnipeg had no more difficulties than usual, and the

Proportional Representation
counting, notwithstanding the great number of candidates, 41 in all, came off without a hitch of any kind.
Mr. Dixon, leader of the Liberal group in the legislature, also commended the system, and I want, particularly for the information of the hon. member for South Vancouver (Mr. Ladner), to quote the opinion of Mr. W. J. Tupper, one of the Conservative members elected in Winnipeg and a son of the late Sir Charles Tupper. Mr. Tupper uses the following language:
In my opinion the test that proportional representation underwent in this city during the late provincial election was successful.
As I understand the system, It is intended to give representation to all parties in proportion to their numerical strength. The result of the late election showed that the minority parties in the city of Winnipeg received representation in accordance with their voting strength. It, however, did not favour independent candidates, as you will have observed.
I might say that the success of the system seems to me to depend upon the efficiency of those in control of the counting. We were fortunate in this province to have exceptionally able men in charge and the result is no doubt In a great measure due to them.
Mr. J. T. Haig, who was for several years the leader of the Conservative party in the Manitoba legislature, had this to say about it:
I feel in talking to my supporters generally that they are entirely satisfied with the working of the system. . . . Taken as a whole, I believe the members elected truly represent the proportional vote of the community as it was at that time. ... As you know we have had a difficult situation in Winnipeg since the strike last year, and anything that will give all the elements in the community a chance to voice their opinions In Parliament appears to me to be a good thing for the whole community.... If we had had the old system in Winnipeg I doubt if a single Conservative would have been elected, and I have no doubt the Government would have had a larger representation in the House at the expense of the Conservative and Labour parties because they would have had the machinery of distributing the seats, and as Governments usually do, would have distributed them with an eye to the result being to their advantage. Under this system no such thing can happen.
He goes on and makes some further observations, which I do not need to read to the House, commending proportional representation to the people of Manitoba. These, Mr. Speaker, are the opinions of men in Manitoba drawn from the various political parties in that province, and while the persons who give expression to these views differ upon almost everything else under the sun, it is a significant fact that they are in agreement with regard to the merits of proportional representation as applied in the city of Winnipeg.
The resolution proposed by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) seeks rather to draw attention to the matter; he specifically suggests that it be applied to single member constituencies under the alternative vote and that it be tested out in a few urban constituencies in the next election. I think it is a reasonable proposal. The principle underlying it is sound, and I trust that it will have the support of the House and that effect will be given to it at the next general election.


Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be to the advantage of the House if this resolution could be disposed of this afternoon, and that is my reason for saying just a word or two at the moment.
First of all, may I congratulate the mover of the resolution (Mr. Good) on the exceedingly able speech he has made and the very lucid exposition he has given to the House of this important question?
In a word, Mr. Speaker, I find myself in entire sympathy with the resolution, and, so far as an individual member has voice in the House, would );ke to express myself as supporting it as it stands. In this matter the Government would wish to be governed by the opinion of the House, and if the House approves the resolution the Government will do all in its power to give effect to it as opportunity affords.
Let me say, in regard to the discussion that has taken place and the effect that this resolution, if carried, might have upon responsible government, that I failed to follow altogether the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner). Responsible government is based primarily upon a representative parliament, and any measure that will help to make Parliament more truly representative of the public will must necessarily be furthering responsible government rather than in any way limiting it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But the cabinet would
not be responsible to Parliament. Surely you would have to change the responsibilities and functions of the cabinet so that an adverse vote would not compel the administration to go to the country.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think my hon. friend quite sees the significance of the resolution. The government would be formed in precisely the same way under this system as it is at present-out of a body of representatives of the people who could command the confidence of the

Proportional Representation
House. I confess that as I study the question more and more, it is my view that instead of adding to the number of groups in the House, the adoption of what is proposed here might tend to limit the groups. My. hon. friend assumes that every man who runs on a given ticket will be elected on that ticket, hut that is not going to be the effect of this system. You might have any number of persons seeking to represent certain sections of the people in Parliament, but it does not follow that they would all be elected. My view is that instead of a man being returned to Parliament on a minority vote of the constituents, if this system is adopted the only representatives who will find seats in the House will be those who command a majority of the votes cast. It is to ensure representation based upon a majority that the proposal has been made and that this reform is so much needed.
There have been quotations from Burke, and from illustrious political reformers. May I add just one to the number, from Pym, who in the time of Charles I, said:
That form of government is best which doth actuate and dispose every part and member of the state to the common good.
I do not think it is possible to surpass that as a maxim of government; and a system of representation which will give freer and fuller and truer expression to the popular will on the part of all classes in the country is helping to bring about that form of government. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am only too glad to have this opportunity of helping to further an electoral reform of this character.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaven-ture):: Mr. Speaker, I admit that many good things have been said this afternoon in favour of proportional representation. I heard all these arguments thirteen years ago in this House when the matter was brought forward by the late member for Jacques Cartier, the Hon. Mr. Monk. We were told then that this system had worked well in Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands; that it had been .tried in various European countries, and so on. But the House did not take to the idea, and the suggestion of the member for Jacques Cartier fell on deaf ears. The proposal has remained dormant ever since that time.
There is one point I should like the House not to overlook. Canada is a confederation; this Parliament represents people who entered confederation on the basis of cer-

tain fixed ideas, a certain definite understanding. It was stipulated that the representation of the province of Quebec would be fixed at a certain number and that that was to be the basis for the representation of all the other parts of the Dominion. Now the idea is prevalent in the province of Quebec that the views of other provinces are being imposed upon Quebec without its people being given a chance to express their opinion thereon. In the last election my majority was almost
5,000,	though I left the riding fifteen days before the voting took place. But out of
13,000	voters on the list, 6,000 did not vote. The women abstained from voting, and they did so on advice given from the highest quarters. The stand has been taken by the most prominent members of the church in the province of Quebec that there is grave doubt whether female suffrage is in the interests of the state. The province has refused to allow female suffrage in provincial affairs. Last year the city of Montreal, voting on the choice of a municipal system, declared against proportional representation by an overwhelming majority. I submit very respectfully that notwithstanding all that may be said in favour of proportional representation in the cities -'it has no application in the rural districts -nothing should be done-and I would have to vote against the motion if it was voted on-that would bind this House to the principle of it until the matter had been fully considered and the people of the province of Quebec given an opportunity, through their legislature or otherwise, of accepting it.
We have adopted that method in connection with other important measures which have come before this House, for instance, the Lord's Day Act. This legislation was largely advocated by Ontario and the West. The observance of the Sabbath is viewed in those sections and in the maritime provinces differently from the way in which it is viewed in the province of Quebec. The bill was amended in the Senate-that being the understanding arrived at-so as to provide that it could not be put into effect in the province of Quebec without the assent of the attorney-general of the province. That is, the people of Quebec entered confederation under certain fixed .principles, and they felt they had a right to be consulted in regard to any legislation which affected those principles. I certainly take objection to a change in the franchise law of the province of Quebec through the

Questions
introduction of proportional representation until it has been made an issue in the province and adopted by the legislature.


William Charles Good: Is the hon. member aware
that the resolution which I have moved does not call for endorsation of the principle of proportional representation by this House, but only for the creation of one or more multi-member constituencies to demonstrate its working?


Charles Marcil: There is another point
to which I desire to call the attention of the House. The city of Toronto is often mentioned in this House, and Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier good-humouredly referred to it on one occasion as the city which cheered and honoured him but never gave him a vote. If proportional representation were adopted in Toronto it might work all right, because there and in Winnipeg-the latter city has already adopted the system-the people are largely homogeneous in a political sense. But in the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec we have, broadly speaking, two classes! When the voters' list is made up and taxation for schools is imposed, and so on, we have arrayed on one side the English-speaking people, that is, every one who does not speak French, or, in other words, a combination against French Canadians. I am confident that the French Canadians of Montreal would be a unit against proportional representation. I am afraid that in such a cosmopolitan city as Montreal is getting to be, if we had this system we would see every nationality, wanting representation, and we would have "racial" candidates running, which would not be an improvement on our present system, but rather the reverse. For that reason I am opposed to the principle of proportional representation.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Charles Marcil: I have still something to add, and I therefore claim the privilege of moving the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the House adjourned without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, May 11, 1922