1923-02-19

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance), moved:
That the name of Mr. Archambault be substituted for that of Mr. Laflamme on the select standing committee on Privileges and Elections.
That the name of Mr. Bouchard be substituted for that of Mr. Provost on the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization.
That the name of Mr. Michaud be substituted for that of Mr. Robichaud on the select standing committee on Forests, Waterways and Water-powers.
That the name of Mr. Robichaud be subtituted for that of Mr. Michaud on the select standing committee on Standing Orders.
Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance), moved:
That Messieurs Anderson, Bancroft, Gordon, Putnam, Macdonald (Pictou), Rinfret, Papineau, Wallace and Wilson be appointed to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the Restaurant, as far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the Restaurant, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.
Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Kitsilano Indian Reserve

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre) :: Mr. Speaker, before the Orders of the Day are called I wish to ask one or two questions of the government, based upon a very important despatch which I see in the press. I must apologize for not having notified the minister, but I think he will be able to answer the question without the usual courtesy of a notice. The despatch is from Victoria and, in part, reads:
The Vancouver Harbour Board in future will control the Kitsilano Indian reserve, announced Hon. J. D. MacLean, Acting Premier. A telegram was received from Premier Oliver at Ottawa advising acceptance of the sum of $500,000 for the property and the Executive Council ratified the agreement.
And then it says further-I do not wish to read more-that an unstated amount over the half million will go to the Indian fund, the province retaining the customary reversionary rights. I wish to ask the Minister of the Interior: Has the transfer been agreed to as indicated in this despatch; is the sum of
8500.000	correctly quoted; what is the amount to go to the Indians, referred to in the despatch ; does the arrangement allow to the province its contention for reversionary rights?
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil), (Minister of the Interior): That is a very difficult question for one to answer from memory. All the despatch indicates that is new in the matter is that when Mr. Oliver was here I succeeded in getting him to agree to accept
8500.000	as the amount claimed by the province in the settlement of this dispute. True, the harbour board are desirous of obtaining the reserve. I have just forgotten the sequence in which this thing runs, but at all events there was an arbitration the terms of which the federal government refused to accept. No price has yet been fixed as the amount that the harbour board would pay for the island. But the 8500,000 mentioned in the despatch is the amount that the provincial government, as announced by the premier, would be walling to accept as settlement of their interest.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Does that mean that they get 8500,000 for their alleged reversionary interest?


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: It does not mean they get anything. That is their own proposal; there has been no acceptance of it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then the despatch is not correct in saying that there has been acceptance of the sum of $500,000 for the property, and ratification of the agreement by the Executive Council.


Charles A. Stewart: I will try to give the information, but this whole question involves a considerable amount of detail.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps my hon. friend will give it to-morrow-


Charles A. Stewart: I shall be very glad to do that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: [DOT]-because it is a very important question.


Charles A. Stewart: I might say for my hon. friend's information that no further progress has been made with the settlement than that one statement from the provincial government that they would be willing to accept $500,000.


Arthur Meighen: Just to clear up one point that the minister attempted to answer to-day, and which I did not understand: he said that the government had prevailed on Mr. Oliver to accept the $500,000.


Charles A. Stewart: No, no.


Arthur Meighen: I thought that was my hon. friend's statement.


Charles A. Stewart: If I left that impression on my right hon friend's mind, I did not intend to do so. That was their own suggestion.


Arthur Meighen: The government have not accepted that?


Charles A. Stewart: No, we have not accepted anything. We are trying to settle it.	*



PRIVATE BILLS SECOND READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 18, respecting The Dominion Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 19, respecting certain patents of Albert Manvers.-Mr. Jacobs.

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

Mr. SALES:: 1.	What is the number of miles of telegraph lines between Fort Qu'Appelle and Humboldt, and between Humboldt and Battleford?
2.	What is the number of telegraph stations maintained on these lines?
3.	What is the cost of maintenance, exclusive of salaries, of these stations?
Questions

4.	(a) What is the number of telegraph agents employed on these lines, and (b) the total salaries paid?
5.	What is the number of repair men employed on these lines, and what is the amount of the salaries and expenses paid to them?
6.	What is the cost of material for repair of said lines?
7.	What number of messages were handled by these lines during the last year?
8.	Are the said lines serving any territory which cannot be served by telegraph lines along the railways?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Qu'Appelle to Fort Qu'Appelle, pole line 17 miles; wire, 17 miles; Fort Qu'Appelle to South Humboldt, pole line 162 miles, wire 163 miles; South Humboldt to Battleford, pole line 127 miles, wire 171| miles.
2.	East of Battleford 7 offices viz:-Qu'Appelle, Fort Qu'Appelle, Lipton, South Humboldt, Saskatoon, Henrietta and Bal-jennie.
3.	Proportion of general average of outlay
(aside from salaries) for all lines and offices in Saskatchewan, $18 per mile (wire):	For
the section embracing the above 7 offices, $6,327.
4.	(a) 7 agent-operators and 1 lineman; (b) $10,980.
5.	2 linemen, 1 at Fort Qu'Appelle, salary $1,476 per annum; and 1 at Saskatoon, salary $1,620 per annum. Outlay for keep of horses, etc., is included in above-mentioned general average.
6.	Cost of material used in maintaining the line is included in the above-mentioned general average.
7.	5,762 messages sent.
8.	With the exception of Baljennie, the lines of the Canadian Pacific Telegraph and the Canadian National Telegraphs are now serving all points in the territory covered by the above described lines, in cofisequence of which the above lines and offices east of Baljennie, along with some other sections farther westward in Saskatchewan and in Alberta, are, in pursuance of an Order in Council, P. C. 141, of 30th January, to be discontinued and withdrawn by 31 March next.


YORKTON INCOME TAX OFFICE
Mr. SALES:: 1.	What is the total cost of the office of Assistant Inspector of Taxation at Yorkton, Saskatchewan?
2.	What staff is employed in the said office?
3.	What are the salaries paid?
4.	What rental is paid for the office?
5.	What amount of income tax has been collected by this office, (a) from farmers, and (b) from other persons ?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	Cost including rent, 1 April, 1922 to 31 January, 1923, $11,756.80.
2.	At 31 January, 1923, 8.

3.	Salaries per month: G. H. Bradbrooke, $225; A. V. Laban, $133.33; A. J. Blackwell, $100; H. Hing, $100; G. W. Butt, $100; C. McNair $75; M. I. Lorimer, $75; J. Smith, $50.
4.	$720 per year, which includes heating and lighting.
5.	(a) None, (b) None.
Yorkton is a sub-district office and not a collection office.
The functions of a sub-district office are to assist taxpayers in the preparation of returns, build up and maintain a tax directory for the territory covered by the sub-office, conduct investigations and perform such other duties as are assigned to it by the Inspector t.'. Taxation for the district.
Mr. DUNCAN MARSHALL


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	Is Duncan Marshall now an official of the Department of Agriculture?
2.	If so, since when has he been drawing salary as such and at what rate?
3.	Is he the same Duncan Marshall who was several times defeated as Liberal candidate in Dominion Elections ?
4.	Was he appointed through the Civil Service Commission ?
5.	If not, how was the appointment made?
6.	Has the said Duncan Marshall addressed a number of Liberal political gatherings while drawing salary as an employee of the Dominion government?
7.	If so, how many, and where were such gatherings held ?
8. Did Duncan Marshall and W. A. Dryden go to Argentine, Chile, or Patagonia or any other South American countries at the expense of the government of Canada ns announced in the House of Commons by the Minister of Agriculture on April 3, last?
9.	Have the said gentlemen visited Great Britain at the expense of the Government of Canada?
10.	Did Mr. Duncan Marshall or Mr. Dryden, while on any such trips purchase stock on their own behalf or on behalf of either of them, and import such stock into Canada ?
11.	If so, what number of animals were purchased by each of them, what were the breeds of such animals and when were they imported?
12.	What is the total amount paid to each of these men by the government of Canada for salary and all expenses up to the present date?
13.	Are these men or either of them now in the employ of the government?
14 If not, when did their duties cease?
15.	How many pure-bred cattle or horses, sheep or swine have been exported from Canada to South America in the present fiscal year?
16.	Have reports been made by either of the said men as to the duties they discharged while drawing salary or expenses from the government?
17.	If so, are such reports available to members of the House?
18.	What duties has Mr. Duncan Marshall performed that could not have been well discharged by expert officers already in the department?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1. Duncan Marshall is now an employee of the Department of Agriculture.

Questions
2.	Since January 15, 1922, at the rate of $6,000 per annum.
3.	The records indicate that Duncan Marshall, like many other able gentlemen, was defeated in the general elections of 1921.
4.	No.
5.	By order in council, P.C. 223 of February 7, 1922. (Under authority of Sec. 38C of the Civil Service Act as amended by C22 of Statutes of 1921).
6.	No knowledge of such.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
8.	W. A. Dryden went to Brazil, Uruguay and the Argentine Republic on a mission for the Department of Agriculture but was not accompanied by any other agent or employee of the department.
9.	Mr. Marshall spent some months in Great Britain on government business and, naturally, his expenses were paid by the government.
10.	Not to the department's knowledge.
11.	Answered by No. 10.
12.	Duncan Marshall: Salary, $6,274.19; Expenses, $2,677.89; total $8,952.08. W. A. Dryden: Advance for expenses, $2,000.
13.	Mr. Marshall is still in the employment of the government.
14.	Mr. Dryden was never an employee of the government. On the mission indicated in the answer to question No. 8 his expenses were paid but he received no salary or other remuneration.
15.	None.
16.	Mr. Dryden has submitted a report on his observations and findings in connection with his trip to South America and Mr. Marshall has submitted a report on the Agricultural Instruction Act.
17.	Both of these reports will be laid on the table of the House but it is not proposed to print either of them.
18.	The investigational work conducted by Duncan Marshall in connection with the Agricultural Instruction Act, Dominion Exhibitions, and attendance at various international live stock and dairy conventions could have been performed by expert officers already in the department only by considerable neglect of their present duties. Mr. Marshall's special knowledge of pure-bred live stock and the importation thereof, together with his previous study of and experience with the embargo question marked him out as the one man, with Dr. Grisdale, to act as expert adviser to the Canadian Cabinet representatives at the recent British-Canadian Conference on this important question.


WHEAT SHIPMENTS TO MONTREAL
Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Is it a fact that in August 1921, eighteen hundred to two thousand cars of wheat remained unloaded for weeks in the Port of Montreal?
2.	What is the cost per bushel of transportation of wheat from Port Arthur to Montreal?
3.	What does the Montreal Harbour Commission charge per bushel for the transferring of wheat to its elevators ?
4.	What is its charge per bushel to load the grain on board ship?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	In August 1921 there were at different times in the Montreal terminals and Port of Montreal from one thousand to two thousand cars waiting to be unloaded, but the peak of from eighteen hundred to two thousand cars did not exist for longer than six or seven days.
2.	The cost of transportation of wheat from Port Arthur to Montreal at the present time by rail is 341 cents per 100 pounds or 20-70 cents per bushel.
3.	The charge for elevation of wheat from vessels to commissioners' grain elevators is four-tenths of 1 cent per bushel, including storage in the eievator up to 10 days free, and free fire and explosion insurance. In addition there is a charge of $2.75 per thousand bushels for shovelling the grain to the elevator buckets in the vessel's hold. The charge for elevation of wheat ex railway cars is six-tenths of 1 cent per bushel including storage in elevator up to 10 days free, and free fire and explosion insurance. The shovelling in this case is absorbed in the elevation charge. '
4.	The charge for delivery of grain to ocean steamer over the grain conveyor system or otherwise is four-tenths of 1 cent per bushel.


MISS BARBARA LEE
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	When, and in what capacity was Miss Barbara Lee employed at the Immigration Building, St. John (West), New Brunswick?
2.	By whom were her services engaged?
3.	Was she dismissed? If so, by whom?
4.	Was she at any time required to perform services for which she had not been engaged? If so, by whom?
5.	Who is in immediate charge of the dining rooms at this immigration building, and is such person in charge as an employee of the government or under contract?
6.	Had such person any right to engage or dismiss help?
7.	Is the government aware that Miss Lee has for some years given capable service in connection with immigration service dining rooms, and has been driven out of her position by the actions of the person in charge?
8.	Does the government propose to restore Mis* Lee to her position?

Questions


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: 1.	Nov. 20, 1922. To do general work in the catering department in the Immigration Building, West St. John, N.B.
2.	Department of Immigration and Colonization.
3.	Yes, by the Department of Immigration and Colonization.
4.	No.
5.	Mr. J. Byrne, as an employee of the Department of Immigration and Colonization.
6.	Yes, upon the approval of the department.
7.	No.
8.	No.


CONVERSION LOAN
Mr. GOOD:: With respect to the recent Conversion Loan:
1.	What was the total amount converted?
2. What was the total cost of the conversion?
3. What was the cost of the advertising in connection therewith ?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1. $114,449,250.
2 and 3. Expenses paid to date, $322,635.46, of which $117,828.29 was for advertising. Charges are practically complete.


TUG MURRAY STEWART
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Has the Department of Marine and Fisheries invited tenders for repairs to the tug Murray Stewart, owned by the Dominion government?
2.	If so, what date has been set for closing such tenders?
3.	If the date for receiving tenders has expired, what are the names of the parties tendering and the amount of their respective tenders?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	February 8, 1923.
3.	P. Payette Co., Penetanguishene, Ont., $4,489; Midland Shipbuilding Co. Ltd., Midland, Ont., $5,862; The Great Lakes Foundry & Machine Co., Midland, Ont., $6,077; Midland Engine Works, Midland, Ont., $8,607.45.


SYDENHAM HOSPITAL SITE
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	Has the government decided to convert Sydenham Hospital site, Kingston, into military headquarters or barracks?
2.	If so, what will be the probable cost of such change ?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: (For the Minister of National Defence): This matter is under consideration, but no decision has so far been arrived at.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BOYS:: 1.	What expenses, payments or disbursements of any kind have been made since 1st April, 1922, out of other moneys than those included in the amounts voted by Parliament for the Department of Militia and Defence in respect of items or charges paid in the fiscal year 1920-21 out of moneys voted for the Department of Militia and Defence?
2.	Under what authority were such moneys so paid from other votes, and why was the change made?
3.	Were objections offered by the Department of the Auditor General to payments being so made or to other attempts to make similar payments? If so, in what cases ?


CIVIL SERVICE-RETURNED SOLDIERS
Mr. McKILLOP:: 1.	How many appointments to the Civil Service were made during the year 1922?
2.	How many appointments of the Civil Service Commission for the said year were given to returned soldiers?
3.	How many appointments to the Civil Service during the year 1922 were made through other sources than the Civil Service Commission?


OLEOMARGARINE AND BUTTER
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 
JOINT PEAT COMMITTEE
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	On what date and by what authority was the Joint Peat Committee appointed?
2.	What are the names, addresses and previous occupations of the several members of the committee?
3.	What was the total amount of money expended by the Joint Peat Committee to date, including grand total, also total spent each year?
4.	Does the committee owe any moneys for goods supplied, property purchased, or services rendered? If so, how much, and for what?
5.	What was the total amount of moneys expended by the Mines Branch, Department of Mines, upon experimental work at the Alfred peat bog, prior to the appointment of said Joint Peat Committee?
6.	What estimated number of days were expended by each and sundry members of the Mines Branch upon work to aid the operators of the said Joint Peat Committee, the value of which time has not been charged up to or paid for by the said committee?
7.	Is it the intention of the government to continue the operations of the Joint Peat Committee?
8.	What precautions have been taken by the government to ensure the compilation of a full and complete technical report of the work attempted, the failures made, and the work accomplished?
9.	What was the quantity of merchantable peat fuel manufactured and sold during 1922?
10.	At what price was this peat fuel sold f.o.b. cars Alfred, and at what price did. the Joint Peat Committee permit this peat fuel to be retailed in the city of Ottawa ?
11.	Where were the offices of the Joint Peat Committee located?
12.	What are the names of salaried officers, their residential addresses, and what amounts were paid to each of them each year, for salaries and expenses?
13.	Have any of the salaried officials applied for patents for improvements in the manufacture of peat fuel or in the machinery required in said manufacture ?
14.	If so, when and in whose name were such applications for patent made?


LIGNITE UTILIZATION BOARD
Mr. IRVINE:: 1.	On what date and by what authority was the Lignite Utilization Board of Canada appointed?
2.	What are the names, addresses and previous occupations of the several members of the said board?
3.	What was the total amount of money expended by the said board to date, also the amounts expended during each of the several years since appointment?
4.	Does the said board owe any money for goods, machinery or other materials supplied, goods, machinery or other materials ordered but not yet supplied, property purchased or agreed to be purchased, or services rendered or under contract?
5.	If so, how much and what are the details?
6.	What was the quantity, in short tons, of briquettes made, and what was the quantity, in short tons, marketed, sold and paid for each year, and at what price f.o.b. Bienfait were the briquettes manufactured, sold in 1922?
7.	Have the briquettes produced during the year 19211922 been found by consumers to be satisfactory as fuel?
8.	Were the members of the board paid for their services or for expenses?
9.	If so, what amounts were paid each year, and to whom, under both these headings?
10.	What are names of salaried officers employed by said board, length of time employed, salaries paid, previous employment before being engaged by the Board, and salaries received by them in such previous employment ?
25$
11.	What, if any, monetary obligations were undertaken by the board in excess of or in anticipation of government appropriations?
12.	By whose authority were fourteen expensively constructed houses, besides a probably necessary boarding house, erected?
13.	What were the reasons for such constructions, in face of the continued failure of the works to make briquettes commercially?
14.	Were officials of the government employed, without remuneration from the board, to do work for the said board ?
15.	If so, what were the names of such officials and what estimated time were they so employed?
16.	Is it the intention of the government to continut the operations of the board?


CIVIL SERVANTS-QUEBEC CITY AND DISTRICT
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	What are the names of the civil servants employed in the various government departments who art stationed in the city and district of Quebec?
2.	On what dates were they employed?
3.	On whose recommendation was each appointment made?
4.	What is the nature of their employment and the salary of each?
5.	What are the names of those who passed the civil service examinations ?


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES-QUEBEC CITY AND DISTRICT
Mr. CANNON:: 1.	What are the names of the government employees, temporary or permanent, employed in the city and district of Quebec who have been dismissed between October 15, 1911, and December 25, 1921?
2.	What are the names of those dismissed following an inquiry?
3.	What are the names of those dismissed without an inquiry-?
4.	How many of these employees have been reinstated, and on what dates?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, reports and memoranda relative to the dismissal of Mdlle. Adrienne Boulay, postmistress at Sayabec, and relative to the appointment of her successor.



VANCOUVER HARBOUR BOARD

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return showing all correspondence, letters, documents, petitions, etc., passed between the government or any member of the government, or officials of the department and persons in Vancouver, B.C., relating to retirement of certain members of the Vancouver Harbour Board and the appointment of successors; also copies of the orders in council appointing members of the Vancouver Harbour Board since its inception; also orders in council that have passed since January 1, 1922, authorizing the expenditure of of moneys by the Harbour Commissioners in harbour improvements.



CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. R. M. ROMBOUGH

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of all correspondence, writings, documents, or other communications passing between the present
3S8

Proportional Representation
Prime Minister or any one on his behalf, and R. M. Rombough since May 1, 1921, on the subject of an investigation or proposed investigation into the Grain Trade. .



PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION


William Charles Good: Whereas the special committee on proportional representation appointed at the last session of the last parliament reported in favour of the adoption of the alternative vote method of election in all single member constituencies when more than two candidates were running for election, and also found much merit in the system of true proportional representation;
And whereas the last general election has fully demonstrated the many serious anomalies of the existing electoral system;
And whereas this matter was debated at the last session of the present parliament but did not reach a vote;
And whereas the government has promised to submit a Redistribution bill during the present session;
And whereas it is important that any desirable electoral reforms be adopted in conjunction with Redistribution ;
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 rimning for election.
He said: Mr. Speaker, last year when I brought this matter to the attention of the House I included both of the proposals for electoral reform in a single resolution. I think that a mistake was made in so doing, a mistake into which I fell, I presume, because the two questions had both been referred to a committee in the preceding parliament (1921) and were both investigated and reported on by that committee. This year, however, I am submitting the matter in two distinct resolutions. The first proposal was unanimously recommended by the parliamentary committee of 1921, and no objection was raised to it in the course of the debate last year. I take it, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that we might dispose of this resolution without further debate, and proceed to the consideration of proportional representation upon which I presume there is a greater difference of opinion.
However, before putting the question I deem it advisable-in view of the fact that there may be some here who were not in the House last year when the matter was discussed and have not read the debate in Hansard- to explain very briefly the meaning of the expression "the alternative vote method". But before doing that let me point out, as I did last year, something of the need for this reform. In the Ontario elections of 1919, out of 111 contests there were 74 three-, four-, or five-cornered contests. In the Dominion elections of 1921 out of 235 contests there were

140 three-, four-, or five-cornered contests. I have not the figures as to the number of three-, four-, or five-cornered contests in the last British elections in 1922, but 178 were elected by a minority vote.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having thus pointed out very briefly the needs of the situation may I explain three points in connection with the system itself.
First, as to the ballot. The ballot under the new method would be identical with the ballot that we are accustomed to use at the present time. Second, with respect to the duties of the elector. Instead of placing a cross opposite the name of the candidate whom the elector wishes to vote for, the elector places the figure 1 opposite his first choice, the figure 2 opposite his second choice-if he so desires-the figure 3 opposite his third choice, and so on to any extent to which he may desire to go. In case of three candidates running it would be sufficient, of course, for any elector to mark on the ballot paper his first and second choices, to mark them by the figures 1 and 2. In the case of four candidates, he would be invited to place the figures 1, 2 and 3 opposite his first, second and third choices.
In the third place,-in respect to the count. The candidate who has the lowest number of votes is declared out of the running, and his votes are distributed among the remaining candidates according to the preferences expressed thereon by the elector. The process is simplicity itself, and the result is that we are quite sure that every candidate who is elected is chosen by a clear majority over all.


Mr. HOCKEN:: May I ask whether, in the event of an elector only marking his first choice, that would be a good ballot?


William Charles Good: Yes, I intended to mention that point. In answer to the hon. gentleman from West Toronto I may say that if an elector marks nothing on the ballot, of course the ballot is useless; but if the elector marks his first choice, either with the figure 1 or with an X, that ballot is perfectly good and it operates as our ballot does at the present time. But the elector's wishes in that event are impossible to discover in case his first choice comes lowest in the first count, or should be eliminated later in the count. The elector is, therefore, requested to put the figure 1 opposite his first choice, and he is invited, if he has any preferences, to express them on the ballot paper. If he does not choose to exercise the right which he has, then, of course, we cannot help it, he simply does what he does now; but the new method

Proportional Representation
of voting permits the elector to express his preferences beyond merely voting for one candidate.
I think, Mr. Speaker, .that as there was no objection raised to this particular reform last year, and as I have not heard any objection, it is needless to spend further time upon the resolution at present, and we might have the question put.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask whether the government has any policy upon this question?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: The motion having been brought forward by a private member and not by the ministry, any member of the government is free to vote as he pleases on the subject. For myself I intend to vote for the motion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Good). I may say that when this matter was debated last session the Prime Minister expressed his views upon it, giving his assurance of support of the motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Lost.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant), moved:
Whereas the special committee on proportional representation appointed at the last session of the last parliament reported in favour of the adoption of the alternative vote method of election in all single member constituencies when more than two candidates were running for election, and also found much merit in the system of true proportional representation
And whereas the last general election has fully demonstrated the many serious anomalies of the existing electoral system;
And whereas this matter was debated at the last session of the present parliament but did not reach a vote;
And whereas the government has promised to submit a redistribution bill during the present session;
And whereas it is important that any desirable electoral reforms be adopted in conjunction with redistribution;
Therefore be it resolved,-
That in the opinion of this House, for the purpose of demonstrating the working and effects of the system of true proportional representation, one or more multi-member constituencies should be constituted by the redistribution legislation in which that system should be applied at the next general election.
He said: May I be permitted for a very few minutes to give a resume of the case I presented last year, in view of the fact that there may be some members present now who have not read the debates in Hansard and who were not here lhst year?
I traced last year, first the history of the attention which had been given to this subject by this parliament from the time when the late Hon. Mr. Monk introduced it on the 15th March, 1909, up to the the time at which I spoke, covering a number of cases when this matter was submitted to and debated by this House and action taken thereon. Without mentioning all of the cases which I mentioned last year, I would like to draw attention to the fact that in 1921 a committee was appointed to consider this matter, which committee reported quite late in the session of 1921, too late for anything to be done during that session.
Now, as the House has already adopted the first recommendation of that committee, I wish to deal with the other question presented to it. I pointed out last year that, having adopted the alternative vote method, we would not necessarily get very far towards a true representation, and I instanced a number of cases under the old system which showed how difficult it was either with the voting method we have followed in the past, or with the alternative vote method, to secure a true representation. May I briefly enumerate the cases which I presented to the House last year in that connection? They were: Nova Scotia federal election of 1904; British Columbia federal election of 1911; Dominion federal election of 1896; Manitoba provincial election of 1914; Dominion federal election of 1908; Dominion federal election of 1911; British elections of 1918; Transvaal elections of 1914; Ontario provincial elections of 1919; Alberta election of 1921; New York alder-manic elections of 1921.
I then proceeded to make a somewhat exhaustive analysis of the last Canadian general election and gave a very large number of facts in that connection. Next I pointed out-illustrating this point by referring to the Canadian federal elections of 1908 and 1911-the way in which the pendulum swung from one extreme to another, with a very small change in popular vote; and in that connection I pointed out that in 1911 a majority of 47 representatives could have been wiped out by a change in the popular vote of less than 3,000. So there is a great deal to support the statement that under the old system the result of our elections was pretty much of a political gamble. I pointed out, next, the very remarkable accuracy in representation which occurs under the system of proportional voting, referring in that connection to the Tasmanian elections of 1909, 1912, 1916 and 1919; the Belgian elections of 1908; the Finland elections of 1909; the New South Wales' elec-
Proportional Representation
[Stage Direction]
tions of 1920; and the Winnipeg elections of 1920.	.
I dealt next with the growth of the sentiment in favour of proportional representation throughout the world, referring to a number of places and countries which had adopted this newer system of representation. Among these I may again mention the following: New South Wales-and in that connection I may say that Queensland and Victoria have adopted the alternative vote,-Tasmania; New Zealand; South Africa (for the Senate); England (for the university constituencies); Scotland (for the school board); Ireland; India {the alternative vote); some cities in the United States; Switzerland; Belgium; Bulgaria; Sweden; Finland; Norway (optional lor municipal elections); Germany; Austria. Moreover Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, Italy and France have adopted half-measures of proportional representation. In addition I pointed out that a number of Canadian cities had adopted this system, among them the following: Winnipeg, Vancouver, Calgary, Regma, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, and so on.
I referred next to the report of the committee appointed by the Ontario legislature about three years ago, which reported two years ago. And lastly I considered a number of advantages and disadvantages, or advantages of and objections, to proportional representation First, I discussed the idea of majority representation as against proportional representation. In the second place I showed the security of tenure of office of outstanding men which is obtained by this better system of representation. Third, I showed that the claim that proportional representation will necessarily lead to small majorities in legislative bodies cannot be substantiated, and I examined a number of cases to prove that point, namely, British Columbia, New South Wales, Australia and New Zealand. I examined, in the fourth place, the charge that proportional representation encourages the formation of groups, and I think I showed pretty conclusively that that charge could not be substantiated. In the fifth place, I pointed out that proportional representation makes impossible or difficult the spoils system. In the sixth place, I examined the allegation that proportional representation is .un-British. In the seventh place, I discussed the supposed difficulties of holding by-elections under proportional representation. In the eighth place, I dealt with the alleged difficulty in canvassing large constituencies. In the ninth place, I discussed the effect of proportional representation on the power of a small minority of floating or purchasable voters. And, in the last place, I discussed the question of the

difficulty of operating this system in large, sparsely settled areas.
That, Mr. Speaker, in brief, is the case which I presented last year. I want to discuss now just for a very short time one or two objections that were raised last year, and which, owing to the adjournment of the debate, I had not the opportunity of dealing with on that occasion.
I wish to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) last year, which are found in Hansard at pages 1651 and 1652. In answer to a question of mine the hon. member for South Vancouver to-day, spoke as follows:
Unfortunately I did not hear the hon. member-
Referring to myself. .
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.
A little further on, in answer to another question of mine, the hon. member said:
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.
The inference from these remarks is that the late Lord Bryce was opposed to proportional representation. I want simply to point out that Lord Bryce was a vice-president of the British Proportional Representation Society, and I wish to read at this point-
Mr. LADNER:: Has the hon. gentleman
read through my speech of last year? I do not say that Lord Bryce is an exponent against proportional representation; but I say that he gives such an analysis of the federal systems of government that it is impossible for a person studying those systems to apply in practical polities and statesmanship the principles underlying proportional representation. I do not suppose my hon. friend intends to distort my speech; but that is what he is doing. He is leaving the inference that something which I stated to the House last year is not correct. If my hon. friend will read through my remarks, he will see that iu the application of the principle of proportional representation to our federal system, there is a difficulty which he has yet to overcome, and so far, in his speeches of this year and last year, he has not overcome it.


William Charles Good: I am very sorry if I misunderstood the hon. member last year. I certainly heard all his address last year, and I think I read it all again this year in Hansard. But it is possible that I misunderstood the hon. gentleman, and I am very glad to

Proportional Representation
hear him state now that Lord Bryce did not oppose proportional representation. Since the matter was raised last year and since I was afraid that a wrong impression had been given as to Lord Bryce's position, I wished to read some remarks which Lord Bryce made in a debate on the Representation of the People Bill in the House of Lords in England, on 22 January, 1918:
My noble friend, .Lord Harcourt, poured some scorn upon the whole plan of proportional representation as if it was a fad confined to certain persons in this country. It is the fact that over nearly all the free countries at this moment men's minds are very much exercised upon this question of proportional representation. There is hardly any considerable country popularly governed which has not been confronted with the very same difficulty which proportional representation is meant to meet as we are trying to grapple With here. The experiment is being tried in an additional number of countries almost every year. New Zealand has just adopted it. I was in Tasmania a few years ago and I can tell my noble friend Lord Harcourt that the opinion of Tasmania was in favour of the plan which has been adopted, and that I did not hear of any desire to depart from it. The same thing is true about other countries which I will not enumerate. And the reason is this, that conditions have changed. My noble friend quoted the opinion of Lord Beaconsfield, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Bright. It is thirty-eight years since Lord Beaconsfield died. Our politics and our party system have changed completely. We have now got three or four parties and we cannot tell whether the process of dividing up parties, which has gone so far in some countries, may not fall upon us also. Under conditions so different it has surely become desirable to find new expedients for meeting the evils which have arisen. I think these considerations justify my noble friend in the proposal he has made, a proposal which of course is capable of modification, which need not be extended to that amplitude which he indicated, but which can well be adopted in more modest form, and which, I think, in one form or another, well deserves to be tried.
Just in that connection I may say that after investigating this whole question in 1909 and 1910, the British parliament appointed a Speaker's Conference in 1916, which reported in 1917. Lord Bryce was a member of that committee, and- I might here refer briefly to the recommendations made by that Speaker's Conference in Great Britain in 1917. They are as follows:
A parliamentary borough which may be entitled on a basis of population to return three or moro members shall be a single constituency; provided that a constituency entitled to return more than five members shall be divided into two or more constituencies, each returning not less than three, nor more than five members. The election in any such constituency shall be held on the principle of proportional representation and each elector shall have one transferable vote.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the recommendation with respect to proportional representation. At the same time, with reference to those constituencies which would not be thus grouped, the conference made this recommendation:
At any election in a single member constituency where there are more than two candidates, the election
shall be held on the system of voting known as the alternative vote.
So I think we may conclude that Lord Bryce was distinctly in favour, not only of the alternative vote, but of proprotional representation, and I do not know of any man who was better qualified to express an opinion on a question of that sort than the late Lord Bryce.
I should like also, to refer to what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said in the debate of last year on this subject. His remarks will be found on page 1655 of Hansard. He said:
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 like 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.
Answering a question asked at that time by the hon. member for Vancouver South, the Prime Minister said:
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.
And so on. I should like also to refer, just in passing, to a remark which the Prime Minister made the other day when he was introducing the Redistribution bill. He spoke about the bitterness that was aroused one or two decades ago in connection with the process of gerrymandering. I would suggest that there is no possibility of gerrymandering being effective under proportional representation, and that is a consideration which, I think, we ought to bear in mind.
I have not much more to add at this time. No doubt a good many objections will be raised, and I shall have an opportunity of replying a little later on. But there is some additional information which we have now, which we did not have when this matter was debated last May. I would just briefly call the attention of the House to some of the information which we have received since that time. In the first place, I would point to the adoption of proportional representation in Edmonton on 11th December last by a vote of 5,664 to 3,075. The Edmonton Journal of the next day, December 12, comments on the election as follows:
Proportional representation was not defeated yesterday in a single polling sub-division and received the approval of the citizens by practically a two to one vote.
It seldom happens that a political reform is so emphatically endorsed when first submitted. Those who have watched its operation elsewhere can have no doubt that it will realize all that is hoped for from it in the improvement of the character of our city government.

Proportional Representation
I might also quote from the Calgary Herald, which extended greetings to the city of Edmonton in these terms:
By a decided majority Edmonton has voted for the proportional representation system of conducting municipal election. Edmonton is the last of the cities of first class importance in the West to decide to employ that system. Calgary's experience with it has been so satisfactory that we are in no doubt of the success of it in Edmonton and we can indeed congratulate our northern neighbour on joining the cities that have adopted the system which best reproduces the political preferences of the voters.
Next, I would refer to the last British elections. I do not wish to burden the House with all the figures that I have here, but I may give some examples that go to show the extraordinary unfairness of the results in Great Britain last year. The Conservative party won 296 seats. In proportion to its voting strength it should have won only 208. The labour and co-operative forces won 138; they were entitled to 164. The Liberals won 54, although they were entitled to 101; while the National Liberals, who won 51, were entitled to 61. Independents and others won 8 seats, but they were entitled to 13. In this connection, let me quote from the late Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Lloyd George:
The result of the elections has fully justified those who maintained that no party standing alone could hope to secure the measure of public support which will guarantee stable government. It is true that the Conservatives have succeeded in obtaining the return of a majority of the members to the new parliament, but the most notable feature of the elections is the return of a decisive majority of members by a very definite minority of electors.
I observe that the Prime Minister, in returning thanks to the nation, claims that he has received a vote of confidence from the people of this country. Out of a total of 15,000,000 his candidates secured fewer than 3,000,000 votes. Making full allowances for uncontested seats, this figure cannot be stretched out to a height much above 6,000,000. That means that only two-fifths of the electorate voted confidence in the administration, while three-fifths voted confidence in other leaders of groups. A minority of 3,000,000 in the national referendum could hardly be claimed as a vote of confidence.
I do not wish to quote all that Mr. Lloyd George says, but towards the end of this extract, I read:
Of one thing I am, however, certain. That is that a minority administration in 1922 and onward will help to discredit the government with certain classes of the community. A minority administration will weaken the respect of other classes for representative government, and between them, an atmosphere will be created inimical to the moral authority of all government in this country.
I therefore earnestly trust that in the interest of stability and good government, which must be based on the good will and co-operation of the community as a whole, this Parliament will apply its mind seriously to finding some means of preventing a repetition, either in one direction or the other, of this freak of representative government.

Next, I shall refer very briefly to the second trial of proportional representation in the city of Winnipeg last summer. I have here an article that appeared in the August 2 issue of Canadian Finance, a magazine which is not especially given to propagating the Farmers' platform, -or the Progressive policy. In the course of this article the writer states:
There are a number of general criticisms against P. R. which should be either admitted or denied by supporters of P. R. They include the following:
(1)	P. R. is too complicated. People will refrain from voting under it.
(2)	There will be a heavy percentage of spoilt ballots under it.
(3)	The counting takes too long.
(4)	The voter cannot understand what happens to his vote.
(5)	P. R. breaks up the party system and leads to group government.
(6)	It is not a perfect system.
(7)	It does away with government by the majority or tends to create governments with small majorities.
This article goes on to examine each of these criticisms against proportional representation. Let me read one or two of its answers to these criticisms:
The reply to the statement that people will refrain from voting under P. R. because it is so complicated is effectively given by the recent Winnipeg elections, when 45,000 persons voted out of a total of 61.736 persons entitled to vote, a higher percentage than was usual under the old system, and this despite the fact that the ballot paper contained 43 names and was 22 inches long. The next objection regarding large numbers of spoilt ballots is also shattered by actual facts. In the recent election at Winnipeg spoilt ballots were less than 2 per cent of the total votes, a percentage which compares favourably with the results obtained under the old system. The assertion that P. R. leads to group government is without foundation. Ontario has group government, but they do not have P. R. there. The Dominion government is without a majority in the House-
This, of course, was written last summer-
-but they have no P. R. elections under the Dominion Elections Act. The Farmer party in Manitoba is a minority party at the present time, mainly as a result of the vote in the rural districts, where P. R. is not in force.
I do not wish to weary the House with any further quoting of these answers, but I submit that the various criticisms that have been levelled against proportional representation can all be, and in my judgment, have been, very effectively answered. Of course, one must admit very frankly that it might break down in operation if those who are responsible for counting the ballots do not know
4 p.m. how to count them, or if the voters do not take the trouble to read the instructions and to vote according to those instructions. But our experience has shown that these difficulties are no more under this system than the same difficulties under the present system.

Proportional Representation
The allegation has been made that proportional representation is un-British. I happened to hear this statement at a meeting of the Social Service Council of Canada a short time ago in the Chateau Laurier, and Mr. Gisborne, who was Parliamentary Counsel for many years, combatted the idea very definitely and emphatically on that occasion. I fancy the evidence which I have already given as to the action being taken in Great Britain, and the fact that the Australasian countries are generally committed to this reform, constitute a pretty effective rejoinder to that criticism. I have here a certified copy of an interview that took place in Saskatoon not long ago. The date of the letter enclosing the certified copy is December 4. I read as follows:
"The proportional representation single transferable vote has undoubtedly proved a great success in Saskatoon ," says Mr. M. C. Tomlinson, city clerk. "First it has stimulated greater interest in the election. Last year there rvas practically 5,000 votes polled, while the highest number at any previous election was 3,000.
Secondly, it was found that there were fewer spoiled ballots under this system than under the old.
Frio( to the election last year we heard on all sides that numerous ballots would be spoiled by the voters, chiefly due to the western cities having a large foreign population.
This was not the case. The percentage of rejected bailot papers under the P.R. system was actually lower than was the case with the X-marked ballot, when voters were called upon to mark their ballot papers for more than one candidate. This would lead one to believe that the P.R. system is easier for the elector than the old.
Although this was the city's first election under the P.R. system, the carrying out of the voters' wishes as expressed on the ballots proved to be a very simple process.
The new system has won favour with the city council, the press, and the public. There are a few objectors, of course, but they are very few."
I have here a copy of a letter from the Secretary of the British Proportional Representation Society, Mr. Humphreys, to the secretary of the Canadian society, in which he says in part:
P.R. has never been so much discussed in England as it has since our recent general election.
I do not know that at the present juncture I should say anything further. I should be very glad indeed to hear any further objections that can be made to the proportional representation system, and I shall do my best to meet those objections when my turn comes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member who proposes this motion has taken a great deal of interest in the subject and is thoroughly informed with regard to it. I wish to put to him a few questions concerning phases of the subject with which he did not deal, at least so far as I could hear him.
The first question is: Does the hon. member not distinguish between municipal government and its operations, on the one hand, and the federal system of government, or government by majority rule and" cabinet responsibility, on the other hand? The second question is: Does he consider that the application of proportional representation to our system of government will have the effect of dissipating cabinet unity and cabinet responsibility to the House?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member who proposes the resolution stated in his last sentence that he would like to hear from other hon. members who have objections to offer or suggestions to make regarding the subject matter of his motion. If he speaks now, that will close the debate. I think some other hon. members are desirous of speaking on the resolution; and if that is the case they must do so before the proposer of the motion replies and thus closes the debate.


William Charles Good: I shall be pleased to answer the question later or now, whatever is the desire of hon. members.
Mr. A. W, NEILL (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, while I am heartily in sympathy with the last resolution that we passed regarding the alternative vote, I would like to point out one effect of the present resolution. The mover calls upon the government to constitute one or more multi-membered constituencies. I would suggest that the word "urban" should be put in there; otherwise this is what would happen: The hon. mover of the resolution suggested that a multi-membered constituency might appropriately consist of five ordinary constituencies. In British Columbia that might include the constituencies of Skeena, Cariboo, Comox-Alberni, Yale and, we will say, East Kootenay, constituting, I should say roughly, seventy-five per cent of British Columbia. I do not think that any of the members for the districts I have mentioned would contradict me when I say that to make an ordinary canvass-not fiom house to house, but by the holding of meetings at which two or three score of people could be got together-six months might reasonably be required in respect of any one of these constituencies. I am quite sure that the members for Cariboo and Skeena will bear me out in that; I myself can speak for Comox-Alberni. Can one conceive of the work that would be imposed on a candidate-especially a new candidate, because he would be unknown-in attempting a personal canvass of five constituencies the size of those represented by the ordinary
Proportional Representation

country constituency in British Columbia? It cannot be gainsaid that it is desirable and in the public interest that the candidate should endeavour to meet at least a number of the constituents and explain his point of view on the issues before the country at the time, and also that the electors should have an opportunity of seeing the different men who are seeking their support. But how will that be possible with a multi-membered constituency of five seats such as we would have in the country districts of British Columbia? It would take at least two years to canvass such a constituency in that way.
1 can see further vast possibilities of trouble after the wretched man had been elected. For myself I would hate to be bracketed with four other members in such a constituency. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that three of those members were not in the habit of paying attention to their correspondence- a failing that we often see in members, at least, until the next election comes round. What would be the fate of the unhappy man who had got the reputation of attending to his business and who had all the correspondence to answer emanating from such a multi-membered constituency? It would not be fair to him, to his colleagues, or to the public. I think the hon. member who moves the resolution has lost sight of that, and in my opinion he should introduce an amendment, if he wishes the motion to pass, providing that such multi-membered constituencies shall be urban in their character.


Hewitt Bostock: If no other hon. member
rises now, the mover will close the debate


Mr. R. K. ANDERSON (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the address of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) on the subject of proportional representation. I have heard this subject discussed in the House on two previous occasions, in 1921 and in 1922, and so far as I am concerned I still hold the view that proportional representation is not in the best interests of parliamentary institutions in this country. The hon. member for Brant did not give us any exposition of how true proportional representation might be worked out; nor has any other hon. member done so.
I have before me a pamphlet prepared by the exponents of proportional representation which deals with one or two elections carried out under that system, and which refers particularly to the single transferable vote in multi-membered constituencies. In the election held in the city of Winnipeg in 1920 under the system of proportional representation, labour polled 20,167 votes, or 42.5 per

cent of the total vote polled, getting only four seats. The Liberals polled 14,423 votes, or 30.4 per cent of the total vote, giving them four representatives. The Conservatives polled 6,475 votes, or 13.4 of the total, getting two members. The Independents, with 6,362 votes, having 13.4 per cent of the popular vote, received no representation whatever. It is supposed that under this system all parties appealing for the suffrages of the people will get proportional representation, yet in the Winnipeg election, the Independent party received no representation at all, while the Conservatives, with the same amount of popular vote, received two members; the Labour party, having 42 per cent of the total vote, received four representatives, and the Liberal party, with 30 per cent of the total vote, also received four.
Consequently, it will be seen that, proportional representation does not quite work out as its advocates say, that is, it does not always give proportional representation to the various parties that are appealing for the suffrages of the people. Proportional representation, if it means anything, means tjiat it will give representation in the House of Commons, or in municipal government, to all the parties that have candidates before the public. It therefore means the breaking up of the party system, and the substitution for it of the group system of government. That is the intention of the principle; it cannot be anything else; and that is how it works out in practice. It is intended to give representation in our government and in municipal affairs to the minorities among the people. It is for that purpose, and for no other purpose. Consequently, its purpose is to disrupt the present condition of affairs, to do away with our democratic system, for democracy means the rule of the majority. It would do away with the rule of the majority, and give a system of rule to minorities and to group government; and we know what group government is. We have one in the province of Ontario at the present time, although it was not put in power under the proportional representation system.
In a pamphlet that has been submitted by the exponents of proportional representation, a copy of which has been handed me by the committee here in Ottawa, I find the result of a municipal vote in the town of Sligo in Ireland, and this is given for the purpose of proving that proportional representation gives proportional representation to the parties that are putting up candidates for election. In that vote, taken in 1919 in the town of Sligo-and I point this out in

Proportional Representation
view of the claims made that proportional representation gives a better result than any other system-we find that in one of the wards-a small ward was taken so that the vote could be more easily counted to illustrate how the system worked-there were sixteen candidates. Altogether 940 votes were polled, and we find that the eight candidates having the highest number of votes on the first count were, with one exception, the eight candidates who were elected on the twelfth count. There was no change whatever so far as the parties were concerned, but there was a change in that one member of a party was substituted for another. The Sinn Feiners on the first vote had a candidate who came third in their party but who, on the twelfth count, was placed first in their list, and the first Sinn Fein candidate on the first vote was defeated. That was the only change made in the whole twelve counts. Apart from that there was no change whatever between the twelfth count and the first. The advocates of proportional representation say that the system is very easy, that it does not give any more trouble to count the votes than the old system. Yet why the necessity of having twelve different counts when the first count gives the same result?
The other test vote I received from the city of Ottawa, and possibly it was made up by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good) himself. It has a number of names of late representatives of parliament, and the name of my hon. friend is also to be found. Whether by accident or intention, we find the same thing works out in this case, and the hon. gentleman has unconsciously given an argument against proportional representation, for on the first count in his test we get exactly the same results that were obtained on the sixth count. Why the need for six counts when the first gives the same result?
The hon. member also said that in this country in 1921, of 140 representatives from constituencies where there were several candidates, seventy-four or seventy-eight were returned as minority candidates. Now I think that same argument will apply to proportional representation. Take the results in the city of Sligo, for instance. There were 940 votes cast in that election under the system of proportional representation, and 105 votes was the quota-that number of votes were required to elect a candidate. I wonder if a man who is elected by 105 votes out of a total of 940 can be called a majority candidate. I think he is a minority candidate, and in that election two candidates were elected who did not receive the quota. They were considerably below the 105 votes necessary to
elect them, but they were elected. Surely they were minority candidates. I have no doubt that in that Sligo election the will of the people would have been more effectively expressed, and with the same results probably that obtained on the twelfth count, under the present system of election. Therefore I cannot see how proportional representation, particularly with regard to the single transferable vote is of any use in multi-member constituencies. It might have a different application in a constituency where only one member was to be elected.
With regard to the system itself, as I said before, democracy is based on the principle of majority rule: I think all will agree with that. Proportional representation would do away with that, because it gives you minority rule; it gives representation by minority groups in the House.


William Charles Good: Does not the hon. member distinguish between majority rule and majority representation?


Robert King Anderson: Majority representation in the House of Commons should be based on the popular vote. The people are supposed to rule in a democracy, and the majority of the voting people should be represented in the House. But proportional representation gives us minority representation. It is intended for one purpose and one purpose only, to give minorities in the country representation in the House. In many instances these minorities are so small as not to be entitled to representation at all.
The hon. member for Brant in his speech last year made this statement:
The remarks I have ventured to address to the House to-day can make little or no appeal to those who do not believe in democracy.
I think that that statement is scarcely correct. I believe it applies more to proportional representation. I believe that proportional representation will appeal more to the enemies of democracy than to its friends. You will find the people of other countries who have come to Canada and brought with them perhaps some of the ideas of their own country lined up behind proportional representation. I do not mean to say that those who would advocate proportional representation are not in favour of democracy, a great many of them are in favour of democracy even though they support proportional representation; but I say that behind proportional representation you will find all those who are opposed to democracy and would be very pleased to see it destroyed. The hon. member went on to say that there are many in Canada who are not in favour of democracy. I do not know that
Proportional Representation

there are so many of that type in this country. However, that may be, I do not think there are any hon. members of this House who are opposed to democracy; I would take it that all of us here are in favour of democracy and are working in its best interests notwithstanding the fact that our views on certain questions may not be the same. Therefore taking our democratic institutions all in all I cannot see that proportional representation will, in any way, give a better representation in this House of the will of the people. The will of the people must rule in Canada, and it is upon that will we depend for the maintenance of the present constitution and the proper enforcement of our laws.
Proportional representation, to my mind, will mean an increasing number of groups in parliament, not only in the provinces but in the Dominion, and this will have the result of creating group parliaments. Group parliaments and group representatives cannot be for the best interests of the country, because that state of things inevitably leads to bargaining for position. When you get several groups in the popular chamber they lose sight of the best interests of the country, of the general interests of the state; they look only to the interests of their groups and they will go ahead bargaining with one another in order that they maintain some selfish interest that will apply only to the group with which they are identified, and they will lose sight of the welfare of the country as a whole.- I cannot find myself in harmony with the representations made by the hon. member for Brant, and must say that I am strongly opposed to the system of proportional representation.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) :: The hon. member for Brant has covered the ground so completely in explaining the principle underlying proportional representation, and also in marshalling the facts and authorities bearing upon it, that it would seem as if very little remained for anyone else to do. I would, however, just like to refer to the conditions which prevail in some sections of the country.
Mention has been made of the city of Winnipeg. For some time we have had proportional representation in Winnipeg, both in our provincial and in our municipal affairs, and my judgment would be, in so far as I have talked with considerable numbers of men in all the different parties, that proportional representation has worked well in that city, and to my knowledge there is no movement whatever, in either branch of public life, to return to the old method. There (Mr. Anderson.]
is some little difficulty, perhaps, for those unaccustomed to this method to understand the principle on which it is worked. A great many in reading of the question have been inclined to think that the system of counting is very cumbersome. I quite agree that it requires some patience in order to master the actual counting of the ballots, but so far as the ordinary elector is concerned there is no difficulty whatever; as a matter of fact in our last federal election we had to go to a very considerable amount of trouble in getting the ordinary electors to understand that they had to revert to the older method of marking a cross. Under proportional representation the ordinary elector goes in and simply marks his ballot, one, two, three and so on, in order of preference. So far as voting is concerned, the system is simplicity itself, and it is always a very easy matter to arrange for an expert staff to count the ballots.
I take it that the mover of this resolution has not in mind the extension of this principle to the rural districts, in fact he is not suggesting that it can be immediately put in force in all the urban districts, but he is asking that the principle of proportional representation shall be tried out. How it works is evidenced in a matter aside altogether from party consideration, in the late provincial elections in the city of Winnipeg. There was a very considerable minority of the people who believed in what is known as moderation with regard to temperance matters. Generally speaking this group represented the liquor interests, and personally I had no particular sympathy with the representations of that group, but I have to acknowledge that there were a considerable number of people in all parties who believed that the act in Manitoba ought to be changed. The people holding that belief were able to elect their own representative to voice their particular views on the floor of the legislature. They would have been unable to do so had not this principle of proportional representation been in operation. The principle being in existence, men of all parties who believed strongly in the Moderation party's programme voted for this programme, and then they had their chance to be heard within the legislature. So far as labour is concerned I may say that for a good many years the labour organizations throughout this country, as well as in older countries, have advocated this principle and have very frequently used it in their own elections.
The last speaker has suggested that democracy is based on majority rule. Now, I cannot for the life of me see how democracy is

Proportional Representation
going to be interfered with or how the majority rule, as far as that goes, is going to be interfered with. I take it that the very principle of democracy is that the people, and all the people, shall have a voice in the government. It seems to me that it is not the underlying principle of democracy that one particular section of people shall rule over other sections. The danger is, or might be, in minority rule; but the fact that there are minorities in this House does not mean that the minorities rule. The fact is that under proportional representation the minorities would have a chance of expressing themselves in the House to some extent in the same proportion as they express themselves outside of it. Surely that is fair. The fact that there are minorities in the House does not mean that the majority does not still rule; it means what we are all in favour of, I take it, that every section of the community has a right to be heard here.
The last speaker also made the statement that group representation cannot be in the interests of the country, that if we had group representation it would simply mean that men would be free to further their own selfish interests and disregard the best interests of the country. It seems to me the hon. member goes too far in making that statement, because it is unproven. If there are in fact various groups outside the House, as I think we must admit, why should not those groups have a chance to be heard inside a House that ought to be representative of all the people? I take it that to-day there are various interests represented in Canada. There are certain western interests, for example,-we have heard it again and again on the floor of this House that there are certain distinctive western interests. There are certain other interests in Canada represented by the people from the Maritime provinces. We have interests repre-sentated by the people in this central part of the country. There are interests represented by the people who come from Toronto, and there are very different interests represented by the people who come from Quebec. Surely we approve the principle in this country that it is well worth our while to hear, not merely the representatives from the prairie provinces but also the representatives from the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, not merely the representatives from Toronto, but also the representatives from the province of Quebec. We go on that principle.


Robert King Anderson: Does the hon. gentleman not think that the various sections of
the country have their views on all questions represented in parliament under our present system?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so. If the hon. gentleman will follow me I think he will see the bearing of my argument. I say we recognize that in the geographical distribution, which we have had for some time, but within each of these constituencies there are also divergent interests, or within each of these areas there are divergent interests that are just as important, and I think considerably greater than those that are caused by mere geographical divisions. We have within any one city certain divisions, for instance, manufacturers, bankers or railway people; we have the smaller business man; we have those generally known as labour people. The interests of these different groups are often by no means identical, or the people themselves do not think they are. As long as we have these divergencies among the people, as long as we have these divergent groups, surely they have a right to be heard. I do not think hon. gentlemen here ought to be afraid of having the minority express viewpoints. It seems to me we obtain the very highest and best results by each man or group speaking out as to what are their essential principles. Otherwise there is more or less autocracy and more or less force exercised by the majority over the minority. I do not know that we ought to be afraid of having the minority express their views, for it would seem to me that if we are going to suppress any particular body of public opinion by in some way refusing it a voice on the floor of the House, we are thereby giving to those who hold that opinion a direct incentive to express their opinion in some other way. As an example, the other day we had a discussion with regard to the trouble amongst the steel workers down in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. A year ago we had trouble among the coal miners in Cape Breton. These people for some reason or other have not been enabled to have their own direct representatives here to express themselves on the floor of this House. It is quite true, there are men who represent the constituency in which they live, they do not represent particularly the interests of the steel or mine workers. If these men cannot express themselves on the floor of this House, then it seems as though they would have to resort to some other method of having their will expressed. It would seem to be in the interest of the country as a whole that they should be able to express themselves, as we have so often said, through constitutional

Proportional Representation
means. If we deny them the right to express themselves through regular parliamentary agencies, it is inevitable that sooner or later they shall try to express themselves in some other way. So that from that standpoint alone I would suggest that we ought to afford these men every opportunity of expressing themselves through their own representatives here on the floor of this House. As we approach this matter of redistribution, I would like to think that we could settle some of these fundamental principles before we go into committee and thresh out the details. Here we have an opportunity of laying down the principles, and it does seem that we are on the side of thorough-going democracy if we say that it is in the general public interest that suitable machinery be provided. Proportional representation means, simply that machinery should be provided, so that as far as is possible we shall have represented on the floor of this House every considerable body of public opinion in any section of Canada.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I think the best argument in favour of the proposition of the hon. member for Brant has been the complete silence of the members of the government and their failure to express themselves in any way upon this important question because it is an important question. I take for the basis of my remarks the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) given a few days ago, with respect to the resolution regarding the want of confidence vote. The right hon. gentleman at that time-


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman cannot quote from a debate which took place during the present session.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
understand that the position of the government might be implied from the statements that we have heard from time to time, and among them I recollect a contention that at this stage in our procedure or in our constitutional development we should be careful about having any innovations. We were reminded that the British system of government has been built up over a long period of time, step by step, during which period innovations or changes have been carefully thought out and the effect of them upon the system has been weighed before any change has been made. The real point of this debate, in my opinion, centres around the application of proportional representation to our federal system, the British system of government, in which there is cabinet responsibility to the House. That point I have not heard fully dealt with by the hon. member

for Brant (Mr. Good) but I would suggest to him that the keystone of our structure of government is the Cabinet, and as an instrument of government its great power is its unity and the joint responsibility of every member for all its decisions to the House of Commons. Once you destroy the effectiveness of co-operation of the different members of the Cabinet, you make it impossible for them to agree upon a common course or policy and lose for them the confidence and the support of the majority of the House; and just as soon as you place the government in that position, just so soon do you make it impossible for any government to continue and make permanent progress in political matters or in policy. Let us take, for example, the tariff question. The Conservative party, as is well known, for years has had a policy of reasonable protection. Of late years wa have a new political organization, which commenced with one idea, and most of the members still have that one idea. Some of them have departed to other quarters, but most of them still have the one idea. The Progressive party have as their ultimate goal, free trade; they want free exchange in commodities with all the nations of the world. But take our friends of the Liberal party- what can we say of them? We must say that on this question they have no policy or at least	their words and
acts do not agree to such an extent that we can come to an intelligent conclusion. Supposing we take the question of horseracing, in which some hon. gentlemen are interested, and on which I do not think unanimity could be found either in the Cabinet or in any party in this House. Let us say that we had an election under the system of proportional representation, and in that election we had some hon. gentleman, perhaps the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), running as a special candidate in favour of horseracing, and, on the other hand, we had the hon. member for Victoria City (Mr. Tolmie) running especially as an anti-horse-racing candidate. Then we might have another gentleman running as a special candidate for prohibition and another running in the liquor interest. We might have some running as straight Conservatives, some as straight Liberals, and others as Labour candidates. This might go on until, in a constituency, you might have half a dozen or a dozen different candidates, each one basing his appeal to the public on some question of public importance, or some question of class prejudice, or some question involving a special fad in regard to which he is an expert. After the election, perhaps, the House would find itself with eight or ten

Proportional Representation
different paities, each experts on a fad. A government has to be formed and the question arises-how are you going to combine the hon. member for Brant and the hon. member for Victoria under some policy and let them work out a system of government? Unless a cabinet has the support of a majority of the House, it cannot continue in office. Only recently the government have taken the stand that on an adverse vote, they are not in favour of having a special want of confidence vote. They hold that it is consistent with our constitutional form of government that if an adverse vote is recorded against the government on an important question, or on almost any question, they must take that as an indication that the administration has lost the confidence of the House. How can you reconcile that principle of constitutional government with the principle involved in proportional representation, under which all ideas of government responsibility are dissipated?
Let me continue the illustration which I have been giving. You have eight or ten groups in the House and you want to form a cabinet of seventeen men. It is not possible to secure the support of a majority of the House unless you can combine the leaders of several of those groups in a cabinet under some policy. When you do that, problems will arise in this way to confront the Cabinet. For instance, the question will be started under a resolution by some private member who, perhaps, has a political end to serve by moving his resolution. He will raise some question in regard to horse-racing, and immediately the hon. member for Brant, being the champion of horse-racing, is going to say to himself: "Now, shall I do my duty to my country and stand by a general policy of advantage to the country and by the rest of the members of the Cabinet, and thereby commit political suicide; or shall I save myself politically before my constituents so that I may be re-elected by saying: 'I will have nothing to do with this; I will stand on my pledge to the people to have horse-racing, whether this government exists or not.' " In short, when you come to apply proportional representation to municipal government, much may be said in favour of the principle, and for my part I am rather disposed to accept the principle for municipal systems of government; but when you come to apply proportional representation to the British system of government, you necessarily develop a system of group government, and when you endeavour to have cabinet unanimity and responsibility under the British system of government and, on the other hand, you are
trying, by the form of your elections, to have in this House diversified groups which it is almost impossible to draw together, you are going to have a complex situation which will not make for strong government, consistency and permanency in policy, and which will not redound to the best interests of Canada. In order to have, in a new and vigorous country like Canada, effective policies that can be carried out over a period of years, you must have strong government and strong men who stand together on principles. You can have that only under the system which has been developed over a period of seven hundred years. Unless you are prepared to change your system of government; unless you are prepared to accept the French system, which is largely a bureaucratic system, a highly centralized system in which all the authority is centred at Paris and in which the ministers themselves in fact share their responsibilities with highly paid officials who can appear in the Chamber of Deputies and speak on public questions on behalf of their ministers, you cannot apply proportional representation. The hon. member for Brant was perfectly right when he cited a number of countries in Europe which have proportional representation; but their system of government is different from ours, and the success of the British system of government has been based upon our cabinet system which is distinctive from any other cabinet in the world. In the United States you have a cabinet in which the responsibility of the ministers is to the President and not to the House of Representatives. They advise the President; they are elected for a given term of years, and you may have an anomalous, situation, such as that which arose at the time of making the Treaty of Versailles, where the President of the American Republic went over to Europe to a great international conference, the like of which had never before been heard of, with tremendous responsibility upon his shoulders, where he took along with him men who were eminent in statesmanship in that country and endeavoured to lay before the people of Europe principles which, they intimated, the people of the United States were in favour of, and where they endeavoured to bind the United States to a treaty and to a system of after-war problems which were found, when the matter was referred to the people of the United States, not to be in accord with the popular will. Could that happen under our system of government? Not at all. When our representatives proceeded to Europe in connection with the Treaty of Versailles, the Cabinet would know that they would have to
Proportional Representation

keep in touch with the members of their party which was in the majority in this House. The members on their part would be in constant communication with various organizations and men of influence in order to sense the trend of public opinion in their constituencies, and just as soon as a big question of international consideration came up, public opinion in each member's constituency would be brought to bear upon him at once. In turn, he would communicate with his minister, and in turn, if you have enough of those communications from members to show the prevailing will of the people, you have an expression of the popular will coming to the government of the country in a fashion which enables that government to act in accordance with the prevailing will of the people. Under our system members of the government, engaged in any international matter or any question of domestic policy, are, through the flexible system of government which we have, constantly in touch with public opinion in a manner which does not exist in France, the United States or Belgium, or in a number of other countries to which the hon. member referred. Therefore, I conclude with this reference, that the real point of the question in this:	Will the system of proportional
representation not make for group government and for dissipation of cabinet unity, with consequent weakness of policy and lack of progress in this country? Words which I have heard the Prime Minister use are applicable in this case. This is an innovation which is not suitable to our constitution, and those who think well and seriously on this question- and I believe a large majority of the government will take the same view-will not allow this innovation in our form of constitution at the present time.


Mr. J. L. STANSELL (EastElgin):: I desire to deal only with one phase of the resolution submitted by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good). But before doing so I might make an observation. I noticed that when the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Ladner) referred, by way of comparison, to the possible situation that might exist where the hon. member for Brant might be appealing as a direct representative of the racing interests, the remark seemed to occasion a little merriment. However, I read in a recent issue of the Canadian Sportsman that a famous Canadian racehorse, known as Canada's Iron Horse, has won 29 races in the past season and has a couple of brothers and sisters that give promise of equal development; and these horses are owned and developed by the well-known J. J. Morrison, secretary of the United Farmers of

Ontario. In the light of this, I can understand that it is within the bounds of possibility that some time in the future that gentleman's faithful follower, the member for Brant, might be appealing on such a platform. In reference to the present question, however, I am in sympathy with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). It seems to me that we should consider just how it would affect the particular district with which each of us is most familiar. This resolution calls for the constitution of one or more multi-member constituencies for the purpose of experimentation at the next general election, and I can consider it only in view of the possibility that one of these multi-member constituencies might be in my own district, where I am sure that ninety per cent of the people-I can safely speak for that percentage-would be absolutely opposed to this system being tried in that district and their being represented by perhaps five members. As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni pointed out, it would be impossible for candidates under such circumstances to conduct their election campaign, and almost impossible, after election, to represent the people. While, therefore, this system may have some merit in theory, I am very much afraid that it would be impracticable in operation, and were I to support the resolution as it stands I should simply be voting to impose upon the people of some other district a condition which I should not be willing to have applied to my own. I think, therefore, that it is the duty of this House to oppose the resolution in its present form.


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: There seems to be some diffidence on the part of hon. members about discussing this very important question. I do not know the explanation; possibly there is one.


Arthur Meighen: The same old one.


William Garland McQuarrie: I wonder whether there is some tacit understanding between the members to my left and the members on the other side of the House, that this resolution shall go through. I have heard that the members on the other side are all very busy trying to figure out how they can secure safe seats for themselves and for others who may be expected to support them in the next house. There seems to be an air of mystery pervading these premises which I suppose is reflected in the condition we find here to-day. Now, on an important question like this, it seems to me, we might very well expect to hear a declaration of policy not only from the government, but from its supporters.

Proportional Representation


Mr. BROWN:: And also the opposition.


Arthur Meighen: This is the fifth member of the opposition to speak.


William Garland McQuarrie: And also from the Progressives. I have been comparing the present resolution with the one which has just passed and I find there is a marked difference between them. In the one which was passed there was set out a positive declaration ol the House as to what should occur in singlemember constituencies, if I may put it that way. The present resolution seems to be an experimental one. Now, the hon. member who moved the resolution advanced a very strong argument for proportional representation. Well, if proportional representation is a good thing and if the government, as they imply by their silence, are in favour of it, then why do we not pass a resolution advo- . eating proportional representation as a policy? Why should we consider a resolution such as this, the effect of which is very problematical to say the least? Why is it necessary to have a hesitation policy, so to speak? Why is it necessary to move a resolution which might mean something or might mean nothing, and which would leave the door open for manipulation at will? We have had in this parliament several very marked examples of change of policy on the part of the government, notably in reference to the budget of last year. I suppose the reason why this resolution is framed in such un-5 p.m. certain terms is because the mover thought that in that way it would appeal more strongly to the government and he might get them to consent to it, whereas if it were in more definite terms he would not. What would be the result if this resolution passed? It would simply mean that the government could pick out some district where they thought the experiment would work advantageously to them and adversely to their opponents, and put it into force. It is very unsatisfactory to leave the matter in that way, for the government could apply proportional representation in a particular district and leave all the other districts to be dealt with under the old system. If we are to have proportional representation at all, why not have it all over the country? If it is a good thing why not let us have it generally? Why is not the government strong enough to initiate a policy that means something, and stand by it? The hon. member who moved the resolution said something about the western cities, and he read an extract from an Edmonton newspaper which 26
indicated that Edmonton had at last adopted proportional representation and that, in doing so, it had come into line with the other western cities. I am quite aware that hon. members from the prairies seem to think that the prairie provinces constitute the whole of the West.


Mr. McMASTER:: No, no.


William Garland McQuarrie: They overlook British Columbia, which is the real West. In this particular instance, as in a great many others, British Columbia has been a little bit in advance of the other parts of this country, and more particularly of the prairies. We have tried out proportional representation in a great many places. We had it in my own city of New Westminster; we had it in Nelson, in Victoria, in North Vancouver and elsewhere, but in all these places, after a short trial, it was decided that proportional representation was nothing but a fad; that it was unworkable and unsatisfactory, and therefore it was discarded. So far as I am aware the only city in British Columbia that now has proportional representation is Vancouver. They tried it again there this year, and I believe they found it very unsatisfactory; at least, so I would judge from the newspaper comments and from public statements in regard to the matter. I think I am safe in saying that proportional representation will be discarded in Vancouver before the next election. That is the way the system has worked out in the municipal politics of British Columbia. We do not like it; no matter what side of politics we are on, we are opposed to it, and we have got rid of it. If this parliament decides to bring in proportional representation I am sure that in a few years they will decide that it is a fad, that it is unworkable and unsatisfactory, and will wish to discard it.
One point involved in this resolution that I would like to touch upon is the constitution of one or more multi-member constituencies. We in British Columbia have tried that, too. In connection with provincial elections there have been some multi-membered constituencies, but there is a strong agitation at present to have that arrangement done away with because it is found in practice to be very unsatisfactory. Why should one man have the right to vote for five members while another has the right to vote for only one? And why should there be five members sitting for one constituency while other constituencies have only one representative? Personally I am opposed to this resolution. In the first place I am opposed to proportional representation, and in the next place I am opposed



Proportional Representation
to the motion, because I fear there is some subterfuge in it. In any case, it is a very uncertain quantity, and I don't know how the government would proceed to work out the problem if the resolution were adopted.


John Livingstone Brown: We have
heard some arguments advanced against this resolution-at least what purported to be arguments; if hon. members have any real ones to offer I wish they would let us have them. Many attempts have been made to set up men of straw and then to knock them down. It has been suggested that the government in this case might, for instance, establish one or two multi-membered constituencies where the advantage would be particularly to themselves. I might remind the hon. member who has advanced that argument that the matter would not be left in the hands of the government.; in fact, the government has already declared that the details of redistribution are to be dealt with by a committee of the House. I know that governments in the past have done some very strange things in the way of gerrymandering constituencies. It was done as far back as the election of 1882, if my memory serves me correctly.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The time of Macdonald.


John Livingstone Brown: But as time went on it was recognized that though the people of Canada would stand for much, there was a limit to what they would put up with, so later a different system was adopted in connection with redistribution. While I say I can understand governments doing much in that direction, I can scarcely understand the present government singling out, for instance, Toronto, and naming that as one of the multi-membered constituencies, and neglecting to put Montreal in the same class. Public opinion simply would not stand for any such demonstration of partisanship as that. Surely, therefore, the hon. member is setting up a man of straw when he even suggests such a possibility.
Another hon. member tried to raise a point against the resolution by attempting to discern some difference between the resolution in favour of the preferential ballot and the one which declares for proportional representation. I submit that both are explicit and definite. The first one declares definitely in favour of the preferential ballot in single-member constituencies, plainly indicating that in no person's mind is there the thought that at present there shall not be or will not be a large number of single-member constituencies. The second declares that it is advisable that parliament should name a number of multi-membered constituencies in which the principle of 
proportional representation might be tried. That is objected to by one hon. member as experimental. To a certain extent it may be experimental, and it is proposed that the experiment be tried in those places where the system will be given the greater opportunity of demonstrating its success. It has been demonstrated in the provincial elections in Winnipeg that proportional representation is a success. The member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has declared what is well known to every person in Manitoba, that there is practically no opposition in Winnipeg to the application of that principle in provincial elections. An hon. member of the opposition who seemed to constitute the only opposition to the resolution, made reference to the case of Winnipeg, and if I understood his argument it was that proportional reprsentation did not bring about the results it was intended to accomplish; that a certain number of votes went to independents who were not able to elect a candidate. It must be admitted, Sir, that a real independent is somewhat handicapped in proportional representation unless he represents a great cause or has outstanding personality But it is making a false argument to lump all the independents together and say that they constitute one party. We have independent men, but the name "independent party" is paradoxical; therefore the hon. member's argument in that respect has no force whatever.
I wish now to deal with the argument that proportional representation does not fit in with the British constitution, as advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner). He made the same argument last year, in substantiation of which he referred to Lord Bryce. Most hon. members at the time got the impression that he was referring to Lord Bryce as one who was opposed to proportional representation. He has now corrected that impression, but I do not see that it affects his argument. He admits that Lord Bryce is a great authority on constitutional government. He admits, on the other hand, that Lord Bryce is in favour of proportional representation, as has been abundantly proven by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), who has cited a number of quotations. Therefore, in the mind of a great constitutional authority like Lord Bryce, there is no inconsistency between constitutional government and proportional representation, and if the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), sees any inconsistency between these two positions, it is up to him to demonstate it a little more clearly than has been done up to the present time.

Proportional Representation
What do we want, first of all, in an electoral system? We want a principle that will secure in the highest degree possible a fair expression of the mind of the people. We must all admit that the system we have followed all these years has served fairly well to achieve that purpose, but we are all compelled to admit that it has had many defects. It can be shown that this House or any other elective house has not altogether always been representative of the will of the people in proportion to the way in which, they expressed their will at the polls. Indeed, it is a well-known fact that on one occasion in the United States the President was elected by an actual minority of the votes that were cast. When new systems are proposed I have found that there has been a tendency on the part of men opposed to those systems to hunt up all the objections they can find, and think that they have proved their case when they show that the new system is not perfect. So far as the preferential ballot is concerned, I admit that it is not perfect; but I do contend that it gets us a little nearer the result we want to obtain than did the old system, and so also in regard to proportional representation. We may find difficulties and what seem to be anomalies, but what we will find-and I think this has been demonstrated in more places than one but particularly in the city of Winnipeg, with which I am most familiar,-is that wherever there is any considerable minority of opinion, that considerable minority-not all minorities, but any considerable minority-will be able to secure representation.


Andrew Ross McMaster: We have in this House a certain touchstone whereby we may prove, or tend to make up our minds, whether a thing is really progressive, really in line of advance, and that is the effect which it will have on the Conservative representation from British Columbia. If a proposal in this House meets with the unqualified opposition of the gentlemen of that once great and ancient party in this House who come from the sea of mountains, from the western Pacific province, we know that we must be right. I would beg to point out the change that has taken place in the mentality of the Conservatice party within the last few years. There was from the province of Quebec years ago a great Conservative leader, now dead, by the name of F. D. Monk. He was one of the most fervent advocates and hot-gospellers for this principle and this mode of election known as proportional representation, and do we see in the sliding back from his teaching of the Conservative party that they
26$
have become more reactionary in the present than they were in the past? It is to be hoped not.


John Lawrence Stansell: Would the hon. member say what progress is denoted when he finds himself opposed entirely by the members on his own side of the House?


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is a question which I will answer by saying I do not think I am. called upon to reply.
A discussion of this sort as a rule, Mr. Speaker, tends to show how inadequately the opponents of this system have grasped its real meaning and effect. Proportional representation proposes that instead of the present principle of single-seated constituencies, we should have constituencies electing at least three, and preferably five members; sometimes more, but I think five is the best number for the proper working out of the system. It does not, as the member for one of the Vancouvers seems to think, give a man the right to vote for four or five candidates, but it does give the voter, be he man or woman, the chance to express as many preferences as there are candidates. He expresses his first preference by putting the figure 1 in front of the candidate whom he wishes to see elected above all others. He puts the figure 2 before the candidate to whom he wishes his vote to be transferred in either of two cases; first, in the case of his first choice having so many votes as to make his vote unnecessary, or secondly, in the event of his first choice having so few votes as to make his vote useless. That is the principle, and I think it is an excellent one. Let me ask this question, and I would direct it in all courtesy and politeness to the party seated angularly opposite to myself: Do they think that a system the result of which has been that the Conservatives of Nova Scotia are unrepresented in this House, is a proper system? No answer. Silence does not in this instance indicate consent. I am sure that with me they consider that the Nova Scotia Conservatives, being only less intelligent or almost as intelligent as the Nova Scotia Liberals, should be represented in this House in proportion to their number. Do they believe that a system which has brought it about that the whole of the Conservatives who dwell in the province of Quebec should not have a voice here to represent them is a proper system? I do not believe they can think that it is a proper system.
What is a proper system for a democratic assembly? Is it not, as Mr. Asquith has said, that there should not be a substantial strain of public opinion unrepresented in this House

Proportional Representation
of Commons? 1 think we shall all agree upon that. Is not this proportional representation system a good way in which to get such a ' proportional representation of public opinion? I have not had the privilege of listening to all the arguments or assertions which have been made against proportional representation. It has been suggested that the government may have some nefarious scheme up their sleeve which they may use to put proportional representation in practice in some part of the country where it will turn to their advantage, and not to put it in practice where it would be to their disadvantage. I think that argument or assertion has been dealt with very well by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), and it is unnecessary for me to speak more upon it.
I think that in this age of the world's history we have to be prepared to make experiments. When Simon de Montfort called the knights from the shires and the burgesses from the boroughs to the Commons of England, I suppose that was an innovation. They had not had it before. They had only had the great nobles called to give their advice to the King. We have got to make innovations unless we are prepared to stand in a position of immovability; and I do not think that even my hon. friends from British Columbia-following a political faith with which I am not in sympathy,-desire that.
I have little to add to the discussion. The present situation appears to me to be one which does not appeal to logical or righteous minds, it does not give us proper representation of the thought and the political sympathies of the people; therefore, we should strive to find out something that will.
I have heard this argument advanced as against proportional representation: They say that if you have proportional representation you will get too close a correspondence between the numbers of men in the House of different political faiths and the number of people in the country, that the differences in number between different groups which go to make up the electorate are so close that you will get in the House parties too evenly balanced. I have heard that argument used, and the logical deduction to be made from that view is, that you require some disturbing factor so that majorities or minorities will be increased or decreased extravagantly. Now you might have, and it has happened from time to time under the present system, a majority when, as a matter of fact, you should get a minority.
I quoted this case in the debate on this question last year. I think it was in 1886
[Mr. McMaster.l
that Mr. Gladstone went to the people on the Home Rule bill and he was beaten and, as far as the membership of the House of Commons was concerned, badly beaten. It is a question whether, if he had only won on that occasion, the last fifty years of strife in Ireland might not have been avoided. But that is a side issue. The point I want to make is that in the election of 1886 Mr. Gladstone, was supported by the majority of the people and on a proper counting of the votes, or had there been in operation such a system of proportional representation as we should aim for-I do not see that it is a possibility at the present time in Canada in view of geographical conditions-had there been a truer representation of the different proportions into which public opinion divided the English people, Gladstone would have been elected and not defeated.
Now to think that democracy is properly represented when you have elections under a system which gives you a majority of the members from a minority of the electorate is, of course, too absurd for further argument. I would commend this resolution to the House. I think it is a reasonable suggestion that the matter should be tried out. It should be tried out in several of the large cities. I would suggest that it might be possible to divide the great island of Montreal into three constituencies electing five members each: that the great city of Toronto might be divided into two constituencies electing five members each; and that the experiment be tried in some other great city. I do not recall what representation Winnipeg is entitled to in the federal arena but suppose she is entitled to five. That city for federal purposes might form one great electoral division. Then it could not be said that the proposal was brought forward for political purposes or for getting party advantage. The three great parts of the country would have the opportunity of learning about this system and of trying it out. I commend, in all seriousness, this resolution to the acceptance of the House.
Mr. E. J. MeMURRAY (North Winnipeg): I rise to oppose the resolution of the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good). I come from the city of Winnipeg where this proportional representation scheme has been tested, and it may be of interest to the House to consider some of the aspects of that election there. At the last election in Winnipeg there were 43 candidates, and the ballot looked like the Greek alphabet or a circus poster. Those men represented all kinds of ideas. To the average voter the real issue was clouded, and disappeared. One of the candidates, who secured

Proportional Representation
the highest vote there, ran as candidate of the Moderation League. He got an eccentric vote. The same thing held with a great many of the other candidates.
Now then what do we get under the system? You have an election and you have your candidates. These candidates are elected, one man probably because of his personal popularity. He belongs to a large number of clubs and so on; he is a good fellow; his friends mark him number 1. They forget the issue he is standing on, and you have coming to the House a man without any clear cut ideas upon the paramount issues, but elected because of his personal popularity. The man has entirely taken the place of either his party or the main issues. Now that is not a mere idea, it is an actual fact. A voter says l< I will vote for Brown, I am not sure of his policy but I like Brown himself". He forgets altogether the real issue, and so in an election of that kind the paramount issues are ignored.
Now another matter comes up in connection with this question. Take the man who gets the highest vote. The man next to him may be some 80 or 90 ballots below on the first vote. The man at the bottom goes out. His second-choice votes are given for the third man. The third man with a majority of number 1 votes and number 2 votes is elected over the man who has the largest number of first choices. It works out very much like things do in the case of an elocution contest. After the competition the judges go out and decide -one judge for A, another for B, and the third for C. They all agree that B is the second man, none of'them can agree upon the first man, and B who is not the first choice of any of the judges gets the prize. You will have men coming to this House under this system which I submit is not consonant with the party system of government, who were elected not upon the main issue but upon eccentric and freak ideas.


Mr. IRVINE:: Is it not the case in the practice of proportional representation that the low man drops out first where a decision has not been reached and of course has not been given?


Mr. McMURRAY:: That is what I say precisely. The low man drops out first. His majority of votes, his number 2 votes, will be given probably for the third candidate, and he is elected upon a majority of number 2 votes and number 1 votes beating the man who had number 1 votes ahead of him.


William Irvine: How then do you manage to elect B by your illustration?


Edward James McMurray: C is elected by my illustration.


William Irvine: You elected B a minute ago.


Edward James McMurray: C is the man elected, but he has not as many-


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I interject a question?
I think this point ought to be made clear as it is' one of the most important in the whole matter: Before you distribute the low man's seconds do you not distribute first the excess over the quota of the high man?


Edward James McMurray: I do not follow you.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not wish to interrupt the speech of my hon. friend, I am wholly in sympathy with his view. I am not putting this forward with any idea of embarrassing my hon. friend, although the hon. members to my left hate to hear intelligent argument interjected into this question. One of the objections to this proposition in my estimation is the very point I am raising, and I should like my hon. friend in making his argument, which he has been doing very justly and fairly, to include this point: in the distribution of the votes, supposing A secured a larger number of votes than was necessary-


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to a point of order. I understand by the rules of this House one member has not the right , to question another, and I do not think one member has the right to endeavour to coach another.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am asking my hon. friend a question, and if the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), who said a moment ago that he took his lead from the Conservative party, will follow that advice now, he will be well advised. In case A, or the man receiving the highest number of votes, had 50 votes above the quota necessary to elect him; then the 50 votes are distributed amongst the others before the low man drops out.
. Mr. McMURRAY: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And that is done arbitrarily.


Edward James McMurray: The point I am making is that the second vote should not have the same value as the first vote. The second vote is a rambling vote. A man casts his vote. If he is a sane voter he will vote for the main issue, but his second vote is one thrown anywhere, and should not have the same value. It has not the real value which the first vote has.
40fi

Proportional Representation


William Irvine: Is it not the case that there are no bad votes in proportional representation? Does the hon. gentleman not mean choices instead of votes?


Edward James McMurray: Yes, choices.


William Irvine: One choice is as good as another then.


Edward James McMurray: I fail to comprehend the distinction my hon. friend is trying to draw.


William Irvine: I notice that.


Edward James McMurray: That being the case we are bringing to the House of Commons a group of men who have been elected on issues that are not real paramount issues submitted to the electors. There is that great danger in proportional representation. The second point is that it is not consonant with our form of party government. You will find you will have a group of men, out of control of all kind, eccentric men, and in fact looking over the list of candidates it will be seen that that is so.


Mr. HOEY:: Will the hon. gentleman contend that candidates in the city of Winnipeg are inferior intellectually or in any other way to the candidates returned by the rural districts?


Edward James McMurray: They are not, in the federal House; I will admit that, but comparisons are always odious. What I mean is that they are men with eccentric ideas, men with ideas that are hobbies with them, and very often men with these ideas are men of marked intelligence and good character, but the point I am making is that the man with a hobby will be elected to a seat in parliament.


John Livingstone Brown: Might I ask another question?


Hewitt Bostock: Of course, the hon. gentleman who has the floor can always allow a colleague in the House to interrupt and ask a question, but for the decorum of the debate there should not be a volley of interruptions, because the value of the argument suffers thereby when it is in print. A speaker should be allowed, as far as possible, to present his case to the House without interruption. I do not say a question is not allowed. It is generally allowed, but that this debate may be intelligible, I think it is better that every member should be allowed to present his own statement in as connected a way as possible.
{Mr. McMurray.]


Edward James McMurray: I have no objection to answering the question if I can. That strikes me as the main objection to proportional representation, as it worked out in the city of Winnipeg, and as I saw' it personally. Furthermore, it is absolutely opposed to the party system.	There is no control
over the candidates.	My hon. friends of
the Progressive party may say it is a good thing, but under the party form of government it would not be workable. We would have ambitious men who have not the sanction of the party crowding themselves into the position of candidates. For these reasons, I am opposed to the resolution.


Arthur Meighen: We have had a debate
lasting almost an entire afternoon on a question that affects the whole Dominion, that affects vitally the principle of representation in this federal parliament, a question that has been the subject of discussion within and without parliament for years. The decision of the House on this resolution constitutes thereon the mandate of the House of Commons of this country. We have had various speeches in support of it from the party in parliament which openly and frankly favours the principle of proportional representation. We have had four or five speakers against it from the Liberal-Conservative party, and we have no expression of opinion from the government as to whether they favour or whether they oppose it, as to whether they have in mind an amendment; not one of them has told us what their policy is, or whether they have a policy at all. I venture to say that never before in the history of our parliament-at least never before this government came into office,-has a parallel to such a thing been found. The government is silent, impotent, bloodless, without information, without judgment on the question. It is apparently allowing the matter to run at large, not only giving no heed to it in parliament, but giving no intimation as to where it stands.
I am prepared to admit that there may be questions propounded by a private member in respect of which it is not the duty of government to lead parliament, not the duty of government first to state its position. Government in respect of all questions has ample opportunity in advance to review these questions and to prepare to assume the function that belongs to an administration. There may be some questions in respect to which it does not need to take any special view, a question for example that is local in its application, a question that does not go to the

Proportional Representation
root of any dominion method of electing parliament, a question that is not Dominionwide. In respect to such a matter as that it may be quite competent for the administration-and I suggest that the fewer of those the government admits the better-to leave as one at large, and to say, as the hon. leader of the House to-day said in respect to the last resolution: "Some members of the government may vote one way and some another, and some supporters of the government may vote one way and some another." But I do think that when a subject of the magnitude of proportional representation comes up, going to the very root of the whole electoral system of this country, it is the duty of the government to take a stand and say what attitude it takes with regard to a resolution which decides that question. If this were merely a resolution to appoint a committee to review the subject, that would be entirely different. Then the time for the government to take its stand would be when the issue may come before parliament after the report of that committee. But when this resolution is decided, there is the mandate of this parliament; there is decision, the stand this parliament takes, and we are asked now to go to a vote upon this question without any word from the government at all. Such a course does not indicate very much strength or self-reliance on the part of the administration.
It is true that in the Liberal platform which was passed in August, 1919, a platform they do not like to be reminded of any oftener than cannot be avoided, the Liberal party committed itself to the principle of proportional representation. If we are to assume that such action constitutes the government's position, please let us be told so, and then the government can thereafter take refuge in silence. But because a pledge on this subject appears in the record of that convention, I always take such fact as a presumption that now the government is on the other side. The presumption is that way. Of course such presumption is capable of rebuttal; the government has it within its power to say: "On this, for an exception, we are in the position we were in at the 1919 convention." But until it does that, the presumption is that the government is to-day precisely the other way. At all events, the resolution passed in 1919 said only that the Liberal party favoured the "principle" of proportional representation. Another presumption therefore which we would be quite justified in drawing from the experience of the last two years would be that while they, the government, favoured the principle, it was utterly opposed to the practice. That is precisely where they stand on the question of free trade. They favour the principle of it; they love it as an ideal; but as a matter of practice they are in direct antagonism to it. Consequently, there is no reason for drawing a conclusion that because there is a statement of principle here, the government either favours that principle to-day, or if it favours it, favours its being put into actual effect.
On motions of this kind, motions of a nation-wide character and effect such as this, it is the duty of the government to state its position, and really it is not incumbent upon the opposition in parliament to take a stand as an opposition until the government has first taken its stand as a government. Such has invariably been the attitude-nor did I ever criticise it-of hon. gentlemen opposite when they sat in the opposition in this House, and as a member and as a leader of a government, I took no exception at any time to that attitude. Nor did we ever shrink from stating our position when the time came, when there was before parliament something, the decision on which was to constitute the mandate of this House. Such a course, however, is in keeping with the quality of spirit and courage shown by the administration since it came into power.
But without waiting for the government's view, I do not refuse to state my own. I am opposed to the resolution. I find myself in substantial accord with the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray). Whether he takes this as a compliment or not, I find myself pretty much in accord with the arguments he advances in defence of his position.
Hon. gentlemen to my left seem to feel that it is a matter of revelry, if anything in the way way of a contention is advanced against proportional representation. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) stood in his majesty in this House and declared that he always knew the pathway of progress as soon as he knew which way the opposition in this House was tending; he knew that the opposite would be the road of progress, and I am sorry to have to say, because I do not think this was worthy of hon. gentlemen to my left, they received that absurd statement with considerable applause. Let me trace back for a few years the legislative record of this parliament, and I venture to think that hon. gentlemen who applauded the statement of the member for Brome will attribute their momentary applause to the influence of hereditary Liberal associations rather than to the sway of reason. What have been the main questions before

Proportional Representation
this parliament in recent yearn? What have been the big new problems with which this parliament has been confronted? What have been the attitudes, the positions of the parties in relation thereto? One of the big problems was the question of the nationalization of our railways. That was forced upon this House by anterior policies that, I venture to suggest, even the hon. member for Brome will not stand and say were distinguished by sane much less by progressive attributes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is the right hon. gentleman making a virtue out of necessity?


Arthur Meighen: The necessity was there and we made out of it a virtue. I am afraid if hon. gentlemen opposite meant what they said and had been in power, they would have made out of it a disaster. The nationalization of our railways was a policy which we initiated prior to 1917, that we carried to advanced stages after 1917, with the co-operation of the group to my left, with the cooperation of their late leader, not only with his co-operation, but with his enthusiastic support. That support he consistently continued on every platform in this Dominion. I want to know where were hon. gentlemen opposite on that question. They were fighting us day and night in parliament,' standing and blocking the road, and they stood and blocked the road in every constituency in this country where they thought the road was blockable in the1 contest from which we emerged a year ago. Keep in mind the subject of our railway policy, the biggest one we have really decided in the last ten years, and I want to know the opinion of hon. members to my left as to which party was1 on the side of the progress there. I listen for their verdict. At all events, the laughter has subsided.	*
Another matter that constituted a considerable change, many thought a radical change, was made in recent years. The franchise of this country was expanded 100 per cent by the admission of women. That was done by what is known as Union government, supported by a parliament elected to support Union government. That course was not opposed by hon. gentlemen opposite as a party. But in this parliament all the opposition it encountered was from the Liberal party. And that opposition was not inconsiderable; it was vigorous; what there was, was able; it was an opposition in which the eloquence of the present Speaker of this House was heard to perhaps as great advantage as ever in our history. It came, all of it, from the Liberal party. No opposition whatever came from the party that is now held up by

the hon. member for Brome as thwarting the march of progress.
Nor are those the only illustrations. What about the re-establishment policy effected after the war? What about the settlement policy that leads the way in land settlement for every country' in the world. There stands to-day something to which other countries are looking in admiration and which, I venture to suggest, hon. gentlemen of all three sections of this House, are now disposed to applaud rather than to deride. I do not sav that our land settlement policy met with opposition on the part of the Liberal party. It did not. I do not say that it met with opposition on the part of the Progressive party. It certainly did. not. It met with consistent and fair support; but nevertheless the soldier land settlement policy was put into practice by the party which the hon. member for Brome holds up as the veiy acme of reaction and retrogression.
Yes, let hon. members of this House opposite me in particular,-but in this instance I join, with them, those to my left-look back over the history of confederation at the great milestones of policy, that to-day are embedded in the statute books, policies initiated at confederation, policies initiated in the seventies after confederation, policies initiated in the last ten years, and then ask me whether that policy was fathered by this party or by that to which the hon. gentleman belongs. I do not say that all that is of value was originated by this party; but the big steps were due to its resource and courage. I know there is something to the credit of the Liberal party. I know they initiated and put into effect the policy of submitting our railway difficulties, railway rates and all matters that arise in controversy in connection with the roads, to a commission, a judicial body- there was a policy for which the Laurier government deserves every' credit. I am willing to accord it the credit due in that regard, nor have I ever denied it. But I hope I shall be forgiven for reminding hon. gentlemen opposite that after they took that step, the very body which they erected and put in a place where it could not defend itself, they were the first, for political purposes, for party election purposes, to deride and to defame in the public eye of this country. And they were the first as well, after a vote bargaining adventure, to circumscribe the ambit of authority of that body and thereby create anomalies in this country from which we shall be struggling to escape for years to come. I do not know that I could name anything else to their credit of much consequence. I will not harrow the memories of hon. gentle-

Proportional Representation
men opposite by referring to those tragic bills to construct the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific. These were the main achievements of their administration. And if there are any hon. gentlemen that feel like calling those ill-fated measures milestones of progress it is a shame, really, not to leave them in the enjoyment of their delusion.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, when six o'clock arrived I was in the middle of a review of some of the policies of this country that have so stood the test of time, indeed, that have so enamoured their original enemies as to be finally accepted by them. Even then I had not mentioned some of the most outstanding. There are hon. members of this House of all parties who can remember the historic struggle over the building of the Canadian Pacific railway-a policy that put the life blood of trade into confederation and made a political union an organic union; a policy that had to be pressed against the bitterest opposition, certainly the ablest opposition that this or any parliament in Canada has ever known. But it exemplified surely progressive government. There was an instance of courage and of aggressiveness and it does not stand to the credit of the Liberal party. The hon. member for Brome would not likely give the respective attitudes of the two parties on that subject as an illustration of his theory that the Conservative party of Canada has been reactionary and his own progressive. There is nothing so delusive 13 names; nomenclature deceives unguarded minds, and I put the hon. member for Brome on warning in that regard.
But we do not need to stop there. The very shortest memory carries to the controversy over civil service reform in this country. I know that a measure of reform was achieved under the Laurier government, but I know that in its working out it proved a most contracted and ineffective piece of legislation. To suggest that it abolished patronage or removed it from the control of political parties is merely to suggest something that sounds monstrous to memory and reason. The big step, the abolition of patronage, was taken in opposition to hon. gentlemen opposite-at least, when they were in opposition; for to be absolutely fair it could not be said that they resisted it as a party in opposition. They were most critical. But it is easy to be
brave in that regard in opposition. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been quite ready to agree that, subject to their terms, political patronage shall be removed from the other political party when in power but they have shown distinct evidence of late that they are not at all prepared to have it removed from themselves.
And indeed, one does not need to stop there. The exigencies of the last ten years demanded more in the way of progressive policies than did all the previous history of confederation. There came an exigency in the marketing conditions of the world that demanded action in 1919. The government of the day took action. The government of the day took its life in its hands so far as western Canada was concerned and established a wheat board-a wheat board that operated, a wheat board that in the course of its existence, by its mere success, converted or destroyed its enemies. And who were its enemies? Its enemies were all in the party that sits opposite now. Oh, I well remember-and this will be illuminating, I know it will be interesting, to some hon. gentlemen of this House-I well remember how, when that course was taken, hon. gentlemen opposite, some of them not in the House today,-translated to the Senate-stood on this side and denounced us as having established that board to help our rich friends the millers. I was portrayed, because of the wheat board legislation, as an ally of the big interests; and the eloquence of the former member for Kent will ring through this hall for many a day in which he depicted me as the tool and minion of the rich, establishing a wheat board to crush the farmer in order to benefit the milling interests. Such was the character of. opposition we met with to progressive legislation, and the same opposition continued throughout the life of the wheat board. It ceased only when the wheat board ceased. And we had the progressive style of hon. gentlemen opposite well illustrated in the wheat board legislation of last session, wheat board legislation that has stood a dead letter ever since, that never " progressed " so far as to get into operation. The progressiveness of the respective wheat board bills well illustrates the progressiveness of the two sides of this House.
So much for that; it is a digression forced upon me by the hon. member for Brome, but I apprehend I have given him illustrations enough-and I witness now at last the smile of approval on his face.
Coming to this resolution, I stated that my opposition was founded in part on reasons expressed by the hon. member for North

Proportional Representation
Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray). I cannot say that I have given the closest attention to the discussions in other countries as well as in our own on this principle, but I have given them some attention and I have given pretty close attention to the working out of the principle of proportional representation in Canada, in our municipal and provincial fields.
One of the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg, and strongly urged on this side of the House before he spoke, strongly urged in a very logical address from the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), was this: that proportional representation is a method of election that tends to the fostering, at all events to the continuance and multiplication of groups in parliament. These hon. gentlemen argued that such consequence is not consonant and does not harmonize with the British system of party government. I know there is such a thing as parliamentary government without party government, but I for one-and if it is reactionary, all right, call it reactionary-I for one believe you get the best results of parliamentary government when you have party government. I believe that you get better results than you do when you have group government.
The hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), in his very moderate speech, has said that we will have groups whether we have proportional representation or not. Certainly I admit there have been groups in other countries, and groups that arose without any proportional representation as a cause. That is quite true, it has been inevitable. Not only is it inevitable, but within the limits fixed by a system of direct majority vote I am not sure that it does not work for good. But the multiplication of groups in my judgment is not consonant with the British parliamentary system and does not conduce to the good of the country. It tends to interruption of continuity of policj'; it tends to uncertainty throughout the country as to what policy is going to be; and stronger still, it tends to rob the electorate of power of real and final decision in matters of policy, and to transfer that power in more uncontrollable form to their representatives in parliament. The elector is not in a position to decide policy as fully as he is in a position to do under the present system of election. He is in a position to decide on his preference for men perhaps better, but as betwen the merits of a policy which a government has followed, the naked question of the merits of that policy, he has not so effective a decision in his hands under proportional representation as he has

under the present practice. There is more likelihood, more necessity indeed, of personality being the dominating influence in the election. The elector is bound to give thought to that after his first vote anyway for he is bound to be voting 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and consequently the force of his electoral action does not go as effectively to a definite "yea" or "nay" on big fundamental questions of policy. It is dissipated over other considerations and does not have its full and final effect on policy. It is anti-democratic in that regard rather than democratic.
Now it seems to me the British system of government has stood the test of many centuries. That does not say it is perfect and cannot be improved; but I do not think you improve it when you establish a method of election that tends undoubtedly to the multiplication of groups, and consequently tends to a carnival of favour-bargaining in parliament which destroys responsibility, which destroys continuity of policy, which destroys strength and efficiency of administration.
I may be answered that even under the alternative vote system,-and I admit that that system is open to some of the objections I have advanced,-there is easily a possibility of log-rolling, too; but there it would be beween the electors. The electors might easily engage in a log-rolling practice. The followers of one party or candidate might come to a bargain with the followers of another that each would be the second choice of the other in the contest; and such a practice is not good. It would not tend to the purest form of election. But far better have logrolling there than have it in parliament. The worst thing that can happen parliament is to have it so constituted that policy is determined by a system of exchange of favours, of sectional favours, of favours of any other kind-policy determined thereby rather than determined initially by government on its responsibility to parliament and ultimately to the electors. For that reason I do not think proportional representation is consonant with the British form of government. Let me put it this way also before I leave this phase of the subject. The elector may vote for 1, 2, 3,
4 and 5. He may conceivably decide on a choice of six different lines of policy as he votes, and the representatives of six different policies may therefore be elected but when the elected comes to parliament he has only two ways of voting on any subject; he may vote yea or he may vote nay, and you have either to abandon your system of responsible government or you are going to put some of those elected men in a position where they are

Proportional Representation
voting against their principles time and time again. That is bound to result under proportional representation. The fact that there are only two ways of voting in parliament, following the fact that there are six or seven different things to vote for in the election, results in anomalies and departure from principle in parliament, and is out of harmony with the British system of parliamentary government.
Now I come to a reason that weighs with me heavier than the one I have expounded. The first reason has been faithfully advanced by hon. members who have spoken. The second has been referred to as well, but I regard this reason as a dominating one. I regard it as imperative to my mind. Proportional representation may be right or may be wrong. I cannot deny for a minute that there is much to be said in its favour, and I do not believe I could say that it does not tend, that it would not likely tend, at least, to a more accurate reflection of all the phases of public opinion in the country in this mirror of parliament. If that itself is a distinct, final advantage, I do not think it can be at least conclusively disputed. What I argue is that though you may get some good result, you get it at a price that is too great for all the advantage received.
But whether proportional representation is right or wrong, the isolated application of proportional representation is wrong, and wrong in my mind without any room for debate at all. I am against the isolated application of the principle, and would be against it even though the principle itself appealed to me as sound. Now why do I say that? You cannot have the isolated local application of proportional representation while all the rest of the country is under the old system, and either do justice as between party and party or do justice to the constituency to which proportional representation is applied. It is unfair as between party and party, and it is unfair as respects the constituency itself. Now as between party and party you may apply proportional representation to constituencies, or to classes of constituencies, where one party is the stronger, and thereby deplete its strength in those constituencies but leave unmolested whole areas of the country where another party is the stronger, and thereby give it the whole advantage of its majority over that area. That such a result would be grossly unfair-indeed, that it would be an outrage on the public of this country, there can be no dispute at all, and I do not believe you can choose any area and say that you have chosen this fairly as between the parties represented in parliament. For example, if cities of this country are taken, so far as the last election reflected-I do say it would be the same again; it might be quite different; it should not have been the case at the last election; it would not have been the case but that large sections of this country were led astray-if cities of this country were selected, particularly certain cities, and they made to illustrate the system of proportional representation, that would merely be a matter of having the minority in those cities represented. Consequently the party that is strongest in those cities would be bereft of much of its electoral result, while the party that was strongest in the rest of the country is left in the full enjoyment of all the advantages of that strength.
Not only is this true, but it is grossly unjust to the constituency itself. I could not illustrate this better than to take the working out of this system in the province of Manitoba as we have witnessed it up to date.
Now I want here to interpolate this. The basic objection to proportional representation is that it does not fit in harmoniously with the British system of parliamentary government, does not make for continuity of policy and for strength, and consequently for efficiency of administration. That does not apply with equal force to municipal government, for definiteness and continuity of policy are by no means so important there as even in a provincial arena, and by no means so important as they are in the federal arena. The objections that apply, apply with greater and greater force as the arena to which the application comes is extended in its horizon and elevated in degree.
We have had it illustrated in provincial legislatures. The province of Manitoba is about half urban and half rural. Almost half of the population of the province of Manitoba reside in the city of Winnipeg. That city has a representation, I think, of ten. The balance of the province has much more than that, because they have followed, rightly or wrongly, the principle of giving to rural parts a larger proportion of representation than to the city of Winnipeg. The province has been under the regular system of distribution; Winnipeg has been under proportional representation. Winnipeg as a consequence, as one would naturally expect, has elected three or four different groups. It has elected Conservatives, it has elected Liberals, it has elected Labour representatives; and I think it has elected some who call themselves independent even of labour, and of liberalism, and

Proportional Representation
of conservatism. It has elected a Progressive, It has elected three or four different groups. None has any marked advantage over the other. The Conservatives have no advantage, I think, over the Liberal nor the Liberals over the Conservative; and it would be difficult to conceive, in the years to come, any election in the city of Winnipeg, in which under the new system, any party will have very much advantage over the other. It might have an advantage of one member, it might have an advantage possibly of two or three, but the latter would be -rather difficult to conceive. What, on the contrary, is the condition through the country? There they have, say, forty seats. The party whose policy plays to that vote wins not an advantage of one seat or two seats but an advantage say of forty seats. In a word, the party that directs its policy to winning that vote plays for a stake of forty seats; the party that directs its policy to winning the city vote plays for a stake of one vote or two. As a consequence there is every motive, there is every political motive-and let us not be so hypocritical as to deny that political motives exercise an influence in parliament-there is every political motive to neglect the constituencies to which proportional representation is applied in the public policy of the country, and to place the whole trend of that public policy in favour of those constituencies to which that system is not applied at all. There would be very little to be gained by any government in office in Manitoba to-day in so turning public policy as to be even fair to the city of Winnipeg. And as I make these remarks I do not want to be understood as saying that there has been unfairness to the city; that has nothing to do with the question at all. The question is, what are the forces at work? what will be the tendency? Under the existing system there is very little reward fof any party, in following a course fair to the city of Winnipeg. The best that could be expected there would be an advantage of one seat or two. But the party that ignores the city of Winnipeg to the advantage of the rest of the province-that party has much to gain and its appeal is liable to be much more effective, than the appeal of the party that pursued a policy equally fair to both. This reasoning will apply in the federal arena where, necessarily, there are antagonisms of local interests far greater than there could be in a compact province like Manitoba. Sectional interests here unquestionably have great influence. There is more diversity of sectional interest, and consequently more diver-(Mr. Meighen.]
sity of sectional activity; this is inevitable and we are never going to get away from it. For that reason the party in this parliament that	applies proportional	representationto certain sections of the country and does	not apply it to	others, that
party puts those sections under a distinct disadvantage in reference to its influence in the parliament of Canada. Therefore I am opposed to the sectional, the isolated, the local adoption of proportional representation. I am not prepared to support it applied to certain selected places when I know those places will be chosen by a government which has a majority in parliament, or by a committee on which, necessarily, that government will have a majority over all other parties combined. For this reason, which to my mind is final I will not support the resolution that is now before the House.
I think also, if we reflect on the experiences of those parts of our country which, in other fields of politics, have adopted this system I do not think we will gain anything in the way of accession of argument to the affirmative of this resolution. The Liberal-Conservative party has taken very aggressive steps in this country. It claims, and on the record, I think, I can establish its claim, to be the party of progress in this country, but in all the steps of progress it has taken the Conservative party has known every time where it was going; it did not adopt everything just because it was new, and lightly call such action by the name of progress. The best criterion by which to judge whether a policy proves progressive or not is to watch and see what becomes of it when the other side gets into power. If the other side, in defiance of all its proclamations, in defiance of all its sworn principles, facing the responsibility of governing and facing the consequences of a change, comes to the decision to support the policy of its opponents, then we have just about as final a test as can be thought of as to the essential soundness and progressiveness of that policy. And a party which in respect of one thing or the other, facing all along the stoutest resistance finds its policies the law of Canada today, that party is not boasting when it says that those policies have been really progressive for they have stood the sternest test of time.
But there are certain things the Conservative party has opposed; some of them it has opposed unsuccessfully. In the provincial arena it opposed the introduction of the once famous initiative referendum and recall. But the initiative referendum and recall which, when it was under discussion one would really have thought from the enthusiasm the very

Proportional Representation
honest enthusiasm of its supporters was going to regenerate this stricken world, was going to correct all the evils of political life-that initiative referendum and recall hon. gentlemen must admit has simply stood as a dead letter on the statute books of our provinces. Nor do I think that proportional representation where it has had its chance has contributed to the betterment of our legislatures.
I do not think for example members of the Liberal party in Manitoba, and particularly members of the late provincial government, would say that proportional representation tended to give legislative virility to the liberal party of that province and I do not think their hearts would be behind that principle to-day.
I know they would not be enthusiastic for that once so much heralded reform, the initiative, referendum and recall. Adhering, though, to the subject of proportional representation, I do not think it has contributed to the strength, the efficiency and usefulness of either the Liberal or the Conservative party provincially, and J[ do not think it will contribute to the value as a party in office of the Progressive group that now enjoys power in that province. I believe the time will come when they will see that they would do more efficient and effective work for the whole province under the old British system of election. Looking to the Pacific coast, my reading of the results there is wholly adverse to the success of the principle. I understand that in its actual working out there were so many errors and so much misunderstanding, the numbers of those who found it impossible to master the intricacies of the vote were such that when the result was known there was not only a large volume of dissatisfaction, but very general and grave doubts as to whether the result really reflected public opinion. For those reasons and in the light of these experiences I oppose the resolution now before the House.


William Stevens Fielding: The greatest part of the speech of
my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has dealt with matters outside the resolution before the House, and into that part of his address I do not wish to enter. I would like to, however, make'a few remarks coming more directly to the resolution itself. We are of course profoundly moved-moved to profound sorrow-by the declaration which my right hon. friend made with* so much emphasis that his conception of the functions of government differs from our own. We must comfort ourselves with the thought that when our conception of government and his conception of
government are submitted to the highest authority in this democratic country, his conception of government is not found to be acceptable. My right hon. friend has a very queer notion of that conception of government when he says that it is the duty of government to take a stand on every question that comes before the House.
If my hon. friend had strange notions as to the functions of government, I must confess he also gave us some strange notions as to the functions of opposition, because he made the statement that according to his conception, and according to that of the hon. gentlemen who had worked with him, they are not called upon to make up their minds on any question until they first learn where the government stand in the matter. That is a new notion and I must admit that he does as well in defining the principles of the opposition as he does in defining the principles of the government. The government are bound to be united on any measure which they bring before the House. I say they are not bound to be united on a measure brought before the House by a private member.
If any private member feels that he wishes to bring any motion before the House and to invite a free discussion of it, that is his privilege, and we all commend him for exercising that right. But to say that when a private member exercises that right instantly the government have to take a position on the matter and declare they are for or against it, I think is a strange notion indeed. At all events it is a notion which we are not prepared to endorse here. For myself-and I am speaking for myself alone-I would have preferred if my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good) had rested, as he might well have done, on the passage of his first resolution, in which the sense of the House was taken, on the question of the alternative vote. It having received the unanimous consent of the House -at all events there was no objection-I think my hon. friend might have said that that was progress enough for one day, and perhaps for one session, and might well have waited until we had a trial of it before trying it on a larger scale.	.
As now proposed, however, if the matter has to be voted on, I shall vote for the hon. gentleman's motion-though I shall do so with some little hesitation and not without some doubt-for two reasons: first, the idea of proportional representation in a general way has long commended itself to my fancy. I have not studied it as closely as some hon. gentlemen who have spoken, but in a general way

Proportional Representation
the idea has found favour in my mind. But there is another and more specific reason. I do not need to go outside the situation in my own province to-day to see there is something wrong in the present system. We are keen politicians down in Nova Scotia. Sometimes you would think we are all one-sided. But that is hardly correct. I have not made a careful analysis of the figures, but I am not far wrong when I make a rough guess that about 40 or 45 per cent of the electors of Nova Scotia will call themselves Conservative, and about 55 or possibly 60 per cent-I am making a broad statement and not a close analysis-will call themselves Liberals. But the majority, not more than 10 or 15 per cent more than the others absolutely control the situation, and a large number, not far from half the people of the province, are utterly without representation in this House. It is very pleasant to me as a good Grit to find that is the case. When the polls were closed and we found the whole province to our credit we were all very proud, but in calm moments of reflection I can see there is much injustice in that, and inasmuch as the hon. member for Brant is aiming to remedy that injustice, I am inclined to favour his motion, at all events to the extent of giving the scheme a trial.
I do not forget that there are difficulties in the way. I am inclined to think, whether the government or the committee undertake to work out a bill to carry out the resolution, they will probably find it very difficult indeed.
I suspect that if the matter goes before the committee on the readjustment of the representation, they will not find the quietest time of their lives. There is a curious thing about this, when we talk of the principles of Liberalism or Conservatism in relation to this measure. Only two or three years ago the question excited the British parliament. The curious thing was that the Tory House of Lords voted for proportional representation, and the democratic House of Commons refused to do it. The House of Lords took the broad, general sentiment, but when it came down to brass tacks, as the saying goes, to deal with the matter, the democratic House of Commons said they would not have anything to do with it. That suggests that there are difficulties in the way.
Again I want to say I have some doubt and hesitation in the matter. I am speaking for myself, but because I like the principle of it, and because I see an illustration of the injustice in the case of my own province, I am going to support the motion of my hon. friend from Brant.


William Irvine: Perhaps one reason why the Tory House of Lords found it necessary to vote for proportional representation was that they were beginning to see that very soon if they did not get their proportion they would not have any representation at all, and I have nodoubt the time will come when the Conservatives of this House will take the same attitude. Proportional representation is becoming popular in the public mind as a corrective to the present system of voting. I shall mention very briefly two points where the present method of voting is very unfair and undemocratic. In the first place, a minority candidate in any constituency may be elected. Let us take an example. Suppose we have a constituency with a hundred votes. Suppose there is a Liberal, a Conservative and a Labour candidate in the field. We will give the Liberal 30 votes, the Conservative 30 votes and the Labour candidate 40 votes. The Labour candidate will be elected with 40 votes. There will be 60 votes against him, therefore the majority of the votes of that constituency have no representation at all, whereas the minority have the representation. That is one fault of the present system of voting. -Extend that over the whole country and you frequently have a party in power which has not the support of the majority of the voters.
The next point is that a very large minority may have no representation at all. That has just been very ably pointed out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Take the illustration again of a constituency with a hundred votes with two candidates running, one Tory and one Grit. We give the Grit 51 votes and the Tory gets 49, very nearly half. The Tory has no representation; the Liberal has it all. Spread that over all the nation, and you may possibly have almost one-half of the voting population of Canada without any representation whatever. That is possible under the present system, and I believe the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), cited a number of instances in Canadian politics where a similar situation to what I have described arose..
This resolution, as again was pointed out by the Minister of Finance, does not mean to isolate the practice to one or two constituencies as the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen), who built up a very elaborate argument on that assumption, seemed to conclude. This resolution asks simply that proportional representation be experimented with in one or more multi-member constituencies created for the purpose at the present redis-

Proportional Representation
tribution. Therefore, the whole argument of the leader of the Opposition falls to the ground, as it presupposes a condition that is foreign to the intention of the resolution.
Proportional representation will ensure that a minority will never rule. It also will ensure that no considerable minority will ever be excluded from having a voice. Is that not democracy? What have the self-appointed protagonists of democracy and majority rule in this House to say about that? Are they opposed to a minority having a voice? Are they opposed to majority rule? If so, they may vote against proportional representation; otherwise, they are voting against the very things which they pretend to be willing to see established. Some of them have advanced the argument that this will encourage groups. The leader of the Opposition very properly admits that this will not and cannot create groups. The best that it could possibly do would be to give the groups already in existence an opportunity of expressing themselves. Is that not British? Personally, I have opposed the idea of direct action. Direct action has been advocated in certain sections of Canada and also in Great Britain. There is no better incentive that I know of to direct action on the part of a section of the people than an electoral system which prevents them from giving expression to their opinions. That is the system which we have in vogue at the present time, and I believe that if the various groups now existing had an opportunity of expressing their opinions and desires, there would be no danger of the development of an unconstitutional method of taking action.
I want briefly to follow two or three of the hon. members who have attempted to criticize this resolution. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) seems to get a little mixed between the federal government and the British system. He distinguishes between the British system as applied in municipal government and the British system as applied in the federal government. I do not know why he makes that distinction; but may I ask-since when has a mere method of marking a ballot determined the system of government in any country? Will the mere system of marking a ballot alter the form of government in this or in any other country? That is a question which I would leave to the hon. member for Vancouver South. His next point was that this would dissipate cabinet unity. He says that the keystone of the present system of government is the Cabinet. We say that the keystone of the present system of government
is democracy, the people, and so, if that is true, then I fail to understand his claim that he stands for democracy.
Another hon. member advanced the argument that proportional representation would prohibit canvassing; that it would be almost impossible for him, indeed, it would take him years to canvass his constituency, providing it is a group constituency as is called for by proportional representation. It might be a very excellent thing if members were prohibited from canvassing, if this method of voting were adopted. If it threw upon the people themselves the responsibility for political organization, if it gave to them instead' of to politicians, the responsibility of running elections, that would be a very decided advance. In view of this, I do not consider the canvassing objection as constituting an argument against proportional representation. The hon. gentleman's second point was that this might interfere with members of parliament carrying on theii* correspondence during the year. That again, I submit, is rather a lame argument to advance against a principle so needed to correct the weaknesses of the present system of voting.
Another hon. gentleman opposed proportional representation because it was not pro-, portional. If that is really his argument, I wish, as a student of proportional representation, to assure him that we will make it proportional. He need not fear for that at all. Indeed, when we are dealing with proportional representation, we are dealing with mathematics, and there is no doubt about getting the proportion. I am of the opinion the hon. gentleman must have made some grave mistake in his figures to arrive at such a conclusion.
A number of hon. members opposing this have said, calmly and seemingly in their right minds, that we have group government in Ontario, and that the adoption of proportional representation would give us group government in Canada. Let me point out to those hon. gentlemen that we have not group government in Ontario. There is not group government in any province in the Dominion of Canada; there is not group government here; there is not group government anywhere that I know of in the English speaking world, There is, in Ontario not group government, but a coalition system of government, which might indeed be said to be the most pernicious form of the present party system of government which we have. I do not say that the Ontario government is a pernicious government, by any means; I hasten to say, on the contrary, that it has been a very excellent

Proportional Representation
government. But the coalition makeshift of government has grown out of the British .system under certain conditions, and we had it in full force in the government which preceded the present government. If that is group government, then the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) introduced it into this House. That is not group government as I understand it; that is coalition government.
Another hon. gentleman seemed to think that proportional representation had something to do with horse-racing, and that if he had a lame horse in a race, by proportional representation he might get it in first. That is how I understood his argument. But he seems to me to want to deny the right of considerable numbers of people in a consti-* tuency to run after a fad if they want to. He prefers that they should run after his fad; that he should be allowed to state to the electorate what the real issue is, and when he has done that, to get them all to follow him. That is perfectly democratic; that is perfectly in line, as he sees it, with the British system of constitutional government! But to allow Dick, Tom and Harry to say what they think the issue is, that would never do at all, because if you did that, you might not elect the Tories! That is very clear reasoning, and I am in sympathy .with the hon. gentleman's position, but not with his point of view.
That is a summing up of the opposition to this motion. I conclude by reiterating that this is merely a change in the form of marking a ballot and a corresponding rearranging of constituencies to make that possible. Its aim is to give expression to every considerable group in a nation and it prevents minorities from having power as they sometimes have to-day. It would ensure the continuance of majority rule, and, therefore, those who claim to be such ardent supporters of democracy and majority rule should find themselves bound to vote in favour of this resolution.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I had not purposed taking part in this debate this evening, but the seriousness of this proposal and the meagreness of the actual information that has been placed before the House regarding the practical working out of the new system impel me to invite the House to give some further consideration to the matter.
I confess very frankly that I am not in a position to-night to enter into a technical discussion of the system. So far as I have been able to gather from the speeches that have been delivered, there has not been a single member promoting this measure who has given a clear, technical exposition of it.
I have studied the system for a great many 
years and at first I was attracted by such arguments as we have just heard from the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Irvine) concerning the rectifying of certain apparent inequities in our present methods.
Now, so that there need be no misunderstanding as to the way in which I approach this question, I am going to admit candidly and at once that there are inequities and that frequently a constituency will be represented in this House by a member whose number of votes does not represent a majority of the votes cast. That is quite true. But I would invite the House to consider, in connection with our historic system, this fact, that in the majority of instances, whether on the part of hon. gentlemen belonging to the Liberal party or of those belonging to the somewhat newer party, the Progressives, or on the part of members of the Conservative party, any man Who extern this House does so with a genuine desire to represent the people of his riding as a whole.
If the rules of parliament would permit, and if the members of this House would extend me the courtesy, I could put the question individually to member after member sitting here, " Are you endeavouring to represent all shades of religious, social and economic opinion in your riding?"-and I think the answer would be invariably in the affirmative. I also know that we are all human and are apt to err, and it may be that some will be a little more prejudiced than others, less balanced in their conception of their duties; so that occasionally, perhaps, you may find a glaring wrong. But in the majority of cases, not only in the present House but in previous parliaments of which it has been my privilege to be a member, the members have all endeavoured to discharge their entire duty by their constituencies.
That, I think, should be borne in mind. To quote the figures of the illustration given by the hon. member who has taken his seat (Mr. Irvine), because a man was elected by forty per cent, while the candidates of two other groups received thirty per cent each, he does not come into the House with the object of disregarding the interests of those two groups. He comes to represent the whole constituency. Under our great parliamentary system, the product of the experience of ages, the member is asked, first, to take a stand upon the great general policies of the party to which he belongs. It might be an economic policy of free trade versus protection, or a policy as between nationally owned railways or privately owned railways; it might be some great policy of that character. He is asked

Proportional Representation
to be true to that general policy, and in all other matters, whether in regard to estimates or private bills, or in regard to the routine of government, he is at liberty to express himself in a manner which he thinks is in the interests of the country at large; while in all local matters he is supposed to represent Iris riding. This is a pretty satisfactory situation; it is about as good as one can get. So far as the proposed system is concerned, I think it ought to be shown to the House that it has such distinct advantages as far outweigh all the advantages of the older system.
There is another point I wish to make. It strikes me that by the introduction of proportional representation you would reduce this parliament to the status of a county council or a municipal body, the members of which are elected annually or biennially. A group of citizens offer themselves for office as aldermen or councillors and meet to transact the business of the city or municipality. There are no great policies, or at least there seldom are. Once in a while in a large city some great problem will come up, such as the question of hydro-electric power, or something of that character. But in ninety per cent of the municipalities it is simply a process of carrying on the ordinary business, and there is no distinct cleavage on questions of policy. Further, parliament cannot go to the country annually; it must sit for a reasonable period of time, or you would have absolute chaos.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), advanced, as an argument for the position he was taking in support of the resolution, the situation in Nova Scotia. If I understood him rightly he said that practically fifty-five per cent of the people of Nova Scotia were Liberal while forty-five were Conservative, and that this ten per cent in the difference controlled the representation of that province, of sixteen members. First, I 9 p.m. would remind my hon. friend that he wholly ignored the stalwarts representing the Progressive party and of the supposedly large number of citizens in that province who are in favour of the policy of the Progressives. However, that is a quarrel he must settle with them; I will not interject any opinion here on that point. But let us look at the situation. We are not complaining. We acknowledge that the people of Nova Scotia declared that they wanted a Liberal government in Ottawa. Now, unless we grouped all the constituencies of Nova Scotia into one or two groups and applied this fantastic scheme here proposed, it would
be impossible to do otherwise than follow the existing practice, namely, of majority rule. We do not object to the situation in Nova Scotia at all. *
What we say is that in the working out of our parliamentary system we have the opportunity of saying to the people that their choice was not a wise one, or of showing them that the members they elected have been derelict in their duties. It is our privilege -indeed, our duty,-to do so; then we have an opportunity of winning their support. In other words, if these sixteen members come to Ottawa and discharge their duties in a manner satisfactory to the majority of the people of Nova Scotia they will be reelected and reaffirmed in their position; and we could have no complaint. But on the other hand, if after a period of service they again appeal to the	electorate-a period which
varies, under our system, but approximates four years-and are then rejected, that is a test of public opinion and, we believe, a sufficiently frequent and a sufficiently honest test.
I know that the members from Alberta will support this proposal, because practically all of them are avowedly in favour of what is known as group government. Now, I appeal to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I read only a few days ago a rather able speech made by him in which he referred to the danger of replacing the present system of government with what is known as the group system of government, and as I recall his words they pointed out very clearly' that under group government we were endangering the stability of parliamentary institutions in this Dominion. Let us follow this group government idea, because you cannot have proportional representation without having group government. My right hon. friend wishes to interject something?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: My hon. friend appeals to me in reference to this point. I may say that I do not agree that proportional representation will necessarily lead to group government; I am inclined to think as matters stand it would strengthen the traditional parties. Everyone elected under the system of proportional representation has to get a majority of the votes cast for the candidates entitled to election. I think the effect in our country would be quite the opposite of what my hon. friend expects.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have great respect for my right hon. friend's opinion, but I call to my support several of the speakers of this afternoon who distinctly urged as an argument in



Proportional Representation
favour of this proposal that certain classes of people did not at present have the opportunity of becoming represented in this parliament. Well now, take the case' of Winnipeg, advanced by an hon. member from one of the Manitoba constituencies as a distinct argument in favour of this scheme. And what is there in Winnipeg? Representation by groups, purely and simply-no one will deny it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How is Winnipeg represented in this House? By groups.


Mr STEVENS:: Winnipeg is represented in this House by members supporting my right hon. friend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: By some two or three groups.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, that may be so. It is quite true in one respect, but separate ridings are involved. For instance, the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth), who sits on this side of the House, runs in one riding, and that riding is composed very largely of individuals who think, perhaps, as he does, or as he persuaded them to think they thought-I doubt if they do, to tell you the truth. Then, my hon. friends from North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray), and South Winnipeg (Mr. Hudson) represent, again, distinct and separate ridings in which the individuals who voted for them consider them to be fair representatives of their views. But under the provincial system the whole of the city was grouped under one riding. Now, then, let me turn to another point.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Would my hon. friend permit a question? I do not think it is fair to use the Manitoba legislature as an illustration, because the same things prevail in Ontario where proportional representation has not been attempted at all. Proportional representation, therefore does not necessarily lead to group government, which is here already.


Mr STEVENS:: My hon. friend is in
error there. We do not deny that you can have groups under the present system, but what we do assert is that proportional representation not only tends to it but almost makes it compulsory; it multiplies groups. I do not think there is any denial of that; I do not think it is disputed even by those who support the principle. In fact they advance that as a reason in favour of the adoption of proportional representation.
My hon. friend a moment ago said that this system was, to use his own words, mathematically perfect. I would like to have some one demonstrate its mathematical accur-

acy. I am not in a position to-night to go into any detail in regard to that; I shall simply give one or two illustrations. Take _ a group or multiple riding where, we will say, five members are to be elected-a city like Toronto or Montreal, or any other large urban centre. The experience is-and I am talking now of experience-that you will have perhaps twenty or thirty candidates-at least twenty or thirty where there are five to be elected. I have seen cases in Vancouver where there were thirty nominations and only five or six were to be elected, the ballot being of tremendous length, a very complex document, Now, they take the number of individuals to be elected and divide that into the total number of votes to be polled. We will assume that there are a thousand votes to be polled; they divide that by five, the number to be elected, and add one, making 201 necessary for election. When the ballots are counted, one man who is very popular receives on the first count, 300 number one votes, and they credit him with 201. Then they arbitrarily take 99 votes and divide that into the number of seconds that are then available for distribution, and they allocate the result to each individual on this long list. My point is this: what is the mathematical reasoning of so applying these 99 votes, simply because this man happened by chance to have a larger number of first choices than the others'.
Now, the next step is this: the man at the bottom of the list, number thirty-one or whatever he may be, drops out, and his seconds are taken in a somewhat similar manner. But why should his seconds be taken any more than the seconds of number fifteen, number sixteen or number eighteen? Where does the fairness come in? I do not say it is unfair, but there cannot be any claim for accuracy or fairness in the thing; it is simply an arbitrary action. And here is the way it frequently works out; I have seen cases of this kind. Two individuals had been running along together and after fifteen or sixteen allocations of this arbitrary character it became necessary to allocate the votes of one of these individuals, each of whom represented a very small but particularly virile group in the community. It happened that they both ran first and second right through the whole count, and because it chanced to come to the turn to take one of these, the one of the two who was first was immediately placed two or three ahead of others who had held a lead over them up to that point. My point is that there is just as much of an element of chance in the allocation of these -votes as there is under the present system.

Proportional Representation


Mr. HUGHES:: Suppose that under this system A got the largest number of votes, B the next largest, C the next, and so on? Is there any possibility in the counting that A in a single-member constituency would not be the representative, or in a double-member constituency that A and. B would not be the representatives, and in a triple-member constituency that A, B and C would not be the representatives, and so on?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Unquestionably. That is what I am trying to point out. I admit frankly I am not prepared to-night to enter into such a closely analytical discussion of this as will make it perhaps clear, and if I fail to make it clear, it is because of my own inability to do so. But there is just that point my hon. friend raises. The element of chance enters into this system just as much as into any other.


James Joseph Hughes: After the votes are cast?


Henry Herbert Stevens: After the votes are cast. A and B, we will say, in a dual member constituency have the largest number of votes. Of course, if they have enough on the first count to give them their quota they are elected, but assuming they have not, and that is very often the case, and it is the only reason for this innovation, it may be that on allocating the other votes, C and D will be elected over the heads of A and B. As a matter of fact, if I had time and had the figures before me, which I have not, I could show where what I consider to be grave injustices have been done in the distribution of the votes. The only mathematical accuracy in the matter is this; by taking this arbitrary number and determining arbitrarily that one candidate shall drop out, you may distribute those votes mathematically, I do not dispute that; what I question is your right to declare that you get, from a mathematical standpoint, an accurate reflection of the views of the electors. You do not do so. You have the element of chance. You arbitrarily remove from the list the candidate with the lowest number of votes, and after that arbitrary removal you allocate a group of votes which may favour this man or that. If it happens that number 4 or number 5 has a certain number of second choices after number 15 has dropped out, he benefits. So it is a game of chance just as much as is any other form of polling.
I would like to join with the views expressed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in saying to my hon. friend for
27i
Brant (Mr. Good) that I think he ought to be mighty well satisfied as an enthusiastic advocate of these measures to have had his first proposal, the alternative vote, advanced. I was somewhat surprised at the Minister of Finance saying that he needed proportional representation to remedy the difficulties of Nova Scotia that he outlined. The resolution already passed in the early afternoon would correct what my hon. friend suggests is perhaps an injustice.
There is another point. We find by experience in our province that the electorate do not take the same interest in the polling that they do under the present system, and there are two distinct reasons for that. One reason is the complex nature of the poll, and the other is that the average elector says, " Oh, well, what's the use? If you go and vote for the man you think should be elected he has mighty little chance because of the peculiarities of this system." It discourages and has discouraged the turning out of the electors to poll. In the case of the city of Vancouver the number of persons turning out to poll under proportional representation is about one-third normal, and I notice it is the same in other cities.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is that true of
Winnipeg, may I ask?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not prepared to
say that that is a reason to advance in support of my argument. I am simply stating what experience teaches us, and that is that people do not take the same interest in an election under this system.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the hon. member if it is a fact that in the city of Winnipeg there is less interest taken in an election under proportional representation than under the old system?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite aware that
after the activities of my hon. friend and some of his friends in Winnipeg, public affairs have been creating quite a considerable degree of heated opinion.
Regarding the alternative vote, I do not see perhaps quite the same objections to it that I do to proportional representation, although personally I may say very frankly to my hon. friend I voted " no " to that proposal. Someone said that it carried unanimously. When the motion was put I called "lost." I did that out of candour and frankness, because I did not wish to be considered as supporting it. I think my hon. friend ought to have been satisfied with the passage of his

Proportional Representation
first resolution. I think the government owes it to the country, and I say this with great earnestness to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, that this very important departure from our present system ought to receive more consideration and a great deal more detailed discussion than has been given to it during the debate before it is approved. As I read this resolution in the order paper proposed by the hori. member for Brant it says:
For the purpose of demonstrating the working and effects of the system of true proportional representation, one or more multi-member constituencies should be constituted by the redistribution legislation in which that system should be applied at the next general election.
I invite the Prime Minister and the government to consider this resolution. Virtually what it is doing is this:	It is not merely a
pious expression of opinion by this House on the merits or demerits of this system, but it is a definite instruction to the government and to the committee that will be formed under the aegis of the government to incorporate this system in the redistribution bill which the government has now before the House. In other words, if this resolution carries, it becomes a definite government measure. Now I ask the Prime Minister in all earnestness: does he think this matter has received all the consideration it should have before we get to the point of incorporating it in the redistribution bill? Then I ask him further, does he not think that it is wholly unfair, I will not say unconstitutional, to inaugurate this system as an experiment in one, two or three sections when we are not at all sure that it is wise to incorporate it as a part of the general electoral system of this country? I feel very keenly about this. I do not wish to deride the proposal, but I do think we can well afford to let this particular motion stand, or, if the hon. member is not agreeable to that, to vote it down, not necessarily rejecting the idea altogether, but rejecting it in this form, and letting the first proposal that was passed be given a trial. I am opposed to the first motion also, but it has carried and I bow to the wish of the House. But I do ask the House to refrain from hasty action- perhaps that is too strong a word-in connection with this matter which is of such grave importance.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (SouthYork):: M.\ Speaker, I have very little to say on this question other than this, that I am an absolute believer in parliamentary government as it has developed in Great Britain and in the nations of the British Commonwealth that are now growing up in all quarters of the world. Parliamentary government does not

stop, it is progressive; and the whole history of progress in connection with our parliamentary institutions is the removal of abuses in connection with government and the substitution of a better system. Therefore I say the day of reform is not completed, the public in many quarters are asking for improvements, and I am prepared to see these two questions embodied in the resolutions considered this afternoon submitted to a committee for the consideration of the House.
But I want to bring something else, which is a real grievance in the country, before the House. It is a real grievance in my constituency. I represent here over 100,000 people and if an election was declared there would have to be a registration of votes in South York and there would be 60,000 people on that voters' list. Well, there is a case where 100,000 people in South York are outvoted in this country by four constituencies that do not have 80,000 population. In other words, as I size up the census and the representation of Ontario, Toronto and the adjacent constituencies in the county of York associated with it, are entitled to perhaps one-fifth of the representation of Ontario which would be 16. In other words the real question in our portion of Ontario is " rep. by pop." Are we to have it? There is the old cry that was long ago raised in this country That was the old Liberal cry. I have always believed in it, I believe in it to-day. Is this House prepared to adopt the principle of representation by population, as well as the principle of proportional representation or the alternative vote? I would like to have an expression of opinion on that. That is a question which concerns the people in Toronto, it concerns the people in Ottawa, and it concerns the people of the whole of the cities throughout this Dominion. At present the urban centres do not have fair representation. In the United States they have representation by population practically and there is no objection to it there. Why does this discrimination exist against the cities, why is this preference given to the country parts? That is the real issue.
I was not here at the beginning of this debate I regret to say, but I have listened with great interest to what was said to-night. I appreciated the statement of the Minister of Finance to-night, but he did not touch this question, nor did the right hon. leader of the Opposition touch it as far as I could hear. And yet this is a vital question and I appeal to my hon. friends from the constituencies of Toronto and York, to support me in this stand. I never read anything with so much interest as I read the last two nights in bed the latest

Proportional Representation
volumes of Mrs Asquith's Biography. I got through the two volumes in two seances of about four hours. But it was most interesting to me and this is the point: The whole of her story forms the history of the progress of parliamentary government in England, and the great instance she gives is the recent struggle -within the memory of most of the members of the present parliament of England-the recent struggle to curb the over-influence of the House of Lords after a clear expression of opinion had been given by the people through the House of Commons, either in a general election or on a reference of the special question to the electorate.
Now, the whole history of progress in connection with parliamentary government is of that kind and it is not finished. Undoubtedly the present system of voting is not satisfactory. The group system, to my mind and from my reading is not likely to end. I do not know in what way it is going to move, but perhaps the old two party system is very near its end. It is very near its end in the United States; that result has already arrived in many of our provinces; and as I size up the situation in the United States the prospect is that the next presidential election and the next election for congress, will result in a very pronounced manifestation in favour of at least three parties and the group system. Accordingly I am prepared to favour a full consideration of this question by a parliamentary committee, not only to consider the alternative system and proportional representation, but to consider a question far more important to all the cities in the urban population of Canada- the demand for representation by population.
One of the great cries of the illustrious grandfather of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) who now leads the House was representation by population in this country, which was denied in the old days. That demand has continued to this day, and there may be some trace of it in Britain yet. That abuse has got to be removed. It is a parliamentary abuse that denies equality between the citizens of this country. I believe in equality in citizenship, equality in responsibility, and equality in the right to shape the policy of the country. We have not got it in Toronto, it does not exist in Winnipeg, it does not exist in Montreal. Montreal is entitled to whatever representation is granted to the other cities. At present the urban population of the community, as the leader of the Opposition said to-night is not given a fair show. It is discriminated against in a way even by these proposals submitted to-day.
Therefore, I wish to say that I do recognize the group system and think it will prevail for a good many years in Canada, and it may expand. It certainly is recognized in Britain and, most surprising thing, after the recent election there, and when Mr. Bonar Law came into the House and announced this policy as the new Prime Minister, the other three groups in the House did something remarkable. Practically Mr. Asquith, and I think Lloyd George and others, recognized at once the group system, and as Ramsay Macdonald was the leader of the dominant section of the opposition, Mr. Asquith, Lloyd George and the others all rose and said, " After you, Mr. Macdonald," and automatically he was recognized as the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition. That shows progress, and that shows what took place in England, and also shows what is taking place all over. There will be a recognition for some years to come of the group system, and it not only goes to-parliament, whether the British parliament, or American congress, or to the parliament in this country, as a recognized group system; but it obtains to-day in most of our provinces.
I am an absolute believer in progress in parliamentary reform. This can only be done by agitation, and it has been obtained only by discussions of this character, by the introduction of reforms, by their being tried, and by their investigation by committee. But when we are dealing with this question, 1 claim on behalf of the urban population of Canada that they are entitled before anything else to representation by population, and that the quality of citizenship is the basis of parliamentary government. It has been ignored in this country and ignored in some of the other commonwealths, and the first thing to do in our parliamentary system is to improve the system under which we select our members for this House. I would go further and would like to see a very much improved system in the selection of the Senate of this country.


William Charles Good: Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: The debate is always
closed by the mover. If any other member wishes to address the House this is the time, because the mover will close the debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to draw
the attention of	the House to	the
difference in the form in which the resolution is introduced this year from the form in which it was introduced last year by the hon. member. The hon.

Proportional Representation
gentleman brought in a resolution last year which embraced both the alternative vote and proportional representation. I supported him at that time in his resolution, I intend to support him to-night in both resolutions, because I believe in the alternative vote and also in proportional representation.


An hon. MEMBER:: How about representation by population?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the attention of the mover of this resolution and of the members generally to just one aspect of proportional representation which seems to be unfair to the voter in that it impairs his franchise and reduces his voting power in constituencies described in the resolution as multi-member constituencies. For instance, let us take a constituency which has the right to elect four candidates and that those four positions are coequal, one is of no more importance than another. Yet, the elector in voting for those four can really give only one first vote; to the second, he gives a number 2 vote or half a vote; to the third, a third of a vote, and to the fourth a fourth of a vote. That is, the fourth man he votes for has not as much opportunity of being elected because of his vote as the man to whom he gave his number 1 vote, although, as I say, the positions are coequal, just as important and the elector has just as much right to vote for the fourth man as he has to vote for the first. I have not heard that point touched on by any of the advocates of proportional representation.
I am not in favour of passing this resolution in this House at the present time, if for no other reason than that the matter has never
been submitted to the electorate. The members of this House were not sent here to introduce any such legislation. We have had no expression of opinion from the electorate of Canada as to whether or not they are in favour of proportional representation, and I do not think this House should. take to itself this opportunity of putting upon the shoulders of the electorate this new system with its imperfections as they have been demonstrated to the House to-night, in preference to the old system. For that reason, I propose to-night to vote against the resolution, and I should like to hear the mover explain the point that I have called to his attention and to the attention of the House.


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. Speaker, I want to get a matter concerning which I am in some doubt cleared up before I give a vote on this resolution. Supposing there are 100 votes in any single member constituency with three candidates running. One of them gets forty votes, and each of the other two gets thirty votes. Is it possible under this principle for one of the men who gets thirty votes to become the representative? Then, let us take a double constituency and say that there are four candidates running. Two of them get twenty-five votes each; one gets twenty votes, and the other gets thirty votes. Is it possible for the man who got twenty votes and one of the men who got twenty-five votes to become the representatives for that district?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly.


James Joseph Hughes: And so on in like manner. If that is possible, it appears to me that in our effort to right an injustice, to correct a wrong, we would be doing a greater injustice. If that point can be cleared up to my satisfaction, I would, perhaps, feel like supporting this resolution. But, if that is the result, I do not see how I could vote for this resolution, because as I have already stated, it would appear to me that we would be doing a great injustice to the man who got the largest vote of the group.


Mr. J. F. WHITE (London):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a good deal of interest to the debate to-day, and I can understand how proportional representation might be advantageous in securing a more accurate expression of opinion in municipal matters. As has already been pointed out, in municipal affairs there are no political parties and very seldom great questions at issue, and the policies are generally outlined by individuals. I can therefore understand

Proportional Representation
how proportional representation might be of advantage in those cases.
The first thing we have to consider, without going into the pros and cons of the figures in connection with this question, is the matter of confusion in the minds of voters. Any system that we adopt must have the confidence of the people before we take it up very seriously. We must make sure that the people are certain that their votes will be treated with perfect fairness; that the man for whom they wish to vote will receive the count without undue manipulation. Not only that, but the voter must be thoroughly conversant as to how to mark his ballot and as to the procedure afterwards. Unless that is the case, then our people will not have the confidence that they should have in the system. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) has touched on a point that I think is very important, namely, that the public have not expressed any opinion at the polls whether they wish to elect their representatives in this fashion or not. It struck me that it would have been the part of wisdom for the government of this country to have found out in some way the feeling of the people in this regard.


Robert Alexander Hoey: Does the hon. member not know that proportional representation is in both the Progressive platform and the Liberal platform, and that the majority of the members of this House were returned on that principle?


John Franklin White: I know there are a good many things in the Liberal platform, but I have not seen them come to fruition yet. Another matter is the delay, after voting takes place, before the results are announced. If four or five or six constituencies are grouped together, there will probably be fourteen or fifteen candidates. The result will be that the ballots will have to be counted several times, or perhaps some of our Progressive friends can figure out some more expeditious way of counting them. But so far as I can see, a great delay will occur, and it will probably be a week after the election before the results are announced. We have made one experiment to-day without very much consideration, and I would be sorry to see another one made without more consideration than it has so far received. If we are taking up this matter of proportional representation seriously, I think we should give it further consideration, and I would therefore move in amendment:
That this resolution be referred to a special committee, to be appointed by this House, for further consideration and report later in the present session.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: Recently there was a recount of ballots in the last election that was held in the city I have the honour to represent, and of the
80,000	ballots cast in that election there was less than one-eighth of one per cent improperly marked,-as found by the learned judge of the county court. This, I think, every hon. member will admit is proof that the present system is as just and equitable a system as one could devise, and one that does not seem to leave much room for improvement. Now, it has been my privilege to act for a considerable time as president of the Union of Canadian Municipalities, and I can assert that there has been no demand on the part of the people of Ontario for legislation such as is now proposed. It is one of the principles for which the United Farmers of Ontario stand, that before any far-reaching legislation of this character is proposed in parliament it should be submitted to a vote of the people; and hon. gentlemen of the Progressive party are now violating that principle. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the motions which hon. members of that party have seen fit to introduce in this House since the present session began provide a sufficient reason for the total abolition of private members' day.
Recently I attended a meeting of the council of the county of York, which comes within the constituency represented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King); and I can assure the House that there is more solid work done in one afternoon and evening by that county council than has been accomplished in this House during the past three weeks, most of which time has been wasted by the Progressives, who indulge in the discussion of a lot of academic questions that have no practical import. The more they talk the more evident is their lack of knowledge; and the less they know the more they talk. If the Progressives in this House would only stand up and advocate something for the working classes, if they would only make practical suggestions as to how the poorer classes are to get coal to warm their houses, if they would only do something to reduce the high cost of living, it would be to very much better purpose than for them to worry the government. And eoodness knows every government to-day, Dominion, provincial or municipal, has a hard time dealing with the problems that face it. As a distinguished member of the British House of Commons stated on one occasion, governments can do little without co-operation. I think my Progressive friends

Proportional Representation
ought at least to give the government a chance to get some work done instead of wasting the time of parliament discussing all sorts of academic theories.
The other day Mr. Gordon Waldron, a lawyer who draws about $21,000 from this so-called Farmers' government in Ontario, was invited to discuss the question of proportional representation in a Methodist church in Toronto. Let me tell my hon. friend from Brant (Mr. Good) that if the system which this gentleman was asked to expound, and which he is now proposing in this House, had been practised in the city I represent, which has a budget amounting to two or three times the budget of Ontario-between $34,000,000 and $35,000,000 per annum-instead of a thirty-mill tax rate the working classes would have to pay a rate of from 45 to 50 mills. That is what would happen under this system of proportional representation, which, after all, is nothing but a Yankee fad, which has been abandoned wherever it has been tried. If that system were in general operation in Ontario, it would tend to abolish public ownership, it would destroy the hydro-electric movement, it would mean a ten-cent fare on the street railways of Toronto, it would mean an increase in the water rates there, which are the cheapest in America today; and it would mean a deficit all along the line, because every fad would be put in the tax rate under this new system.
Now, with many of the principles advanced by the Progressive party, such as the public ownership of utilities, I agree. I am in accord with them on those things that tend to relieve the lot of the workingman. But I do not agree with the way my hon. friends try to do things in this House. The hon. member for Brant is good in deed as well as in name in a great many respects, but in this matter I think he is trying to accomplish something that is not in the interests of proper government. I believe in a low tax rate, but I do not think that you could secure it if you adopted proportional representation. Furthermore, proportional representation would create the group system of government, and I contend that such a system is not in the interests of the country.. As Mr. Austin Chamberlain said in the British House of Commons once, you may criticise the party system as much as you like, but it has stood the test of time. No doubt it has its defects, and men may be actuated sometimes by political motives in the views they take on certain questions. And possibly in the present case the Progressive party may have an eye to votes in advocating this proposed legislation. But however much you criticise the party system, do not forget its virtues.
That system has proved the strength of representative government in the Mother Country; and in the province of Ontario, under the Conservative regime, it has given us the magnificent hydro-electric system which 10 pm. we have and which has meant a saving of 29,000,000 tons of coal to the people of that province between the years 1911 and 1921. The virtues of the party system more than compensate for any defects that * may have become apparent in it in the course of time; and for every dollar spent under it by the Conservatives and the Liberals the so-called Farmers' government of Mr. Drury spend five dollars. Has that been representative government? No.
Well, Mr. Waldron, lawyer for the U.F.O. took the platform, and this reverend gentleman-I forget his name-announced that Mr. Waldron would speak on behalf of proportional representation. Mr. MacNicol of Parkdale, was to be opposed to him. Just here I may remark that the hon. Minister of Finance says that he very regretfully supports this motion. He is a gentleman who is respected by everybody, high and low, rich and poor, and I thought we could look to him for leadership in this matter. Well, what does Mr. Waldron say about proportional representation. I quote from the Globe report:-
Mr. Waldron began by extolling the U.F.O. government-
No doubt it meant a very good thing for him. He got $21,000 a year out of it, from that brilliant little attorney general.
-and expressed the opinion that it would be a calamity if it were not returned to power again.
Not one chance in a hundred of its being returned to power again. It is like our friends the Progressives in the House here; they can discuss academic questions, but when it comes to something of a practical nature for the working classes, what have they done? I have sat in this House for two sessions as the representative of a large municipality, and I have not heard one motion brought down by hon. members of the Progressive party for the benefit of the working classes. The report says further:-
"There is nothing in the world the U.F.O. is not thinking about for your welfare," he told those assembled in the hall, much to their apparent bewilderment. It had been rumored, however, that the U.F.O. would favour the enactment of proportional representation, but he sincerely hoped they would not. The government in Queen's Park had won public favour to retain power, or to elect* candidates in a city of such high ideals as were possessed by Toronto.

Proportional Representation
Then he goes on to say:-
If I were the Prime Minister I would not resort to proportional representation, even if my government were condemned to opposition.
Of course, he is prime minister de facto if not de jure.
The report goes on:-
Whether he was speaking as the mouthpiece of the U.F.O. or not, he did not state, but charged that all this agitation for the P.R. system had originated with the Liberal party in Ontario which, despairing of displacing the present party in power, sought this tricky means of squeezing in between the U.F.O. and Conservatives, while using the former as a tool to put it over. Then, turning his attention to the merits of proportional representation, he said it was totally opposed to the interests of the public. He had a profound respect for long established forms of public action and expression and would not want to see anything to break them down. What he was saying might have been called toryism ten years ago, but when he saw the lack of respect for social and established order now to be witnessed on every hand, he naturally became conservative in viewpoint, although not in the political meaning of the term, as the disrespect, if allowed to continue, would set up and arouse the mob spirit. It was for this reason that he opposed P.R. Under the present government in Queen's Park, the lunatics, wise men, lawyers and the various professions and occupations were well taken care of, he continued without a smile.
These are the remarks of the gentleman who was put up by Mr. Drury to speak on behalf of proportional representation. The present system is a fair system. What mandate have the Progressives to bring down this motion? What mandate have the government to adopt it? Has there been any vote of the people on the question? Was it discussed in North York? I attended five or six meetings in North York and I never heard the matter mentioned. What mandate has the hon. member for Brant to deal with the matter in this way? I was in his constituency, in the city of Brantford, and I am sure the matter was never mentioned during the course of the election. As I understand it, it was one of the planks in the U.F.O. platform that before any legislation should be introduced with regard to the matter there should be a vote of the people.
I will give the House an idea of what the effect of the adoption of this principle would be upon the hydro-electric movement in Ontario. For some years I was a hydro-electric commissioner, and during that time application was made to the board by some of the workmen for increases in wages that the system could not stand. They urged that the Industrial Disputes Act should be invoked but it was found that it did not apply. I say it is going to mean a ten cent fare on our street cars and all the people will have to pay. The average light bill of the working classes in Toronto is only 90 cents a month, but any increase in the cost of running the 
hydro-electric arising out of these causes and loading up the system to pay for every fad will mean that rate will be multiplied by two or three. You will have deputations wanting this, that and the other thing and my contention is that under the proportional representation system the commissioners will not be able to oppose all these suggestions that are made and which add to the cost of operation.
We have $120,000,000 invested in public ownership in Toronto. If this proportional representation goes through, it will have a pronounced effect upon our bond transactions. In the city I come from we used to sell our municipal bonds by private tender, giving the business to a broker, but when I became a representative on the treasury board I changed the system to that of calling for tenders, with the result that we got seventeen or twenty bids for about $17,000,000 worth of bonds. A leading banker said to me that if this system went through it would destroy the basis upon which the transactions connected with the bonded indebtedness of our municipalities are conducted, because no man will tender for bonds when he knows that the government of the day can change the hours of labour, can change the conditions of labour, can change all these things upon which the bond man figures when he is making his bid.
I want to point out to our friends the Progressives what that W'ill mean. It is an unfortunate fact that in the province from which I come a large share of the burden of provincial debt is placed upon the municipalities. For example, the tax rate of Toronto includes 5 or 6 mills on the dollar of purely provincial responsibility, a tax placed by the province on the municipality. Consider all that the municipality has to maintain- registry offices, courthouses, hospitals-fixed charges, maintenance charges and so on on all of these; yet 5 or 6 mills on the dollar in Toronto alone go to meet what should be a purely provincial burden. Ontario spends a million and a quarter on education, on the public and separate schools in the province; the municipality of Toronto spends $12,000,000 on schools. When we consider all these things, when we think of all these fixed charges and the difficulties with which the municipality has to struggle, with its limited revenue and limited means of raising money, then we should pause and consider what the effect of the introduction of this system would be. When it comes to floating a loan for a bridge or something like that-[DOT]


Mr. GOULD:: I rise to a point of order, and it is that the hon. member is not discussing the resolution.

Proportional Representation


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member is not confining himself strictly to the resolution. He is wandering a little away from the subject, but I must say that he is giving the House the benefit of his experience as to the application of the system of proportional representation. I have followed him as closely as I can, and in justice to him I must say that he is simply showing the House how the system in its application to municipal elections has proven a failure. I would ask him, however, in his further remarks to come closer to the resolution as submitted to the House.


Thomas Langton Church: I will come closer to the subject of the resolution. Let me ask the hon. member who has raised the point of order, has he or the Progressives made any of the working classes rich in this country? I would ask him further, does he propose to apply proportional representation to the election of directors of the grain growers, bank directors and elections generally? The hon. member and his friends sitting around him are very good at raising points of order and wasting the time of the House, but I can tell him that more business is done by York county council in one afternoon than has been done in this House for three weeks, for the time has been simply wasted by the Progressives bringing down academic resolutions, which have not the support of the municipalities. I challenge the hon. member to show that this question has ever been discussed by the Ontario municipalities. I was present at a municipal meeting last September and this question was on the order paper for discussion, but nobody was there. Did the farmers want it? No, no-bo<Jy wanted it. I am not going to waste the time of the House as the Progressives have, worrying the ministers and the government all the time. Let us get down to business in this House, and the sooner this private members' day is abolished the better for the country.


William Charles Good: If there are no others who wish to speak, I should like to reply to some of the comments that have been made in the course of this debate, which has been very interesting to me. I find it very difficult to take some hon members seriously, but I shall try as best I can to believe that every one who participated in the debate spoke from the fulness of his heart.
The question seems to me to be a very important one, and I do not wish anyone to think that I encourage hasty action in a matter of this kind; but the subject has been before the country and before this House for many years, and surely we are in a position now to come to some conclusion in regard to the principle involved.
I would point out that the resolution does not ask for an unqualified endorsation of the principle. Personally I thoroughly believe in it. But surely if much is to be said for it, the least we can do is to give it a trial. We cannot adopt the system everywhere at once. We have to start somewhere, and although I quite agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that the delimitation of the constituencies will no doubt be a thorny problem, that is a problem we can tackle when the time comes. We have to make a start somewhere, and if we do not do anything to-day the committee will never wrestle with the problem. We shall make no progress, and shall probably have to wait until after the next census is taken. So I think this is a very opportune time for taking some few steps in the direction of this reform.
I wish first to answer the question put by the hon. member for King's (Mr. Hughes) as to whether under this system a candidate who did not receive a majority on the first count could be elected on the final count. Undoubtedly that could happen. Perhaps I can best illustrate the point by referring to the case which he put, where one man gets forty votes, another thirty and another say twenty-five. Now supposing that all the twenty-five electors that voted for the third man as their first choice preferred the second man as their second choice, and that when the third man was eliminated those twenty-five votes were transferred to the man who had thirty votes on the first count. That would give him fifty-five. Does the hon. member say that that man should not be elected over the man who received only forty votes? It seems to me we must regard a second choice as practically equivalent to a first choice. The same question was raised by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray) as to the relative values of first and second choices. Now if you consider the meaning of first and second choices, it seems to me that you must recognize their equality. What does it mean when a man records his second choice? It means that if his first choice has no chance of being elected, or has a surplus, the elector wishes his vote to be transferred. If hon. members will get the idea'of a transferred vote, it will be apparent that that vote ought to be given equal recognition with the first choice.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the hon. member say that the fifth and sixth choices were equal to the first choice, according to his reasoning?


William Charles Good: I think that they would be so. In the event of the first, second, third and

Proportional Representation
fourth choices not standing any chances of election, I think the elector's fifth choice ought to have recognition. But in actual practice there would be very, very few cases of this sort. It has been pointed out already in the course of this debate that in actual practice where the system has been in operation the candidates who have come out on top on the first count are those who are generally elected finally, and one hon. gentleman in discussing the subject asked why, if the first count showed the wishes of the electors, we should adopt proportional representation and have further counts. My answer is this: We have to have a multi-member constituency any way to get our first count. If we go that far, why not go a little further and be quite sure that every elector's preferences are given recognition? It only means a little more work on the count, no more work for the elector, and just a little more time. Therefore if we have to go so far, might we not go a little farther.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) made a statement which I submit was quite erroneous when he alleged that under this system an elector in a four-member constituency had four votes. Now that is quite a mistake. Under the system which is proposed, an elector in a multi-member constituency has only one vote but it is transferable according to his own instructions.
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) dealt with a number of apparent difficulties in the working out of this scheme, and I would like to reply to some of the points which he raised. He alleged that the individual representative really tries to represent his constituents. Now I submit that in matters of policy, in large questions, the individual representative of the majority cannot represent the minority in his constituency; it is absolutely impossible. I do not deny that he may represent certain local interests. He may answer the correspondence of his constituents, he may look after a number of matters of a local character, but in regard to the major questions of policy which divide the parties it is absolutely impossible, no matter how much he desires it, for him to represent accurately the opinions of those from whom he differs; and if we are going to accurately represent the various bodies of opinion, we must depart from majority representation and have some other system; and proportional representation, I think, is the best.
Now with respect to the allegation made by the hon. member that this scheme would reduce parliament to the status of a municipal

council, I do not know whether to take that statement as a compliment or not. I do not know that a municipal council, so far as its discussions are concerned, deserves to be derided. I do not know that there is anything particularly contemptible about the methods of a municipal council, and I would suggest that, perhaps, it would be a good thing for this parliament if we could get rid of our party alignments and discuss every question on its merits. Personally I would like to see hon. members free themselves more from party affiliations, 'and let us approach every matter as we see it from our own standpoint and the standpoint of those we represent. I think in that way we would arrive at saner conclusions, and conclusions that would be better for the country.
The hon. member confuses also, as so many have done to-night, majority rule with majority representation. Now, there is nobody who does not agree with the policy of majority rule, that necessarily democratic principle. But we do not agree with the policy and practice of majority representation. As the Minister of Finance has pointed out, the province of Nova Scotia has had only majority representation in federal affairs for many years. That is not in the interests of Nova Scotia, or in the interests of Canada.
I may also state that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has got rather sadly mixed up in his elucidation or attempted elucidation of the method of counting. I do not like to weary the House with the correction of what he said in that respect, but I submit- because I know the facts and I know the methods-that he has got seriously confused and that the difficulties and unfairnesses which he alleged in respect to the transfer of the surplus votes, and the transfer of the votes of those who were eliminated at the bottom of the poll, do not exist. [DOT]


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will my hon. friend be
good enough to correct my error? I propounded what my hon. friend considers an error and as he states that he knows I would like him to correct it.


William Charles Good: I would be only too glad to
go into this matter. Perhaps the hon. member would allow me to deal with just one point, as I do not wish to devote much time at this late hour to discussing a question of this sort. I will deal with one point where the hon. member made a mistake. In the distribution of the surplus we do not take the ballots that are left over in an arbitrary manner. Supposing, for instance, the quota is

Proportional Representation
201,-I think that was the figure that was mentioned,-and a candidate has, say, 300 votes on the first count. Then 99 votes constitute the surplus and they are to be distributed. Now, we do not take 99 ballots by chance and distribute them. We find out by examining all of the ballots what the preferences of those 300 electors are, and then we divide the 99 in the same proportion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is exactly what I said myself. Will my hon. friend now follow the first man that drops out?


William Charles Good: Well, I seriously misunderstood the hon. gentleman if that is what he said. With respect to the first man who drops out-and others who drop out-the procedure is simply this, that all his ballots are divided amongst those candidates that are left, according to the preferences expressed on them. I cannot see what else you can do. The voter himself authorizes the returning officer to transfer his vote in a certain way and what else can we do, if we are going to be fair and honest with the elector, but transfer his vote according to his own instructions?


Robert King Anderson: Is it not a fact that there are quite a number of second choices not counted at all? You do not count second choices on men who are dropping out? That is not fair.


William Charles Good: It is not a [DOT] fact that there are many votes that are not recognized. If an elector neglects to express any preferences, then of course you cannot recognize his preferences because you do not know what they are. But unless an elector omits to express his preferences, his preferences are recognized as far as possible. There may be, when you approach the last few counts, a few votes which are, perhaps, not given recognition.


Robert King Anderson: Let me ask another question: Take any single-member constituency where there are three candidates. The low candidate would be counted out and his second choices would be given to the others. What becomes of the second choices of the first and the second candidates? They are not apportioned at all.


William Charles Good: The hon. gentleman's question has reference to the alternative vote in a single member constituency. What need have you to consider the second and third choices of the man who is elected on the first count?


Robert King Anderson: Why are you talking
about second choices?


William Charles Good: Supposing three candidates, one man is elected on the first count. There are certain second choices on the ballots-


Robert King Anderson: I am not talking about a man who is elected, I am talking about three candidates, none of them being elected on the first choice.


William Charles Good: There is absolutely no use in a case like that of distributing the second or third choices of the man who is on top. You have three candidates running in a singlemember constituency; you have your first count which shows one man to be lowest. Whom can you eliminate but that one man, and distribute his votes between the other two? Then on the second count one of the two remaining candidates comes out ahead. I fear I have not understood the hon. gentleman's question, if that is not the point.


William Findlay Maclean: What is the hon. gentleman's opinion about representation by population?


Mr GOOD:: That is another question and a very important one, but I prefer not to discuss it to-night, as we have enough to discuss already.
With respect to the address of the right hon. ' leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) 1 want to commend him for the moderation of his criticism of proportional representation. He did make a worth while contribution to the debate. Perhaps I cannot express the same commendation of some of his other remarks, but his contribution to the discussion of this particular question was, I think, quite worth while. I should like to discuss a few of his points. But let me just in passing state that I do not think any of us here care very much about party labels, whether it is a Conservative-Liberal party or a Liberal-Conservative party. What we are interested in is progressive policies and progressive legislation. The right hon. gentleman stated that in his opinion we got the best result out of parliamentary government when it was party government. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that one might believe that, without disapproving or disbelieving in an improved method of electing representatives. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, and as I could substantiate by a good deal of evidence, the system of proportional representation does not lead to the formation of groups, or the multiplication of groups, but rather the reverse, as I hope to point out in a few minutes.
I would like to mention also another point which the right hon. gentleman raised, that

Proportional Representation
there would be an undue emphasis placed upon the personality of the candidate. Honestly I cannot understand why that should be so. I do not think it has been so in the Winnipeg election, or wherever proportional representation has been tried. The personality of the candidate is always a factor in every election, and I think it ought to be a factor, but why it should be a greater factor under proportional representation than under the present system I cannot for the life of me see. I was very glad indeed to note the admission by my hon. friend-


Arthur Meighen: Permit me to make clear what I was saying. In connection with the elector's first choice, personality would have just the same effect as under the present system. His first choice would be based mainly on policy, speaking generally, somewhat influenced by personal preference, but after he has made his decision on matters of policy, nothing whatever remains to decide his course except minor questions, notably personality.


William Charles Good: That may be so, but why should we not, if we are going to be democratic, recognize the elector's own instructions? He may have his own reasons for voting for such and such a man as second choice, and such and such a man as third choice. Why should we handicap him in any way, preventing the free expression of his choice, no matter what his reasons may be?


Andrew Ross McMaster: In that case would it not be likely that the second choice would be in favour of a candidate of the same political faith, or nearly the same political faith, as the first choice was given to?


William Charles Good: The experience we have had would indicate that that is so. In that connection I may refer to an analysis I have here of the Winnipeg elections held last summer which would, perhaps, answer the question and other like questions which have been asked. I find that the Labour party had 16,328 votes or 36.84 per cent of the total. On the final count that party had 15,759 votes, or 37.69 per cent of the total vote. The percentage of representation which they secured was 40.	1
shall not weary the House by reading all the figures, but on the final count the Liberal party had 25.24 per cent of the total vote and secured 20 per cent of the representation. The Conservative party had 19.27 per cent and secured 20 per cent of the representation. The independent parties had 9.64 per cent and secured 10 per cent of the representation. The Progressive party had 8.16 per cent and secured

10 per cent of the representation. So that this last election in Winnipeg shows very conclusively that that first count does give a very definite indication


Mr. CARROLL:: What election is the hon. gentleman speaking of?


William Charles Good: The Winnipeg election of last summer.


William F. Carroll: The civic election?


William Charles Good: No; the provincial elections. The first count does give a very good indication of what the final count will be and in the case under consideration there is a very remarkable accuracy in the representation. One hon. member stated with reference to the Winnipeg election in 1920 that it was not accurate, and that it did not secure what it aimed at. I will admit there is some justification for that comment, but the hon. gentleman must remember that in that election a good many independents ran; none of them got very much support. They were practically all eliminated, so that while the total vote of a dozen or so of independent candidates was considerable, yet when you divided that up amongst the dozen each received very few votes, and they were practically all eliminated. That accounted for the fact referred to that there was a very considerable vote classed as independent in the Winnipeg election that did not secure any representation at all.
May I suggest that the log-rolling practices referred to by the right hon. gentleman and which I think we all admit to be pernicious, are no more likely under conditions where there are several groups in the House than they are under the two party system. You always have the possibility of that sort of thing within the parties as well as between the parties, and there is no necessary relationship between the existence of log-rolling practices and proportional representation. Even if I were to admit, which I do not, that logrolling is more likely to happen with several groups in the House than with two parties, it would not follow that the system of proportional representation would lead to logrolling.
The right hon. gentleman has also stated that legislators in parliament must vote yea and nay, and that it would be very embarrassing for representatives from a number of groups to decide yea or nay with respect to any question. I really do not see the point. Take the situation as you have it here now. There are four groups in this House-three considerable groups. There are questions arising from time to time. We all have to make up our

Proportional Representation
minds whether we shall vote yea or nay, and I do not see that the situation will be a bit different if we have four or five groups here. We always have to come to a decision for or against any particular question.


William F. Carroll: Would it not be nice to bring proportional representation right into this House on the various questions that come up?


William Charles Good: I do not understand just what the hon. member has in mind.


William F. Carroll: If you do not like the way you vote "yea" first, you can vote "yea" and "nay" on the next.


William Charles Good: I must confess I do not see the point.-


William F. Carroll: That is not my fault.


William Charles Good: There is no case here of first and second choices. If we had a middle course to pursue, we might possibly devise some system of voting with first choice and second choice, but if we have to decide a question either for or against, there is no opportunity to apply the idea.
. With respect to the statement made by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) as to the injustice of the isolated application of this principle, may I point out again as I pointed out last year, with an abundance of evidence, the serious injustice resulting from our present system. I admit quite freely and fully that you are not going to have correct representation by adopting proportional representation only in a few sections of the country; but it is not feasible to adopt it suddenly in all parts of the country.


Mr. MANION:: Does the hon. member not consider that there are parts of Ontario, for example, northern Ontario, where it is absolutely impossible ever to apply proportional representation because of the immense area and the sparse population? While I am on my feet, may I ask another question? Supposing you group five or six or seven constituencies together, as you do under proportional representation, does that not give to the rich man, the man with immense amounts of money, very great advantage over the poor man owing to the rich man's ability to reach, by circularizing and various other methods, all parts of the group constituency?


William Charles Good: Answering the second question first, I do not see that the rich man, under those conditions, would have any greater opportunity of impressing the voters than he has at the present time. In fact, if any reference is suggested to bribery-


Robert James Manion: No.


William Charles Good: -the present system operates very unfairly, because there is a section of the electorate that is corruptible and under the present system the influence of that small section in turning the scale may be very considerable.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman; but may I elaborate the question for a moment in order to make my point clear? The poor man could not afford to circularise four or five constituencies, or to get workers in those constituencies, whereas he might afford to do that in one constituency as at the present time, whereas, the rich man could hire workers for all the constituencies.


William Charles Good: I think I dealt with this matter pretty fully last year. I am sorry many members were not present. I showed last year that under proportional representation one does not need to canvass or to reach everybody in a constituency, in fact the labour of canvassing is reduced. I showed that mathematically. I do not wish to go into the question again now as the hour is late, but under the system of proportional representation the individual candidate does not need to reach as many of the electorate as he does at the present time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Therefore, if he was
elected, he would not represent the views of as many.	,


William Charles Good: Practically as many as at the present time. There would be very little difference in that respect. In fact there is not a great deal of difference, but the advantage is slightly in favour of proportional representation with respect to the number of the electors that have to be reached. I might state also that the labour of canvassing and of sending out circulars and so forth can be distributed amongst a number, can be undertaken by the party. I understand that in Ottawa, where two members were elected by the block vote, not by the single transferable vote, the literature in the last election was got out jointly and the expense shared in that way. The expense attaching to attending meetings and things like that could also be shared by a number of people interested in a particular party.
The point I was making was that we had to start somewhere some time, if we were going to make any progress, and I submit that the method which the resolution proposes is about as fair, reasonable and sensible as anything that could be suggested to get a start. Just in that connection, I should like

Proportional Representation
to point out that the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference in Great Britain was very similar to the recommendation which I have made in this resolution. It went, however, considerably further, and when the final arrangements were made, there were, I think, one hundred different constituencies in which it was proposed that this system should be carried out. But unfortunately, through some difficulty to which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has referred, in the delimitation of the constituencies, this method did not operate in the last election in Great Britain.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. member
not consider it unfair that suburban members should force this device on city members, knowing that proportional representation can never be established in the country owing to its extensive districts and, that, therefore, it will be continued and applicable only in the cities? Is it not unfair to distribute an electoral process of that kind in that manner?


William Charles Good: I fancy that there are in
Toronto, for instance, many electors who consider the present situation decidedly unfair to them. We have to recognize that, and I do not think we ought to assume that a city or any other section is opposed to proportional representation. Possibly we have not had a referendum on this matter in any particular constituency or group of constituencies; but I know for a fact that there are many who are exceedingly discontented and restless under the present system, who are discouraged because they can get no representation, and who consider the case practically hopeless. We ought to consider them.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Why not ask for a referendum first?


William Charles Good: I neglected to answer one
of the questions asked by the hon. member for Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. M anion) as to the difficulty of applying proportional representation in sparsely settled areas. I dealt with that pretty fully last year. It has not proven particularly difficult in South Africa or in some of the Australian countries; but I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it. I am not asking l'cr that now. The difficulty may not be so great as we imagine it to be. This at least can be said, that in western Canada there are for federal purposes a number of constituencies much larger than, perhaps, a dozen constituencies in rural western Ontario. I do not think it would be a very serious difficulty in the part of Ontario from which I come to group four or five of the present 
constituencies and poll the votes throughout that whole territory.


Mr. MACLEAN (Prince):: By what means can you get the different constituencies to agree to a candidate that would be elected? For instance, one constituency will choose a man; the neighbouring constituency might not tolerate that man at all, and still he might be forced upon it.


William Charles Good: As a matter of fact, I think that question is answered by the way in which it works out in such a case as the city of Winnipeg. As a rule, nominations are made by organisations, and I take it that the method would not be different under proportional representation. For example, the four parties, the Conservative party, the Liberal party, the Progressive party and the Labour party, would take the initiative in the nominating of candidates for that particular multi-member constituency. There may be some little difficulty in changing from one system to another; we always have some awkwardness in changing methods. But when a great good is to be gained, we should not be paralyzed by a little difficulty such as the hon. member for Prince (Mr. Maclean) mentions.
I desire to say a word or two with respect to the criticisms of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson). I have already replied to his comment on the Winnipeg elections of 1920. He states further that proportional representation means the breaking up of parties and the formation of groups. I challenge that statement directly and emphatically. We have our groups at the present time; our parties are breaking up, altogether apart from any method of election. The hon. member also confuses majority rule with majority representation. Moreover I would point out that we do not by any means always get majority rule under the old system. Let me give one example which I referred to last year and which comes to mind at the moment. In the state of Indiana a few years ago the Republican party was split up into the old guard and the Progressives, and that party secured absolutely no representation. They had a large majority of the total vote but they secured no representation at all. At the next election, when the two factions in the party had become reunited, the Republican party secured all the representation. That is the sort of thing that happens under the present system. There was minority rule with a vengeance.


Robert King Anderson: Is not the object of
proportional representation to give representation to the minority?

Proportional Representation


William Charles Good: Certainly, the object is to
give proper representation to minorities, but we give a sort of representation to minorities under the present system. When a minority becomes sufficiently influential it may get undue representation; that is the trouble. For instance, we have it in Ontario at the present time. I admit frankly that the Farmers are unduly represented in the provincial legislature at Toronto, and I do not think it is a wholesome thing. For a long time the farmers were not fairly represented and then suddenly they became unfairly represented. Under the old system the pendulum swings from one extreme to the other.


Robert King Anderson: Will not the new system lead to more groups?


William Charles Good: It has been alleged to-night by a number of hon. members that proportional representation will tend to multiply groups. I have considerable evidence to the contrary on that point. Here is a little item from the report of a royal commission appointed in 1910 by the British government to inquire into electoral systems. With regard to the Tasmanian elections the report states:
On that occasion, the general election of 1909, when the transferable vote was used for the first time to elect the whole of the lower house, the actual result was to evolve a two-party out of a former three-party system by the elimination of the third party and the coalescence of groups into one more or less solid party of opposition to the Labour party.
Here too is a little press despatch from Zurich, in Switzerland, published in the Quebec Chronicle of December 16 last.
It lies in the very nature of the system of proportional representation that once adopted it tends to stablize the party forces in Parliament and to prevent fundamental political changes as the consequence of parliamentary elections. In that regard it is significant that, in Switzerland the proportional system as a means of just representation of the minority parties took ground for the first time in the canton Ticino after the revolutionary events of 1890.
Experience has shown the stabilizing effect of this reform. I have other evidence to show that in the Australasian countries as well as in Europe there has been a tendency on the part of a number of groups to coalesce into larger parties. I submit that where you have five members to be elected in a multi-member constituency it is absurd for any party which represents, say, only one-twentieth of the voting strength of the constituency to nominate a slate. They cannot possibly expect any success, although they might nominate one with the hope that he would receive some transferred votes. But experience,
11 p.m. which is extensive to-day, shows that this fear of the splitting up
of parties into groups, and of groups into smaller groups is quite groundless. I do not wish to take up the time of the House going further into these matters, but there are one or two other remarks I would make before closing. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray) advanced the opinion that in an election under proportional representation the issues were forgotten and that personalities were unduly emphasized. I submit that in the case of the Winnipeg elections that statement cannot be substantiated at all. I have here the facts of the election of last summer. In that election there were five different groups represented, Labour, Libera!, Conservative, Independent and Progressive. Each party no doubt had a fairly definite platform; the issues were fairly well defined.


Edward James McMurray: Does the hon. membei find the name of one Downs in that list? Does he know what his platform was?


William Charles Good: The names are not on this page.


Edward James McMurray: Did Downs not run on a separate platform, a platform of his own?


William Charles Good: That may be so; I do not know the details of the Winnipeg election.
I know, however, that there are not very many in Winmpeg who are dissatisfied with the system as it has worked there. I have a number of quotations from influential men in public life in Manitoba commenting favourably on the election of 1920, and they have all, without a single exception, endorsed the system as it was tried there in the first election. As to the second election, although the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. McMurray) might disapprove of certain can didates, I have no doubt at all that the wishes of the electors were very fully recognized.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) asked me some questions during the afternoon which I would like to answer. 1 do not see any connection between the question of the unity and the joint responsibility of the Cabinet and the method of electing members to this House. The groups are here, and the problem arising therefrom must be, dealt with. But I see no connection between the advantage-or disadvantage, as you may look upon it-of cabinet unity and cabinet responsibility and a method of election.
There were some other points that I wished to deal with, but I think the House is getting tired and that I should forbear. I should like, however, without discussing it, to mention just one point in conclusion. No criticism was offered this afternoon respecting the difficulty of holding by-elections under propor-



Proportional Representation
tional representation. I dealt with the point last year, and since then another suggestion has been made of a sixth method of meeting the situation. Nobody need be afraid of adopting proportional representation on account of any apparent difficulty in carrying on a by-election.
I appreciate the point raised by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister in regard to the alternative vote, but I did not know when this resolution was placed on the order paper that that point would be gained. I am thankful indeed that we have got so far, but I should like to see an expression of opinion on the part of the House with regard to this question of proportional representation also because if we are going to make any headway during the next few years, this is the time to start.


Hewitt Bostock: Before we proceed to take the vote, might I be allowed to ask the hon. members to assist as much as possible the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk in their heavy task when the vote is being polled in the House. The first one to vote generally, according to the custom followed in this House and the British House of Commons, is the leader of a party or the leader of a group, then his followers on the first row rise, one by one, not all at one time. I would ask hon. members to assit the clerks by having the vote taken in as orderly a way as possible.
The House divided on the resolution of Mr. Good, which was negatived on the following division:
++YEAS
Messrs.
Bancroft,	Hoey,
Beaubien,	Hudson,
Bret hen,	Humphrey,
Brown,	Irvine,
Caldwell,	Jelliff,
Carmichael,	Johnston (Last Mountain)
Chevrier,	Kellner,
Coote,	Kennedy (Edmonton),
d'Anjou,	Kennedy (Glengarry &
Davies,	Stormont),
Drummond,	Kennedy (Port Arthur &
Elliott (Dundas),	Kenora),
Evans,	King (Huron),
Fansher,	King, Mackenzie (York),
Fielding,	Knox,
Forke,	Kyte,
Forrester,	Lapointe,
Gardiner,	Leader,
Garland (Bow River),	Lovie,
Gauvreau,	Lucas,
Gervais,	Maclean (York),
Good,	McGiverin,
Gordon,	McMaster,
Gould,	McTaggart,
Halbert, >
Milne,
Hammell,	Morin,
Hatfield,	Motherwell,

Murdock,	Speakman,
Neill,	Spencer,
Papineau,	Steedsman,
Pritchard,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Reed,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Robb,	Thurston,
Ross (Simcoe),	Wallace,
Sales,	Warner,
Savard,	Woods,
Shaw,	Woodsworth-72.
	NAYS Messrs.
Anderson,	Maclean (Halifax),
Archambault,	MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.),
Arthurs,	McBride,
Baldwin,	Mclsaac,
Benoit,	McKenzie,
Binette,	McMurray,
Black (Yukon),	McQuarrie,
Bouchard,	Malcolm,
Boucher,	Manion,
Bowen,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Boys,	Marler,
Cannon,	Martell,
Carroll,	Maybce,
Carruthers,	Meighen,
Chaplin,	Mewburn,
Charters,	' Michaud,
Church,	Mitchell,
Clark,	Munro,
Clifford,	Ouimet,
Dech&ie,	Pelletier,
Delisle,	Porter,
Denis (St. Denis),	Power,
Desaulniers,	Preston,
Deslauriers,	Raymond,
Desrochers,	Rinfret,
Dickie,	Roberge,
Duff,	Robitaille,
Fafard,	Ross (Kingston),
Finn,	Ryckman,
Fontaine,	St. P&re,
Fortier,	Seguin,
Gendron,	Senn,
Gouin (Sir Lomer),	Sheard,
Grimmer,	Simpson,
Harris,	Sinclair (Oxford),
Hubbs,	Spence,
Hughes,	Stansell,
Hunt,	Stevens,
Kay,	Stewart (Leeds),
King (Kootenay),	Sutherland,
Ladner,	Thompson,
Lapierre,	Tobin,
Macdonald (Pictou),	Tolmie,
MacKelvie,	Trahan,
MacLaren,	White-90.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Tuesday, February 20, 1923