1923-02-12

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. KYTE (Cape Breton South and Richmond) presented the report of the select committee appointed to prepare and report lists of members to compose the standing committees of the House as follows:

[Stage Direction]
Baxter,
Black (Yukon), Brown,
Bureau,
Cannon,
Copp,
Elliott (Waterloo), Findlay,
German,
Gouin (Sir Lomer),
Messieurs
Guthrie,
Hammell,
Jacobs,
Johnston (Last Mountain), Kyte,
Laflamme,
Lapointe,
Macdonald (Pictou), Maclean (Halifax), Maephail (Miss),
McKenzie,	Ryckman,
McMaster,	Sexsmith,
Morrison,	Stewart (Hamilton), and
Porter,	Vien.-28.
No. 2	
ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES	
Messieurs	
Anderson,	Lapierre,
Archambault,	Lavigueur,
Arthurs,	Lewis,
Baxter,	Lovett,
Beaubien,	Low,
Beland,	Lucas,
Binette,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Bird, '	MacKinnon,
Black (Huron),	MacLaren,
Boivin,	MacLean (Prince),
Bowen,	Maclean (York),
Boys,	McBride,
Bristol,	McConica,
Cahill,	McCrea,
Cannon,	McDonald (Timiskaming),
Carroll,	McGiverin,
Casgrain,	Mclsaac,
Chaplin,	McMurray,
Charters,	McQuarrie,
Chevrier.	McTaggart,
Chisholm, *	Manion,
Church,	Marcile (Bagot),
Clifford,	Marler,
Copp,	Martell,
Crerar,	Maybee,
d'Anjou,	Mercier,
Davies,	Mewburn,
Dechene,	Millar,
Delisle,	Milne,
Denis (Joliette),	Michaud,
Denis (St. Denis),	Mitchell,
Desrochers,	Morrison,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Morrlssy,
Drummond,	Murdock,
Elliott,	Murphy,
Ethier,	Parent,
Euler,	Pelletier,
Evans,	Power,
Fafard,	Putnam,
Fansher,	Rankin,
Finn,	Robinson,
Forke,	Robitaille,
Fournier,	St. Pere,
Gardiner,	Savard,
Gendron,	Seguin,
Gould,	Shaw,
Graham,	Sheard,
Guthrie,	Simpson,
Halbert,	Sinclair (Queen's, P.E.I.),
Hammell,	Speakman,
Hocken,	Stansell,
Hodgins,	Stevens,
Hoey,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Hughes,	Stewart (Hamilton),
Jelliff,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Johnston (Last Mountain),	Stewart (Leeds),
Kay,	Stork,
Kellner,	Sutherland,
Kennedy (Glengarry and	Tobin,
Stormont),	Vien,
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Wallace,
Knox,	Ward,
Kyte,	Walsh,
Ladner,	White, and
Lanctot,	Wilson.-129.
And thal the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-five members.
[Stage Direction]
Standing Committees

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Anderson,	Kennedy (Edmonton),
Archambault,	King (Huron),
Baldwin,	Lewis,
Bancroft,	Lucas,
Bird,	MacKinnon,
Boivin,	MacLaren,
Bouchard,	McGiverin,
Boucher,	McKillop,
Bourassa,	McMurray,
Bowen,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Boys,	Marcile (Bagot),
Brethen,	Mercier,
Bureau,	Morin,
Charters,	Ouimet,
Chew,	Porter,
Clark,	Power.
Davies,	Pritchard,
Denis (St. Denis),	Putnam,
Deslauriers,	Raymond,
Drummond,	Rheaume,
Ethier,	Reed,
Findlay,	Robitaille,
Fontaine,	Seguin,
Forrester,	Senn,
Fortier,	Sinclair (Oxford),
Garland (Carleton),	Spence,
Gendron,	Stork,
Gould,	Thompson,
Hammell,	Tobin,
Harris,	Ward,
Jones,	Woods, and
Kellner,	Woods worth-64.
And that, the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Ten Members.
[Stage Direction]
ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS Messieurs
Archambault,	Lewis,
Beaubien,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Bourassa,	MacKinnon,
Boys,	Maclean (Halifax),
Brethen,	McCrea,
Bristol,	McGiverin,
Brown,	Mclsaac,
Cannon,	McMaster,
Cardin,	Manion,
Carroll,	Martell,
Casgrain,	Meighen, .
Chisholm,	Mewburn,
Clark,	Michaud,
Coote,	Mitchell,
Crerar,	Papineau, .
Drayton (Sir Henry),	Parent,
Duff,	Power,
Elliott (Dundas),	Preston,
Finn,	Rheaume,
Forke,	Ryckman, . .
Gardiner,	Sheard,
Gauvreau,	Steedsman,
German,	Stewart (Leeds),
Hanson,	Simpson,
Hudson,	Thurston,
Humphrey,	Tobin,
Jacobs,	Tolmie,
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Trahan,
King (Kootenay East),	Vien, and
Kyte,	Wallace.-61.
LeSueur, And that the Quorum of the said Committee do con-	
sist of Twenty-one Members.	
No 4
ON STANDING ORDERS Messieurs
Binette,	Leader,
Black (Huron),	L6ger,
Chaplin,	LeSueur,
Chew,	MacLaren,
Clifford,	Maclean (York),
Deslauriers,	Mclsaac,
Desrochers,	McTaggart,
Duff,	Mercier,
Duncan,	Michaud,
Euler,	Munro,
Evans,	Ouimet,
Gervais,	Parent,
Gould,	Roberge,
Harris,	Ryckman,
Hod gins,	Steedsman, and
Hughes, Lavigueur,	Stewart (Leeds)-33.
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Seven Members.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
McConica,
Malcolm,
Marcil (Bonaventure), Michaud,
Preston,
Prevost,
Raymond,
Rinfret,
Rjbirhaud,
St. Pere, and Thurston-23.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Baxter,	Hod gins,
Benoit,	Hudson,
Bird,	Hughes,
Boivin,	Humphrey,
Black (Yukon),	Irvine,
Bristol,	Jacobs,
Cahill,	Jelliff,
Caldwell,	Johnston (Last Mountain).
Cardin,	Kellner,
Carmichael,	King (Huron),
Carruthers,	Ladner,
Casgrain,	Laflamme,
Chaplin,	Low,
Chevrier,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Clifford,	MacKinnon,
Coote,	Maclean (Halifax),
Crerar,	Maclean (York),
d'Anjou,	Macphail (Miss),
Desaulniers,	McCrea,
Drayton (Sir Henry),	McKay,
Duncan,	McMaster,
Elliott (Dundas),	McMurray,
Elliott (Waterloo)	McQuarrie,
Fafard,	Malcolm,
Fielding,	Marler, ,
Finn,	May bee,
Fortier,	Meighen,
German,	Mewburn,
Good,	Milne,
Grimmer,	Mitchell,
Guthrie,	Morin,
Hanson,	Papineau,
Harris,	Porter,
Hatfield,	Rankin,
Baldwin,
Cardin,
Charters,
Chevrier,
Coote,
Copp,
Euler,
Easher,
Iv.cken,
Humphrey,
Jones,
MacKelvie,
fMr. Kyte.]

Standing Committees
Reed.	Spencer,
Rheaume,	Stevens,
Robb.	Sinclair,
Robichaud,	Stork,
Robitaille,	Tobin,
Ryckman,	Trahan,
St. Pere,	Vien,
Sales,	Walsh,
Senn,	Woods, and
Shaw,	Woodsworth.-89.
Spealcman, And that the Quorum of the said Committee do con-	
sist of Twenty-one	Members.
[Stage Direction]
ON AGRICULTURE	AND COLONIZATION
Messieurs:	
Anderson,	Lovett,
Arthurs,	Lovie,
Baldwin,	Lucas,
Benoit, 1	MacKelvie,
Boivin,	MacLean (Prince),
Boucher,	McBride,
Bourassa,	McConica,
Bowen,	McCrea,
Brethen,	McKay,
Brown,	McKillop,
Cahill,	Me Master,
Caldwell,	McMurray,
Campbell,	Malcolm,
Carruthers,	Marcile (Bagot),
Charters,	May bee,
Chew,	Miller,
Clifford,	Milne,
Crerar,	Morin,
Dechene,	Morrison,
Delisle,	Morrissy,
Denis (Joliette),	Motherwell,
Denis (St. Denis),	Munro,
Desaulniers,	Neill,
Desrochers,	Ouimet,
Duncan,	Preston,
Evans,	Prevost,
Fafard,	Pritchard,
Fontaine,	Rankin,
Forke,	Raymond,
Forrester,	Robinson,
Fortier,	Roberge,
Fournier,	Ross (Simcoe),
Garland (Bow River),	Sales,
Garland (Carleton),	Savard,
Gauvreau,	Seguin,
Gendron,	Senn,
Gervais,	Sexsmith,
Halbert,	Simpson,
Hatfield,	Sinclair (Oxford),
Hubbs,	Sinclair (Queen's, P.E.I.),
Hunt,	Spence,
Jelliff,	Stansell,
Johnson (Moose Jaw),	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Jones,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Kay,	Sutherland,
Kennedy (Glengarry and	Thompsn,
Stormont),	Thurston,
Knox,	Tobin,
Laflamme,	Tolmie,
Lanctot,	Warner,
Lafcnerre,	White,
Leader,	Wilson, and
L£ger,	Woodsworth-105.
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Twelve Members.
[Stage Direction]
ON MARINE AND FISHERIES Messieurs:	
Bancroft,	Leger,
Cardin,	LeSueur,
Chisholm,	MacLaren,
Delisle,	MacLean (Prince),
Dickie,	McQuarrie, 1
Duff,	Martell,
Campbell,	Morrissy,
Elliot^ (Waterloo),	Munro, . .
Fournier,	Neill,
Gauvreau,	Pelletier,
Grimmer,	Putnam,
Hatfield,	Robichaud,
Hoey,	Ross (Simcoe),
Hubbs,	Savard,
Hughes,	Spencer, i
Kennedy (Port Arthur and Stansell,	
Kenora),	Stevens, ,
Kyte,	Stewart (Humboldt), and
Lapointe,	Stork-37. [DOT]
And that the <	Quorum of the said Committee do
consist of Ten Members. No. 10	
ON MINES AND MINERALS Messieurs	
Arthurs,	Lapierre,
Black (Yukon),	Logan,
Bird,	Macdonald (Pictou),
Boucher,	Macphail (Miss),
Cahill,	McBride,
Carroll,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Carruthers,	Marler,
Church,	Munro,
Clark,	Pelletier,
Davies,	Prevost,
D6chene,	Roberge,
Denis (Joliette),	Ross (Kingston),
Dickie,	Shaw,
Dinmmond,	Speakman,
Forrester,	Spence,
Gendron,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Hanson,	Stork, and
Hunt, Knox,	Warner.-37.
And that the	quorum of the said committee do
consist of ten members. No. 11	
ON FORESTS,	WATERWAYS AND WATER-POWERS Messieurs
Caldwell,	Logan,
Church,	McDonald (Timiskaming),
d'Anjou,	McKillop,
Desaulniers,	McTaggart,
Deslauriers,	Malcolm,
Duff,	Manion,
Finn,	Millar,
Gervais,	Munro,
Graham,	Murphy,
Grimmer,	Power,
Halbert,	Rinfret,
Hoey,	Robichaud,
Hunt,	Stewart (Argenteuil),
Kennedy (Port Arthur Stewart (Hamilton),	
and Kenora),	Tolmie,
King (Kootenay East), Trahan, and	
Ladner, Lanctot,	White.-34.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]


OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES Messieurs
Boivin,	McGiverin,
Ethier,	Marcil (Bonaventure),
Fansher,	Prevost,
Gardiner,	Rinfret,
Garland (Bow River),	Robinson, and
Hocken,	Ross (Kingston).-13.
MacKelvie,
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of five members.
[Stage Direction]
ON THE LIBRARY Mr. Speaker and Messieurs
Beland,
Carmichael.
Deslauriers,
Euler,
Garland (Carleton), Gauvreau,
Good,
Gouin (Sir Lomer), Johnston (Moose Jaw), King, Mackenzie (York), Lapointe,
Lovett,
Lovie,
Maclean (Halifax), Meighen,
Pritchard,
Robinson,
Ross (Kingston), Sheard,
Sinclair (Oxford), and Walsh.-21.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the report of the special committee appointed to prepare and report with all convenient speed the list of members to compose the select standing committees of this House during the present session, presented this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Sub judice.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Yes. I do not know that the hon. member is not a member of this House. Last session, he was, at all events. I dare say that there is a case before the courts of the country, but no report has been made to the Speaker.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: So long as you, Sir, do not receive definite notification cancelling his election, he is officially a member of this House.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I will not press the
matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: -
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House will unite with them in the formation of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of the Printing of Parliament, and that the Members of the Select Standing Committee on Printing, viz.:	Messrs. Baldwin, Cardin,
Charters, Chevrier, Coote, Copp, Euler, Fansher, Hocken, Humphrey, Jones, Mackelvie, McConica, Malcolm, Marcil (Bonaventure), Michaud, Preston, Prevost, Raymond, Rinfret, Robichaud, St. P6re and Thurston, will act as Members on the part of this House, on the said Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That the select standing committees of this House shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to the House, and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon, with power to send for persons papers and records, with the exception of the committees on the Debates and on the Library of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours that this House has appointed Messrs. Beland, Carmichael, Deslauriers, Euier, Garland (Carle-ton), Gauvreau, Good, Gouin (Sir Lomer), Johnson (Moose Jaw), King Mackenzie (York), Lapointe, Lovett, Lovie, Maclean (Halifax), Meighen, Pritchard, Robinson, Ross (Kingston), Sheard, Sinclair (Oxford) and Walsh, a Committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the Library of Parliament, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as Members of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the Library.


Arthur Meighen: I observe the name of Mr. R. M. Johnson, of Moose Jaw, on this committee. Is it the ruling of Mr. Speaker that he is a member of this House?
(Mr. Kyte.]	-


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report for Parliament under section 7 of the Reclamation Act 9-10 George V., showing drainage works constructed, etc.-Hon. Mr. Stewart.
Supplementary rules, regulations and forms subscribed to under the provisions of section 54 of the Irrigation Act.-Hon. Mr. Stewart.
Statement of lands sold by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company during the year ending September, 1922, in accordance with 49 Victoria, Chapter 9, section 8.-Hon. Mr. Stewart.
Report of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Establishment for the year ended December 31, 1922.-Hon. Mr. Beland.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 13, respecting the Nipissing Central Railway Company.-Mr. Lapierre.
Bill No. 14, to incorporate La Banque des Cultivateurs.-Mr. Parent.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 3, respecting The Royal Guardians.-Mr. Mitchell.

Questions
Bill No. 4, respecting certain patents of Leonard Clayton Ridge.-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 5, respecting certain patents of Charles A. Channell.-Mr. German.

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

['1.\tSuch matters will be dealt with by the board and management of Canadian National Railways:\n2\tand 3. Grade separation at Detroit will involve an expenditure of $4,600,000, spread over a ten-year period. The Grand Trunk\nRailway will be responsible for approximately $3,000,000 and the city of Detroit for the remaining $1,600,000.\n4.\tThe terminal in question is used by the Grand Trunk Railway which, with four other railways, own the holding company-the Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Company. No definite action in regard to a new station is expected for several years. Meanwhile, published estimates of possible cost are mere guesses. Should a new structure finally be decided on, it should be financially selfsustaining.']
Mr. MICHAUD:: Is it the intention of the Government to try and secure fuel supply for Canada independent of the United States?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: No steps are being taken to import fuel as a government undertaking either from the United States or elsewhere; but investigations are being carried on further to develop our domestic fuel resources especially in those parts of the country where fuel shortages occur with a view to reducing the amount of fuel imported. It would appear also that some steps are being taken by private interests in Great Britain to secure a permanent place in the Canadian market for domestic coal.



Pius Michaud: Is the Government aware as to whether or not Canada is in need of more mechanics?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: Information reaching the Department of Labour does not suggest the need of more mechanics for the Dominion at large. Local difficulties occasionally arise and these are frequently met through the agency of the Employment Service, by obtaining workmen found unemployed in other localities. The situation necessarily varies from day to day, and it may be found impossible in a particular case to meet in this way a demand for highly skilled workmen in a particular craft.


MONCTON AND BUCTOUCHE RAILWAY
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has the purchase price of the Moncton and Buetouche Railway been paid by the Government?
2.	If not, what is the cause of the delay?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to see that the creditors of the said railway company are paid in full before anything is paid to the railway company ?
4.	What steps, if any, are being taken by the Government or the Department of Railways, to compel the railway company in question to pay its creditors?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.
2.	Failure of owners to convey the railway free of encumbrances.
3	and 4. The obligation is on the company to convey the property free from encumbrances. Upon this being done to the satisfaction of the Department of Justice, purchase price will be payable to whoever may be entitled. When agreement to sell was reached, in 1918, the Bank of Montreal filed with the government power of attorney from the company to receive all moneys due or to become due.


TIMBER PERMIT
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: Having reference to Order in Council No. 2614 published in The Canada Gazette, December 22, 1922, amending section 47 of the regulations governing the granting of licenses to cut timber on Dominioin Lands, etc.:-	#
1.	Have any permits been granted without competition to cut timber adjoining licenses previously granted? If so, at what location?
2.	If such permits have been granted, was an inspection made and a report made in writing by the timber inspector of the district?
3.	What quantity of timber is it estimated will be cut in each case?


Charles A. Stewart: No permits have been granted without competition to cut timber under the order in council referred to.
HUDSON BAY RAILWAY - LIFTING OF RAILS Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:
1.	Has an order or other instructions been issued by the Government or by the Canadian National Railways for the taking up of rails from the Hudson Bay road ?
' 2. If so, by whom and for how much mileage and where ?
3.	What is the weight of these rails?
4.	Have orders been issued to replace said rails?
5.	If so, within what time and with rails of what
weight?


George Perry Graham: 1	and 2. Lifting of rails on unused portion of line (Mileage 214 to end of steel at Mileage 334) for use elsewhere in West was recommended by Vice-President and General Manager, Canadian National Railways, approved by the Board of Directors, and authorized by order in council of November 24, 1922.
3.	80 pounds per yard.
4.	No; as a result of representations made to Sir Henry Thornton, when in the West recently, it was decided to let matter stand pending further consideration.
5.	See answer to No. 4.


TUG-MURRAY STEWART
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has the Government or any department thereof purchased a tug called the Murray Stewart?
2.	If so, what department, and what was the purchase price?	'
3.	From whom was the said tug purchased?
4.	When was it built and by whom?
5.	What ia her, (a) gross tonnage, and, (b) registered tonnage ?
6.	Who negotiated the sale to the government?
Questions


Ernest Lapointe: 1 and 2. The Department of Marine and Fisheries purchased a tug called the Murray Stewart to replace the lighthouse tender C.G.S. Lambton lost on Lake Superior in the spring of 1922, and for the additional purpose of being stationed at Georgian bay ports at the end of each season of navigation to render such assistance, in the event of ice formation, as may be necessary to enable vessels handling grain to move freely. The purchase price was $80,000.
3.	From the registered owner, James Frederick Martin Stewart of Toronto.
4.	1918-by the Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company, Limited.
5.	(a) Gross tonnage 234.46. (b) Registered tonnage 92.25.
6.	Jafnes Frederick Martin Stewart. CARAQUET AND GULF SHORE RAILWAY Mr. HANSON:
1.	Has the government completed the purchase of the Caraquet and Gulf Shore Railway?
2.	Has the purchase price been paid?
3.	If not, what is the cause of the delay?
4.	Have the claims of creditors of this company been satisfied?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes; with the exception of $550.
3.	The Department of Railways and Canals, at the request of the Department of Justice, retained $550 of the purchase price to protect the claim of the Post Office Department against the railway for loss of registered mail before the road was taken over.
4.	One claim filed with the department was withdrawn; others were not considered valid.
ST. LAWRENCE POWER CANAL Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:
Referring to the following statement concerning the proposed St. Lawrence Power Canal, attributed to Charles P. Craig, Executive Director of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Tidewater Association, in the Toronto Globe, of December 9:
" All further governmental action is impossible until Canada signifies its desire to enter into an agreement on the navigation project," Mr. Craig said. "I am vexed, but not disturbed, at the delay of Canada. There is no doubt in my mind but that Canada will act definitely within the next few days."
1.	Is the statement of Mr. Craig correct?
2.	What action, if any, has the government taken regarding the project since such statement was made?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I confess I do not quite understand what my right hon. friend is asking for. This question reads:
Referring to the following statement concerning the proposed St. Lawrence Power Canal, attributed to Charles P. Craig, Executive Director of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Tidewater Association, in the Toronto Globe, of December 9:
{Mr. Graham.]
Then it quotes a statement and says-"Is the statement of Mr. Craig correct?" I notice the statement reads:
I am vexed, but not disturbed.
Is that the part of the question which the right hon. member wants answered?


Arthur Meighen: The first part Mr. Craig said, also.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question
does not so read. If my right hon. friend will indicate just what information be wants, I shall be glad to give it to him; but I confess I do not know how to give it to him from these questions.


Arthur Meighen: The quotation is quite
clear: It reads:
All further governmental action is impossible until Canada signifies its desire to enter into an agreement on the navigation project.
That is in quotation marks, followed by the words "Mr. Craig said." Then it goes on with Mr. Craig's remarks:
I am vexed, but not disturbed, at the delay of Canada. There is no doubt in my mind but that Canada will act definitely within the next few days.
What I desire to know is: Are his remarks correct? Is all further governmental action impossible until Canada signifies its desire, and is it, no doubt, correct that Canada will act definitely within the next few days?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think, to the first part of the question, as my right hon. friend has just put it, I might answer, No. To the latter part, as well, I might answer, No.


Arthur Meighen: That is all right. Of course, with the exception of the first part, this question cannot be considered answered, the second part still remains unanswered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As regards the second question: Since the statement was made, a deputation waited on the government, on the 24t,h January, making certain representations concerning the deep waterways project, and the government mentioned at the time that their representations would be taken into consideration.


Arthur Meighen: No action?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Nothing further at present.


CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES AND BONUS
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to inaugurate a general revision of the Civil Service salaries?
2.	If so, will Parliament be informed, and when?
3- Will such revision incorporate existing bonuses with present salaries?

Questions
4.	Is it the intention of the government to continue existing bonuses during the coming year or pending the anticipated revision?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The government does not deem the present time opportune for a general revision of the Civil Service salaries.
2. Answered by No. 1.
3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	It is the intention of the government to continue existing bonuses during the coming fiscal year.


RENFREW POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. SIIEARD:: 1.	On what date of the year 1922 did the postmastership of Renfrew fall vacant?
2.	After such vacancy, was an appointment made by the Civil Service Commission? If so, of whom?
3.	Was such appointment by way of promotion? If not, why?
4.	Is the present appointee a returned soldier?
5.	Is the appointee of the Civil Service Commission in office? If not, why?
6.	Is a returned soldier now occupying the position?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	On 23rd February, 1922.
2.	Yes-Dan. W. Stewart.
3.	No. Employes of Renfrew post office are engaged and paid by the postmaster, Renfrew; they are not appointed under the Civil Service Act and have not been subject to the Civil Service Act or regulations based thereon.
4.	No, but he lost his son overseas.
5.	Yes.
6.	No.


MILITIA AND DEFENCE ACCOUNTS
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?


George Perry Graham: I have read this question several times, and I cannot quite grasp what is required. If any hon. gentleman can tell me definitely, I will try to get the answer. As the hon. member, in whose name this question stands, is not in his seat, perhaps we had better let the question stand under those circumstances until he comes in.
Question stands.


TRENT VALLEY CANAL
Mr. BOYS:: 1.	Are there any bridges over the Trent Valley Canal
which have not been taken over by the Department of Railways and Canals?	=
2.	If so, where are they located.
3.	What bridges have been taken over?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Railway bridges at Trenton (3), Hastings, Campbellford, Peterborough (2), Lindsay (2), Fenelon falls, Talbot, Gamebridge, Atherley (2), Washago, Ragged rapids, Severn falls; also the fixed portions of highway bridges at Glen Miller, Campbellford, Healey Falls, Trent bridge, Hastings, Bensfort, Wallace point, Locks, Peterborough; Chemong, Balsover Boundary road.
3.	Highway swing spans over excavated channels at Trenton, Glen Millar, Campbellford, Healey falls, Trent bridge, Hastings, Bensfort, Wallace point, Locks, Peterborough; Young's point, Chemong, Lindsay, Wellington street; Lindsay, Lindsay street; Lindsay, Ops.; Rose-dale, Balsover, Boundary road.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-BANK ACCOUNTS
Mr. HARRIS:: 1.	What bank accounts of the Canadian National system or any of the component parts thereof have been transferred since January 1, 1922?
2.	From what bank, and to what bank, and on what dates, were such transfers made?
3.	Kas notification been given of the intended transfer of other accounts? If so, what accounts and to what bank?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Canadian National Express Company; Canadian National Telegraphs.
2.	From the Canadian Bank of Commerce to the Royal Bank of Canada: Canadian National Express, on December 1, 1922; Canadian National Telegraphs, on December 30, 1922.
3.	No.


MR. JAMES STEWART
Mr. HARRIS:: 1.	Is James Stewart of Winnipeg a director of the Canadian National railways? If so, when was he appointed ?
2.	Is the same James Stewart a director of the Bank of Montreal? If so, when was he appointed?
3.	Are there any other bank directors who are Canadian National Railway directors? If so. who and of what bank?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes; October 4, 1922.
2.	The Department of Railways and Canals has no information.
3.	See answer to No. 2.
Questions


LATE LT.-COL. W. P. MALONE
Mr. DUNCAN:: 1.	Was the pension of Colonel Willard Malone cut off from his widow and four children after his death in a London military hospital?
2.	If so, why?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: .
1.	The Board of Pension Commissioners reports that the late Lt.-Col. W. P. Malone was not at any time in receipt of pension, and that as the disability which resulted in his death, was not attributable to military service his dependents are not entitled to pension.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


SOLDIERS' LAND SETTLEMENT
Mr. MILLAR:: 1.	How many returned soldiers have been salvaged by the Soldiers' Land Settlement Board year by year since the inception of the Soldiers' Land Settlement scheme?
2.	What sums, if any, have been collected by the Board from said soldiers after they have abandoned the land and engaged in other employment?


Hon. Mr. STEWART:: 1.	No separate record of soldier settlers who have been " salvaged " is maintained. The number of " adjustment " cases which includes "salvage" due to death, recurrence of physical disability, abandonment, etc., and also those cases where properties have been transferred to other returned soldiers, and cases where settlers have assigned their interest to civilians, is, year by year, as follows:
Since the inception of the scheme to December 31, 1920, 1,153; 1921 (calendar year), 1,114; 1922 (calendar year), 826.
2.	No record available.


LAKE TRANSPORT INVESTIGATION
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 4.	Was W. T. R. Preston requested by the Government to undertake an investigation in the cost of lake transport or into any subject connected with transport of freight on the Great Lakes?
2.	Did Mr. Preston make such investigation? If so, when?
3.	Has Mr. Preston been paid for such investigation?
4.	If not, is he to be paid for the same, and how much ?
5.	Why was Mr. Preston's report not made public?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	He was paid at the rate of $15 per day for each day employed, and per diem allowance of $15 in addition to his actual transportation expenses.
[Mr. Graham.)
5.	The preliminary enquette was for the information of the ministry. The investigation will be continued by a- royal commission consisting of S. J. McLean, Assistant Chairman, Board of Railway Commissioners. Levi Thomson of Qu'Appelle, Sask., and Brig.-Gen. L. T. Tremblay, a member of the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec. When completed the report will be submitted to parliament.


COMPENSATION FOR DESTROYED CATTLE
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What compensation is allowed for cattle destroyed under the accredited herd system: (a) for pure-breds, (b) for grades?
2.	Does the law apply only to pure-bred herds?
3.	If not, is it the intention of the Government to extend the regulations so as to include herds composed entirely of grade cattle ?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	(a) Pure bred cattle: maximum valuation $200, maximum compensation (J of maximum valuation) $133.33.
(b) Grade cattle: maximum valuation $60, maximum compensation (J of maximum valuation) $40.
2.	No. Herds accepted under the accredited herd plan may contain any number of grade cattle, but in addition there must be at least ten pure-bred registered animals, one of which must be a bull.
3.	No. I might add that these answers, while strictly correct, do not give all the information. In addition to the pure-bred herds that are taken under the accredited herd system, compensation is paid for certain municipal herds and also for grade cattle under what is known as the restricted area system of compensation.


TORONTO VIADUCT
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to carryout the commitments of the Grand Trunk Railway as set out in the Viaduct Agreement for the erection of a Viaduct in Toronto dated 1913, towards which the city, the C.P.R., and the G.T.R. were to contribute one-third each of the capital cost?
2.	Did a deputation wait on the Government in the spring of 1922, urging the carrying out of this agreement and the opening of the new Union Station in Toronto, and what will be done by the Government to give effect to the viaduct agreement?
3.	Will the Government, as requested by the deputation, use its best efforts to get a settlement of this long standing question in the public interest?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The board of directors of the Canadian National Railways will deal with any commitments of previous managements.
2.	Yes.
3.	It is hoped that negotiations with respect to terminal arrangements at Toronto,

Questions
the possible use of the new Union Station there, and related matters will shortly be inaugurated by the Canadian National Railways' management.


EIGHT HOUR LAW CONFERENCE
Mr. NEILL:: 1.	What steps, if any, have been taken by the Government towards calling a conference of all the provinces on the eight hour law recommended by Article 427 of the Treaty of Versailles?
2.	If any invitation was issued by the Federal authorities what was the response from the different provinces ?
3.	What further action is contemplated by the Government towards getting the provinces together on this matter?


James Murdock: The answer to
this question has been prepared, but the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill), I believe, desires to have it withheld for the present in order that he may change the question, or for some other reason.
Question stands.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON RE-ESTABLISHMENT
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Has the Government received an interim or other report from the Royal Commission appointed nearly a year ago to inquire into and report on matters concerning Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I may answer this
question orally. No interim report has been received so far, but one is expected shortly.


GRAND TRUNK COMMITMENTS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to carry out the capital commitments of the Grand Trunk Railway in various parts of Canada for new terminals and capital expenditures in various places as provided by agreements made by this railway before it was absorbed into the National Railway System?
2.	Is it the intention of the Governmnt to expend $4 ,000,000 on the Grand Trunk Railways foi grade separation at Detroit, and is the following despatch substantially correct to the Toronto Globe?
"Detroit, January 12.-Negotiations of twenty years standing between the city and the Grand Trunk Railway were completed to-day when the Council gave tentative approval to a $4,000,000 grade separation programme presented by John W. Reid, city engineer."
3.	If so, what amount will Canada be asked to provide for this work?
4.	What amount of money will Canada have to furnish for the use of the Grand Trunk System for the new $100,000,000 passenger terminal at Chicago to replace the Dearborn Street structure recently destroyed by fire?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Such matters will be dealt with by the board and management of Canadian National Railways:
2	and 3. Grade separation at Detroit will involve an expenditure of $4,600,000, spread over a ten-year period. The Grand Trunk
Railway will be responsible for approximately $3,000,000 and the city of Detroit for the remaining $1,600,000.
4.	The terminal in question is used by the Grand Trunk Railway which, with four other railways, own the holding company-the Chicago and Western Indiana Railroad Company. No definite action in regard to a new station is expected for several years. Meanwhile, published estimates of possible cost are mere guesses. Should a new structure finally be decided on, it should be financially selfsustaining.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS ' CIVIL SERVICE STATISTICS


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	During the last completed annual accounting period what was the amount of revenue, freight and passenger traffic originating on the different divisions of the Grand Trunk Railway in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and the earnings therefrom?
2. During the last completed annual accounting period what was the amount of revenue, freight and passenger traffic originating on the Grand Trunk Railway in the cities of Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and Hamilton, and the earnings therefrom?
3.	During	the	last	completed	annual	accounting
period what was the amount of freight moving in less than carload lots from the cities of Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton on the Grand Trunk Railway, and the earnings therefrom?
4.	During	the	last	completed	annual	accounting
period what was the number of way freight trains operated, their mileage and earnings, from the cities of Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton on the Grand Trunk Railway?
5.	During	the	last	completed	annual	accounting
period what was the amount of revenue, freight and passenger traffic originating on the different divisions of the Canadian National Railways in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and the earnings therefrom?
6.	During	the	last	completed	annual	accounting
period what was the amount of revenue; freight and passenger traffic originating on the Canadian National Railways in the cities of Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, and Hamilton, and the earnings therefrom?
7.	During	the	last	completed	annual	accounting
period what was the amount of freight moving in less than carload lots from the cities of Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton on the Canadian National Railways, and the earnings therefrom?
Lack oj Confidence Vote

8.	During the last completed annual accounting period what was the number of way freight trains operated, their mileage and earnings, from the cities of Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Hamilton, on the Canadian National Railways?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
LINDSAY MARKET SCALES Mr. THURSTON:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of Inland Revenue, any officer of the said department, or any other department of the government, and the scale inspector at Lindsay, Ontario, or any other person or persons, relative to the Lindsay Market Scales or Lindsay Market Clerk and District Inspector F. D. Diamond of Belleville or Senior Inspector G. H. Howson, of Peterboro.

Mr. HANSON:: For a copy of all memoranda, opinions, letters, reports and other documents, including reports to Council and Orders in Council, relating to any Nova Scotia statute in 1922.



DISALLOWANCE OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: For a copy of all memorandums, opinions and reports made by different Ministers of Justice or their deputies, from January 1, 1904, to date, on the question of disallowance of provincial legislation and disallowance of provincial acts and laying down the principles which justify the exercise of the provincial acts.
CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS Right Hon. Mr. MEIGHEN:
For a return giving a list of all appointments made or nominations to appointments made by the Civil Sendee Commission since January 1, 1922, with the names of the persons appointed or nominated in all cases where such appointments or nominations have not been followed by the appointee or person nominated actually taking the position, also showing in each case who is occupying the position which the appointee of the commission is not occupying, and also showing the instances where the appointee of the commission was a returned soldier.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY

Arthur Meighen: For a copy of all correspondence, writings, telegrams, and other documents passing from the governement or the Canadian National Railways since August 1, 1922, having to do with the taking up of rails on the Hudson's Bay Railway?



CATTLE TRADE WITH GREAT BRITAIN

Arthur Meighen: For a copy of all correspondence, writings, documents, and as well a complete statement of regulations and conditions and full arrangements entered into between representatives of Canada and representatives of Great Britain in respect of the admission of Canadian store cattle and Canadian breeding cattle into Great Britain.



LACK OF CONFIDENCE VOTE


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Calgary East) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, a defeat of a government measure should not be considered as a sufficient reason for the resignation of the government, unless followed by a vote of lack of confidence.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, it might be truly
said that this resolution is for the good and welfare of the House. As the hon. members of this House will notice, it deals with a situation in which every individual member is to some extent interested, some more and some less. I heard an hon. member of this House quote an American statesman a few days ago, to the effect that we were not dealing with a theory but with a condition. My resolution does not deal with any theory but with an actual condition; and I am disposed to think that if there is any objection offered to the passing of this resolution it will have to be offered on theoretical grounds, for I believe it would be difficult to maintain by argument that there is anything of re democratic value to be gained by the continuance of the practice against which this resolution declares. The condition with which we are dealing is that in the process of development our system of government has finally come to be government by a cabinet Here it will be unnecessary, I hope, to explain that I am not making any reference to the present government or the present cabinet; I am dealing with the system of governmer and the practices appertaining thereto. Parliament has lost its old supremacy, if indeed it ever really was supreme. The course of our constitutional development has been one leading from an absolute autocracy on to that measure of democracy which we now enjoy, some may argue that parliament is as supreme to-day as it has ever been, which if true, would simply prove that parliament has yet to attain its supremacy, for certain it is that we have now government by cabinet.
When we consider the development of our constitutional system, it is not to be wondered at if we find there are still influences of autocracy present, for every bit of the freedom which we now enjoy has been slowly and laboriously wrenched from autocracy. Indeed, it is clear that it would be difficult for us to be completely rid of those influences. Parliament to-day, I maintain, is dominated by the cabinet through the party caucus, and much of our boasted democratic liberty is pure theory. Theoretically, the Cabinet is responsible to parliament, and parliament, in turn, is

Lack oj Confidence Vote
responsible to the people. The actual condition, however, is that the cabinet is responsible to those who appoint it, and as the cabinet brings forward its policies and ensures support of them by a pre-arranged majority, it is not in any real sense responsible to parliament. Of course, parliament is allowed to discuss the policies of the cabinet, but an effective majority has been arranged for. The policies of the cabinet have been already drawn up, they are outlined in the Speech from the Throne, and will be carried through in the manner and to the extent desired by the cabinet, provided that the majority party is strong enough numerically to outvote the rest of parliament.
It is contended, that such a party, namely, the majority or government party, represents the voice of parliament because it is a majority. Again theoretically, this is perfectly true; but practically it is not true. A mechanical, mathematical majority may not represent the voice of parliament. Under the conditions that exist to-day members of the majority party may be compelled to vote contrary to their best thoughts and their declared principles. A system which puts a member of parliament in that position is defective both from the point of view of the mentality and the morality of parliament. This practice of cabinet control by threat of election has a tendency to confuse the issues upon which members are called upon to decide, and it has the effect of placing them in a position which to say the least is at times very uncomfortable and very embarrassing.
But, it may be asked, what magic power has the cabinet over the majority or government party so as to ensure that its measures will be upheld at all times. That magic power is exercised by confusing the issues which may be brought before parliament with the life of the administration, so that the government party is left with the alternative of supporting the issue or saving the administration, and it is only natural if the desire to save the administration should take precedence in the minds of most members of a government party. It is commonly understood to be the practice in Canada that if a government is defeated on a matter of policy, or on a measure considered by the administration to be of importance, that such defeat is tantamount to a vote of no confidence, and that the resignation of the government should follow. Not only is this so, but a government may at any time declare an issue to be a vote of no confidence. That declaration has the effect of a whip-not the party whip, but the real shillalah held over the heads of all the government supporters- the possibility of defeat and the bringing on
of a general election. But it has the effect also usually of defeating the measure, no matter what merit there may be in the measure, because in such a case the salvation of the government is considered first by the majority party and the measure afterwards. So really while the government party may vote against a very good measure in order to save the government, their action is no indication of what they really think about that measure.
If the majority party had been free to vote upon such issues as have been declared by governments to imply no confidence, it is very likely that in most cases those issues would have received majorities. But in every case I believe in the history of the Canadian parliament when the government has treated such a vote as tantamount to a vote of nonconfidence the issue has been defeated. That there is no instance so far as I am able to find-I am subject to correction of course- in our parliamentary records of a government having been defeated under such circumstances, tends only to prove two things. It proves, in the first place, that the governments of the past have always had a fairly safe majority; and it proves further that the majority party has given the life of the government first consideration.
Now, this practice of confusing an issue with the life of the government is not a mere formality such as we have in the ceremonials incident to the opening of parliament, though the practice is equally as far out of date as is the ceremonial feature-perhaps those ceremonials are not altogether useless as they represent a tableau of an important and glorious period of history. But this is of greater importance in so far as the members of this House are concerned, and in so far also as the country is concerned, because it has a very real and immediate and, I think I might also say, a pernicious influence. It is superfluous to recall the various steps which have been taken to bring parliament to this practice. There is no doubt that at one time this system served the purpose of those who introduced it, and there is little doubt that other methods might have done equally well to secure the aims desired had any one thought of them. To-day it is used chiefly to keep governments in office. It is used also for the purpose of defeating measures which the people's representatives may desire, but which for some reason or other the cabinet does not want.
This practice is not at all an aid to responsible government, as some would have it, indeed, it is rather a hindrance to that desirable end, for we find that by this practice

Lack of Confidence Vote

the principle of responsible government has been inverted. To-day the individual members of the government party are responsible to the Cabinet instead of the Cabinet being responsible to the individual members of the party. What chance has the courageous individual, who can still think clearly even under threats of a general election between the merits of a government measure and the defeat of the government, and who is prepared to stand up for the principle in which he believes-what political future in a party has such an individual? He is really held responsible to this Cabinet for his action on the vote, instead of the Cabinet being held responsible to him for their action when he votes. That, I maintain, is an inversion of the principle of responsible government.
I want to turn briefly to a few instances in the history of the Canadian parliament in which this practice has been seen in action; and I am going to take the most recent instances so as to be within the memory of hon. members of this House. I shall first refer to a resolution which was introduced when Sir Robert Borden was in power, embodying a proposal to discontinue the granting of titles in Canada. According to page 2364 of Hansard of May 21, 1918, Sir. Robert Borden said, referring to the proposal contained in the resolution:
I can only say, so far as I am concerned, that if the House does not propose to accept the course which I have asked them frankly and with much respect to take, I should consider that I am relieved from my duty of carrying on any longer the government of this country, and I should ask His Excellency the Governor General to seek other advisers.
I knew personally a number of members of the government party of that day, and am convinced that they were just as anxious for the abolition of titles in Canada as the hon. member who moved the resolution was, yet I find that they voted with the government against the resolution in which they believed. There we have a concrete example of this practice. One might, of course, comment upon the attitude of the government in associating the trivial matter of a motion regarding titles with the defeat of the administration; but that is not a point to be considered here. The fact is that by confusing the issue of the abolition of titles in Canada with the life of the government, those who supported the abolition of titles voted against their principle in order to protect the administration. That was the situation then, and it is often found to be the situation even to-day. Hon. members who, forced under such conditions to vote against their principles to save the government have

to meet their irate constituents and explain the phenomenal change of mind which they so suddenly experienced. Which one of us has not had the-I was going to say opportunity, but that is not the word-experience of hearing a politician trying vainly to explain why he was driven from his acknowledged principles and forced to do something entirely different.
The next instance to which I wish to refer is that which had to do with the amendments moved to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne at the present session.	You will remember that when the
amendments were moved, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) declared that no self-respecting government could possibly accept them. The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) moved an amendment to the amendment, in which, I may point out, he was expressing the opinions of the Minister of Finance as set forth last session. Speaking on the budget last year, the Minister of Finance said this:
I must to-day present two thoughts which are of paramount importance. The first is as to the need, the deep and earnest need, of economy. That means that we must appeal both to members of Parliament and to the people to pass what I may call self-denying ordinances. They must not expect all the things which in the good old days they got so readily.
The amendment to the amendment as submitted by the hon. member for Calgary West was as follows:
That this House views with alarm the substantial increase in the national debt, and urges Your Excellency's advisers to exert every possible effort to economize in the expenditure and administration of government, and to lessen the burden of federal taxation which bears so heavily on the people of Canada.
With regard to the amendment, I wish to read a resolution moved by the present Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and seconded by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in 1920:
That in view of the continued increase in the high cost of living, of 'the greatly increased burden of taxation, of the hardship which many of the people suffer from these causes, and the unrest naturally arising therefrom; and in view of the desirability of adopting measures to increase production and effect such relief to consumers and producers as may be within the power of Parliament, the House is of opinion that, pending a wider revision of the tariff, substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation should be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance; first, diminishing the very high cost of living which presses so severely on the masses of the people; second, reducing the cost of the instruments of production in the industries based on the natural resources of the Dominion, the vigorous development of which is essential to the progress and prosperity of our country.
The following is the amendment of this session to the Address in reply to the Speech from

Lack oj Confidence Vote
the Throne, which was regarded as constituting a motion of want of confidence in the government:
That in view of the increased burden of taxation and of the hardship which many of the people suffer from this burden, and the unrest and dissatisfaction arising therefrom, and in view of the desirability of adopting measures to reduce the cost of production, and effect such relief to consumers and producers as may be within the power of parliament, the House is of the opinion that substantial reductions of the burdens of customs taxation should be made with a view to the accomplishing of two purposes of the highest importance.
(1)	Diminishing the very high cost of production, which presses so severely on the primary producers of the country at this time;
(2)	Reducing the cost of living to the great masses of the common people, many of whom are being forced out of the country by the prevailing economic conditions.
This amendment is the same as the resolution moved by the present Minister of Finance in 1920, and there is no excuse that I can see for the government party voting for it a couple of years ago and voting against it to-day. It may be presumed that both these resolutions embody the viewpoint of the Liberal party upon the questions with which they deal. If so, how did it happen that hon. members opposite voted against that very proposal a few days ago? The Minister of Finance declared that that resolution, which was really his own resolution that he moved two years ago, must be taken as a vote of no confidence. He indicated that no self-respecting government could take it otherwise. My humble opinion is that the government would have been really more self-respecting if it had accepted these amendments. Of course, I could not presume to tell the hon. Minister of Finance what he should and should not do as a parliamentarian, but that was my humble opinion. However, the hon. gentleman did declare that the resolution moved by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Hoey), and also the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw), constituted motions of no confidence, and that complicated the situation so much for the members of the party that they found themselves on the horns of a dilemma, and most of them stuck on the horns. The fact is, we know as well as we can know anything with respect to anybody, that there are a great number of hon. members on the other side of the House who do believe in the reduction of the tariff, and who under different circumstances would vote for such a resolution; yet only one of them remembered his principles on that occasion, and all the rest voted with the government I am not blaming any hen. gentleman on the other side for votin'
14i
with the government, I am not insinuating that their votes were any less honourable than mine was. Indeed, I believe that they voted just as I did, weighing these issues in tl eir own minds as best they could. I am not speaking against the actions of the hon. members on that particular occasion: I am speaking against the practice, the system, which forces them into this unfair and embarrassing situation-I believe that hon. membera of this House will agree with me that this is a very undesirable position in which to be placed.
I notice that the opposition made a good deal of capital out of the dilemma of the government in connection with the amendments quoted, but there was really no need for them to do so, for I am quite certain that the opposition would do likewise on a similar occasion- I know it has done so before. I am quite sure the Progressives will do the same if only they get the opportunity, and I believe the Labour party would do the same under the present system. It is pretty well accepted, by sociologists at all events, that the generality of humanity under similar conditions will act in pretty much the same way. So, what I am trying to correct by this resolution is a parliamentary practice which embarrasses the members of parliament, and particularly the members of the government party, by confusing the issue
4	p.m. under discussion with the life of the administration, and thus forcing hon. members at times to vote against their cwn ideas and their own principles.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: May I be permitted a question? If this resolution passes, what is to prevent the government from considering any particular motion as a want of confidence motion in the government, and acting accordingly? What would prevent the Minister of Finance, for instance, whom my hon. friend has mentioned, from making a similar statement to the House on another occasion? What is to prevent the government from advising the whips that they will consider a certain motion as a want of confidence motion? Then, what good can follow the . passing of this resolution?


William Irvine: I think the hon. member has misunderstood the resolution. If I have got his question correctly, the resolution will prohibit the very possibility which he anticipates.


William Garland McQuarrie: In what way?


William Irvine: In this way. If this resolution is carried, it will not be left in the hands of the government to say when the
Lack of Confidence Vote

government shall be defeated. That power will be in parliament. At the present time the Cabinet has the decision as to whether a resolution shall or shall not be considered as a want of confidence motion. We want to take that from the hands of the Cabinet and leave the decision with parliament.


William Garland McQuarrie: One further question


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Of course, the question can only be allowed with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor. Do I understand that the hon. member is willing?	.	'


William Irvine: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: Would the hon member tie up the government so that it could not hand in its resignation if it saw fit at any time?


William Irvine: I do not know anything that can prevent any government or any member of any government from resigning at any time they wish to do so. They may do so now, singly or in a body, and they may do so after such a resolution as this passes; but I scarcely anticipate a stampede of that character if the resolution should pass.
I believe the practice against which this resolution declares should be abandoned because it is humiliating to the representatives of the people. In instances such as I have given they find themselves forced at times to abandon the principles under which they have been elected; and being forced thus to abandon their principles, they are considered in the public mind as being untrue and unfaithful servants of the people. Good men in this way find themselves robbed of their good characters in the eyes of the public. I do not think it is amiss to emphasize here a fact that we have all met with, that the politician in Canada has a very low status indeed in the estimation of the public, and it is the present practice that has helped more than anything else to undermine the confidence of the people in their representatives. I think it should be part of our duty as members of this House to raise the status of parliamentarians, that we may be as noted in the coming years for standing firm to our principles and true to our word, as we have been noted in the past for forgetting about them in such instances as I have just given to the House.
But there is another side to this question that is as bad or even worse than the personal side. By this practice now prevailing, bad issues may be passed in order to save an otherwise very good government, and on the

other hand, a good issue may be defeated to save a bad administration. By confusing these two things, namely the issue before the House and the fitness of the administration to govern, the members of parliament are often placed in a position where they must either defeat the measure in which they believe, or defeat the government. But even if a good measure were passed to save a good government, that would not balance the sheet. We had better put governments in a position where they do not need to be saved, and that is the purpose of this resolution. The life of the administration and the merits of legislative proposals should not be confused. If the administration is to be responsible to parliament, it should allow parliament a free mind to come to a conclusion on resolutions, or bills without embarrassment of any kind whatever. I believe a reasonable, clean, energetic, efficient and courageous administration has nothing to fear from a Canadian parliament. Parliament, however, does have something to fear from the supremacy of the cabinet. * I believe that a bill brought in by the cabinet should not be considered in any way different from a bill brought in by a private member. But such is not the case as things are now. Here, then, is a protection which I would invite you antiprotectionists to consider. Here is a practice by which a cabinet protects itself by its very threats to carry through what legislation it may wish to promote, or defeat what legislation it might desire to defeat. That is a protective wall which it might be in our interests to-day to break down by the passing of this resolution. I urge the passing of this resolution in the interests of every member of this House. We are all interested, and we are all concerned. It is true, those of us who happen to sit in the so-called opposition benches are not so directly effected by a vote of no confidence as the hon. members on the other side. But still we have to consider it too. I do not know whether it would have been a very wise thing for this parliament to have decided to bring on an election on the last issue on which we voted. We had to consider that in connection with the issue, for it is not only the government that is affected, but everybody is affected.
Look at it from another point of view. I do not believe hon. members on this side of the House, from the left wing of the opposition down this far at least, are particularly anxious to defeat either this government or any other government. I believe their attitude as expressed is one of co-operation. Personally, I do not wish to defeat any govern-

Lack oj Confidence Vote
ment. I want to help every government to do the best they can. I want to vote for the government when I think they ought to be voted for, but I do not want to be called upon to vote for the government when that means voting against something that I want to vote for. But until the present practice is changed I may be called upon, and every other hon. member may be called upon, to vote against the government that they do not want to defeat, in order to save a principle or to vote for a measure in which they have declared their belief. That is one of the points I would ask hon. members on the government side to consider. I believe the passing of this resolution would have the effect of stabilizing governments. We are living in a time when government majorities are not as large as they used to be, and their tendency seems to be to grow smaller, which leaves the life of an administration more precarious than heretofore. It would be better, I think, for all concerned, if Cabinets would look for a majority on the issue rather than counting heads before the issue is proposed. If hon. members will review the history of the Manitoba government in the last session or two they will find that, because it failed to take the short practical step which this resolution suggests it was in a position where it could not do any business for the people. It was afraid to move for fear it would be defeated. The consequence was that ultimately it had to be voted out of power. On the other hand, the province of Alberta, and Nova Scotia I believe also, passed resolutions similar to the one which I am here introducing, and, so far, I have heard only praise of their action. I have heard members of the Alberta legislature speak of the new freedom which they feel when they are voting on a measure, because they feel they are not voting to oust a government nor to keep one in power.
Again, this proposal will discourage parties from seeking power as an aim. While the present practice continues, parties will seek to build up a power for themselves, because they know that they will not be able to do anything unless they have assurance in advance of sufficient support. And so, whether it is an opposition party or a new party, or a group if you like, most of them look forward to the time when they will have power, when they will command enough support to carry the legislation which they desire. I suggest this is not democratic. Indeed it is very undesirable that any group or class should have power in parliament. Some of the hon. members on the government side demurred last year when I said that the present government represented a
class. I said that, not by way of criticism, but merely as a fact,-they do represent a class; and they have built up a power by that class to serve that class. I believe that the other party represents a class. I believe that the new party represents a class. I do not think it would be wise for this House to encourage classes to build up their strength with a view to obtaining power in this House. I look forward rather to the co-operative spirit in parliament. And let me say here, UG I have Said m my ruling during the summer, that in my opinion more real respect for parliament has been shown by the present Cabinet than by any other Cabinet in recent Canadian history. But I believe that this is due as much to the fact that we have a different alignment of groups in this House, as to the democratic intentions of the Cabinet itself. However, I hope that the hon. members of this House will see the value of this resolution, first of all in leaving each member, whether in the government party or in any other party, free to consider every measure that is brought before this House on its own merits and to vote upon it according to his own intelligence or according to the desires of his constituents.
I have tried to personally outline the condition as it exists in our parliamentary practice at the present time, and have tried to show how embarrassing and how unfair it is to individual members especially on the government side. I have tried to show that good legislation might be defeated' by this practice, or bad legislation might be enacted in the interests of the administration. I ask hon. members, then in their own interests, in the interest of parliament, and in the interest of progressive development of our constitutional system of government, to free themselves by voting for this resolution.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (Calgary West): The principle involved in the resolution before the House, Mr. Speaker, appears to me as worthy of serious consideration, and more especially is that the fact when, as we have been informed, the legislators of Alberta and the legislators of Nova Scotia have adopted similar resolutions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has my hon. friend copies of the resolutions to which he refers, and would he give them to the House?


Mr. SHAW:: I regret to say, I have not.
It is well established that executive government in this country rests upon two vital and essential principles: First, the selection of a select committee from the Privy Council, called the Cabinet, all members of which are, theoretically, at least, aligned together and
Lack of Confidence Vote


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Were they government measures?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was it not a money vote for the purchase of cordite?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Perhaps. At all events, the amendment carried and Lord Rosebery resigned. Now, Lord Rosebery's action in resigning as a result of that vote met with hostile criticism not only in the House but to a great extent in the country. Mr. Gladstone himself described it as entirely pusillanimous. I might remark in passing, in this connection, that no vote of want of confidence followed the action of parliament in carrying the amendment.

Lack of Confidence Vote
The next incident to which I shall refer arose in 1905. John Redmond moved in supply that certain estimates be reduced and his motion carried. Mr. A. J. Balfour, who was then leader of the government, used these words some few days afterwards as indicating the position which his government proposed to take:
Now I think it is evident from this brief, and perhaps too rapid, survey of recent constitutional history that the only divisions which, taken by themselves, and in isolation from the general circumstances of the time, from the feeling of the parties in the House, form the question of union in the cabinet-the only parliamentary issues which, taken in isolation from these attendant circumstances, have always been regarded as conclusive are those in which there has been a trial of strength between the parties with all the circumstances of notice and other attendant incidents required to make it clear that the issue to be decided is one of "confidence" or "no confidence".
Further on he says:
T think that is the whole truth with regard to votes taken in this House considered in their isolation. But I quite admit that there are circumstances in which you cannot take a vote in its isolation. You have to take it with all its attendant circumstances, and a government if it is conscious that it cannot carry on the business of the House, may be perfectly justified m taking a vote which, under different circumstances, it would regard with relative indifference as the forma) occasion of its termination of office.
With all respect, I suggest that this last statement of Mr. Balfour indicates, perhaps, the status of this matter at the present time,. There have been incidents subsequent to that, but they are of more or less minor importance. Now, having ascertained, in the words of Mr. Balfour, the generally accepted rule, what is the effect of the proposed resolution before the House It seems to me it may be put shortly in this way: that it simply transfers, from the Cabinet to parliament, the responsibility of determining whether or not an adverse vote, together with the attendant circumstances, is such as to justify the government in resigning or in seeking dissolution.
I think it simply means the transference of responsibility, and the question for the House to determine, then, would be whether or not such a transference of responsibility is desirable. Is not the House of Commons as a body in a better position to determine a question of that character? Not only do its members come from all parts of the country, not only are they larger in number than the government, but they have a better idea of the public pulse than the Cabinet could have; and it seems to me that in the last analysis they would give, generally speaking, a truer verdict than the government could give on a matter of that kind.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would not the fear of an election put them in a less independent position than the government?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think not. I see no reason why the prospect of an election should act as my hon. friend suggests.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is very powerful sometimes.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I defer to the judgment of my hon. friend in that regard. In the second place, so far as the membership of the House itself is concerned, the member is now very frequently placed in a position where he cannot disagree with a government measure without imperilling the life of the government. He knows not what particular measure may be considered as vital and important and a vote against which will be considered by the government as a vote of want of confidence. The adoption of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Irvine) will, it seems to me, allow members to escape that embarrassing situation where frequently they vote against their convictions and, perhaps, in many cases, against the interests of their constituents.
Under our present system private member-' lose much of their independence of thought and much of their freedom of action. Not only will this suggested change be beneficial in so far as the membership of the House is concerned, but it seems to me that oppositions whose real function is that of constructive criticism will realize that it is useless to seek to embarrass a government by any snap decision. Further, I think the ministry itself will benefit as the result of this proposed change. The constant fear of defeat of a government measure, with the resultant loss of prestige, tends to timidity on the part of the Cabinet both as to its administrative acts and its legislative proposals, with the inevitable consequence of governmental inaction, and particularly is this, so where a government holds office by a slim majority.
It seems to me therefore, Mr. Speaker, in view of our constitutional practice, that the proposed resolution is in harmony with our developing political institutions, and will assist in an increasing release from partisanship in the consideration of our national affairs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, may I first
of all express to the hon. member who has moved this resolution (Mr. Irvine) my appreciation not only of the thoughtful manner in which he has dealt with this important subject, but also of his generous reference to the government in its relation to the House. I W'ish to assure him that so far as this government is concerned he will, I believe, always have reason to feel that the consideration

Lack oj Confidence Vote
which we realize is owing to hon. members with respect to every question that comes before them is something which will be con-tirued throughout its tenure of office.
The resolution which my hon. friend has introduced is perhaps as important as any which can be brought forward in this House, inasmuch as it has to do with what is really the corner stone of our constitutional structure-I mean the responsibility of the ministry to parliament. Our present constitution and parliamentary practice are not the result of any ;uddcn ^i^ciucui effected without mature and deliberate consideration: they come to us with all their attendant features as perhaps the greatest inheritance which the peoples of British descent hold. Britain has been rightly called the Mother of Parliaments, and at Westminister, as nov here else in the world, there has been worked out a parliamentary practice which tends to preserve liberty and freedom as no other parliamentary practice even begins to do. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I think we should approach any change-I use the term "any change" advisedly-in parliamentary practice with the utmost caution. Customs which have stood the test of years, which have been found in different parliamentary assemblies to be of advantage, not for five or ten or twenty years, but for a hundred years or more, are customs which must have much to support them, and we should move carefully and very slowly in any effort to alter them, or to substitute something in their stead.
May I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this of all times is a period in the world's history when we should be particularly careful about adopting innovations? It is an age of unrest in many parts of the world, and customs and practices which have been found to serve mankind well have been thrown overboard in some quarters of the globe. With what result? In those countries where men have dealt lightly with their accepted constitutions and methods of procedure, we find today not orderly development but in some cases chaos in an extreme form. One has but to contrast the conditions as they exist today in some of the legislative bodies in Europe with what they were before the recent war to appreciate why great caution and great care is needed in accepting any proposals which make for a radical change in parliamentary procedure.
It might be expected, as the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) has just said, that the government would be the first to welcome this resolution. And possibly a government that has the very slender majority which this government has might be expected
to be among the first to desire to accept it. The resolution reads:	-
That, in the opinion of this House, a defeat of a government measure should not be considered as a sufficient reason for the resignation of the government, unless followed by a vote of lack of confidence.
When one considers that the present administration has behind it a majority of possibly but one or two over that of the other parties in the House, one might readily assume that the government would welcome any kind of change which would justify it, in case of the aeieat of some measure before the House, in holding on to office and refusing to go to the country. Were we to give our support to this resolution, the first criticism that would be levelled against us would be that we had accepted it because we had at last found some means whereby we could retain office in the face of an adverse vote. That, Mr. Speaker, would be a most unfortunate situation, it seems to me, for the country to permit any government to get itself into.
My hon. friend who has introduced the resolution spoke about autocracy and democracy. He said that our present system of cabinet government lends itself to autocracy on the part of Cabinets. May I ask my hon. friend: what is the one check by parliament on possible autocracy by a Cabinet other than that when a government brings in a measure, and is defeated, the government must regard itself as no longer possessing the confidence of the House? My hon. friend is helping autocracy rather than furthering democracy in government when he leaves it open to an administration, once it has been shown by the votes of the members of the House that it no longer enjoys their confidence, still to retain office. It gives an autocratic government a second chance for its life. To my way of thinking, in these days when we wish to have democratic principles prevail in matters of government, the very first chance to put an autocratic government out of power, is the chance to seize; it should never be let go by. That is the position we take in regard to this resolution.
The reason that the practice has prevailed in British government that a ministry must be supported by the people's representatives, or otherwise go back to the people, is that such a practice is the most effective in keeping a ministry true to those principles which are the ones the people wish to have regarded in legislation.
Now, may I say to my hon. friend that I fear his resolution, well intended as it is, would have an effect entirely different to that which he believes it would have? It is in
Lack oj Confidence Vote

the interests of the government in any country that every precaution should be taken to see that a ministry in bringing down legislation does so only after the most careful deliberate and mature thought, and that in presenting their legislation to parliament they present only legislation which they believe to be necessary in the country's interests. Permit the ministry to use its own judgment in the matter of whether or not it shall resign upon its legislation being defeated, and it will soon begin to introduce all kinds of legislation without very much thought. You open the door to the introduction of measure after measure that is half-baked, once the ministry know that if defeated on particular measures it may, by skirmishing about and by conferences here and there with different members of the House, get itself re-established in a position where it can continue to carry on. That would be much against the interests of good legislation; it would tend to make a ministry not more careful, but possibly indifferent, with respect to some of the measures it might bring before the House.
There are, after all, times and places for every thing. There are times when confidence in an administration should be expressed, and when any contrary attitude should have serious consequences. One of those times is on the consideration of government measures. Our parliamentary practice, which, as I have already mentioned, is the result of wide experience extending over many years, has fixed certain times and certain places for the expression of confidence, or the reverse, in a ministry. My hon. friend mentioned three instances, I think, which he regarded as supporting his resolution. The first was the attitude of the government of Sir Robert Borden in the matter of titles, he said in this connection that he thought in some way the members of parliament had been precluded from freely expressing their views on that subject. But I ask my hon. friend, what was the view that the parliament of Sir Robert Borden's day took on this very matter of titles? It was the parliament of that day that adopted a resolution abolishing titles altogether. The members of parliament were not prevented from expressing their views on the subject of titles. They had ample opportunity to do so, but there was a time and place for a resolution of the kind. When :t was brought in at the appropriate time and at the right place, the resolution carried, notwithstanding the fact that the government had at another time felt that the adoption of such a course with reference to a government measure would have placed it in a false position in view of a stand it had previously taken or

pledges or promises it may have made. The government has a knowledge of its obligations which others cannot begin to have. I do not know what the motives of the government of Sir Robert Borden were in making an issue of the question as they did, but I do know this: the fact that they did take that stand in regard to titles helped to defeat the Tory party at the last election; it was one of the things which helped to show the existence of that very condition of autocracy to which my hon. friend has referred. It helped to reveal something more-the servility of the following that the Prime Minister of that day had; and these two things coupled with a like set of circumstances on the part of the administration that succeeded it, account in part for the defeat at the polls of the late administration.
There was in virtue of the government's attitude towards a government measure no denial of the right of any individual member to give expression to his views, nor as the facts prove was the power taken from parliament to do the very thing my hon. friend says they ought to have done in such a case, namely, abolish titles altogether.
Take the other instances to which my hon. friend has referred, the amendments to the Address. One has but to reflect for a moment to see that in view of the limited duration of parliament it is desirable that matters of great public concern should be dealt with at appropriate times and seasons; that if amendments of all kinds are to be considered in order on all occasions, the time of the members, the time of the country, may be used to very little effect in the interests of the people as a whole. I cannot but believe that that is one of the reasons why under the British practice it has generally been maintained that an amendment to the Address must be considered in the nature of a motion of want of confidence in the administration. The Address is presented at the very opening of parliament. It is in reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is considered before hon. members have had opportunity to obtain all the information they should have before they express what may or may not be in the nature of want of confidence in the administration. Take the two amendments to which my hon. friend has just referred. One of them related to the question of economy. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that had the hon. member who moved that amendment waited until the government had presented to parliament the estimates for the present year, he and other hon. members of this House would have been in a better position to express themselves on the question as

Lack of Confidence Vote
to whether or not the government was seeking to effect economies. Yet before the estimates are brought down; before, under our parliamentary procedure, the government had had any opportunity to lay before hon. members of the House a statement of what its expenditures were likely to be, hon. members were asked, through the amendment introduced, to express themselves in a manner, which seemed to imply that the government had not been doing its utmost in the matter oi effecting economies.
Take the other resolution that was moved. At the time of the presentation of that motion hon. members were not aware of what the government's policy in respect to trade matters was likely to be. They were informed in the Address that certain trade conventions which had been adopted would be presented to parliament, and it was to be assumed that those treaties would have some relation to questions of trade and duties. More than that, it is known by everyone that there is a time particularly set apart for the discussion of matters pertaining to tariff, and that is when the budget is brought down. Why, then, should a debate be precipitated on tariff matters before parliament has before it in the regular way the information which it ought to have in passing upon a matter of the kind? Furthermore, it is open to any hon. member, when the House is being moved into committee of supply, to introduce a resolution to discuss the various subjects to which I have referred. If the question were one of taking away the right of hon. members of the House to a full expression of their views on all matters, I would support my hon. friend in any measure which would increase the freedom of debate. But where our procedure affords ample opportunity to hon. members on appropriate occasions to bring to the attention of the House and of the country matters of great public concern, then I think we are wiser to pause and endeavour to discover the reasons which have made our parliamentary practice what it is, before introducing innovations which tend to strike at the very heart of ministerial responsibility.
May I say a further word, Mr. Speaker, in regard to what my hon. friend has said on the subject of party caucuses? Here again we notice a tendency which has become all too prevalent in recent years, that of finding fault with old customs and methods of doing public business. The caucus in the minds of some people today is supposed to be a very wicked kind of thing. In some way, it is assumed that,
through this instrument the cabinet can do what it wishes with its followers, but many of those who have been strongest in condemning the party caucus so-called have been among the first, I have noticed, to recognize that they can get nowhere in understanding the views of their own following until they have a caucus themselves and discuss questions before its members.
Now what is a parliamentary caucus, when one comes down to it? It is nothing more than a. gathering of a certain number of members of parliament. In a case of a government caucus it is a bringing together of the majority of members in the House of Commons supporting the government. It is the means whereby a government can ascertain through its following what the views and opinions of the public, as represented by the various constituencies may be. It is not a means of over-riding parliament. It is a means of discovering the will of the people through their representatives in a manner which cannot be done under the formal procedure which is required in this chamber. That is what a party caucus amounts to.
A government ought to seek continually to give expression to the public will. A government has to be careful in the matter of the legislation it brings into parliament, to be sure that it is in accord with the public will. How can that best be ascertained? Wait until the legislation is brought down in parliament and put on the Table; or by a conference with the government's own following, if there i3 any doubt one way or the other in regard to any phases of the legislation? After all, what a government has to keep before it, if it is to be worthy of the name of a government, is first of all the support it will receive in the country for the measures it introduces, secondly, the support it will receive in parliament. The government should continually endeavour to bring in legislation which it feels is in accordance with the needs and desires of the people at large, but there may well be occasions where a government may be obliged to have a further conference with its own following to ascertain whether or not the particular views which it is about to present in the form of legislation are to all intents and purposes in accordance with the wishes of the people, as they understand them. That is in the interests of democracy. That is not taking away any rights from the people's representatives in parliament. It is simply coming into closer consultation with the people's representatives in a manner that permits of the greatest freedom of expression on their part.
Lack oj Confidence Vote

May I say this to hon. members of this House? I cannot imagine a more intolerable situation for the government; I cannot imagine anything better calculated to destroy confidence in an administration throughout the country, than that a government should come to parliament with legislation which it is prepared to stand up and fight for, 5 p.m. and still permit the slightest doubt as to its securing from parliament what it believes to be necessary in the public interest. Failing this it should be prepared to take its appeal from parliament to the country. A Cabinet has carefully to consider all aspects of public questions before it introduces any legislation. My hon. friend says that to all intents and purposes a government measure should be the same as a private bill. Well, then, may I ask him, why have any Cabinet at all? Why not let us have a Soviet at once, because that is what it amounts to; no head whatever, no directing agency, anyone free to get up and propose any measure with just such knowledge as he may have, free to spring it on the House at any moment, and, with such eloquence as he can muster' carry it through if possible. I do not know what will happen to the legislation of the country if we proceed in that way. Government measures are not brought down lightly. They are the result of long and careful consideration. Government measures are brought down in the light of carefully matured policy, and an administration that brings down its legislation in any other way should not be entitled to expect from parliament a second opportunity once it meets with defeat on a matter which it is prepared to say to the House it regards as all important in the public interest.
There are other aspects of this question to which I would like to refer, but I think perhaps I have said enough to indicate the point of view of the administration on this resolution. I might, however, mention one or two points that I have made a note of lest it might be thought I was passing them over.
My hon. friend says that without the adoption of his resolution bad legislation might be passed to save a good administration, and good legislation defeated to save a bad administration. There is a passage that my hon. friend will recognize and remember-"By their fruits ye shall know them," and the only way you can tell whether an administration is good or bad is by what it does. I cannot well imagine a good administration bringing in bad legislation or a bad administration bringing in good legislation. I think you must judge an administration in large measure by the class of legislation which it brings in. fMr. Mackenzie King.]
My hon. friend from Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) cited a number of instances where governments had not resigned when they were defeated. Well, that I think ought to be an answer, to all intents and purposes, to what my hon. friend has in view in this resolution. He wants the administration to have some freedom. The cases that have been cited are the exceptions which prove the rule. What my hon- friend by his resolution seeks is to lay down a general principle, not an exception. I can conceive of times where, owing to unfor-seen circumstances, a thin House, or some minor phase in legislation, or for some special reason not generally understood at the time \ but which, once explained, is easily understood, it would be unwise for a government, if it suffered defeat under such circumstances to regard defeat as a vote of want of confidence demanding resignation or a request for a dissolution. Circumstances such as those would have to be considered each on its merits, but they should be considered, not as the rule, but as the exception to the rule, and in my opinion ought very seldom to be considered. More than that, the more slender a ministry's following, the more necessary I believe it to be that the ministry should have a full sense of its responsibility to the people's representatives and to that larger public outside the halls of parliament whom they represent.


Mr. GOOD:: May I ask a question? If
there were three parties of approximately equal strength, and only one of them was represented in the Cabinet, what would be the situation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The position
to my mind is exactly the same whether there are three parties or thirty. A government that cannot bring together a group of men, no matter where they are taken from, sufficiently strong to command the confidence of those who compose a parliament has no right to exist. How is public business to be carried on in a manner which will inspire confidence in the country unless a ministry is able to say to the public: With our knowledge of affairs, acquired as only a ministry can acquire it, we believe such and such legislation necessary for the country; we think this or that measure absolutely essential to meet a situation we are face to face with to-day; we give our reasons, give them publicly on the floor of parliament, and if our reasons are not accepted, we shall appeal to those from whom our authority is derived and ask them, if they are unable to give us their support, to put someone else in our place. The

Lack of Confidence Vote
idea that the ministry should be in any way restricted in its appeal to the people at any time is the very antithesis of democracy. The whole effort manifest in the evolution of government has been to bring the ministry to the point where, if for any reason whatever, it ceases to hold the confidence of parliament it will be obliged to go to the people. Once you take away that safeguard, you have substituted possibilities of autocracy for what is after all the strongest factor in the maintenance of democratic nrincir,lo= government. May I say this to my hon. friend,-and say it as the result of such experience as I have thus far been permitted to have in the management of parliamentary affairs,-that I should not wish to have anything to do with a government which I did not believe had the confidence of the people. I should not wish to belong to a government that would introduce measures which it did not regard as essential to good government and to the needs of the people, and I should not wish to belong to a government, nor would I think of retaining in a Cabinet for a day, which, bringing into parliament a measure which it believed to be in the public interest, which it was prepared to say was in the public interest, would think of continuing in office after a vote of want of confidence was expressed by a refusal by the House of Commons to pass legislation deemed essential by its directing head. That is the position we take as a government, and we take it in the interest of democratic government, in the interests of government by the people, and as a means of maintaining responsible government, which, as I said in beginning these few remarks is the corner stone of our whole constitutional structure.


Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: I have been particularly interested in the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on this resolution. He has, in fact, given a speech which can be justly and appropriately applied to a resolution on proportional representation, and I was particularly pleased to hear his words when he said, "In this age of disturbance we should be particularly careful about adopting innovations". Last year this House had a debate on proportional representation in which I took some part, and the Prime Minister also took a part, and how he would be able to harmonize his arguments to-day upon this motion on the theory of responsibility of Cabinet to parliament with the motion which was made last year will only be disclosed when the new motion on proportional representation is introduced into the House some time in
the near future. This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is of a kind of which it can be properly said that it is good in theory but poor in practice, and I say so because the whole structure of the constitution is based on the responsibility of the Cabinet to parliament, and any who have given a study to that question must [realize that just so soon as we take the responsibility from the Cabinet we revert to another system of government which is not the British system, but which is more nearlv analogous to the system which has been adopted in the United States and in France, where the responsibility of the executive is direct to the president and not to parliament.


William Irvine: May I ask if the hon. member considers this resolution takes the responsibility from parliament? If so, in what way does it do so?


Leon Johnson Ladner: This resolution, in my judgment, has the effect in practice of a dissipation of cabinet responsibility, because all a cabinet would need to do, instead of taking the high plane which the Prime Minister has suggested and studying carefully the problems which are to be presented to parliament, would be to go . in a haphazard way without consideration, and sometimes perhaps without regard	to
the best interests of the people, and place the matter before parliament, and say afterwards, "Well, in any event, it is the members' fault, and not the Cabinet's fault." When you come to work out a practice of that kind you are going almost as far back as the time of Charles I. when cabinet responsibility rested directly with the sovereign, and when, as a result of the famous Cabal, it was taken from the sovereign and placed directly upon parliament. A similar situ-tion existed, if my recollection serves me right, as late as 1842, when the cabinet responsibility in Canada was direct to the Governor General, and afterwards the responsibility was direct to parliament. In short, Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of the Cabinet to parliament is the keystone of our system of government. It has developed over a long period of time. It has been practised in Great Britain and in many of the dominions, and it has been proven to be the most practical method by which the will of the majority of the people can be expressed in governmental policy and in legislation. Ours has proven to be the flexible constitution, as opposed to the non-fleKible or rigid constitution, such as we have in the United States, and just as soon as we take from the Cabinet that responsibility which it should have for
Lack of Confidence Vote

all the measures which it undertakes and give it to the members at large, just so soon do we depart from the principle of government which has been laid down after years and years of practice and experience and has been found to be the soundest of all democracies in the world. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would oppose this innovation and the resolution which has been introduced.


William Charles Good: I have tried to approach this question with an open mind, and I must confess that the speeches of the last two hon. members seemed to me to be very far from convincing. May I present the situation as I see it in a very homely illustration? A good many hon. members here will have had the experience in times past of hiring men to do certain work, and they will have gone to those men at times and asked them to do certain jobs in a certain way. Now, possibly on such an occasion, the hired man will throw up his hands and say, "Well, if my way doesn't suit you, get somebody else." I do not think that attitude is a creditable attitude. It is an attitude that any man might take, that some men, a good many men possibly, do take; but it reflects no credit, as I see it, upon any man who engages to do a job, to resent criticism. He has a right to ask his employer at such a time "Does this criticism mean that you wish me to quit?-I want to know"; and he has a right to an answer. But he has no right as I see it, if he is an honourable right-thinking man, to quit because there is a little criticism, or even more than a little criticism.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that little illustration suggests to me the question of the relationship which exists between the electorate, this House of representatives, and the Cabinet. Theoretically, I know, the Cabinet is chosen by the Prime Minister, by the leader of a so-called majority, section or party, at the request, of the King's representative. Theoretically the Cabinet is responsible to the King, or the King's representative; but I think we shall all agree that at the present time, such is largely, if not wholly, a fiction, and that parliament, representing the people, is in the position of master and not servant of the Cabinet. I take it that the Cabinet is asked to look after our executive business, our administration, the business affairs of this country, by and under this parliament; that this parliament is for the time being judge and master; and that going back another sten. the people are the judges whether or not this parliament holds the Cabinet properly responsible for the discharge of its duties.

The right hon. gentleman who leads the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) spoke about this being a time when we should be very carefid as to innovations. That is-what shall I say?-a time-honoured plea, yet not, I think, honoured by time; but a plea often advanced at such a time as this on behalf of the status quo. In the city of Winnipeg a few years ago we saw something happen which, as I see it, was a very admirable example of the foolishness of that policy. If there is a time when innovation, carefully considered, is desirable, it is at a time of unrest. Any other policy leads only to social explosions and not to social progress. The rigidity of our institutions is always a source of danger, and in my opinion one of the features of the British constitution which is of tremendous importance is its flexibility, its adaptability to changing conditions. Surely, the world moves! In fact, I heard it said once, and, I think, said with a great deal of propriety

"there is nothing changeless in the world but change." If conditions are constantly changing, then we must adapt ourselves to those changing conditions.
As I understand the resolution before the House, it is but an expression of the best practice under conditions as they exist at the present time. Even in Great Britain, as was shown by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw), for many years it has been a very common practice for governments not to take any particular judgment of the House on a specific issue as a vote of no confidence, and it seems to me that, looking at the matter from a commonsense standpoint, the British practice is right. It is particularly necessary at the present time to take cognizance of conditions prevailing. We have now a situation which is very different from what it was a few years ago. We have three very considerable groups in this House, and we have not yet evolved a system of representation in the Cabinet from more than one group. We have no coalition government here, nor have we yet developed a system or method of selecting cabinet ministers out of different groups. If the proportion was somewhat different from what it is at the present time, we would have a minority government. Let us suppose for example, that the government is represented by about one-third of the members of this House, and also that the two other groups constitute one-third each of the membership. How is this policy of cabinet responsibilitv going to work out under such conditions? We are face to face with a condition, not a theory, and I maintain that the passing of this resolution, the acceptance of it as a general principle, while it could

Lack of Confidence Vote
not possibly compel a government to keep office if the government did not wish to do so, still would liberate them and all the members in the House from a most embarrassing, unfair bondage which exists at the present time.
It was said a few minutes ago that we must judge an administration by the legislation which it brings down. That is absolutely true; but good servants sometimes make mistakes, and if, as I said a few moments ago, a hired man should refuse to work at all because he was criticised for making one or two mistakes, he would not be, in my opinion, in a proper frame of mind. A good administration may make mistakes. Why should they, at any time, say to this House: "Now, this is our policy; you can take it or not; if you do not vote this thing through, we are going to quit the job." They may be simply making a mistake; there may be nothing sinister or malevolent on the part of the administration. While I think all respect and consideration should be given to government measures, it does not follow that every measure is given the greatest consideration by the Cabinet. If such was the case, what would be the purpose of this House to discuss these questions? If a government has all knowledge, and can always decide wisely on all questions, why then have any body superior to the government, to pass upon government measures to criticise, to ask questions, and all that sort of thing? I do not think the argument advanced in that case is valid.
The right hon. gentleman who leads the government also advanced the opinion that this change which we are proposing would increase rather than decrease the danger of autocracy. I cannot feel that that is so at all. It seems to me that the difficulty which the right hon. gentleman conjured up is met by the provision in the latter part of the resolution requiring a specific vote of confidence or no confidence in the government. Supposing a government brings down a measure, and says: "We believe this is a very important measure; we commend it to your consideration." And supposing it is given consideration by the House and it is turned down. The government has a right to say then: "Does this mean that you wish us to resign?" The government has a perfect right to do that; in fact, it ought to do it, and then it will get its answer as to what this House decides it should do. In my opinion, the difficulties and dangers of greater autocracy are met by the requiring of a specific vote of want of confidence after a government defeat.
Nor do I think that such a change as is proposed would, in the natural course of
events, lead a ministry to be careless as to what it brought before the House. I felt when that point was raised that there was really very little in it. Surely a self-respecting and competent ministry would not, because it was liberated from a difficult position, bring down for the consideration of the House all kinds of questions regardless of whether they were worth considering or not. To suppose that would be to assume that the government had very little sense. No assemblage of people, I take it, would make a practice of doing that sort of thing. Now, it seems to me that this question was pretty forciblj presented to the House the other day by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and I want to read one little quotation he gave. Referring to the two amendments that were presented on that occasion he figuratively held up his hands in horror at the impropriety of the action which was then proposed, and he quoted Tennyson as follows:
A land of settled government,
A land of just and old renown,
Where Freedom slowly broadens down From precedent to precedent.
Everyone here, I think, will subscribe to that; it is what we want. But we do not want stagnation. We want freedom to broaden down, and this is the time when this particular step in the broadening down, or rather the broadening out, of freedom ought to be taken. The Minister of Finance, I think, answered his own objection very properly just a few minutes earlier when he quoted another extract, which I shall read to the House, and which I think is exceedingly pertinent :
New occasions teach new duties;
Time makes ancient good uncouth.
They must upward still, and onward,
Who would keep abreast of truth.
Conditions are changing, and I maintain that this is the next step, not a revolutionary step that would produce chaos or insurrection or anything of that kind, but something that would free us from a very humiliating, disagreeable and embarrassing kind of bondage. I think, Sir, that some support can be secured for the case which we are presenting from the attitude of the government last year. Every hon. member here, will recall the debate on the oleomargarine question. The Prime Minister, I think, stated, when that matter was submitted to the House, that the government was divided and had no policy. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meig-hen) was apparently stricken with horror that suggestion, but to me it seemed a very proper and very desirable attitude on the part of the government. In presenting the problem to the House in that way the government
Lack of Confidence Vote

asked for an expression of opinion, which it received, and subsequently it brought down a bill to embody that opinion in legislation.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Did the government
carry out that expression of opinion?


William Charles Good: I think it did. There was
some criticism when the bill was brought down by reason of the fact that it was only for one year; but apart from that I think the government did carry out the opinion expressed by the House on that occasion. At that time a very sharp exchange of compliments took place between the right hon. gentleman who leads the Conservative party and several other members of the House. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall just read a part of that colloquy. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) spoke in part as follows:
I do not quite hold the same view that my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition does in his criticism of the government for failing to accept full responsibility and bring down its measure. I think the position taken by the government in asking the judgment of the House on this question, as it did a few weeks ago, was a fair and a very defensible position. If that were done a little more frequently in parliament-
Mr. Meighen: We would get into this mess more frequently, would we not?
Mr. Crerar: No, I do not think so at all. I think we would have better results. My criticism of the government in this case is that once the judgment of parliament was taken they did not implement that judgment to the full and make this measure permanent.
I shall not read the next few sentences, but a little further on the hon. member for Marquette is reported as follows:
That is all very well, but if the view of my hon. friend is held to the letter, it simply means that a dozen gentlemen composing the government of this country will decide in cabinet council what is good for the country, and then come to parliament and say, you must take this or turn us out.
Mr. Casgrain: Toryism.
Mr. Meighen: That is right.
Now, the situation last year was very interesting to me. 'I may say that a great many things that have happened here have seemed to me, as a new member, rather absurd. Possibly I could get used to them if I were here long enough; I dare say people can get used to anything. But if we are to interpret history and human life correctly, it seems to me that we must beware of being tied down to conventions I am not a harebrained fanatic. I do not want to see startling and very rapid changes in legislation or constitutional practice. But I do think that we are in constant danger of keeping the lid screwed down too tightly on free speech, on matters of constitutional change, and on everything that encourages or promotes 
change. And the effect of that will be upheavals and explosions.
Let me give another illustration which seems to me to fit the case under discussion at the present moment. There comes a time in the development of every fertile egg in the hatching process when the imprisoned chick begins to break the shell and to emerge. H the chick did not break the shell at a certain period in its development it would die; and it is just as natural for the shell to be broken at a certain stage as for any other change to take place in the organic world. Our customs are very often something like the shell that surrounds the chick -we have to break them or we will die. It was said many years ago, as all hon. members know, that the new wine would burst the old wine-skins. I think that in this chamber at the present time there is a good deal of new wine trying to burst the old skins- old customs which tie us down, cripple and embarrass us and, as far as I can see, do us no good whatever.
I take it that there are two ways in which an administration can carry on. One is by having a solid, and what tends to become a servile, majority behind it. In that way a group of men can ram down the throats of their followers and the country any policy they choose. I think we do not have to look very far back in our history to see something of that sort. The other method is for the government to conform its policy, not only before it brings that policy down but afterwards, to the will of the elected representatives, and through them to the will of the people. I see nothing in that attitude which would indicate any lack of self-respect on the part of a government. In fact, it seems to me that it indicates an attitude the very reverse. I know it has been maintained by many that the selfrespect of this parliament would be taken away if a constitutional check were placed upon it such as might operate through the optional referendum; but, Sir, I do not believe that that is so. We admit that we are here subject to the surveillance and guidance of the electorate, because every four or five years we go back to the fountainhead of power and ask for further instructions and for a fresh mandate. Now, we do not consider that we demean ourselves because we do that. Nor would we, I take it, be any more lacking in self-respect if we were subject to a continuous oversight by the people, which we might have through such a device as the optional referendum. So that the attitude of a government in coming to

Lack oj Confidence Vote
this House, as the present administration did last year in connection with the oleomargarine question, and asking for instructions, and then carrying out those instructions, would not, I think, indicate lack of selfrespect. For my part, I would esteem a man or a group of men much more highly who adopted that attitude rather than the other attitude of: "Well, if you don't like it we'll quit
Attention has been drawn already, Mr. Speaker, to the serious danger of confused or blended issues. I wish to point out again, and to emphasize as much as I can, the tremendous danger which resides in that fact. In all our general elections we have, most unfortunately for this country, a great variety of issues confused or blended. In some places one issue is uppermost, in some places another; and the result is that very rarely are questions considered on their merits. Now, I maintain that anything we can do to disentangle issues, to consider and decide every issue on its own merits, is a step towards better legislation and a truer democracy. But when the fate of an administration is linked up with the acceptance or rejection of a particular policy, I think it is highly unfortunate. It has been maintained, of course, that no harm has resulted by following what has been the genera! practice in this country; but I submit that a great deal of harm has been done. In fact, I am inclined to think that if we could read the hearts of hon. members opposite we would realize that a great deal of harm was done not long ago by their acceptance of an obligation which no doubt compelled many of them to choose what they took to be the lesser of two evils, and to maintain the government in office at all costs, even at the sacrifice of their own principles.
While I would disagree with very little of what the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said by way of general comment on constitutional practice, at the same time I do not think that his remarks were entirely relevant, nor did they constitute any really valid argument against the adoption of this principle. If all parties in this House could only see their way clear to adopt it, I am convinced that we would all feel a great burden taken off our shoulders. Last year I recall that on the budget vote some hon. members were extremely embarrassed by a conflict between their own opinions and what they thought was their duty in regard to the specific situation that faced them. Surely we can get away from that. Surely we are not so tied to custom but what if it is binding and galling we cannot change the custom to
give us freedom and relief. And if we made the proposed change, and it did not work well, we should still be at liberty to restore the present practice. Therefore, taking all things into consideration, I feel that this is a very, very necessary step towards the liberation of all hon. members, and I shall heartily support the resolution.


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, I should not have taken part in this debate, but during its course it has occurred to me that there is presented an aspect of very great importance to a third party in this House. I was somewhat amazed to hear the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) express his attachment for things that are antique. I do not know that it becomes him as a Liberal prime minister to have that sentimental attachment to practices and customs by virtue of their ancient character. It seems to me that he presented no argument that can be considered valid by such a House as this that has come to be what it is through the gradual elimination of things antique and their replacement by others that are modern and more in keeping with our present day thought and action.
With respect to his deprecation of adopting any innovation at the present time in view of world conditions and the very uncertain state of our civilization, well, I modestly put it up to him, assuming that he had reference to Russia: Is the condition of things in Russia due to innovation, or is it due to the resistance of innovation? Does he not think that reasonable concession to progress would have had a very marked influence upon the progress of events in Russia? Every right thinking man believes that it would; it was the unreasoning, blind opposition to reasonable improvements that brought Russia to the condition she finds herself in to-day. It is a well known statement of a famous British philosopher that perverse resistance to reasonable innovation is one of the chief incitements to revolution; it always has been and always will be.
Now with respect to the argument regarding responsible government, that is one of the phrases that it is very easy to conjure with, because it has become part of the mosaic of our British parliamentary stock of ideas. "Responsible government,"

what does it mean? Reflect upon it for a minute. Originally [DOT]-I put it to you-did it not mean the supremacy of parliament? Is that not what it means in the first place? I prefer to look at it in that light. I prefer. to do away with that slippery phrase, "responsible government", it

Lack of Confidence Vote

has no place in rational argument, because it immediately gives rise to many phases of meaning that you can conjure with and that you can use to obscure the purpose of a debate like this. The original idea behind responsible government was simply the supremacy of parliament, and I think that that is the idea we have before us at the present time-the supremacy of this House, not the supremacy of any part of it; not the supremacy of the government or of the governmental party, but the supremacy of this body of elected representatives of the people. That is the idea that we have to hold before us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend a question? How does he make out that it is in any way interfering with the supremacy of parliament to give parliament the right at any and all times to turn the ministry out of office?


Thomas William Bird: I agree that parliament ought to maintain its right to turn the ministry out of office, but it ought also to have the right to say whether a minister shall resign office or not. I mean that parliament ought to be the court of last resort in all instances, on all questions. Originally, as I understand it, responsible government applied to administration only; it meant that a government should be responsible to the House for its acts of administration, and had no reference at all to any transaction that took place within the House itself. That was a very reasonable view, as things were in times past. I hold that the Prime Minister's view of responsible government is out of harmony with the supremacy of parliament as we conceive it, because it simply means that the Cabinet is responsible not to parliament, but to itself. The Prime Minister resents the suggestion that the responsibility of the Cabinet to itself should be interefered with in any way and seems to maintain that the Cabinet should decide all questions that come up, and that nobody else should influence its decision.
Our contention is that the supremacy of this House is the supremacy of its majority- not of the majority of the Liberal party in power at the present time; not of the maj ority of the present cabinet, but of the majority of voices on the floor of the House. The liberties of the people cannot be preserved in any other way. This cabinet supremacy, which is altogether out of harmony with parliament's supremacy, is a thing of latter-day growth. We have seen, by slow development, the powers of parliament filched from our hand. I noted especially last session some expres-

sions of the Prime Minister himself which indicated that he was sensible of that condition-some very remarkable expressions, as I thought, which showed also that the Prime Minister was a good deal better than his creed. His expressions on that occasion indicated his belief that an unhealthy kind of power had come to reside within cabinets, and he intimated that with a view of remedying the condition he was going to see that the Cabinet acted in future more as a committee of the House than it had done in the past. But how is it going to act as a committee of the House if it does not consult the House, if it does not extend to all sections in the House the right to be consulted-the latter, by the way, being a very famous phrase in the history of our constitution.
As I said at the outset, the really important aspect of this discussion is its bearing upon the; third party in the House. We came here last year as a third party, important in point of numbers, and important, too, in respect to the impulse that sent us here-an impulse, which. I conceive, has not estranged it from the forward-looking members of the House, whatever party they belong to. Apart altogether from the sectional matters that we have to bring before you, you will recognize that behind us there is a true democratic impulse. Well, coming here last session we found that a place had by no means been prepared for us, and that when we naturally sought free discussion on many questions we found ourselves trammelled, our hands tied. In the budget debate we saw that come to a head when the third party was tied hand and foot in respect to a free expression of opinion upon matters which were important to the members of that party and to their constituents. That sort of thing is intolerable, and I say that if the Prime Minister and his Cabinet turn down this resolution, it is up to them to see that a greater degree of hospitality is extended toward this third party, this new factor in the parliament of Canada. They should see that we are given greater freedom of expression, that we are not trammelled in any way, in the matter of presenting to the House those things that we are sent here to lay before it.


Mr. MARTELL:: Does my hon. friend not think that it is more in accordance with democracy that he should have the right, if he does not agree with the government, to move a resolution which could result in the defeat of the government, rather than that the way should be opened to the moving of all sorts of academic resolutions which would mean nothing?

Lack of Confidence Vote


Thomas William Bird: I do not know whether I
understand the question aright, but it seems t.) express what I am contending for-that we should have the right to free expression of opinion. We are the court of final appeal on all questions.


Lewis Herbert Martell: Mr. Speaker, to my mind the attitude taken by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is in accordance with all precedents of parliamentary government in the British Empire. If I were on the opposite side of the House and opposing the government, I should regard it as in the best interests of the country, and would consider that I had been given ample opportunity to express my views, if the defeat of a government bill or resolution was regarded by the administration as a vote of want of confidence. If the government cannot carry its legislation through, if the majority of the members of the House are opposed to a government bill or resolution, then that is a matter of want of confidence; that has been the practice in every country where British parliamentary usages have prevailed.
So that I claim that in spite of the present condition of things, in spite of the different groups in this country, it behooves us to consider well before we alter anything which is in accord with British parliamentary institutions. I do not believe it is in the best interests of this country for my hon. friends opposite to get up and move all sorts of academic resolutions, or to have them try and defeat government measures without "taking the necessary consequences.. If the right hon. gentleman who leads the government cannot command a majority of the members of the House, then I think that in acc'ordamje with British parliamentary institutions and British practice it is his duty to resign and go to the country and let the people decide. We are sick and tired of hearing academic questions discussed. We want realities, and my hon. friend and his friends opposite would be well advised to advocate something that is in accord with British parliamentary institutions and with parliamentary practice in this country, instead of constantly bringing up precedents which exist only as a figment of their own imagination.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Meighen: I am opposed, Mr. 15i
Speaker, to the resolution of the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Irvine). At the same time I really do not apprehend that if the resolution were to pass we would immediately be precipitated into a condition of chaos, or anything resembling the unfortunate plight of Russia to-day. I am disposed to think the resolution might pass without anything more disastrous happening than the declaration of a mistaken principle, a principle that the experience of years has shown not to be to the advantage of democracy. I do not think Canada is liable to be plunged into chaos because of such an assertion as this obtaining the approval of parliament. Indeed, even had one of the amendments to the Address or both been passed, and the government consequently suffered defeat, I was really inclined to doubt-and as the nights and days have passed since that time, my doubts have been intensified-whether this Dominion would as a consequence be smouldering in the fires of revolution or even of despair, such as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) threatened us with the other night. My reasons for opposing the resolution are by no means of so startling or determined a character as that. The resolution in its words says:
That, in the opinion of this House, a defeat of a government measure should not be considered as a sufficient reason for the resignation of the government unless followed by a vote of lack of confidence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, even should the resolution pass, I really do not think even any difference in the present practice would then obtain. The government is at liberty to resign any minute. The government is ultimately the sole judge of what shall be sufficient or insufficient cause for its continuance or discontinuance in office; nor does the hon. member for Calgary suggest that a government in this regard should be finally restrained at all. In answer to the very pertinent inquiry of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) the mover said: "No, I would not suggest the rights of a government to resign should be abbreviated. I am quite prepared that these rights shall remain just as ample as they are to-day." Even should the resolution, as it is understood by its sponsor, carry, a government could then take any vote of the House as a vote of want of confidence and retire. Its liberty of action in that regard would not be restrained in the least.
Then I am asked: What would be the consequence of the resolution carrying? Well, it would simply be a declaration by the House that the government would be wrong-even though it had quite a constitutional right- it would be wrong in exercising liberty of ac-
Lack of Confidence Vote

tion, unless an adverse vote were followed by another vote declaring want of confidence. I am not prepared to subscribe to that declaration. I do not think such a declaration would have any appreciable effect on the action of a government at all, but I am not prepared to subscribe to an assertion that a government would be wrong in exercising its undoubted right of resignation and determining for itself when a vote in parliament was such that it made it in the public interest not wise for the government to continue. Why do I say so? Hon. members to my left argue that this suggestion is merely an expansion of democratic principles, merely an elaboration of democratic right, namely for parliament to declare when a government is morally right in exercising its liberty of resignation and when it is morally wrong. Is that really an expansion of democratic right? I am inclined to think the contrary.
In this regard, I come to the similar conclusion to that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), though I must say that I did not understand the process by which he arrived at his conclusion. I come to my opinion, I think, by a much more direct method, not quite the same opinion either, because if the conclusion that a government's right of resignation should be ample, unrestrained by any declaration of parliament; if the conclusion is that a government should always exercise that right, and resign as stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), when it is defeated on its own measure in this House, if that is to be the invariable course, and if such a conclusion is Toryism, then really I must be allowed to subtract from the Toryism of the Prime Minister in expressing my own. I think this an extreme statement of the situation.
The history of the British parliament is illuminating. It lias been well reviewed by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw); but I wondered, as he spoke, if he did not realize that the tendency of the last century and a quarter had been entirely away from the conclusion embodied in this resolution, rather than approximating to it. A century and a quarter ago, this theory much more resembled the practice of Parliament than it does to-day. Then, that is to say, in the latter half of the eighteenth century, it was considered quite the constitutional right of a government to continue in office year after year, although on vital measures met repeatedly with an adverse vote of the people's representatives. But that was in days when the direct answerability of the House of Com-

mons and of the government to the people of the country was in no way as well established, in no way as perfected as that answerability is to-day.
Such a course could never be tolerated in a British parliament at this time. I do not say that it would not be tolerated in a British parliament that a government may suffer defeat and still judge that that defeat is not of a character to warrant its resignation. Even yet that is possible; but the ambit of cases in which that is possible is far more restricted now than it was in the days of Pitt, Walpole, Grey or Peel. What was considered right for those statesmen would, in the days of Asquith, Lloyd George and Bonar Law, be considered a practical usurpation of power. The tendency all through the century and a quarter has been to restrict the privileges of government in this regard, to restrict its right to hold on to office after the general principles of its policy, after its legislative proposals in essence have met with an adverse vote of the House of Commons. To pass this resolution, however well intended it may be, would be not to advance the measure of democratic power and control, but very perceptibly to contract and diminish it.
I stated that there had survived even to the present time-and I think it will always survive-the doctrine that a government is not required, merely because of an adverse vote, under certain limited circumstances, to take that vote as a want of confidence and to retire. In the last thirty years, there have been in the British House of Commons four cases where an adverse vote has been taken on measures of more or less consequence, in one or two cases mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary West, of considerable consequence. But in three or four cases, the government saw fit not to retire; in the one ease, it saw fit to retire. Nevertheless, in the three cases, there were circumstances present which were of an important character and which, undoubtedly, detracted from the obligation of the government to take the vote as a want of confidence.
Every case must be judged in the light of the circumstances that surround it, and I would mention some of the pertinent circumstances as these: First of all, the importance of the measure; that is to say: Does it form an integral part of public policy of the government, or does it not? If it is merely incidental, then that would be a factor to take into account and would tend to lead a government not to take an adverse vote as necessarily fatal to tenure of office. But that alone would not be the only factor. A gov-

Lack of Confidence Vote
eminent would also have to inquire how far that particular piece of legislation, or that adverse vote, perhaps, on a resolution from the other side, affected the commitment of the government to the people of the country, upon which commitment it was returned to office. That would be a fundamental factor as well.
Another factor would be this: How long has the government been in office? If a government is newly returned with a strong and popular majority, then it would not be affected by as light considerations as might be regarded of moment under other circumstances. Still, a fourth factor would be this: How far do indications within parliament and beyond parliament reveal the support of the government in the popular mind? If, by the evidence of by-elections, if by what other evidences might be prominent, a government felt that it was losing popular support, then it would not take so important an adverse vote in parliament to justify its accepting that vote as want of confidence and resigning. All these things must be taken into account; but the tendency of the years has been to restrict the right of government to hang on to office rather than to amplify that right in the presence and under the mandate of an adverse vote of parliament.
As the Prime Minister, however, was speaking, and as he pictured a rather chaotic and dismal future for us if this resolution should pass, I could not help but think how appropriate, perhaps how embarrassing to his followers, that speech would have been just a few months before when the Minister of Militia and Defence, (Mr. Graham) came before this House with his estimates for his department. When the Prime Minister was stating how carefully a government reviewed its proposals before they were submitted to the House of Commons, how thoroughly the needs of the country were canvassed, how deliberate were all those considerations and all that premeditation, how final was the conclusion when the government came before the House of Commons and presented its proposals there, and how those proposals had to be supported or the government was bound to retire or be guilty of autocracy, that awful crime, I wondered how that speech would have sounded last session, had it been made just following the submission of the Minister of Militia and Defence to the rebellious mandate of a few of his followers behind.
I remember how, last session, the government declared that it had considered its proposals with the utmost finality, how it had reviewed the condition of the country and had come to the conclusion that if those militia estimates were reduced at all, then they were below
the margin of safety in Canada and the government could not take the responsibility. But within just a few short days the Minister of Militia came and he said: "I have decided to reduce these estimates; I have decided to drop about one million dollars from the margin of safety for Canada." How appropriate the speech of the Prime Minister to-night would have sounded had he risen to answer his Minister of Militia and Defence on that occasion. It would have been more appropriate and more to the point than it is in answer to the Address and the motion of the hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Irvine). There the government declared that was vital; there it declared it stood and had to stand for the safety of the Dominion. Could anything be more vital than that? But having stood there, it dropped away and did so in order to accommodate itself to the wishes of a mutinous section behind. There was a case where the government should have stood, if ever such a case existed in the parliament of Canada. There is a case where this government receded and surrendered.
I do not subscribe to the viewpoint, I might say to the general theory or principle that seems to animate certain hon. gentlemen in this House. I do not for a moment challenge the sincerity of their attitude; in fact I know that their viewpoint is the viewpoint of the majority, at least it was, of those they represent, for this very principle has been under consideration at popular assemblies of their followers through this country many a time, and I think it has usually received approval. I do not subscribe to the viewpoint that the government of Canada is in the nature of a hired servant whose only duty is to obey the directions, the orders, the mandates of the representatives in parliament who support it, of parliament as a whole, and of the populace of the country. I do not subscribe to the theory that the government is in the relation of a hired man to this House. I do not believe in the hired man theory at all; I did not believe it when I was in office and I do not change my belief when in opposition. Such a theory is entirely at variance with the whole idea of constitutional government. The government is in no sense the hired man of the House of Commons; it is not a committee of the House of Commons. We had that theory brought forward last session, and these words came from the mouth of the Prime Minister, although we did not hear much to that effect this afternoon. The fact is that the theory is wrong; it is not British at all. I repeat, a government is not a committee of the House of Commons: it is the responsible
Lack of Confidence Vote

body of officers of the King in this country. The duty of the government is to lead public policy, domestic and foreign. The government must submit their proposals to the people's representatives and must abide by the verdict of those representatives, favourable or unfavourable, whatever it may be. And a country that is accursed with a government that has not within itself the power of leadership, of showing what the right road is in the light of information that only a government can have, is going to suffer in the race in this world. It is not going to enjoy what it ought to enjoy; it is not going to get the service it ought to get from the government that leads it. A government must submit legislative proposals and must take the leadership, because it is in a position to take leadership; and those who hold the theory that leadership can be taken by the rank and file are opposed to a principle which it seems to me has been vindicated by the march of centuries, of ages. Those in authority must lead. The British constitutional practice has led to this result. While they lead, they may be checked, they may be directed, they may be hurled from power as the penalty of failure. But failure to lead is just as great a failure as any other. The government is answerable for its legislative proposals to this House in just precisely the same way as it is answerable for its administrative acts; it is responsible for the one as it is responsible for the other. It is charged with the responsibility of initiating both, and the government that fails in either respect does not do its duty by the people of the country which it is supposed to lead.
Now, I do not deny for a moment that some of the difficulties which hon. gentlemen to my left have expatiated upon to-day do arise as a consequence of that practice. I do not deny at all that times arise when members of this House have to decide between the support of a measure, on which perhaps the balance of influence, in their own minds, say, would be favourable, and voting against it, when they know that a vote against that measure is a vote of want of confidence in the administration. I know that the consequence is that the question of confidence comes into the question of the merits of the specific proposal or the specific legislation. If that is confusion, then to that degree there is confusion. But that we must abide by. There is no way by which that can be surmounted, except at a cost that would be far greater than any possible results of confusion which hon. gentlemen may have in mind. If a government could come into the House and, either through one of its 
own members or through a private member, propose a course of fundamental public policy going to the very root of the prosperity of the country, going perhaps to the very root of our national destiny, and then, having been defeated upon that and having found that it does not meet with the favour of the House, say, "Very well, we will wait a few weeks and come back again with another proposal and see whether it will not meet with approval at the hands of parliament; after we have tested the situation we will come again,"-if that could be done, I say, then the moral authority of government would be gone. If that could be done no government could command any respect. There are times, on matters of minor consequence, where perhaps it is justifiable for an administration to leave to the general vote of parliament, without the lead of government, the direction of its course. But necessarily that must be in regard to a matter of minor consequence; and necessarily, also, it must be rare. For if even that were to occur frequently-and I am making no reference to the present administration, because so far they have not done it frequently-if the government were to come frequently to parliament and say, " Upon this subject we cannot unite, upon this subject we have no opinion, we will leave it to you and will act merely as your messengers and carry out whatever you say, because we have no opinion to offer ourselves," then, I repeat, the moral authority of government throughout the country would be impaired day by day. And no government could long last in this Dominion or in any other British country that frequently submitted itself to the exigencies of situations such as that. Occasionally, I say, it is possible.
Let us for a moment just review the ocasion last session when it did occur. The government had no united view on the question of the admission of oleomargarine into this country. Consequently, they said to parliament, "We cannot unite; we have no opinion as a government. You discuss it now and decide what you want' and we will carry out your wishes, whatever they may be." Parliament discussed the matter and decided on the permanent admission of oleomargarine into the country. The government found that they could not accept that decision. A division in the government made it impossible to carry out the recommendation. What did they do? They came and said, "We promised to carry out your wishes but we cannot. However, if you will meet us half way we will meet you and admit oleomargarine for twelve months."

Lack oj Confidence Vote
And we had the spectacle in the House of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) standing in his place, the sponsor of a measure which he described in his own classical language as a rotten old bill. Now, that was a consequence of one of the departures from the constitutional principle. Let these instances be rare; and especially, I suggest, let them be rare on the part of the present administration. For any moral authority which it may have enjoyed a year ago is very seriously reduced just now. Do not let that moral authority be prejudiced by failure to unite on important measures of any character. Let the government show to the country that it is united and that it can advance opinions that are government opinions and policies that are government policies. The more we follow that course the more we shall lead to the result where there shall be the most immediate answerability of government to parliament. And that, as I understand it, is the perfection of British institutions.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended taking part in this debate, because I imagine that the arguments from this part of the House have been pretty well presented. But I almost felt compelled to express my appreciation of the very mild and generous criticism which we have had to-night from the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen). I must compliment him upon his changed attitude; I hope he will continue as he is doing. If he does, I can assure him we will reciprocate. I am not at all afraid of the consequences that are likely to ensue if the proposal now submitted to the House is accepted. I was reading to-night an article in the Manitoba Free Press, w'hen we offered that amendment to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) pointed out to us the dire consequences that would ensue should that amendment be carried. Nevertheless we persisted, and I find to-night when I take up the most influential paper in the three prairie provinces that it has nothing but praise for our action and declares that we have once again demonstrated to the country that there are only two parties in this House: the party that sits in this quarter of the chamber and the members of the other parties scattered on both sides of the house. Sometimes I have wondered, Mr. Speaker, if there is a reason for our existence, but as the days go by I feel pretty sure that we are exercising a good influence on the government of this country.
I do not know that I have felt exactly pleased with our position in many instances. Some people imagine that to hold the balance of power is a good position to occupy in this House. I am not one of those. I do not want to occupy a position where we must simply sit and wait and throw our influence on one side or on 'the other as it pleases us. I do not believe that that makes for the best system of government. I should like the privilege and opportunity of having at least some share in formulating the principles and ideas that shall come before this House, and I cannot but believe that the move we are now taking is in that direction.
The right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has said that you cannot prevent a government from resigning. I do not think any one has ever entertained an idea of that kind. We are perfectly aware of the fact that the government can resign any day they choose. But that is a different thing altogether to what is contemplated by this resolution. Very recently in this House we were called upon to decide between voting with the government or forcing an election upon an issue, not of national importance, but in some respects almost trivial.
Now, we are sometimes twitted with being afraid of precipitating an election. I want to put the House right upon that matter without further delay. I take up the newspapers now and then that are not very friendly towards members in this part of the House and I find they indulge in rather cheap talk about our being afraid to go back to our constituencies to fight an election, and consequently the government is quite sure of our support at all times. I want to tell hon. members that in no part of the House are the members so sure of their seats as those in this section. On the amendment to the Address-


Henry Herbert Stevens: You divided.


Robert Forke: I could go back to the constituency of Brandon, Mr. Speaker, and probably I would get an acclamation. So I hope our opponents will not waste any more time twitting us with being afraid of another election, because we are pretty nearly sure of the ground we are taking. The hon. gentleman to my right (Mr. Stevens) says we are divided. Well, he and his friends are never divided. That is one virtue they have, anyway, they are unanimous.
Now, as to parliamentary government. I listened with a good deal of admiration to the speech of the Prime Minister. He went

Lack of Confidence Vote
back a long way into British parliamentary history, for of course the British constitution and parliamentary practice play a large part in all these discussions. The right hon. leader of the Opposition also went back into British parliamentary history. I quite agree with them to a great extent. I am a great admirer of British institutions. But at the same time we are moving forward day by day, and new conditions demand new methods. I took the following extract from Lowell's Government of England, to be found at page 80:
No serious changes ill the structure of the cabinet are probable so long as parliamentary government retains the present form; and it is too early to speculate on the changes that may occur if the parliamentary system itself becomes modified under the pressure of political parties acting in a democratic country.
I claim, Mr. Speaker, that that time has arrived, that we are living under new conditions, and that we must carry on our parliamentary institutions under new conditions. The British parliamentary practice has been founded on the two-party system. In this House we now have three parties. I know there have been third and fourth parties in the British House of Commons, but they never exercised any large influence on the government, certainly nothing to the same degree that this party exercises upon the government in this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Forke: I am a very modest man. I repeat again, new conditions require new methods. Reference has been made to the British parliamentary system. I do not know but what that system has been breaking down for almost half a generation now, and we see at times an almost chaotic condition prevailing in the Mother of Parliaments. I believe that one of the tragedies of our modern system of government is the lessening of the people's faith in parliamentary institutions. Why has this occurred? Simply because cabinets, through custom, have become autocratic, forcing their policies through parliament with the help of an obedient majority, so that parliamentary government has largely become a farce. I believe that a great deal of credit is due to the Prime Minister for some of the methods he adopted last year, and it would not do any harm if he proceeded further along the same path this year. I for one would be quite ready to give assistance and advice in many cases-again I speak with all modesty, Sir,-before the government committed itself irretrievably to any measure upon which there may be a difference of opinion. That, I believe, would be true parliamentary government.
[Mr. Forked
I have no fear if this resolution should be given effect to: on the contrary, I believe that government will move along a great deal more smoothly and in the better interests of the country. In conclusion, Sir, let me say that I do not want to hear any more of those taunts that we are afraid to vote against the government for fear there should be a dissolution of parliament.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter contained in the resolution is somewhat circumscribed, and there is very little new that one can say regarding it. However, the discussion has been quite interesting and should do considerable good. But that discussion having taken place, I venture to submit to the House that little benefit could come from forcing a vote upon the resolution.
The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr Shaw) I think stated the constitutional question very well this afternoon; but I do not think he spoke in support of the resolution. Every argument he adduced, every parliamentary precedent that he referred to, was evidently and obviously in support of the position taken by hon. gentlemen who oppose him. Some hon. members opposite have insinuated that to oppose this resolution is to be unprogressive and that such opposition would disclose an illiberal tendency. On the contrary, I assert that the adoption of this resolution would be unprogressive and reactionary in its effect.
The leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke) has referred to the fact that parliamentary practice is always developing new phases. This is quite true. That being so, why attempt to circumscribe and make rigid parliamentary practice by the adoption of a set formula and expect it to be applicable to-day, to-morrow, and afterwards? That is not characteristic of parliamentary practice under British institutions, and I believe we will make sounder progress by following the old paths than by attempting to lay down procedure to guide future parliaments.
The actions of the legislatures of Alberta and Nova Scotia have been referred to. I deny the right of Alberta to establish parliamentary precedents which we must follow. I really do not know what action that legislature did take. My attention was called this afternoon by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), who sits beside me, to the fact that on the occasion of the first motion, similar to that which we are now considering, being made in the legislature of Alberta it was ruled out of order; possibly it was later adopted. I cannot recall the circumstances

Lack of Confidence Vote
under which the Nova Scotia legislature adopted, as it is alleged, a similar resolution. Academic resolutions get us nowhere when we are discussing serious questions. The arguments advanced in these legislatures may have been weak or irrelevant, and it is hardly to the point to cite the action of these legislatures in support of arguments on behalf of the motion now before the House.
I quite agree with the position taken by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) regarding the argument advanced this afternoon that^ legislators are not in the position of hired servants; it is time we abandoned that theory. I think it is regrettable that hon. gentlemen opposite in the Progressive party, who, I admit, contribute a great deal to the public life of this country and to progressive legislation and progressive ideas, display a disposition to be guided too much by the dicta and the resolutions of commercial or occupational organizations in their several constituencies. It will be unfortunate for this country or for parliament if members of parliament feel that they are bound by the academic resolutions passed by bodies within their constituencies upon the varipus questions coming before us from time to time for consideration.
Reference has also been made to the two amendments which were moved upon the consideration of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I did not speak upon that occasion, but I do not hesitate now to say that the first amendment was clearly a vote of want of confidence in the government. I hardly know what to say about the sub-amendment of the member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw). I do not impute to him any improper motives; it was his absolute right to make the motion. But after all, it was no more than a pious wink, or a yawn, or a purposeless gesture. I do not see how he could have expected the House to support it. Still, in the abstract one would not have liked to condemn it; the hon. member was merely asserting something that everyone believed in. I think the point was taken that the Speech from the Throne did make reference to the question of economy in public expenditure.
Some hon. gentlemen this afternoon attempted to give expression to the view that because in this parliament we have several groups, parliamentary practice will have to be changed. If the group system persists, and if in any parliament the government party constituted a minority of the House, that is, were not equal in numbers to the opposing groups-and we were desirous of having settled, well-ordered, continuous government,
some changes in our constitution might be necessary. I have often thought there is a good deal to be said in favour of a fixed period of parliament, such as obtains in the United States and in France. If the electors should in the future decide that the two historic parties have to be abandoned and that we are to have in parliament four or five or six groups, it is quite conceivable that the constitution would have to be amended in order to ensure some degree of permanence in the government charged with the responsibility of administering the affairs of the country. However, I do not think it is necessary to consider that just at the present moment.
There is not much reason, Mr. Speaker, for a lengthy debate upon this resolution, still less for a vote upon it, because it is merely declaratory of that which is now parliamentary practice here and in Great Britain. I understood the right hon. leader of the Opposition to take that position, and I think he was right. If that is so, then a discussion of the issue is purposeless.
I have already stated that in my judgment it would be a mistake to attempt to lay down any rigid formula for the guidance of parliament so far as its practice is concerned. We would find that unsatisfactory. From day to day things would be occurring that could not be squared with this formula; so I think it is wiser to deal with questions of parliamentary practice in their concrete form as they arise. Now, the resolution says:
That in the opinion of this House, a defeat of a government measure should not be considered as a sufficient reason for the resignation of the government.
Nobody can challenge that statement; the member for Calgary West cited ample authority this afternoon in support of it I have never heard anything to the contrary asserted in this parliament; it has always been the practice here. Perhaps in this country we have construed it a little too narrowly, and frequently governments have not extended to their supporters quite the measure of freedom that they might well have done. I think that in England they are a little broader in their interpretation of this parliamentary practice. However, the portion of the resolution that I have read is now the accepted parliamentary practice in this country, and there is nothing to be gained by reasserting or implementing it or supporting it further by a vote of parliament. If the government were defeated to-night, it would not necessarily follow that they would resign. Parliament would hardly expect that to follow; the country would not expect it. The

Lack of Confidence Vote
question of whether or not the government should resign would depend upon the importance of the resolution and a great many other considerations; it could be properly decided only upon a full consideration of all the attending facts.
The constitutional position, I think, was well put by the Hon. Mr. Balfour in the statement quoted by the hon. member for Calgary West, and I would like briefly to refer to it again. Mr. Balfour was Prime Minister of Great Britain at the time, with a parliamentary majority of seventy. His government was defeated on a vote which had some relation to Irish issues, and the opposition naturally called upon him to resign. He made a review of the constitutional history of the question, and after referring to the precedents he concluded as follows:
Now I think it is evident from this brief, and perhaps too rapid, survey of recent constitutional history that the only divisions which, taken by themselves, and in isolation from the general circumstances of the time, from the feeling of the Parties in the House, from the question of union in the cabinet- the only parliamentary issues which, taken in isolation from thse attendant circumstancs, have always been regarded as conclusive are those in which there has been a trial of strength between the parties with all the circumstances of notice and other attendant incidents required to make it clear that the issue to be decided is one of "confidence" or "no confidence". A case which I have just alluded to in another connection shows how rigidly this rule has been drawn; because, while it is the ordinary view-and I think, broadly speaking, the sound view-that a hostile vote on the Address is regarded as a vote of censure and is supposed to be fatal to the government, I have just reminded the House that such a hostile vote was actually given in 1904 on the Address, and all that the then leader of the House and the then Prime Minister did was to reintroduce the Address in a somewhat abbreviated form.
The substance of the remarks of the Hon. Mr. Balfour which I have just quoted to the House means that only under exceptional circumstances, where the issue has been clear-cut between the parties, is the resignation of a government contemplated under obtaining British parliamentary practice, and that is what this resolution in its former part asserts, namely:
That, in the opinion of this House, a defeat of a government measure should not be considered as a sufficient reason for the resignation of the government.
All the authority which my hon. friend from Calgary West (Mr. Shaw) quoted this afternoon was in support of that position, which I say is the prevailing parliamentary practice.
The resolution, however, goes on to say, "unless followed by a vote of lack of confidence." Clearly that is the parliamentary practice to-day. It could not be otherwise. If a government is defeated upon a measure

and declines to resign, there is only one method by which its opponents can force the issue, and that is by immediately moving a vote of want of confidence. That is what happened in the case which Mr. Balfour was discussing in 1905. Some hon. gentleman put on the order paper a notice of motion of want of confidence in the government, after its defeat. Mr. Balfour, however, anticipated that by moving the adjournment of the debate after he had made the statement from which I have just quoted; it was the same thing, of course. I again say that when a government meets with an adverse vote in parliament, if it does not of its own volition resign, if it does not itself regard the circumstances as of sufficient importance to justify its immediate resignation, and if the contrary view obtains among its opponents, it is the duty of those opposing the government immediately to move a vote of want of confidence. So, therefore, I say that this resolution is merely declaratory of what is the present sound parliamentary practice in this country and Great Britain. I further say that it would be a great mistake on our part to attempt to make an inflexible rule regarding such matters. Parliamentary practice,, as every hon. gentleman knows, is a growth, a development, and I think we shall best meet the needs of our time and of the future by allowing the practice of our parliament to grow and develop in the future as it has in the past.
I agree with the hon. gentlemen who have enunciated the proposition that after all it is the government, the executive of this country that is best able to judge how it should interpret an adverse vote in parliament. But this resolution, in effect, says that if a government after an adverse vote secures a vote of confidence, it should not resign. That is not sound parliamentary practice. Mr. Campbell-Bannerman in that same debate took the position that because a government happens to have a parliamentary majority, it does not follow that it should retain office. It is quite obvious that selfish interests, personal interests, might induce members of parliament to disregard what was obviously a public opinion adverse to the government in office. But if this were the rigid and inflexible rule it would be very difficult to say whether an administration was acting improperly if, after having secured a vote of confidence from parliament, it should still retain office. Mr. Campbell-Bannerman replied to Mr. Balfour in the debate from which I have quoted, and discussing the precedents referred to by him, he said in part:

Lack of Confidence Vote
Some of them are of an important character, and some are of no importance at all; and they depend, as he himself had to admit, upon the circumstances in which they occurred as well as upon the merits. I will say at once that this was no ordinary occasion of the defeat of a government. The right hon. gentleman has endeavoured to make light of the indication of the feeling of the country afforded by the by-elections. He has done so on many occasions 'before; and the attitude he has taken is this-that as long as he was not deprived of the support of his friends in the House, he considered that he was entitled to retain office, notwithstanding any amount of by-elections or other indications of a change of popular feeling. In that he takes up what I believe to be an entirely unconstitutional position. It is common for us to say, and it is true constitutionally, that the Minister of the Crown in this country is selected and appointed because he is the man who commands a majority in the House of Commons. But what does that mean? It means that the command of the majority of the House represents the feeling of the country. The moment the House of Commons get out of touch and harmony with the country then that plea for retaining office dissolves; and the right hon. Gentleman has no right to entrench himself behind the confidence and support of his friends here after it is known to all mankind and to himself, as well as to any of them, that he has lost the confidence of the country.
I think that is a sound position. It does not follow, it should not follow, that because a government is able to secure the
9 p.m. passage of a vote of confidence in parliament, it should therefore retain
office.
In conclusion, I wish to say that there is nothing particularly new in this resolution. It merely asserts what is the parliamentary practice at the moment; but apparently it seeks to make rigid this practice, and to establish it as a permanent and fixed parliamentary rule, instead of practice. I think it [DOT] would be a great misfortune for parliament to adopt this resolution.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I have but a few words to add to the present debate. This resolution is of the utmost importance. Its aim, indeed, is to amend a parliamentary practice by introducing means of lessening or removing altogether the responsibility of the government. I am entirely opposed to this resolution. I do not need, Sir, to invoke principles which are well known to the members of this House. The government must have the confidence of parliament and especially of the House of Commons. The government cannot conduct the public affairs of the country the moment confidence is withdrawn from it. The means which are at the disposal of the House to signify to the government that it no more enjoys that confidence, are as follows: First, a motion of nonconfidence; secondly, the rejection of legis-tion brought down by the government and
on which the government insists, and, lastly the adoption by this House of legislation, against the will and consent of the govern- _ ment. These are the recognized principles of parliamentary practice and procedure. What does this resolution contain? We are told that the rejection of a government motion should not be considered sufficient to bring about the resignation of the Cabinet, unless it is followed by a vote of non-confidence. It is therefore evident that, if this resolution was adopted, we should be departing from principles established for ever so long in our parliamentary practice and by which it is recognized that, if a government bill is thrown out by the House, the government must retire. Therefore, I contend that this resolution should certainly not be adopted.
Some members who spoke on this resolution have stated that times have changed, that we should adopt new methods to meet the present needs, and they alluded to the existence of three parties in this House: the Government, the Opposition and the third party, the Progressives. They contend that owing to this third party our parliamentary procedure should be modified and that a new constitution should be given us. I answer: No.
It is not only in this country that different parties exist in parliament. The British House, for ever so long, has been divided into many parties. Yet, did they think it proper to amend parliamentary practice and procedure? No more in England than here was it thought proper to change the existing state of things to suit more than two parties, and following in the footsteps of England, Canada will not undertake this innovation and destroy those ancient customs that we have cherished for centuries and that we must preciously maintain in our country.
Moreover, it was argued that if we introduced in our parliamentary practice the change proposed in this resolution, it would help the members to initiate resolutions and give, so to speak, new life to the administration of this country. Are the members, Sir, of the opposition-in fact of any opposition whatever-deprived of the opportunity of discussing and opposing the measures brought down in this House? I contend that they have that privilege much more so than the partisans of the government, for it is much easier to criticize than to praise a sound measure. Those who form part of the opposition can certainly not contend that they are deprived of the right to consider and discuss any proposed legislation. Under
Lack of Confidence Vote

the present parliamentary practice, the opposition has not only the privilege of debating the proposed government measures, but also has the right to propose amendments which under certain conditions may be accepted by the government. I have here Mignault's hand-book on Parliamentary Procedure, and I find the following quotation at page 147:-
Up to a certain stage the government may accept certain amendments that the House has approved, even contrary to its wishes, but you cannot force it to sanction motions which would change the nature of an important measure; under such circumstances its duty would be to beg leave to withdraw the measure or resign.
That is evident and it has been in almost continuous practice ever since the existence of our parliament," that the opposition, criticizing a government measure, may force the latter to include amendments which are in the interest of sound legislation; however, these amendments must not go to the extent of changing the nature of the proposed legislation, because if so, the amendments proposed by the opposition would evidently amount to a vote of lack of confidence.
The present debate on the important question of government responsibility recalls to my mind another period of our history. I think we should watch with a jealous eye over the prerogatives which were then obtained by our forefathers. If I glance over the past, during the first days of Union government, when parliament met at Kingston, in 1841, I come across parliamentarians-and they were of our race-like the Vigers and the Morins, who joined the reformists of Ontario to demand from the Draper government, an acknowledgement of the principle of government responsibility.	.
It is due to their untiring efforts and just claims, that the Draper government found itself forced to resign and to make way for these illustrious men, Baldwin and Lafontaine, who secured for us responsible government.
Some of the reasons brought forth by these statesmen are as follows:
The immediate advisers of the representative of the Crown must enjoy at all times the confidence of the representatives of the people, so as to maintain between the different branches of the legislature the harmony so necessary to peace and the security of the public, whose well understood wishes and interests must be the rule of the government of this province.
Such were the' contentions put forward in 1841, during the first period of Union government, and these contentions were in favour of responsible government.
Monuments to Baldwin and Lafontaine have been erected close to here and the visitor has but to walk around this building to IMr Fortier.]
admire those who obtained for us responsible government. This resolution stands in the way of this responsibility and I am therefore opposed to it.


George Perry Graham: I think that probably I cannot add anything to the debate which has taken place, but one or two things have struck me. It makes a difference whether you are in the government or out of it, which way you look at these Lungs. A man that is a sworn adviser of His Majesty, with all the responsibility he has to carry as to what that advice shall be, cannot lightly pass that responsibility on to another. On the other hand, the man that is not in the government has in his sphere, a full responsibility just as far-reaching as that of a member of the government and-I say this in all kindness.-he ought to be prepared, no matter what the consequences may be, to accept that full measure of responsibility in every vote that he gives. If the result be the defeat of a government, then let the government be defeated. But it rests with the member himself to take that responsibility and, if this resolution passes, I submit that any member who desired to make himself popular in his constituency, could do so and escape the responsibility that ought to be his if the consequences of that vote meant the defeat of the government.
I agree with the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) that a government itself must largely decide whether a vote is of sufficient magnitude or importance to justify that government in resigning; but if a majority of the members of parliament vote against the government that indicates that it has not the confidence of parliament, no matter what may be said by the member who moves the resolution or members who vote in favour of it. To declare to the House that a motion is not a want of confidence motion does not make it so. The government, in a large measure, must decide that for itself.
Another point that has struck me is this. On this continent there are two distinct forms of government which we can contrast. In the United States, the members of the cabinet do not sit in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. Their cabinet is a distinct and separate body, whose members do not appear in congress to propose or to defend their measures. We have, we think, the advantage in that respect, in that the members of a government in Canada must have a place in one House or the other to explain the legislation or to defend the

Lack oj Confidence Vote
measures of the government. If we are going to depart from that, then we must accept the other form of government. To my mind, there is no happy medium such as is proposed by hon. gentlemen in this resolution. We have always prided ourselves in this country on the fact that our people could have their views put into force more quickly than could be done in the United States. If the sentiment of the country changes one year after an election, the members of parliament can vote out the government, and the people can at once elect a parliament from which will be selected a government, the views of which will be in harmony with the views of the people.
There is, in the world, no system by which the views of the people can so quickly be put into action in a parliamentary sense as the old British system. I agree with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) that if we are going to depart from that system, the only other practical alternative is to have a fixed parliamentary term. Then, no matter whether government measures are defeated or not, that government stays in power until its term expires. I am not in favour of that; I believe in the old British system under which nobody has suffered, but under which as the years go by, improvements have constantly been taking place which have proved beneficial to the people. You ask me: How are the people of Canada under our system of government enabled to get their views represented so quickly in a parliamentary election? Only in one way, and that is when parliament ceases to believe in the government in power and its policy, and by a majority vote puts that government out. We cannot well say that it is practical for a government to maintain the respect even of parliament, much less of the country, if every three or four days, government policies should be voted down in the House. It would be government in name but not government at all in reality. It would be merely a combination of men, acting within their rights, getting together each day, or on stated occasions, or whenever they felt like it, springing some motion to which everybody in the world might agree on some other occasion, and placing the government in a minority. I appeal to hon. gentlemen who are in favour of this motion -if they were in the government, would they like to attempt to carry on government under such circumstances? Members of the government would be advisers of His Majesty, the King, but they would have to wait until somebody advised them what to say. I see
no real, practical value in this resolution, although, of course, every member has a right to move any resolution he likes. I do not think I am a Tory.


Robert Forke: That is a matter of opinion.


George Perry Graham: I would not like to be one; I would not like to be considered one; but what has been good enough for the Mother of Parliaments is good enough for the Dominion of Canada, and unless we propose to adhere to what is obviously sane and sound parliamentary practice that when a government loses the confidence of parliament, it should resign, then we must go to the other form of government and accept that form which prevails in the United States, and by which a government does not have to resign, but has a fixed term.
Does this give parliament greater freedom? Does it follow the line of Tennyson which was quoted, I think, by two or three members about "broadening down from precedent to precedent?" I think this restricts parliament, restricts the government in a wrong sense, adversely, in this way. You place a government, that wants to be in such a position and that is not overly sensitive to its self-respect, in a position where it could hang on day after day, week after week, where it could say: "That is not a vote of want of confidence; we do not intend to resign until you absolutely kick us out." Under present circumstances, when parliament gives a majority on any serious question against the government, the government, no matter how we may argue, is expected to do something- either to ask for a dissolution of parliament or to resign. If you give a government the right to hang on day after day, week after week, and month after month, as this resolution would do, until some person gets up and says: "Well now, this is our resolution, and if we carry this, you are to go out"-I think that would be a most humiliating spectacle. There is nothing progressive in this resolution; what is new in it is of a rather retrograde character.
I want to make it clear again that I believe in the old British parliamentary system. The practice of the Mother of Parliaments upon which our constitution is based is good enough for us. We followed it for some years, and while I believe in things new I do not believe in adopting them merely because they are new, unless they are an improvement on the old. I stand for the old principle, and I believe there is only one alternative. If we abandon that principle let us adopt the term system, so that a govern-
Lack of Confidence Vote

ment may not be defeated except at such time as is indicated in the act.


Charles A. Stewart: I had hoped that some other members on the opposition side would have spoken to the motion. It is not a new one to me. It is one that we had under consideration in the legislature of Alberta some years ago, although in a form somewhat modified as compared to the resolution presented here to-day. The motion considered in the Alberta legislature provided that on all matters except those pertaining to finance the government were not to consider themselves defeated unless on a vote of want of confidence. On that occasion the motion was defeated. Subsequently it came up in the House under a new government, and the motion was carried, the premier, the attorney general and the minister of agriculture refusing to vote. That in itself is an innovation. Formerly it was the duty of every member in the legislature to record his vote. That is not now compulsory if the member does not feel it incumbent upon him to vote. That, however, is not what I particularly wish to speak of to-night. What I want to point out especially is that if we are to Have constitutional government in Canada -and I think we are all agreed that we want constitutional government in this country, and that we want to preserve that government in its entirety-we should be taking a rather grave step if we supported a resolution of this character.
It is not, nor would the government so look upon it, a serious thing to have hon. gen-tlement opposite vote against a policy or a principle introduced by the administration. That would not be considered a serious matter at all. But the resolution clearly points to another aspect of the question, namely, the affording of full freedom-because, after all, that is what is behind the resolution-for the supporters of the government to vote against a government policy. And in no other way could the government be defeated. Now, a great deal has been said by my Progressive friends with respect to caucus and the evils of caucus. But under responsible government we shall always have to have a caucus; and, indeed, my hon. friends themselves resort to the caucus for the purpose of discussing matters of importance to them as a party in this House. And they will always have to do that. Any party that wishes to present a united front upon matters that are of importance to the House and to the country will of necessity have to get together and discuss them. Therefore hon. members of the Progressive party pursue, as the old parties have

pursued throughout the years, the system of calling their members together in caucus. After all the government of the day are the responsible source from which must emanate the agenda that is to be submitted to parliament for consideration; and no one will go the length of saying that in caucus all members of the party agree with the agenda submitted by the government to them. I think my hon. friends of both parties opposite will concede that matters submitted by their leaders are not always acceptable to all the members of the party to which they owe allegiance. But what is agreed to by the majority-and usually the great majority

of the members of the party in caucus is ultimately, so far as the government is concerned, the legislation submitted to the House for discussion. All I have to say, after some twelve or fourteen years of experience in public life, is that unless we are to have a somewhat chaotic condition, we must have unity of parties. Not always can we have our own way about different matters, but acting in unison we shall make the greatest progress with legislation and in the interests of the general welfare of the people. The resolution, as I see it, would to a large extent undermine the stability of government.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
inevitable. It is an utter impossibility for anything else to ensue from such a resolution. But suppose a government measure were defeated. The resolution distinctly declares that this must not be regarded of necessity as a defeat of the administration. Why, it puts the government at the mercy, perhaps, of a very few of its own members. This government has a majority of only two or three, and such a resolution might place it in such a position where it would find itself in the hands of two or three of its following upon any occasion. Now, that does not tend to stability. My hon. friends make the statement that we have a new order of things; that we have in this House three parties who have a right to be heard.


William Irvine: Four.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, it does not matter whether three or six. There is no difficulty about any party being heard. If a government is to be allowed to continue in office after having lost the confidence of the members of the House of Commons, who are the people's representatives, besides having lost the confidence of the men who are elected to support it, then in my opinion it is

Lack of Confidence Vote
in a very unattainable position; and I have simply to say, what I have said on former occasions, that any government that finds itself in that position is in duty bound to go to the Governor General and tender its resignation and appeal to the people who, after all, are the final arbiters in matters of this kind. There can be no question about that. In my opinion, far from having a democratic intent, the resolution tends in exactly the opposite direction. It seeks to allow the government to stay in office after it has lost the confidence of its own supporters


Robert Forke: No.


Charles A. Stewart: -until a vote of want of confidence is proposed. I cannot interpret the resolution in any other way, and so far as I am concerned I should not want to remain in office one moment after having lost the confidence of the supporters of the government or of the House itself upon .any important government measure.
Something has been said this evening in regard to the government's obligation to assume full responsibility. Well, it should take responsibility. But that does not necessarily mean that the eighteen or twenty members who constitute the government of the day should take upon themselves, in an autocratic spirit, to dominate the policy of 234 odd members in the House. That, I take it, is not the spirit of responsible government. But it undoubtedly means that after consultation with their followers they have decided upon a policy, but they have not sufficient strength to carry it in the House of Commons, and they are defeated. Then they have lost the confidence of the people's representatives and they ought to resign.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I certainly make no pretence at being a student of constitutional government, but I think I can pass a fair judgment upon the opinions of other students of the subject, and therefore I would say that if the present government never gets nearer to unanimity of opinion upon a government measure than its ministers and supporters have reached upon what they consider to be the constitutional form of government, it would be better if they entrusted matters of policy entirely to this House.
The Prime Minister tells us that this is a Bolsheviki, Sovietical proposition; the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) tells us that this is nothing more nor less than a mild declaration of a policy that has been recognized in all British history by the constitution, and therefore it is useless to vote
on it because it has always been in vogue. Then another hon. member tells us that this is making straight for the United States system of government; and still another tells" us that it is something else. I am beginning to wonder what this thing is anyhow. I am referring, of course, to the British constitution-that admirable thing which does not exist.
The hon. member for Halifax reminded me of that ancient school of Greek philosophers who undertook to eliminate space and motion by metaphysics. They argued thus: space looks like nothing; nothing does not exist; therefore space does not exist. Motion must have space in which to move, but if space does not exist, then motion has no place in which to move; therefore motion does not exist; and therefore neither space nor motion exists. He begins by a metaphysical process to eliminate any meaning from the resolution whatsoever, and then he concludes that it is a statement of the British constitution, and he finishes up by telling us that it is not entirely like the British constitution, because if it were the government would be bound to resign after receiving an adverse vote, which point he spent considerable time in rebutting. So I do not know if I should take his argument seriously. Obviously either the resolution or the British constitution is not understood by the hon. gentlemen who have undertaken to criticise this motion.
The hon. Prime Minister surprised and rather disappointed me with the nature and spirit of his argument. This is no time or place for change. That is the argument of the Prime Minister of a Liberal government. We are to be cautious of all innovation, because the world is filled with unrest; and we are to be careful lest a Soviet system might be bom here, as we understand that one has been bom somewhere else. These are unworthy arguments in connection with a matter of this kind, as the right hon. leader of the Opposition so ably pointed out.
I do not think to-day that anyone regards seriously an argument which tries to put a tag of some kind or another upon any proposition that may be put forward. There is manifestly nothing of the Soviet character about this resolution, although I am not so absolutely sure whether the Prime Minister meant that as a compliment or as a reproach. It would be perhaps calamitous for some public men if it should transpire after a few decades that the Soviet system of government is a very good system. For the present, however, I neither advocate nor defend it. This is a proposal which I understand is in
Lack of Confidence Vote

keeping with the spirit of the British constitution, and I submit that no argument has been adduced to-day to disprove it. Neither is there anything Bolsheviki about this resolution. The reason why we have so much unrest to-day to which the Prime Minister referred is because we have parliaments that are afraid to take up so-called innovations; that is the chief difficulty.
The Prime Minister centered his argument chiefly upon his defence of what he calls [DOT]"responsible government." That was well characterized by one of the Progressives as a "slippery" phrase. It is an extremely slippery phrase, and it slips away from us sometimes before we can get our eyes on it to know just exactly what it looks like. But at any rate the Prime Minister would have it that we are trying to take responsibility away from parliament; whereas the meaning of the resolution is to place responsibility upon parliament. We are opposing the present system which gives all the power to the Cabinet and places responsibility rather with the Cabinet than with parliament, where it belongs. We are asking that parliament have the right to take that responsibility, which again we understand to be the practice and privilege of the British constitutional form of government.
Both the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Yanvouver South (Mr. Ladner) either misunderstood the import of the resolution in this regard, or else they both fear granting to parliament that power in reality which they both so eloquently pictured we have in theory. The Prime Minister seemed to be afraid that governments would not resign at all if we had such legislation as this. As a parliament I think we would be quite prepared to see that governments did resign if we found there was anything weak about them. But we are differentiating between a legislator and an administrator. The Prime Minister could not understand how a good administration might pass bad legislation. But a good administrator might be a very, very poor legislator, a man might be able to discharge the duties of an executive office with marked ability, yet notwithstanding this parliament might not be prepared to accept his recommendation on all matters of policy. I think we have to distinguish between these two functions, that of legislation and that of administration, whether we will or not.
The hon. member for Halifax also assured us that we of Labour and the Progressives were paying too much attention to what people are telling us through their organizations. Then he proceeded to show that all the precedents quoted by the hon. member
[Mr. Irvine. |
for Calgary West prove that the kind of government this resolution proposes has always been and always will be according to the British constitution, and is in effect a declaration of our acceptance of the policy and spirit of that constitution. If that is so, Mr. Speaker, I should expect the hon. member for Halifax to vote for this resolution; otherwise he will be voting against what he terms is a statement of the British constitution. I wonder whether he recognizes that that is the position in which he placed himself when he made that declaration.
Then, the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Graham) thought the suggested method would be like the United States system of government; that there was no possibility of striking a happy medium between what they have and what the British constitution contemplates. He believes, he says, in the old British parliamentary system, and he goes on to say that there will be no more freedom for the individual member, no more freedom for parliament, if this resolution is adopted than is accorded under present practice. Then the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) comes and tells us that the adoption of this resolution would give so much freedom to parliament that the government would be entirely robbed of the authority which they must have under the British constitution. Now, I have no doubt that the hon. Minister of the Interior made that argument when this matter came before the Alberta legislature, he being Premier of the province at the time. But legislation asserting this principle is now on the statute books of that province, and the government has not suggested th^t it has lost any of its power to do efficient work of administration, nor that there has been any great upheaval as a result; on the contrary, everything seems to be moving along reasonably and satisfactorily.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) accepted the resolution as at least having some sense in it. He said there were certain practices that he deplored in connection with the present system, but suggested that by introducing such a practice as is proposed by this resolution we should be likely to bring upon ourselves more difficulties than we could get rid of. He went on to say that he oppose'd the motion chiefly because the principle it involved was a false or a mistaken one. But you will all notice that the right hon. leader of the Opposition came to his great faith in the present system by a contemplation of its march through the centuries. Well, he cannot speak with such confidence until at least some other proposal

Lake oj Confidence Vote
has had a trial-a beginning. If it takes a march through the centuries to prove that the present system involves difficulties and mistakes, one should not speak so positively about something that has not yet been tried; because if this proposed system were to march through a couple of centuries, patterning itself in its working out, it might prove to be a very good system indeed. I am not sure, therefore, that that argument is conclusive. In fact, had that argument been applied to the British constitution we should never have had one-if, indeed, we have one now. That is, we would not have had it in practice, if those who originated our boasted constitution had required such assurance as that seemingly looked for by the right hon. leader of the Opposition. I say, that if we are going to allow this thing to march through a couple of centuries, it is well nigh time we began.
Both the right hon. leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Halifax agree on this: that the government is not in the position of a hired man; there is no hired man-ism about it. No; if there is going to be anything like the hired man about it, some of them are going to have nothing to do with government. Now, I am not so sure that that is a strong position. I think you will agree that he who is the servant of all is the greatest of all, and it is surely not too much to say that the people who pay the expenses of government, the people whose business is being' managed in this parliament, should have something to do about it. I think the highest position of the government, whether it wants to recognize it or not, is analogous to that of a hired man. And if the hired man is not distinguished enough for the comparison, I would substitute the architect, and say that the government is, in relation to the people or to parliament, what an architect is to a job.


Mr. McMASTER:: But the architect tries to boss the job.


William Irvine: When the architect tries to boss the job; when he tries to make the cost more than the man who is building can pay, or to put in more rooms than the builder wants, then the architect will be fired. He is hired as an architect. It is true that the man who hires him will not presume to deal at all with the technique of architecture.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He gets his commission on the additional rooms.


William Irvine: But the architect will not be allowed to do what he pleases. If I hire an architect to prepare plans of a dwelling
house for me and he draws plans of a parliament building, am I going to pay him, or am I going to make the expenditure necessary to build a parliament building, simply because my architect was fool enough to draw the plans for it? Would any member of the government pay an architect under circumstances of that kind? Would any government hire him to do their work? I do not think so. That should be the relation of government to parliament. I readily agree that as practice goes, governments are not hired men. They are not architects, neither are they a committee of parliament. But we contend that they should be as hired men, that they should be as architects, that they should be a committee of parliament. If that is not British constitution, we can make it British constitution, because we have the same powers here to make British constitution as they have had over there. We can move from precedent to precedent with the same alacrity and with the same vision that they moved in days of old. So I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if the proposal embodied in this resolution is not part of the British constitution, there is no reason why it should not be made so by practice. If the British constitution is anything at all, it is practice; it is what has worked, and if this works it can become part of the constitution.
Now, I do not wish further to prolong the debate.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Irvine: My hon. friends opposite
say, "hear, hear"-and for obvious reasons. If I prolonged this debate for another half hour, as I could very easily do, I should have to review some more of the statements that my hon. friends have made, and if I did so I am not sure that it would be a great addition to the discussions of British constitutional practice.
I submit that the reasons that we have put forward on behalf of the resolution have not been successfully refuted by any hon. member who has spoken on the question. Neither the right hon. leader of the Opposition nor the right hon. Prime Minister has given us sufficient reason-nor has anybody else-for relieving parliament of part of that responsibility which rightly belongs to it. Parliament should take all the responsibility; the executive council should become the hired servant of this parliament as representatives of the people. That, I believe, is the soul and spirit of this resolution.


Mr. PUTNAM:: Will the hon. member permit me a question?

Lake of Confidence Vote


William Irvine: Two, sir.


Harold Putnam: This resolution contemplates that vote number two would declare that vote number one, which- would ordinarily constitute a defeat of the government, was really a defeat of the government. Is there a limit in his mind to the time when or the stage at which vote number two could be invoked?


William Irvine: I am not sure that I have caught that question. I am afraid I shall have to ask my hon. friend to repeat it.


Harold Putnam: I am asking the hon. member, purely for my own satisfaction, this question: We will suppose that vote number one has taken place, wherein the government is outvoted. Under the proposal contained in my hon. friend's resolution, he has the right to follow that with vote number two, in which parliament would say categorically that vote number one was a defeat of the government -that is, a want of confidence vote. In other words, is there any limit to the time in which vote number two can be invoked against the government?


William Irvine: Do I understand the hon.
member to ask whether my resolution fixes the precise number of days during which 'the government shall hold office in the event of its being voted out by an adverse vote?


Harold Putnam: I certainly did not suggest any such foolish thing. I asked if there was any limit to the time or stage in our proceedings when parliament could say to the government: Though you were outvoted some time ago and have gone on doing business in good faith since, we are now going to say that that vote taken a week or ten days ago was a vote of want of confidence.


William Irvine: There is no necessity for
any such thing. In fact, it would be foolish to have any stated time so far as the vote of no confidence is concerned. That could be moved at any time, even when there was not an issue under consideration. We might discover, for instance, that the government had run off with a hundred million dollars. In that case we would immediately vote that the government resign. That is all it means. The no-confidence vote need not necessarily have any connection with the other vote at all. A government might be defeated on a measure, but we would pay no attention to that. The government would carry on, and might be defeated on some other measure, but so long as parliament felt that they were carrying on the country's business fairly efficiently, they would go on. fMr. Putnam.]


Harold Putnam: The resolution does not
contemplate a specific vote declaring that the former vote showed a want of confidence in the government?


William Irvine: Not necessarily.


Mr. BUREAU:: Then why the word "followed "?


Harold Putnam: Does the hon. gentleman
mean that a specific vote defeating the government is per se a want of confidence vote?


William Irvine: Does the hon. member mean under the present practice or under my resolution?


Harold Putnam: Under the resolution.
Mr.	IRVINE: This	resolution simply
says that the government shall continue to do the business of this country until parliament tells it not to. The defeat of a measure brought in by the government would have nothing to do with the administrative efficiency of the government, and the existence of the government would therefore be disassociated from the fate of the measure. But if the government showed inefficiency or dishonesty, or any other characteristic that did not meet with the approval of parliament, it could be voted out of power at any time, just as it could be under the 10 p.m. present practice. There is nothing complicated about that. It is not nearly as complicated as the British North America Act giving us our constitution.


Harold Putnam: I do not want to take
up the hon. member's time captiously, but I want to understand his purpose clearly. Am I to understand that if this resolution is put into effect in the most drastic way we can imagine, there will be no specific vote declaring that a former vote was a vote of want of confidence?


William Irvine: Why should you want that,
providing this resolution should be adopted as the practice of this parliament? The resolution plainly says:
That, in the opinion of this House, a defeat of a government measure should not be considered as a sufficient reason for the resignation of the government.
That is all there is to that part. The other part of the resolution means that the government may be voted out of office by parliament at any time.


Mr. EULER:: That is not necessary. It is
taken for granted.


William Irvine: Does the hon. member for
Colchester (Mr. Putnam) understand the re-

Lake oj Confidence Vote
solution now? Nobody who has spoken on this resolution has proved that parliament is now free, that the individual member of parliament is free to vote on issues as his conscience, or his constituents, dictate. I made the charge in my opening remarks on this resolution that the present practice, by confusing the life of the administration with the issue under consideration, left a member where he did not know exactly what to do. Two principles confronted him, and sometimes he was forced to vote against a principle in which he believed to save the government to which he had given his allegiance. But if we did away with that practice so that the government would not have to resign even if it had not had a majority on a certain measure, then that member would be free, and I have a suspicion that that is the chief reason why there is so much objection to this resolution. I can understand that such a power would not readily be given up by any government, or by those who" aspire to government. It might be very handy at times. I can also conceive possibilities arising when it might be very dangerous for any cabinet to have such power.
No one has refuted my argument that bad legislation, owing to this confusion of issues, might be passed in order to save a government, nor has any one tried to refute my argument that good legislation might be defeated in order to save a government. The Prime Minister speaking with regard to the incident which I quoted from the adminstra-tion of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, tried to say that because a resolution was brought in afterwards by that government, that nullified my argument. On the contrary, it proved to the hilt that men sometimes vote against their beliefs. Let me reply to the Prime Minister in this way: All governments do not do as the government of Sir Robert Borden did, neither when a vote has been taken which has been considered a vote of no confidence, nor at other times. Here is the point to be remembered: whether the government resigns or not, it always holds over the heads of its members the threat that a general election might not be very far off, and a general election is not something that any of us is anxiously looking forward to now or at any other time, and the people generally do not want it until the expiration of the term of office. The members do not want to be defeated, and there you have the real whip that governs party majorities in standing behind government legislation.
In conclusion, I object to any government having the right to decide to go to the people 16 J
just when it wants, whether it has been defeated by a vote in the House or not. That practice places in the hands of the government a great political weapon, which it does not hesitate to use. This present government might decide to go to the people to-morrow, and no one could gainsay it; but it will very likely decide to go to the people when it thinks it has a political advantage, and it will not consult with the leader of the Opposition as to the proper time, nor with the leader of the Progressives, nor with the leader of the Labour party. Only the Cabinet will be consulted, and when they think the chances are good, they will declare for a general election. That is another thing that would be wiped out by this resolution. So I urge hon. members in the interests of the glorious British constitution to vote for this resolution and free themselves from the difficulties I have outlined.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Irvine) which was negatived on the following
division:-	YEAS. Messieurs.
Bancroft,	Kennedy (Glengarry and
Beaubien,	Stormont),
Bird,	Knox,
Black (Huron),	Lewis,
Brethen,	Lovie,
Brown,	Lucas,
Caldwell,	Macphail,
Campbell,	McBride,
Carmichael,	McConica,
Coote,	McDonald (Timiskaming),
Davies,	McTaggart,
Drummond,	Millar,
Elliott (Dundas),	Milne,
Elliott (Waterloo),	Morrison,
Evans,	Neill,
Fansher,	Sales,
Findlay,	Sexsraith,
Forke,	Shaw,
Gardiner.	Speakman,
Garland (Bow River),	Spencer,
Good,	Steedsman,
Gould,	Stewart (Humboldt),
Humphrey,	Thurston,
Irvine,	Wallace,
Kellner,	Warner,
Kennedy (Edmonton),	Woods, Woods worth-52.
 NAYS Messieurs.
Anderson,	Carruthers,
Archambault,	Chaplin,
Arthurs,	Charters,
Baldwin,	Chevrier,
Baxter,	Clark,
Benoit,	Copp.
Binette,	d'Anjou,
Black (Yukon),	Dechene,
Bouchard,	Delisle,
Bourassa,	Denis (Joliette),
Bowen,	Denis (St. Denis),
Bureau,	Drayton (Sir Henry).
Cardin,	Duff,

Great Lakes Disarmament
Ethier,	McMaster,
Euler,	McMurray,
Fafard,	McQuarrie,
Finn,	Martell,
Fontaine,	Maybee,
Forrester,	Meighen,
Fortier,	Michaud.
Fournier,	Motherwell,
Gauvreau,	Munro,
Gendron,	Murdock,
Gouin (Sir Lomer),	Ouimet,
Graham,	Papineau,
Grimmer,	Pelletier,
Hammell,	Power,
Hanson,	Preston,
Hughes,	Putnam,
Hunt, '	Rankin,
Jacobs,	Raymond,
Johnston (Last Mountain),	Robb,
Jones,	Roberge,
Kay,	Robichaud,
King (Kootenay),	Robitaille,
King, Mackenzie(York),	Ross (Kingston),
Kyte,	Ryckman,
Ladner,	Savard,
Lanctot,	Seguin.
Lapointe,	Sinclair (Queens,P.E.I.),
Leger,	Spence,
Lovett,	Stevens,
Macdonald (Pictou),	Stewart (Argenteuil),
MacKelvie,	Stewart (Leeds),
Mackinnon,	Stork,
MacLaren,	Sutherland,
Maclean (Halifax),	Thompson,
MacLean (Prince, P.E.I.),	Tobin,
Mclsaac,	Trahan,
McKay,	White,
McKenzie,	Wilson-103.
McKillop,



GREAT LAKES DISARMAMENT

Arthur Meighen: For a copy of all papers, letters, writings, correspondence, documents, etc., of any kind, passing between the government of Canada and the government of the United States relative to the Great Lakes Disarmament question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government would have no possible objection whatever to bringing down the papers asked for were the negotiations completed. But I think my right hon. friend will hardly press for the papers when I tell him that some of the matters contained in them are at present being considered by the United States authorities and that it would not be in the public interest to have them laid on the Table at present.


Arthur Meighen: I gathered from a statement, apparently given to the press on the 30th December, that famous anniversary paean of praise, that the treaty was already negotiated. If the statement given the press was wrong, or if the Canadian Press got it wrong from the government, I am ready of course to accept my right hon. friend's statement. Certainly, I do not think the papers should be brought down in the course of the negotiations.
[Mr. Irvine. I


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to hear my right hon. friend use the word "apparently". There was no such statement given to the press.


Arthur Meighen: It is somewhat late to have the press corrected, but better late than never.



CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING CANADIAN RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York; moved:
1.	For a copy of ail papers, correspondence, letters, documents, or other writings of any kind since December 31st, 1921, passing between (a) members of the government or officials of the departments of the government and the Canadian National Railway Company or Canadian Northern Railway Company or any other railway company owned by Canada or any of their officials; (b) members of parliament and the Canadian National Railway Company or Canadian Northern Railway Company or any other railway owned by Canada or any of their officials.
2.	A copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, documents, or writings of any kind between members of the government or officials of the government and the late directors of the Canadian National Railway Company relative to the resignation of such directors.
3.	A copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, documents, or writings of any kind between members of the government or officials of the government and the late directors of the Grand Trunk Railway Company relative to the resignation of such directors.
George Perry Graham: It would take considerable time to get the returns asked for, the details of which, perhaps, my hon. friend has not fully considered. With regard to paragraphs 2 and 3 there would be no objection, but to get the information asked for in sub-section "b" of paragraph 1 would mean going into the files from every road master up to the highest official. It would take a good many weeks to do this and would cost a good deal of money. My hon. friend might confine his question to something more definite.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We certainly do not want the government to go to road-masters or do anything of that kind. From our experience the return would not be very long.


George Perry Graham: I cannot agree with that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So far as I
know, there was very little correspondence before the date referred to. It is only for the year. I do not want my friend, of course, to refer to the section men and similar grades; his officers are quite sufficient.


George Perry Graham: I understand my hon. friend will allow the use of the word "offi-

Treaty ivith Australia
cers" instead of officials. I understand from his explanation that he does not mean to go down the line.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It would be covered by using the words, "officers and directors," Mr. Speaker.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The motion will be amended by using the words "officers and directors" instead of the word 'officials."
Motion as amended agreed to.



SHIPPING AND RAILWAY STRIKES 1922

Henry Lumley Drayton: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, documents, and other writings relating to the strikes of workers in shipping, railway and other crafts in 1922 and also for copy of the opinion of the Department of Justice given in relation to the conduct of either employers or employees affected by such strikes.
He said:	Before this motion is put,
Mr. Speaker, let me say that the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) draws my attention to the fact that the words "and other crafts," will make a great deal of work in connection with this order. I have no objection to the return being limited to strikes in shipping and railway crafts, striking out the words "and other." I understand that that meets the objections he raises.


James Murdock: Mr. Speaker, in that case I would call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that although there were strikes in other crafts there were not any in the shipping or railway crafts that I recall at the moment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then we will let the motion stand. Perhaps we can arrange as to the papers required.


George Newcombe Gordon: Motion stands.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT 1915

Henry Herbert Stevens: That, in the opinion of this House, a select committee of this House be appointed with instructions to conduct an enquiry into the operation of the Special War Revenue Act, 1915, having particular reference to the sales tax and its difficulties of administration and collection and alleged inequities, with power to summon witnesses, to call for documents and information from government departments and to report its findings or recommendations, from time to time, to the House.


Jacques Bureau: May I ask my hon. friend to let that motion stand. It covers the operation of the special War Revenue Act since 1915. We might get together and try to limit its rather large scope.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am quite willing to let it stand for the time being.


George Newcombe Gordon: Motion stands.
TREATY WITH AUSTRALIA Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN moved:
For a copy of the treaty referred to by the Prime Minister in his statement to. the press of December 29th last as having been concluded between the government of Canada and the government of Australia.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure I do not know what my right hon. friend refers to when he speaks of a statement having been given by me to the press. Any statements to the press I have usually given in writing in a form in which they could be quoted. I have not gone to the trouble which my right hon. friend has apparently gone to of searching all the newspaper files to see what they contain.
I must confess he seems driven to a far point when he is obliged to look for a flaw in the government from what may appear in some press report. I have, however, looked up the Ottawa papers, and I find that the Citizen and the Journal each have articles somewhat similar, and yet so dissimilar as to make it perfectly apparent that whoever wrote the two articles used what they thought appropriate and proper to put into them. Certainly they contain nothing to indicate any statement made by the government.
I mention this because my right hon. friend has one motion referring to Australia, another to Belgium, another to Great Lakes Disarmament, and another to the Lake of the Woods levels. He makes mention in one motion of treaties having been concluded. I find the report in the Ottawa Citizen is in this form:
Reviewing the work of the government during the past year, treaties have been concluded with France, Italy, Belgium and Australia, and negotiations are now proceeding with Spain.
Possibly that is the statement my right hon. friend has in mind. On the other hand, the Ottawa Journal mentions that:
Treaties have been arranged- not concluded.
-with France and Australia for the betterment of trade conditions between the Dominion and those countries, and other treaties seeking the widening of markets in other directions are in course of negotiation.
I have no doubt at all that if my right hon. friend wishes to search through the press to find some little comment that he can bring to bear upon the work of the administration, he will find plenty to serve his purpose, but I do submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is somewhat beneath the dignity of the leader of a great political party to come to

Treaty with Australia
this House and ask for a return in virtue ol a general statement which bears no evidence of having been issued in any official way by the administration.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I will not debate with the Prime Minister on the subject of dignity. It is one on which he talks much. I will allow my own record to stand in that regard. The statement appeared not only in the Ottawa newspapers, but in almost all the Canadian papers. While it is not exactly the same in all, it is very similar in each and bears every evidence of having been given verbatim or of having been inspired by the Prime Minister. It was an attempt on the 30th of December-on the 29th, appearing in the issue of the 30th-to catalogue the various achievements of the government for the purpose of impressing the country with its activity on behalf of the nation. That was the plain purpose of the article. No one could read it in the press without coining to the conclusion that it had received its inspiration, if not, indeed, it is ipsissima verba, from the government itself. There is a little difference between the wording taken down by one and that taken down by the other; that is to say, there is a little left out of one that is in the other, but in all the statement appears that a treaty has been arranged with Australia. I do not know myself the difference between arranging a treaty and concluding a treaty. If a treaty has been arranged with Australia, this House ought to know what the arrangement is; that is all I am asking for. If no treaty has been arranged with Australia, the House should be told, and I do submit that no statement should be given to the press, whether a written statement or merely an inspired statement, leading the country to think that such a treaty has been arranged when no such treaty has been arranged.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of what I have just said, I must take exception to my right hon. friend's remark that no statement should be given to the press that a. treaty has been arranged or concluded. I have told him that no such statement was given to the press.


Arthur Meighen: I said "inspired".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, if my right hon. friend is going to fall back on the use of such words as "inspired," I am quite prepared to leave the matter in the judgment of the House.


Arthur Meighen: I do not fall back on it; that is the word I used

either given or
TMr. Mackenzie King.]
inspired. It is very hard indeed to think that this would appear in all the press of the country if there was no source whatever for the information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will give my right hon. friend the source, I will tell him exactly what occurred. I was asked by representatives of the press what progress the government had made in the matter of negotiating trade treaties, and I stated that a treaty had been come to with France, that we were negotiating with Australia, that we were also endeavouring to negotiate with Belgium and Spain, that we were negotiating with Italy and hoped to be successful there. I mentioned four or five countries with which the government was negotiating, I did not say anything about finally concluding these treaties, or that they had been concluded. Day after day representatives of the press were asking me if the treaties had been concluded, and the reply I invariably gave to them-and I think every representative of the press concerned will bear me out-was that as soon as a treaty had been concluded announcement would be made to parliament and a statement given to the public. 1 never stated to the press at any time that any treaty had been concluded if the arrangements with respect to that treaty had not actually been brought to a conclusion.


Arthur Meighen: Apparently the press has universally got it wrong. I am ready to accept the Prime Minister's statement in that regard, adding only once more that as this statement was spread all over the Dominion, the public should have been set right at once. Noi have I catalogued here all that the statement refers to; there are other things referred to in it as accomplished which have not been accomplished either.


George Newcombe Gordon: Motion
dropped?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
Motion dropped.



TREATY WITH BELGIUM

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. MEIGHEN:
For a copy of the treaty referred to by the Prime Minister in his statement to the press of December 29th last as having been concluded between the government of Canada and the government of Belgium.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the same thing.


Arthur Meighen: There has been nothing negotiated there? If that is the case it will be dropped.
Motion dropped.

Lake Transport Conditions
GREAT LAKES DISARMAMENT Mr. MEIGHEN moved:
For a copy of the treaty referred to by the Prime Minister in his statement to the press of December 29th last as having been negotiated by his administration between the government of Canada and the gov-emement of the United States looking to settlement of the Great Lakes disarmament question.
He said: Well, the Prime Minister stated that nothing had been negotiated there, but there has been no statement yet in regard to No. 36, with regard to control of waters in the Lake of the Woods area.
Motion dropped.



LAKE OF THE WOODS-CONTROL OF WATERS

Arthur Meighen: For a copy of all papers, letters, writings, correspondence, documents of any kind passing between the government of Canada and the government of the United States relative to the control of the waters in the Lake of the Woods area.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are some papers
with respect to control of water in the Lake of the Woods area which there is no objection to bringing down. There are others, however, relating to . the same subject which are matters at present under consideration as between the two governments and which it would be unwise to bring down. If my right hon. friend leaves the motion in the form in which it is drafted, to include all papers relative to the control of the waters in the. Lake of the Woods area, I would feel it to be in the public interest that these papers should not be brought down until the transactions are finally consummated between the two governments.


Arthur Meighen: Of course every motion that passes is subject to the reservation that any document that is confidential will not be included. But I really understood that negotiations in this regard had been concluded; in fact I think they were concluded before the late government left office. For myself I have never understood the delay in putting into treaty form the consensus adidem that had been arrived at between the two governments. However, if the motion passes I will not expect documents to be brought down that still constitute the subject of negotiation-if, unfortunately, negotiations are still pending; I thought they had been concluded.


George Newcombe Gordon: Shall the resolution carry?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let it stand.
Motion stands.



LAKE OF THE WOODS-NATIONAL LEVELS

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Meighen:
For a copy of the treaty referred to by the Prime Minister in his statement to the press of December 29th last as having been negotiated by his administration between the government of Canada and the government of the United States looking to settlement of the Lake of the Woods National Levels.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Dropped.


Arthur Meighen: If the same words apply that apply to the others.
Motion dropped.



LAKE TRANSPORT CONDITIONS

Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: moved:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, writings, telegrams and other documents authorizing investigation into conditions or costs of Lake Transport by W. T. R. Preston, and for a copy of Mr. Preston's report.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend
doubtless knows, the subject matter dealt with in this motion has been referred by the government to a royal commission for investigation. Before that commission had been appointed the government had a special inquiry made to ascertain whether the grounds for investigation by royal commission were as substantial as the government had been given reason to believe they were. Naturally, this preliminary investigation did not involve the hearing of sworn testimony, and I think it would be inadvisable to bring down the report prepared for the government as a guide to its determining whether or not a royal commission should be appointed-not, at least, until after the commission has had a chance of investigating the matters referred to in it. Mr. Preston is secretary of that royal commission. The information contained in his preliminary report will be placed at the disposal of the commission. I do not think it is in the interests of the public that its contents should be disclosed before there is opportunity of having the evidence which he submitted in that form taken under oath before the commission itself.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: A short time ago the Prime Minister rather emphatically endorsed a certain constitutional principle. I think involved in that principle is the idea that the House is entitled to all possible information with regard to the way in which government is carried on, and I think this House is fairly entitled to know whether what Mr. Preston discovered justified the appointment of a
,	COMMONS
Lake Transport Conditions
royal commission. The commission itself will never discover that fact. It is quite impossible for members on this side of the House or for private members on that side of the House or for the public to pass any judgment upon the correctness of that act unless they have this material laid before them. I do not see that it will in any way prejudice any action the commission may take, and I would ask the Prime Minister if that report is to be a sealed book to this House and the public.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government will be only too glad to make public Mr. Preston's report at the right time, but I think my hon. friend, if he reflects for a moment, will agree with me that while there are charges in Mr. Preston's report made against certain companies which charges the government believed were substantial enough to warrant its appointing a royal commission, it would hardly be advisable that those charges should be published broadcast before there is an opportunity for the commission itself to investigate.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Why not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why should there be any charge levelled against any man until he has had an opportunity, with such protection as is afforded him by a court of law properly constituted, to defend himself against that charge?


James Arthurs: That is not the ordinary procedure.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: A ou appoint a commission and their report is acted upon without any investigating commission making a preliminary inquiry. As far as making a charge against a man is concerned, many a man has to undergo a long period of examination before he can put in a defence. Sometimes a man's character seems to be irretrievably blackened before the public by the ordinary process of our courts, though he may be declared innocent eventually. It is something we have all to stand as citizens, because you cannot have everything take place at the same moment of time. What we ask now is not the investigation of some individual. We are not asking the condemnation of any individual, but we do want to know on what information, whether it is correct or not, the government proceeded in this matter. I would think we are entitled to it. I do not wish to put it in an offensive way, and I am trying not to look at it from a partisan standpoint, but I cannot see any difference in principle between this motion and a large num-
IfMr. Baxter.]
ber of returns that have been ordered by the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say to my hon. friend, the government will be pleased to give him the report which Mr. Preston has made at the right time. He will then be in a position to judge whether the government has acted wisely or
11 p.m. not in having had a preliminary investigation made, and constituting a royal commission to investigate the matters brought to its attention.
I mentioned only one aspect in reply to my hon. friend at first. There is another aspect. From many sources an effort has been made to obtain this report from the government by some of the parties that are appearing before the commission. Now the government does not feel that the information which has been gathered, and which will be presented to the royal commission, should be given out at this particular time. The commission itself is the best judge in that regard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will this report by Mr. Preston to the government be submitted to the royal commission If so, and presuming it refers to certain companies and individuals, will such companies and individuals have full opportunity of knowing that the commission is in possession of a report of this kind and have an opportunity to reply to it? Thirdly, I would ask, if they do not have that full opportunity, would it not tend to prejudice the commission in arriving at its conclusion to be furnished with a report making certain statements which have never been replied to by the parties affected?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can reply
to my hon. friend that I have not the slightest doubt at all that Mr. Preston's report will be submitted to the commission. Indeed, I think it already has been. I am sure the every representation which that report contains will be made public by the commission itself, and the parties affected by any of the representations will have every opportunity to make their reply and to bring out whatever evidence and make whatever statements they wish to make in regard to what is alleged in the report. But I think my hon.. friend will agree that to give to the parties, in advance, information of this kind is only to enable them to take advantage of a situation which it is in the public interest they should not take advantage of.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Perhaps I do not understand my right hon. friend clearly. Was I correct in thinking that he said that the publication of the report now might be taken

Lake Transport Conditions
advantage of by what I might call the interests that are to be investigated? Is that the meaning?


Jacques Bureau: If my right hon. friend
will allow me, there is a rule of the House iwhich provides that, when a minister of the Crown desires to lay on the Table a return which is not the subject of an order a motion for return may be opposed on the giound of public policy. Such, for instance, as that it is not in the public interest. The object of Mr. Preston's inquiry was to find out whether there was ground for an investigation by a commission.


Arthur Meighen: Was Mr. Preston
appointed under the Inquiries Act?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He was
appointed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to gather information with a view to ascertaining, in the first instance, whether the government would be justified in going the length of appointing a royal commission to make this inquiry.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know what
statutory authority there could have been for his appointment as investigator, and the payment of salary, unless it was under the Inquiries Act.


Jacques Bureau: That is not the question I am discussing now. The question is whether it is in the public interest to disclose the report made by Mr. Preston, and the ground taken by the government is this. We desired first to know whether there was ground for an investigation, as the result of complaints made by shippers that they were not being treated properly by carriers. We did not want to go to the expense of having a commission appointed to go fishing, as was so often the case in past years, and so Mr. Preston was appointed to make a preliminary report. We have this report, and we do not think it is in the public interest, and I think my hon. friend would agree with me, that the facts on which we decided that an investigation should be held should be given to the press at this time to inflame public opinion. Their publication would, of course, give rise to a general discussion by the public. If you are going to apprehend somebody, you do not advertise that fact. You do not tell a smuggler that you are going to the magistrate to get a warrant out. The Prime Minister has already stated that when the commission makes its report, the facts upon which we saw fit to have a commission appointed will be made public and if the facts given by Mr. Preston do not justify the appointment of a commission, then will be the time to criticise.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I do not want to appear in any false position with regard to this. I have asked for information that I think the House is entitled to. If the Prime Minister is putting it on the ground that it is against the public interest to make this disclosure,
I can understand that. He and his government will take the responsibility and they will be perfectly correct in that course. But what I do not understand is why the first answer should have been that the publication of the report might injure the accused, and the second answer be that to bring down this report might help the accused to get some information.


George Perry Graham: Both are possible.
Mr. BAXTER' My object, as one member of this parliament, was if there are combines or irregularities going on, to help bring the facts to the light, and I want to know what is being done towards that end. If it is not in the public interest that I should know at this time,. I am content to let the motion drop.
Motion dropped.



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Henry Lumley Drayton: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, documents, and other writings relating to the disallowance of an act of the legislature of Nova Scotia changing the Rule of the Road, and for a copy of the opinion of the Department of Justice respecting the question of disallowing such legislation. .



NOVA SCOTIA STATUTE

Henry Lumley Drayton: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, documents, and other writings relating to the disallowance of a statute of the legislature of Nova Scotia, being Chapter 177 of the statutes enacted in the year 1921, and entitled "An Act to Vest Certain Lands in Victoria County in Jane E. MacNeil."



P.C. 1566

George Black: [DOT]
For a return showing:
1.	The record of the proceedings of a sub-committee of the Privy Council appointed under P.C. 1566, May 12, 1921, to whom was referred the matter of arriving at a scale of fees charged by the government for licenses, permits, leases, etc.
2.	The reports and recommendations of all department officers made to council or to any minister concerning said matter.
3.	The names and offices held by all departmental officers who inquired into and reported on said subject.
4.	The report recommending the scale of fees charged by the government for recording transfers and other documents under the regulations governing quartz mining claims in Yukon Territory.
Redistribution



JOHN L. LEWIS CORRESPONDENCE

Arthur Meighen: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, writings, documents, etc., passing between the Minister of Labour and John L. Lewis since the taking of office by the present Minister of Labour.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To-morrow we will take up the resolutions appearing in the name of the hon. Minister of Finance under Government Notices of Motion, relating to trade treaties, and if we conclude with those motions, we will proceed with Government Orders taking up the bills that are in the name of the Minister of Agriculture, and the resolution appearing in the name of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.
Tuesday, February 13, 1923