1924-04-02

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT, 1908, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 27, to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1908.
He said: The object of this bill is to give additional jurisdiction to the Juvenile Court, increase the amount of fines and modify the rules of procedure, this being recommended and asked for by various judges of the Juvenile Court and by other bodies.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 28 to amend and make operative certain provisions of the Copyright Act, 1921.
He said:	This bill contains a considerable
number of amendments to the Copyright Act, which was passed by the House last session. In view of the manner in which bills are now being printed, I think at this stage it will not be necessary for me to make any lengthy statement as the reasons for these amendments all appear on the notes opposite to the sections to which they refer. Briefly, this bill is introduced for the purpose, amongst other things, of defining certain very important terms that are used in the Copyright Act which are not defined at present. It is also introduced for the purpose of repealing what are known as the license clauses, 13, 14, IS and 27 of the present act, and which in the minds of the authors or the publishers constitute one of the most arbitrary discriminations against authors. The bill has also for its object the extending and making more operative certain sections of the act which refer to the protection which was intended to be given to the authors, but which is not extended because of the present state of the law. The fourth feature of the bill is to remove this matter from the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Commerce and place it under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice.
I may say this bill in no way affects any of the rights of the printers or those who are engaged in similar industries, but is simply for the purpose of extending the protection which the authors claim in the first place they were entitled to by virtue of this act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
TAXES COLLECTED Mr. ANDERSON:
What was the cost of collection up to the end of February in each of the years 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924 of (a) Income Tax; (b) Excise Taxes; (c) Customs
Tax?
['Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the three minutes left before six o\'clock will scarcely be long enough to give the explanation I should like to make in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). I was not aware that this resolution would be debated to-day. I have listened with a good deal of interest to some of the statements which have been made, and particularly to the references that have been made to a resolution calling for the transferable or alternative vote which was passed at the last session of parliament. A good many things have happened during the past year; a good deal of light has been thrown on the actions and motives of some of the people of this Dominion as well as of other countries, and I think it is about time that we were speaking frankly what we believe to be the fact, and that we should cast aside this camouflage which has been attempted by a good many people of this Dominion so far as political parties are concerned.\nTo my mind the object that is sought by the alternative vote, which is coupled with this resolution, is one that is intended to *arry out the designs of the members of the .wo parties calling themselves the Progressive party and the Liberal party, whereas, as a matter of fact, there is absolutely no difference between the two. I think the people of this country thoroughly understand their object, what they have in view, and the means by which they are going to take advantage in a scheme of this kind. For that reason I must say that I am absolutely opposed to any further experiments along the line suggested by the most impractical members of the House, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), and his colleague the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). They are always ready to venture into some field where no definite results are in evidence; yes to enact freak legislation, as one hon. member suggests.\nJust a little over a year ago last March, there was a meeting held in the city of Ottawa of the Liberals of eastern Ontario, and statements were made at that time by \nprominent men in connection with matters which are affected by the resolution before us. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the remarks that were made by one or two speakers on that occasion. I quote from the Ottawa Journal of March a year ago:\nMr. J. W. Curry, K.C., M.L.A., Toronto Southeast, seat " A," after saying that the convention of eastern Ontario Liberals was to him an eye-opener, proclaimed himself a consistent believer in Liberalism which meant progress and the betterment of the people. The political situation which developed in Ontario in 1919 was a protest against Toryism. The United Farmers of Ontario had organized and developed as a protest against the actions of the Conservative party m power. Mr. Curry referred to his support of the U.F.O. government headed by Premier Drury, known for years as a staunch Liberal, and the help he had given in moulding legislation. As a result he was told he had deserted the Liberal party, and the suggestion was made that he be read out of the party. No man could divorce him from his Liberal principles. He was behind the Liberal leader,\nWhat clearer evidence could you have than this statement, made by a Liberal member of the Ontario legislature with regard to his attitude?\nAt six o\'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.\nThursday, April 3, 1924']
Hon. Mr. COPP:: Department of Customs and Excise:
It is not possible to state separately the amounts paid for the collection of taxes as distinguished from amounts paid for other customs excise services such as prevention of smuggling, illicit distillation of spirits, work in connection with exports, registration of vessels, administration of laws and regulations of other departments as affecting imports and exports, etc.
Department of Finance:
(a) The cost of collection covers the administration of the Business Profits War Tax Act and the Income War Tax Act as both acts were administered by the same employees:-
1921 (including bonus) .. 11,643,433 21 ,
1Q99	"	o nru? n*74 kk1922	*	.. 2,006,974 551923	))	.. 1,818,293 771924	))	.. 1,721,509 95



Mr. LANCTOT:: 1.	What is the period of the tenure of appointment of the Chief of Staff, Adjutant General, and Quartermaster General of the Canadian militia?
2. What is the name, the rank, the date of 1st appointment, the date of extension, if any, of the above officers ?
3.	What is the salary attached to each of these positions, including allowances, in the years 1910	1912
1914, 1916, 1920 and 1924?
4.	Does the Department of National Defence intend to reduce the salary of these officers and to place the branch of the quartermaster under the branch of the adjutant, with the reorganization of the department?


Hon. Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Four years, which may be extended under the provisions of paragraph 109, King's Regulations and Orders, (Canada) 1917.
2.	Chief of Staff-Major-General J. H. MacBrien, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., (Appointed 1st January, 1923).
Adjutant General-Major-General H. A. Panet, CJ3., C.M.G., D.S.O. (Appointed 1st July, 1923).
Quartermaster General-Major-General E. C. Ashton, C.M.G. (Appointed 1st January, 1923).
3.

Questions
Year	Inspector General and Military Counsellor	Inspector General	Chief General Staff	Adjutant General	Quarter- master General	Master General of Ordnance$	$	$	$	$	$loin	6,000 00	6,000 00	4,000 00 4,600 00	4.000	00 4.600	00 4.600	00 4.600	00 7.000	00 7,500 00	4,000 001Q12 	6,000 00	6,000 00	4.600	00 4.600	001Q14 	6,000 00	6,000 00	4,600 00	1916	6,000 00	6,000 00 6,000 00 8,000 00	4,600 UU 7,000 00 7,500 00	1920	
18 8 20 	*	9,000 00	7,500 001923	**	Chief of Staff [DOT]*[DOT]9,000 00 9,000 00	7.500	00 7.500	00	7.500	00 7.500	00	****
* Position of Military Counsellor abolished in 1920.
** Position of Inspector General abolished in 1923 and duties absorbed by Chief of Staff.
***Pav and allowances increased to *9,000.00 on assuming: duties of Chief of Staff and Inspector General. [DOT][DOT]'[DOT] Position of Master General of Ordnance abolished 1st June 1922. Duties divided between Chief of Staff and Quartermaster General.
4.	No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TAXES
Mr. BLACK:: 1.	' Does the Canadian National Railways pay to the state of Maine or to the government of the United States any taxes or fees or license in respect to property or properties formerly belonging to the Grand Trunk Railway Company?
2.	If so, what amounts and at what places?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	& 2. The Canadian National Railways, operating the Atlantic and St. Lawrence and Lewiston and Auburn Railroads, as Lessees, paid gross earnings taxes to the state of Maine amounting to $80,948.81, and municipal taxes to various municipalities in the state, amounting to S49,044.04 for the year 1923.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY
Mr. BIRD:: What is the estimated cost of completing that section of the Hudson Bay railway between Mile 332 and Port Nelson?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: The management
state that, as no recent inspection has been made of the present condition of the grading, no close estimate can be given, but from the best available information an approximate estimate would be $2,000,000 exclusive of railway terminals at Port Nelson, which were dealt with in the reply recently given as to work required at that point. This sum of $2,000,000, however, would not complete the railway for operation to Port Nelson, as to put the line from Mile 332, back to The Pas in proper operating condition would, it is estimated, cost $4,250,000.


CANADIAN NATIONAL SYSTEM-FIXED CHARGES
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	What were the annual fixed charges against the various railways now comprising the Canadian National system, at the time they came under control of the said system?
2.	Have such fixed charges increased? If so, by how much annually?
3.	Have deficits and advances been charged to capital account? If so, to what amount?
4.	What are the annual fixed charges as for January 1, 1924, divided as follows-(a) To the public; and (b) to the government of Canada?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The unified Board of Directors was appointed by order in council of October 4, 1922. Order in council of January 30, 1923, brought into effect the Canadian National Railways Co. Act with present method of control and [DOT]management. The annual fixed charges as at December 31, 1922, amounted to $59,400,476.11.
2.	The increase in fixed charges for the year 1923, amounted to $5,798,847.84.
3.	Deficits are charged to profit and loss account annually. Advances from the government to reimburse the management for deficits are charged to cash and credited to Dominion government advances.
4.	The annual fixed charges as at December 31.	1923, amounted to $65,199,323.95,
divided as follows:
$35,041,38028 due the public.
$30,157,943.67 due' the government.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-PROFITS, FIXED CHARGES
Mr. SENN:: 1.	What was the profit on operation of the Canadian National Railways in the year 1923?
Questions

2. What were the fixed charges on the Canadian National Railways for year 1923?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Net revenue from railway operation, $20,236,563.09.
2.	Fixed charges, 1923, $65,199,323.95.
POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP Mr. SUTHERLAND:
1.	Has Thomas R. Mayberry of Ingersoll been appointed a commissioner to investigate charges of alleged political partisanship preferred against employees in the Civil Service or other employees of the government ?
2.	If so, when was Mr. Mayberry appointed and jnder what authority?
3.	What investigations have been made by Mr. Mayberry since appointment ?
4.	What were the findings of said commissioner in iach case investigated ?
5.	What remuneration has been paid or promised to Mr. Mayberry ?
6.	Is he still acting for the government as a commissioner ?
7.	If not, when did he cease to act in that capacity?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Under authority of order in council of January 26, 1923, P.C. 128.
3.	Charges of political partisanship preferred against James T. Shields, Augustus Blackburn and John Waldroff, employees on the Cornwall canal.
4.	Blackburn admitted the charges and his services have been dispensed with. Shields and Waldroff pleaded not guilty; the evidence in their cases being insufficient to establish charges.
5.	Mr. Mayberry has been paid the sum of $188.75.
6.	Yes.
7.	Answered by No. 6.
CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-LAND SALES Sir HENRY DRAYTON:
With reference to agreements for the sale of lands in western Canada by the Canadian National Railways, how much money was owing by purchasers under agreements which were cancelled at the time of cancellation (a) in the year 1922 and (b) in the year 1923?


George Perry Graham: (a) 25,397.54 acres,
$404,022.00, average per acre, $15.90; (b) 56,716.22 acres, $824,677.36, average per acre, $14.54.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- FREIGHT ROUTING
Mr. LOGAN:: Is the Canadian National Railway Company carrying out the agreement of one of its predecessors (the Canadian Northern Railway Company), made with the government of Canada, and contained in chapter 20 of the statutes of Canada. 1914, which among other things provides " that at all times hereafter all freight originating on the lines of the Canadian Northern or 
on the lines of any of the constituent companies, or on any line or lines of railway now or hereafter owned, leased or operated by the Canadian Northern or by any of the constituent or subsidiary companies, their successors or assigns, shall be carried to Canadian ports"?


George Perry Graham: The management
advise that the clause referred to is clause 6 (a) of the agreement contained in the third schedule to chapter 20 of the statutes of 1914, the agreement being a draft form subsequently executed between the Canadian Northern Railway Company and certain subsidiary companies and His Majesty the King. The clause reads as follows:
6. Routing and interchange of traffic.
The Canadian Northern and the constituent and subsidiary companies severally agree with the government as follows:	[DOT]
_ (a) that at all times hereafter all freight originating on the lines of the Canadian Northern or on the lines of any of the constituent companies, or on any line or lines of railway now or hereafter owned, leased or operated by the Canadian Northern or by any of the constituent or subsidiary companies, their successors or assigns, shall, when destined to points in Canada, be carried over the lines of the Canadian Northern or of the constituent companies or over some other Canadian railway or railways (which term shall include the line operated by the Canacjian Pacific Railway Company between Montreal and St. John) and that the through rate on export traffic from the point of origin to the point of destination shall not be greater via Canadian ports than it would be via United States ports; and that all inward and outward ocean traffic shall be carried to Canadian ports, and that the Canadian Northern and the several constituent and subsidiary companies shall not in any matter within their power or control directly or indirectly advise or encourage the transportation of any such freight by routes other than those above provided, but shall in all respects in good faith use their utmost endeavours to further the development of trade through Canadian channels and Canadian ports.
At the time this covenant was drafted, in 1914, the Canadian Northern and its subsidiaries were concerns independent of the government, seeking aid for their joint enterprise from the government. In 1918, on the acquisition by the government of the Canadian Northern capital stock, the companies in question were no longer independent of the government, stock control being substituted for covenant control and the policy of the government as implied in the agreement became and has since continued to be the policy of the management so far as Canadian' ports are concerned.


NEW FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	Has the new freight classification yet been submitted to the Board of Railway Commissioners?
2.	Will copies of this classification be available to members as soon as submitted?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No, but it is expected that proofs will be submitted within the next few days.

Questions
2.	A limited number of proof copies will be available for shippers and others interested on request of Mr. G. C. Ransom, chairman of the Canadian Freight Association.


PENSION STATISTICS
Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	How many complete disability pensions are being paid in Canada to members of the Canadian Expeditionary Forces?
2.	What amount is involved in this?
3.	How many pensions are paid to widows of men killed in the late war?
4.	How much money is involved in this?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	2,532.
2.	$3,233,779 (annually).
3.	8,068.
4.	$7,483,555 (annually).


STIRLING POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. PORTER:: 1.	Has the postmistress at Stirling, Ontario, resigned her position as such? If so, when?
2.	Has a successor been appointed and who?
3.	If no appointment has been made what is causing the delay?


Hon. Mr. COPP (for the Postmaster General) :: 1.	Yes, on August 27, 1923.	.
2.	No.
3.	Awaiting reply to request for further information concerning one of the applicants.
QUEENSLAND PROPOSED RAILWAY SIDING Mr. BLACK (Halifax):
1.	Has a railway siding been constructed at Queensland near Hubbards in the county of Halifax?
2.	If so, at what date was construction of this siding commenced ?
3.	What was its cost?
4.	Were any reports made by an engineer or engineers on the advisability of placing such a siding at Queensland in the years 1921, 1922 and 1923?
5.	Upon whose request was the siding placed there?
6.	To whom was the request made?
7.	Who authorized the building of said siding?
8.	Were tenders asked for its construction?
9.	If not, why not?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.	t
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	No, request for siding declined by general freight agent and general superintendent in January, 1922, as business did not warrant construction of siding.
5 to 9. See No. 1.
HOG GRADING Mr. McCONICA:
1.	How many men are employed in grading hogs in the various stockyards of Canada?
2.	What salary do they receive?
3.	What was the total expense incurred by the department in connection with this work during the past year?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Of the 25 hog graders employed by the department, 10 are stationed in the stockyards.
2.	1 at $1,560.00; 1 at $1,800.00 ; 2 at $1,920.00; 6 at $2,040.00.
3.	The total expense incurred, including salaries paid, for the year March 1, 1923, to February 29, 1924, was as follows: Services, $18,450.00; expenses, $1,713.89; total, $20,163.89.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	What number of hog graders are employed by the Department of Agriculture?
2.	What amount has been paid in salaries, wages and expenses to hog graders per month, for the six months ending February 29, 1924?
3.	How many veterinary inspectors and lay inspectors are employed by the Department of Agriculture in the inspection of animals slaughtered, and meat in the packing houses of Canada?
4.	What is the amount paid in salaries and wages to veterinary and lay inspectors, respectively, for the year ending March 31, 1923?
5.	What proportion of the hogs graded by government inspectors have been graded as selects?
6.	What proportion of the meat from hogs graded by government inspectors slaughtered in packing houses has been graded as selects?
7.	Have any changes been made recently in the standard for selects, and if so, what is the present standard ?
8.	How much more money would have been paid to the producers of hogs since the act went into effect had the maximum weight for selects been 230 pounds instead of 220 pounds? *


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	The number of hog graders employed at stockyards and at packing plants, is as follows: 3 district swine graders; 15 swine graders; 7 junior swine graders.
2.	Salary
and Wages Expenses September, 1923 .. .. $3,810	00	$1,842	17October, 1923	
3,860	00	1,873	53November, 1923	
3,860	00	1,591	52December, 1923	
3,860	00	1,447	88January, 1924	
3,980	00	1,536	78February, 1924	
4,150	32	1,398	973.	Veterinarians, full time, 124; veterinarians, part time, 1; lay inspectors, full time, 102; lay inspectors, part time, 3.4.	Veterinarians, $338,218.50; lay inspectors, $150,184.22.5.	Of the total percentage of hogs marketed in Canada during 1923, 14.97 per cent were graded out as select bacon. This is a total of 370,742.6.	No information available.7. Yes. Grade	1.-Select bacon:	Hogs
weighing 170 to 220 pounds W.O.C. at stockyards and abattoirs or hogs weighing 180 to
Questions

230 pounds fed and watered at stockyards or at local shipping points and at such other points as may be designated from time to time; of a type and finish indicating suitability for the production of choice bacon. Jowl and shoulder light and smooth; back from neck to tail evenly fleshed; side long, medium depth, dropping reasonably straight from back; ham full, good general finish; no excess fat.
S.	It is impossible to answer this question except hypothetically, and hypothetical statements are not of much value. A study of the situation would suggest that farmers would have lost more due to the raising of the minimum weight than they would have gained owing to the corresponding rise in the maximum weight. When the maximum was increased ten pounds the minimum was also raised ten pounds. It is a well known fact that with hogs not bred especially along bacon lines, as was the case with a very large proportion of Canadian hogs, putting them on the market a little on the light side is very certain to give a larger proportion of "selects" than if they were put on the market a little on the heavy side, in which latter case a very large proportion, if not all hogs not especially bred for bacon, would be likely to grade as "thick smooth".
As the breeding of the hogs in the country improves however, possibly quite a material advantage will accrue to the farmers on account of this change in the weights.
SEBRINGVILLE POSTMASTERSHIP Mr. CHARTERS:
1.	Has any change in .the postmastership of Sebring-ville post office been made since the advent of the present government?
2.	If so, when?
3.	Why was the change made?
4.	Who is the present postmaster?
5.	Was he recommended by the Civil Service Commission ?
6.	Did any returned men apply for the position? If so, who?
7.	Why was not a returned man appointed?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	December 12, 1923.
3.	The commissioner appointed by order in council to investigate the charges of political partisanship made against the postmaster, reported the charges had been proven and he was accordingly dismissed.
4.	Clarence F. Otto.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes, Joseph Alex Foster.
7.	Foster, the only O.A.S. applicant, had not the residence qualification which has been ruled by the Department of Justice to have precedence over the O.A.S. preference.
HVIr. Motherwell.1


INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT AMENDMENT
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: With reference to Bill No. 7, being an act to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907:
1.	Has the Minister of Labour considered whether, in view of the recent decisions of the Privy Council, sections 2 and 3 of this bill are intra vires of the parliament of Canada?
2.	Has he referred the question of constitutionality of these two sections to the Department of Justice for an opinion?
3.	If so, what was the opinion and the date of the opinion?
4.	If not, does the Minister of Labour propose to proceed with the third reading of this bill without taking the opinion of the Department of Justice?
5.	Will the government refer the question of the constitutionality of these two sections to the Supreme Court of Canada for its opinion before proceeding with the third reading of the bill?


Hon. Mr. MURDOCK:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The amendments proposed in the bill were approved by the Department of Justice.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	The constitutionality of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is now before the Appeal Court of Ontario and the decision of that court is awaited. The Department of Justice was represented at the hearings before the court. The amendments to the act embodied in the bill were given third reading on Friday, March 28.
PENSION APPEALS Mr. CLARK:
1/ How many appeals have been entered pursuant to the provisions of section 12 (2) of the Pension Act as amended in 1923 ?
2. How many of such appeals have been granted?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	37.
2.	None.	[DOT]
PENSIONS AND COST OF LIVING BONUS Hon. Mr. MANION:
What is the total amount of money involved in the cost of living bonus added to the ordinary pensions of the soldiers and their dependents?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: (a) To disability pensioners, 84,184,375.00; (b) To dependents as pensioners, $3,679,20000; total, $7,863,575.00.
DONNACONA-ALLENBY JUNCTION LINE Mr. PARENT:
1.	Does the board of management of the Canadian National Railways intend to remove the railway line from a point near Donnacona to Allenby Junction, being a part of the old Canadian Northern railway?
2.	Is it the intention of the said board to build a

Questions
branch line from a point near Donnacona to connect with the Transcontinental railway?
3.	If so, what is the estimated cost of the proposed branch line?
4.	Has a contract been awarded for this work, and to whom?
5.	Have the estimates for the said work been voted by parliament, and if so, when?
6.	What will be the total length of the proposed branch line?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	$280,400.
4.	Yes, Federal Construction Co., Ltd.
5.	Yes, 1923-24.
6.	6-3 miles.


DANIEL MACNEILL-GOVERNMENT TELEPHONE
Mr. GRIMMER:: 1.	Has the government telephone, in the residence of Daniel MacNeill, Ainslie Glen, Nova Scotia, been removed ?
2.	If so, for what reason?
3.	To what residence was this telephone moved, and for what reason?
4.	Is there any way in which Daniel MacNeill of Ainslie Glen, Nova Scotia, can secure telephone service from the government?


Hon. Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1. Yes. July 3, 1923.
2 and 3. To the residence of Mr. A. H. McKay, Warden, Inverness County, East Lake Ainslie, N.S., for the benefit of the service.
4.	It is not considered advisable to install any further instruments on this circuit.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, telegrams and documents exchanged between the government or any member thereof or any government official and the management or any of the directors of the Home Bank since January 1, 1922.


DR. R. A. McGIBBON
Mr. MANION:: For a copy of all correspondence between Dr. R. A. McGibbon, superintendent of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment Hospital at St. Annes, and any member of the government, or between any member of the government and any other party, with regard to the retirement of said Dr. McGibbon from his position as superintendent, together with the reasons for such retirement.


TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) asked leave under rule 39 to move the adjournment of the House for 60
the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, Canada's attitude with respect to the ratification of the Treaty of Peace with Turkey.
Mr. SPEAKER:: In a matter of urgent
importance, affecting public policy, leave is usually given to the leader of the House to make a statement, by unanimous consent. And leave having been granted;


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: In this morning's press I observed an associated press despatch from England referring to a discussion which took place in the British House of Commons yesterday on the second reading of the bill to ratify the Treaty of Peace with Turkey and other instruments that were signed at Lausanne on July 24, 1923. The despatch contains what purports to be certain remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister of Great Britain with reference to Canada's attitude with respect to the ratification of this treaty. I am unable to say whether or not this report is accurate with respect to the representations it contains.
I have cabled to England to find out exactly what was stated by the Prime Minister. Pending a reply I might quote the reference which appears in the press. The despatch reads:
Canada had replied that she would agree to do what the Imperial government did, Canada had raised one or two constitutional points, which he did not think was really meant by Canada to have much substance but was a sort of safeguard. In order to guard against possible extensions of the principle of the treaty without warning being given Canada desired to retain for herself certain rights of decision over and above the Imperial rights of decision.
I think I should place before the House and the country, in a form which will be immediately available in the Old Land as well, should that be so desired, the exact position of Canada in this matter. Perhaps I can do so most effectively by referring to essential features in their chronological order.
The first communication received by the government with regard to the Lausanne conference was with reference to the invitation which had been extended to different countries to be represented. It was in the nature of a despatch dated October 27, 1922, in which it was intimated that the day before invitations had been sent by the governments of Great Britain, France and Italy to the Japanese, Roumanian, Jugoslav, Greek and Turkish governments, of both Constantinople and Angora, to send representatives to Lausanne on November 13, to conclude treaties to end the war in the East which would replace the Treaty of Sevres;

Treaty with Turkey

that the Russian Soviet government and the Serbian government were also invited to send to Lausanne, at any date to be fixed, representatives to take part in the discussion in reference to the stand which the conference would take at a later stage; that an inquiry was also being addressed by the three governments to the United States, expressing the hope that they would permit the United States representative to be present during the Lausanne negotiations in a capacity similar to that in which the United States representative was present during the negotiations at San Remo in 1920, or to take a more active part in the negotiations, especially on the question of the Straits. According to the arrangements agreed upon with the French and Italian governments, each government was to be represented at Lausanne by two plenipotentiaries. It was intimated that the dominion governments would be kept informed from time to time of the general lines of policy on which the British plenipotentiaries proposed to proceed, and of the course of negotiations; and, in the case of other treaties arising out of the peace, would be invited to sign a new treaty and any separate instrument regulating the status of the Straits. The despatch expressed the hope of His Majesty's government that this procedure would be in accordance with the wishes of the Canadian government.
In reply to the communication I have just referred to the view of the Canadian government was expressed pretty much as follows: It was stated that the government had no exception to take to the course pursued by His Majesty's government with respect to the conclusion of a treaty to end the war in the near East, but that as it was proposed to keep our government informed from time to time of' the general lines of policy upon which the British plenipotentiaries proposed to proceed, and of the course of negotiations, and to invite us to sign a new treaty and any separate instrument regulating the status of the Straits, we deemed it advisable to avail ourselves of the earliest opportunity to inform His Majesty's government that in our opinion the extent to which Canada might be held to be bound by the proceedings of the conference or by the provisions of any treaty or instrument arising out of the same, was necessarily a matter for the parliament of Canada to decide, and that the rights and powers of our parliament in these particulars must not be held to be affected by implication or otherwise in virtue of the information with which our government might be supplied.

That communication was sent on October 31,	1922. We received a little later a
communication from the British government, in which it was intimated that the
British government fully understood that it would be the desire of the Canadian government that any treaty with Turkey, which might result from the conference, should be submitted to the Canadian parliament for approval before His Majesty was advised to ratify it. The despatch further stated that it was the desire of the British government that we should be kept fully informed of the developments of the conference, and that the British government would endeavour to send us full details. That seemed to necessitate making our position more explicit and another despatch was sent to the British government on November 25, 1922. In that despatch it was stated that the Canadian government had not expressed a desire to have any treaty with Turkey, which might result from the conference, submitted to the Canadian parliament for approval before His Majesty was advised to ratify it; nor did we wish to be understood as preferring any such request. We had intended to make it clear that we took no exception to Canada not being invited to be represented at the conference, but that while we had not been invited to participate we had been informed that we should be invited to sign a new treaty and any separate instrument regulating the status of the Straits, we wished to make it perfectly clear that in our opinion the extent to which Canada might be held to be bound by the proceedings of the conference, or by the provisions of any treaty or other instrument arising out of the same, was necessarily a matter for the parliament of Canada to decide. We deemed it of the utmost importance that there should be no misunderstanding as to our position with respect to Canada's obligations in this and kindred matters and we stated that in our opinion parliament would desire, as respected the treaty with Turkey and any other instrument arising out of the Lausanne Conference, to reserve to itself the right to decide, on the merits of the case, what action on the part of the people of Canada was right and proper. In this connection we asked whether we might have authority to place before parliament all the information with which we might be supplied from time to time. The British government intimated in respect to this request that as the conference was likely to be proceeding for some time, it was not desirable that this information should be made public. It was suggested that possibly all that was necessary was that

Treaty with Turkey
parliament should be supplied with a copy of the treaty itself as soon as it was signed.
A further communication was received with respect to our signing of the treaty, saying that the British government had assumed that Canada would wish to follow the precedent set at Versailles and, in accordance with that precedent, authorize some one to sign the treaty on Canada's behalf. The British government having made that representation, we felt it imperative to point out that the procedure which was being followed with respect to Lausanne was not similar to the procedure which had been followed in the case of the Treaty of Versailles or of the subsequent treaty at Washington, inasmuch as both in the case of Versailles and in the case of Washington the Canadian government had been invited to participate in the conference and had been asked to appoint a representative. Such representative had been appointed and duly authorized to represent the country at the conference, and to sign in the name of Canada. We made it clear that the procedure referred to had never been suggested or taken; nor indeed was it possible for us to take it since we had not been invited to participate and that inasmuch as the first stages, upon which the last depended, had been omitted, it was not possible to follow the last stages of procedure adopted at the conferences at Versailles and Washington. Our position in that regard was set forth substantially as follows-I am referring now to the reply to the despatch which intimated that it was expected that we would wish to follow the procedure laid down and adopted at Versailles; we replied that the procedure in respect of the Paris Peace Conference, which was followed, also, later on in connection with the Washington Conference on the Limitation of Armaments, was the procedure to which we understood reference was being made. As to Canada's participation in those conferences we pointed out there were four separate and distinct essential stages, all of importance in the negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties affecting Canada. These stages were, first, the direct representation of Canada at the conferences upon which treaties were drafted, and participation in the proceedings of the conferences by Canada's representatives, each representative holding full powers, signed by His Majesty the King, in the form of letters patent, authorizing him to sign- for and in the name of His Majesty the King in respect of the Dominion of Canada-
-any treaties, conventions or agreements, the Canadian government having by order 60i
in council sanctioned the issuance of these full powers by His Majesty; second, the formal signing of treaties on behalf of Canada by the plenipotentiaries so named; third, the approval by the parliament of Canada of the treaties thus signed on behalf of Canada; and, fourth, the assent of the government of Canada to the final act of ratification, by His Majesty the King, of the treaty signed on behalf of Canada and approved by the parliament of Canada. We pointed out that the British government was quite right in assuming that, as regards the treaties in which Canada was supposed to have a direct or immediate interest, the procedure here outlined was the one which our government would wish to follow, and that in the case of the main political treaties concluded since the war, in general the rule seemed to have been followed that where-ever the dominions had a direct or immediate interest the procedure was shaped to include their participation in the proceedings and their signature of the treaties. That in the case of the conference at Lausanne, the fact that a like procedure had not been followed with respect to representation and participation by Canada had been regarded by us as evidence that, in the opinion of the countries by whom invitations to the conference were extended, Canada could not have been deemed to have that direct and immediate interest which she was supposed to have had in the conferences at Versailles and Washington. In saying this we made it quite clear again that with respect to the course pursued by the Lausanne conference we had no exception to take; with respect to the procedure, however, we pointed out that it must be apparent, quite apart from any action or representations on the part of the government of Canada, that a different procedure had been followed at Lausanne than was followed at Versailles and Washington. Therefore under the circumstances we did not see how we could be expected, in the case of a new treaty or of any separate instrument regarding that treaty,- to follow the procedure adopted in the case of the treaties concluded with Germany, Austria and Bulgaria.
That despatch was sent December 31, 1922. Through the subsequent year we received intermittent accounts of what was taking place at Lausanne, but no further reference to the question of our signature or ratification. This year, shortly before the opening of parliament, we received a communication asking if the Canadian government would concur in the ratification of the treaty which had been signed.
Treaty with, Turkey


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Before the Prime Minister proceeds further-was there any reply to the message of December 31, 1922?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, nothing
was said further with respect to our position. As I say, we were asked, shortly before the present session of parliament opened, whether the government would signify concurrence in ratification of the treaty and the conventions in question. To this communication we replied: That as Canada had not been invited to send a representative to the Lausanne conference and had not participated in the proceedings there, either directly or indirectly, and for this reason was not a signatory of the treaty, our government did not feel that it was in a position to recommend to parliament the approval of the peace treaty with Turkey and the conventions thereto, and that without the approval of parliament we did not feel that we were warranted in signifying concurrence. Having made our own position thus clear in all its bearings we added, in order that it might not be misunderstood in other ways, that with respect to ratification we would not take exception to such course as His Majesty's government might deem advisable to recommend. We pointed out that our position appeared to be in harmony with the resolution passed at the recent Imperial Conference respecting the negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties, the provisions thereof with reference to signature being as follows:	First concerning such as
impose obligations on one part only:
(a)	Bilateral treaties imposing obligations on one part of the Empire only should be signed by a representative of the government of that part. The full power issued to such representative should indicate the part of the Empire in respect of which the obligations are to be undertaken, and the preamble and text of the treaty should be so worded as to make its scope clear.
As to ratification the concluding paragraph, 2a, reads:
The ratification of treaties imposing obligations on one part of the Empire is effected at the instance of the government of that part:
And secondly, such as impose obligations on more than one part of the Empire:
(b)	Where a bilateral treaty imposes obligations on more than one part of the Empire, the treaty should be' signed by one or more plenipotentiaries on behalf of all the governments concerned.
2 (b) The ratification of treaties imposing obligations on more than one part of the Empire is effected after consultation between the governments of those parts of the Empire concerned. It is for each government to decide whether parliamentary approval or legislation is required before desire for, or concurrence in, ratification is intimated by that government.
We take the position that, not having been invited to the Lausanne conference, not

having been represented there, not having, for the reasons that I have mentioned, signed the treaty, the treaty does not impose obligations on Canada, and that the parts of the Empire on which it does impose obligations are the only parts that should be expected to sign and ratify. As we did not regard the treaty as imposing obligations on Canada, we did not feel that it was necessary to submit the treaty to parliament for its approval, or in its name to signify concurrence in its ratification. A copy of the treaty itself, as hon. members will recall, was laid on the Table on one of the opening days of the session.


Arthur Meighen: Will the Prime Minister lay on the Table the correspondence of which he has given us a summary and, as well, any relevant correspondence that ha9 passed between the two governments?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no objection to laying on the Table the correspondence which I have read, except this. As my right hon. friend knows, the British government prefers that despatches of the kind in question should be communicated to parliament in indirect language rather than in the direct language in which they are couched. I have given to parliament all that is relevant, all the essential features of the entire correspondence that bears on the matter. So far as I am aware I have not omitted anything, neither have I added anything. I shall be very glad to let my right hon. friend see the correspondence himself.
Motion withdrawn.
On Notices of Motion being called:


Mr. GOULD:: Mr. Speaker, might I ask,-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. We have not
reached the Orders of the Day. It was only by unanimous consent that the Prime Minister was allowed to make his deliverance on a question affecting public policy.


PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant) moved:: Whereas redistribution as outlined by the Prime Minister at the last session of parliament has not yet been carried into effect;
And whereas the principle of the transferable (or alternative) vote has been accepted by parliament, and the Prime Minister has promised to embody it in the Dominion Elections Act during the present session;
And whereas there have been several multimembered constituencies in the past and may also be after the

Proportional Representation
impending redistribution;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this House, the Dominion Elections Act be so amended as to use the transferable vote to secure, as far as possible, proportional representation in such multi-membered constituencies as may be provided for in the next redistribution.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. May says that it is not permissible to anticipate the action of parliament or of a com-nfittee appointed by parliament, or to introduce a resolution dealing with a matter already referred to a committee of the House. A few nights ago the House dealt with a proposal with regard to representation and redistribution; therefore I would like to ask if this resolution is in order.


Hewitt Bostock: I may say to the hon.
member at once that if the committee were already appointed his obje'ction would perhaps hold. But the committee is not yet appointed, so that I think the resolution is in order.


Arthur Meighen: I do not see what the
committee has to do with it. The matter perhaps not of the whole resolution but of the larger part of it is before parliament now in the form of a bill. The appointment of a committee does not affect the point of order. It might be that the motion could be amended and the part which is not affected by the bill retained, but as it stands it seems to me that the motion is subject to the point of order raised by the hon. member.


Hewitt Bostock: The bill to which reference has been made affects the redistribution of the whole Dominion based upon the last census. The proposal in this ease deals with the transferable vote; it deals with the mode of election, not with the redistribution itself. My ruling is that the point of order is not well taken.


William Charles Good: I am glad to have permission, Mr. Speaker, to continue, although the hour is late and I proceed in the full knowledge that anybody who wishes to prevent a vote on this question this afternoon may do so by talking until six o'clock.
Last year I had the honour of presenting to the House two resolutions dealing with electoral reform. The first one, having to do with the alternative vote in single member constituencies, was adopted without debate and, I think, with practical unanimity. I am very much pleased to note in the Speech from the Throne that the government will embody this reform in the Dominion Elections Act during the present session. My second proposal was that at the same time
there should be a limited, and more or less experimental, application of proportional representation, which alone would give us a true and adequate representation of the major bodies of existing political opinion. This resolution, after an interesting debate, was defeated by the somewhat narrow majority of eighteen votes. As the Redistribution bill was then before the House and there was reasonable expectation of its being passed before the House prorogued. I took it that the defeat of the motion would postpone any further consideration of the matter of proportional representation until the next redistribution, probably not less than ten years hence. However, as hon. members know'-


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask hon. members if they would kindly stop the conversation which is going on in the House, m order that the speaker may have a chance to be heard. I myself can hardly follow his remarks.


William Charles Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately I have a cold to-day and I cannot, speak as distinctly as I ordinarily would.
As I was going on to say, redistribution went over to the present session and I am therefore venturing to ask the House to reconsider the whole question.
The House will remember that the debate which took place last year continued until a very late hour, and owing to the desire of hon. members to reach a vote as quickly as possible I was unable to deal adequately with the objections that had been registered against the resolution. I desire, therefore, to deal very briefly this afternoon with the debate that then took place. I think the whole case against my resolution of last year was pretty well epitomized by the argument of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), to which I now propose to address myself.
In opening, my right hon. friend, in his most characteristic fashion, poured ridicule on the government for having no policy in the matter under consideration. Next he embarked upon a rather lengthy digression in order to prove to the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster)-and others-that the great Conservative party was, or at least had been in time past, truly progressive. My right hon. friend's contention in this regard was well sustained by a considerable body of evidence. I have often remarked, as he did on that occasion, that there is nothing so delusive as names. In fact I should not be very much surprised, if we could apply proper standards of measurement, to find Conservatives.
9.50

Proportional Representation
Liberals and Progressives, if these terms have any significance, in all sections of this House. Party names are something like peoples' names: in the dim and distant past they were descriptive, but in process of time they have become mere tags, having no special significance. I presume, Mr. Speaker, that some time in the past my ancestors on the paternal side may have had some admirable characteristics which their descendants have neither the desire nor the right to lay claim to; and I think it is possibly somewhat the same with political parties: whether through marriage, or "morganatic alliance" or the influence of environment, they rapidly change, and the only consolation we have is that it is somewhat easier for them to change their name than it would be for a two hundred and fifty pound Mr. Small to change his name to Mr. Large. However, to digress no further in reply to my right hon. friend's digression, I may say I have no quarrel with his claim that the grand old Conservative party really possesses progressive instincts and has at least some progressive measures to its credit.
Now, coming to proportional representation itself, my right hon. friend seems disposed to endorse the charge so frequently made that this newer method of election will tend toward a continuance and multiplication of groups in parliament, a condition which he believes to be regrettable. He is forced to admit, however, that groups have arisen, continued and multiplied without proportional representation, and he admits further that the emergence and continuance of groups may be useful, holding only that the multiplication of groups does not conduce to the good of the country.
Now, if he could prove that the multiplication of groups was a result of proportional representation, his argument would be valid so far; but he does not prove it; nor can he, for the available evidence points the other way. But, supposing it could be proven that proportional representation resulted in the multiplication of groups, are we justified in concluding that it would be more difficult in that case for the electorate to decide major questions of policy than it has been under the old system? I think not. My right hon. friend's argument in this connection would be valid only if there were a single question of public policy to decide in a general election. In such a case it would not matter very much what sort of electoral methods were in use provided the issue secured a majority vote of the electors. Two parties, one for and the other against, would meet the need. But no general election is IMr. Good.]
like this. There are usually several major issues and a number of minor ones. Then there is the personnel of the administration and its record. Moreover, there are questions pertaining to the qualifications, views anc characters of the various candidates. Proportional representation will give greater freedom of choice to the electors and 4 p.m. thus enable them to give expression to their views on several issues. Nor will it in any way render more difficult the settlement of any major issue, as my right hon. friend seems to think, for will not each candidate declare himself on such issue? Did not the anti-protectionist opinion in Great Britain find expression both in Labour and Liberal candidates, though these may have differed on other questions? And was it not desirable that British electors who wished to record their votes against protection should have the" choice between Labour and Liberal candidates thereby enabling them to register their opinions not only on the major issue but on minor issues as well? I wish to quote, on this point, a paragraph from the last number of the British journal Representation. It is from an article entitled The Three-Party Problem and Proportional Representation :
If public opinion is divided into three main streams, the three party system is not an evil; on the contrary, it is of very great value in the organization of public opinion. The presence of three parties in the general election alone made possible the fairly clear and definite expression of national opinion on the great issues of the day, Protection, Capital Levy, Foreign Policy and Unemployment, and Socialism. Consider what would have happened if the three parties had been reduced to two, Labour and Conservative. The four million Liberal electors would have been compelled to decide whether free trade on the one hand, or the capital levy and socialism on the other, were to them the more important of the issues. Some would have voted for the Conservatives; others for Labour; many might have abstained. Either the Labour party or the Conservative party would have had a majority of seats. In either case, legislation might have been at complete variance with national wishes.
I submit, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that my right hon. friend's argument in this regard, both as respects the connection between groups and proportional representation, and as respects certain effects of groups, is not well-founded.
The next objection put forward by my right hon. friend is the fear that log-rolling may be encouraged by the existence of groups in parliament. Let me read to the House what he says in this connection. I quote from page 410 of Hansard of last year:
The worst thing that can happen parliament is to have it so constituted that policy is determined by a system of exchange of favours, of sectional favours, of favours of any other kind-policy determined thereby rather than determined initially by government on

Proportional
Representation
its responsibility to parliament and ultimately to the electors. For that reason I do not think proportional representation is consonant with the British form of government.
Now, I will agree with my right hon. friend in his objection to log-rolling, but I do not see its connection with proportional representation; in the first place, because we have groups without proportional representation, and in the second place, if proportional representation gave rise to groups, the evils of log-rolling would be no worse than they are under the two-party system, where there are all kinds of opportunities for log-rolling, and that of a secret kind, within the party. How easy it is for representatives to demand local favours as a price of support of a government, how easy for that to go on within a party group if members are so minded. No; that argument is quite beside the mark.
Then finally, after admitting that much may be said in favour of proportional representation, after admitting that such a system tends toward more accurate reflection of all the views of public opinion in the mirror of parliament, my right hon. friend protests vehemently against anything in the nature of a partial or isolated application of proportional representation. Listen to what he says; I am quoting from page 411 of Hansard:
But whether proportional representation is right or wrong, the isolated application of proportional representation is wrong, and wrong in my mind without any room for debate at all. I am against the isolated application of the principle, and would be against it even though the principle itself appealed to me as sound. Now why do I say that? You cannot have the isolated local application of proportional representation while all the rest of the country is under the old system, and either do justice as between party and party or do justice to the constituency to which proportional representation is aplied. It is unfair as between party and party, and it is unfair as respects the constituency itself. Now as between party and party you may apply proportional representation to constituencies, or to classes of constituencies. where one party is the stronger, and thereby deplete its strength in those constituencies but leave unmolested whole areas of the country where another party is the stronger, and thereby give it the whole advantage of its majority over that area. That such a result would be grossly unfair-indeed, that it would be an outrage on the public of this country, there can be no dispute at all, and I do not believe you can choose any area and say that you have chosen this fairly as between the parties represented in parliament.
There are . two charges there; first, that injustice will be done as between party and party, and second, that the constituencies where proportional representation will be applied will not be fairly dealt with. Let us examine these two charges in their reverse order.
Take, for example, the specific case of the city of Winnipeg where proportional representation has been in effect for some years, and to which my right hon. friend refers. In what way has injustice been done to the inhabitants of Winnipeg by providing that the minority in that city should secure representation in the Manitoba legislature? My right hon. friend tries to tell us what injustice is done, or may be done. I shall read a few sentences from his address last year. I quote from page 412 of Hansard:
In a word, the party that directs its policy to winning that vote-
He is referring to the rural vote.
-plays for a stake of forty seats; the party that directs its policy to winning the city vote plays for a stake of one vote or two. As a consequence, there is every motive, there is every political motive-and let us not be so hypocritical as to deny that political motives exercise an influence in parliament-there is every political motive to neglect the constituencies to which proportional representation is applied in the public policy of the country, and to place the whole trend of that public policy in favour of those constituencies to which that system is not applied at all. There would be very little to be gained by any government in office in Manitoba to-day in so turning public policy as to be even fair to the city of Winnipeg.
My right hon. friend is too close a reasoner not to see the weakness of this argument. In fact, he makes a veiled admission when immediately after the sentence I have just read he says:
I do not want to be understood as saying that there has been unfairness to the city.
Well, proportional representation has been in effect in the city for several years. If the menace exists there, why do we not see some realization of it? I think hon. members for that district will bear me out when I say that we have not seen such discrimination against the city of Winnipeg in the Manitoba legislature, and I think for the very good reason that the ten members for Winnipeg elected under proportional representation may be relied upon to protect the interests of the city just as well as any other ten members elected in wards or districts. Indeed, why not? There may be many differences of opinion on other matters of a provincial character, but is there any reason in the world why the ten members elected under proportional representation for the city of Winnipeg, whose opinions may differ on other matters, should not unite in protecting the city against unfair treatment? Why should they not unite to so protect the city?' In fact the members elected in that way would unite to defend the city against any unfair treatment by the province, more

Proportional Representation
so than, ten members elected in wards, because of the fact that ward jealousies and ward needs would probably occupy a somewhat important part in the minds of the members so elected. I think, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the argument of my right hon. friend with respect to the city of Winnipeg falls down completely.
Nor is he on any better ground when he applies this argument to the federal arena. He says that there are strong sectional interests in Canada. Granted. Why should sectional interests be ignored if members be elected under proportional representation? Does my right hon. friend think that the sectional interests of Nova Scotia would be in greater jeopardy if there were a fair representation of Conservatives from that province in this House? Have not all the members from British Columbia acted unitedly in this House, no matter to what party they belonged, on such a question as that of oriental immigration? Frankly, I see no reason to believe that proportional representation would in any way hinder the united action of representatives from any particular section of the country in regard to sectional needs. On the contrary, it would enable parliament to get a more balanced and accurate view of what the various sections of the country wanted.
Now, so far as justice between party and party is concerned, it is not difficult to see what is in my right hon. friend's mind. He fears, for example, that a Liberal government will apply proportional representation to Toronto and will not apply it to Montreal. Of course injustice may be done in this way, but can it not be done now by the notorious process of gerrymandering? I think, Mr. Speaker, we shall have to depend somewhat on the sense of decency, or at all events on the public protest that would be evoked by any glaring case of that kind. I should like to assure my right hon. friend the leader of the Conservative party and his associates that if they will assist this group in getting a partial application of proportional representation, we on our part will see that they as a party are not unfairly discriminated against.
Now, Mr. Speaker, why do I ask for a partial application of proportional representation? Why do I not seek to apply it all over Canada at the same time? I should like to direct the attention of the House to three fairly definite, and I think fairly valid, reasons for my attitude in that regard.
First, because I am sufficiently cautious and conservative to believe in a not too rapid

change, owing to the ever present danger of reaction. I think we all realize that even progress in the right direction may be too rapid and may bring about a reaction, if the people are not ready for it. "Slow and steady," with the emphasis on the "steady" is, I think, a good motto to keep before us in this connection.
Secondly, because it is generally believed that there are serious practical difficulties in the way of applying proportional representation to very large and sparsely settled areas. Personally, I think these difficulties have been greatly magnified, but it would be folly to ignore such belief as exists in this connection. It seems to me to be the part of wisdom, therefore, to await the result of experience. Most people are profoundly affected by actual experience, and by keeping this in mind I think we shall make greater progress in the long run than if we were to go too fast at the start.
Thirdly and finally, because while the task of the voter under proportional representation is easy, the task of the returning officer is not so easy, and in order that there may be a minimum of mistakes in the actual carrying out of the count in the various constituencies, it is desirable, in fact it is absolutely necessary, that there should be at least one trained supervisor, and it woulc be better to have several, in each constituency where such an experiment is tried We have some men in Canada who are prepared to supervise the count, but we have not very many, and it would give the system a black eye if, by attempting to apply it where people are not prepared to intelligently supervise the procedure, we should fail down in the application. In that way the system would be veiy unfairly judged.
For these reasons it seems to me desirable to make haste slowly. What objection would there be, for instance, to the application of proportional representation in Winnipeg for federal purposes, where they have already had it for provincial elections for a number of years? I cannot see any difficulty about applying it in such a case. People are familiar with the procedure. There are plenty of skilled returning officers in Winnipeg to look after the count. But the situation might be very different, indeed, if we were to make the attempt in one of the large and sparsely settled areas of northern Ontario. I think that what we ought to do would be to adopt it where it is immediately practicable and extend it as fast as it is shown to be wise.
Now, Mr. Speaker, leaving the debate of last year, let me submit to the House some

Proportional Representation
information which experience has given us during the intervening period. First of all, in point of interest, I think, are the Irish elections of last summer. In this connection I would like to quote from the October number of the Proportional Representation Review. This is from an article on the Irish Free State elections and I quote as follows:
The election of the Dail Eireann (Chamber of Deputies) of the Irish Free State, was carried out on August 27, by proportional representation with the single non-transferable vote (the Hare system). The 153 members were elected from 30 districts returning from 3 to 9 members in each. Generally speaking, each county was a district. The city of Dublin, which returned 15 members, was polled as two districts. The result may be summarized as follows:
Then there is a table showing the name of the party, the number of votes polled, the seats obtained and the seats in proportion to votes. I do not think it is necessary for me to weary the House by reading the whole of this table. There were five different parties or groups who appealed to the electors of Ireland last summer: The Government party, Anti-Treaty or Republican party, Labour, including Independent Labour, Farmers, Business and Independents. Further down in this article, I should like to quote the following comment:
A system of election which thus gives even-handed justice to every party, even one whose leaders are in jail or "on the run," may be thought by some to be too liberal for the safety of the state. But that is not the view of those Irishmen and others who seem to us the true heirs of the great tradition of Anglo-Saxon statesmanship exemplified by such men as Pitt and Burke and Lincoln. For Americans especially it should not be hard to appreciate the profound advantage of a system of election which gives justice in representation. If the British parliament had supported Burke on March 22, 1775, when he advocated the recognition by parliament of "the ancient constitutional policy of this kingdom with regard to representation" and its application to the rebellious Americans, it would doubtless have held the colonies. The system of election used in the Free State, by giving justice (so far, we mean, as the system is concerned) even to those in rebellion against the existing government, has tended to discourage unparliamentary methods.
There is another paragraph which I shall not read, dealing with the steadying influence of proportional representation. The change of representation from that of the previous parliament has not been very noticeable, and therefore greater harmony and continuity have been possible. I should like to note in this connection also some information given in the British .journal, Representation, to which I have alluded before. This is from an article on the Free State elections of 1923:
A method of election is something more than machinery. It influences profoundly both the character of the electoral campaign and the nature of its result.
And further on:
The influence of proportional representation can be traced even in the nominations. Apart from Dublin University, which was permitted to return unchallenged three Independents, every constituency was contested. Further, the four parties-Government, Republican, Farmer ,and Labour-had their standard-bearers, not merely in reasonably favourable constituencies, but in practically all. This did not, however, necessitate any extraordinary number of candidates.
I would like to comment at this stage that the charge which has been frequently made that this method of election results in a multiplicity of candidates as well as a multiplicity of groups, is utterly without foundation in actual experience. I continue:
There were for the 150 contested seats in Ireland, 373 candidates.
Then it gives the statistics for Great Britain in the election of 1922 and the election of 1923, showing that under the proportional representation system, the proportion of candidates running was practically no greater than under the system which prevailed in Great Britain.
I have in my hand a letter which appeared in the London Times not long ago from Lord Monteagle, commenting upon the Irish election. After an introduction, he enumerates as follows certain broad characteristics of the Irish election of last August:
(1) The peaceable and orderly character, not only of the polling day, but of the preliminary campaign, was as generally recognized as it was unexpected. The surprise indeed was natural when one remembers the passion and lawlessness of the previous twelve months then hardly allayed, and recalls the election disturbances of former days even in ordinarily peaceful times. The charge may surely be attributed largely to the decrease of the gladiatorial element inherent in single combat contests.
I shall not weary the House with reading the rest of this enumeration, which is very interesting, indeed, showing the unusually useful and harmonizing and stabilizing effects of this method of election in Ireland. Surely, if there is any place where the utility of this method of election had a better chance to be proven to the hilt than Ireland, I would like to know where it is.
I refer next, just for a moment or two, to the British elections of last December. On the whole, a much fairer representation was secured than in the British elections of the previous year. 1922; but this was purely by accident. That that is so, can be definitely proven by an analysis of some of the constituency or borough and county elections. I quote from the British journal, Representation, for February, 1924, a little information bearing upon this point. For instance, in the city of Birmingham, the Conservative party, with 149,000 votes, secured eleven representatives. The Liberal party, with 76,000 votes, secured none

Proportional Representation
at all. The Labour party, with 28,000 votes, secured none at all. There you have about two-fifths of the votes securing the total representation in the city of Birmingham. In Cornwall, the Liberal party captured all of the seats, while the Conservative party, with 41,000 votes, secured no representation at all. If you take Wales and Monmouth together, you find that the Labour party secured a great preponderance of the representation. In Scotland also the Labour party secured a preponderance of the representation. Therefore, as I said, it is only by accident that the result on the whole comes out with a greater degree of fairness than we would expect. The situation is simply this, that Conservatives in Scotland and in certain other sections have to be content with being represented by Conservatives from cities such as Birmingham, just as in this parliament the Conservatives of Nova Scotia have to be content to be represented by the Conservatives of Ontario. I might make the same comment with respect to other provinces of the Dominion.
I should like also to refer in passing to a very interesting election which took place last November under this system in the city of Cleveland, the fifth city in importance and population in the United States. The city was divided into four districts and twenty-five couneilmen were elected in it. I have here in the January number of the Proportional Representation Review a very exhaustive account of this election. I will not weary the House by making any quotations from it, although I should like to do so, if I had the time. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that anybody who reads this careful analysis of the actual experience of Cleveland must come to the conclusion that the method in this instance has a great many most important advantages.
Now let me refer to an interesting news item from New Zealand, which is, I think, of particular interest at this time:
In New Zealand an electoral development of importance has taken place, a bill having been introduced by the government involving a partial application of P.R. in the House of Representatives. The new bill proposes P.R. for the chief cities, Auckland with 5 members, Wellington, 5, Christchurch 4 and Dunedin 4, -in all 18 members in a House of 80. Preferential voting (the alternative vote) is to be applied in the remaining constituencies. The government introduced the bill, with a view to making its provisions generally known, immediately before the parliamentary adjournment last August, and the Prime Minister stated that he "intended, all being well to proceed with it next session." As both the opposition parties, Labour and Liberal, are pledged to P.R. there is hope that a definite advance will be made.
The situation in New Zealand apparently is almost identical with the situation in this country, save that the government here has

not yet adopted the policy of making an experimental application of proportional representation to certain selected constituencies.
I must refer also to the Ontario elections of last June, when the Conservative party, with a minority of the total vote, secured a very large majority of the representation. Hon. members are aware of the effort made by the preceding administration to	enact two
measures of electoral reform and redistribution just prior to the dissolution of the legislature last summer, and we are all familiar with the methods which were used to block those reforms and with their final failure. As a result of the failure to introduce better electoral methods in Ontario last June, we find that the Conservative party, with 49 per cent, of the vote, secured 66 per cent, of the seats; the Farmers, with 22 per cent of the vote, secured 16 per cent of the seats; the Liberal party, with 21 per cent of the votes secured 12 per cent of the seats; while the Labour and Independent vote of 7 per cent secured 5.8 per cent of the representation. Although the Conservative party may regard this situation as being very satisfactory, it is something which will undoubtedly prove a boomerang. No party which secures more than a fair share of representation ought to hold it or can hold it very long. As I remarked last year when the matter was under discussion, the farmers in the preceding government in Ontario had more than their fair share of representation, and perhaps it was that fact w'hich to some extent led to their defeat on June 25.
In Manitoba also we find that recently the legislature has adopted the alternative or transferable vote for single-member constituencies, and there is a movement on foot to extend proportional representation outside the city of Winnipeg. I notice that two clippings, one from the Tribune and one from the Free Press, which I have here, refer to a resolution brought in by Mr. Tanner, the member for Kildonan and St. Andrews, who is apparently moving for an extension of proportional representation to some of the more thickly settled districts outside the city of Winnipeg. I merely refer to this in passing as indicating the tendency of the times. I should refer also to the situation in Alberta where, I understand, it is proposed at the next session of the legislature to adopt the alternative vote and proportional reprensenta-tion for the whole of the province'. It is too soon, perhaps, to speak definitely as to what will be done, but I understand that this is the prospect. And I notice that even in Quebec there is a considerable sentiment in

Proportional Representation
favour of reform along these lines. Perhaps the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will be particularly interested in an article from the Quebec Chronicle. The first paragraph reads:
Although the adoption of the proportional representation system of election makes comparatively slow progress in this country, the time is declared to be coming when the sheer force of example will break down all opposition. In this connection, no doubt, the statement will come as a surprise to many readers that well over one-eighth of the earth's population, it is stated, are living in proportional representation territory; that is nations or other governmental units throughout which proportional elections are held for important representative bodies by direct popular vote.
The rest of the article contains a lengthy enumeration of various countries in which this system is in use.
Now, why should we not be satisfied with the alternative vote? Last year apparently there was a feeling that if we secured one reform we should be satisfied with that. But the alternative vote, I would point out, is designed to meet a special difficulty which has been arising in recent years, the difficulty namely, in connection with the running of more than two candidates in a single-member constituency. The alternative vote meets that difficulty satisfactorily. Every one recognizes that, and that is why this House has adopted it without debate and, I think, with practical unanimity. But it does not secure or assure to us fair representation. It cannot do so, and we must go further as quickly and yet as carefully as we can. In the little magazine to which I have already referred there is an analysis of the last British general election from the point of view of the alternative vote. This article, which is very interesting, shows that, so far as can be ascertained from an analysis of that election the alternative vote would not have been of very great value in securing a fair representation in Great Britain. I do not want the House to think that I am minimising the importance of the alternative vote at all; it is very important, and I am glad that we have attained it. But nevertheless it does not meet the problem which democracies have to face at the present time. I will not impose upon the House the details of this analysis of the British elections from that point of view, but they are worth looking into.
Let me refer for a moment to the language of the resolution. Hon. members will see that it is somewhat different from the resolution of last year which was defeated by the small majority of 18. It occurred to me that possibly, as that resolution apparently was not acceptable to the House, there being no evident desire to adopt proportional representation in certain selected constituencies, the House might at least agree to apply proportional representation in any multimember constituencies that might remain after the next redistribution. In the past we have had several two-member constituencies, three of which I recall at the moment,-Halifax, St. John and Ottawa. There may be others.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: There are five-Cape
Breton South and Richmond, St. John. Halifax, Ottawa, and Queen's, Prince Edward Island.


William Charles Good: I am glad to have that information. If the House cannot see its way clear now to go to the length which I suggested last session, and if these two-member constituencies are retained and possibly other multimember constituencies are brought into existence in the proposed redistribution, I think we might as well utilize the transferable vote in such constituencies to secure a fairer representation. Let me illustrate what I mean by taking the case of the city of Halifax. Let us suppose that 55 per cent of the electorate would vote Conservative and 45 per cent Liberal. Obviously it would be much fairer to have one Conservative and one Liberal representing that city in this House than it would be to have two Conservative members returned, as would almost inevitably happen under the present system even with the alternative vote. A two-member constituency is not the best for the application of proportional representation, but it is better than nothing.
If the House will not go so far-and I think it was a very moderate length to which I asked it to go last session-then perhaps it would be agreeable to adopt what I am now suggesting in this resolution. I should, however, be most happy if a member of the government, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) for instance, could see his way clear to bring in an amendment in accordance with the terms of my resolution of last session, not specifying any particular constituencies, but leaving it in the hands of the committee on redistribution to consider whether or not Winnipeg, for example, might not be selected as a federal constituency in which to apply this method. But, as I have already said, I chose this particular wording, feeling that it was the least the House could be asked to adopt, and in the hope that something might be done in this direction. I gather from the remarks made last year by the present Solicitor General (Mr. McMurray) that he is not sympathetic to proportional representation being applied to Winnipeg, but I am disposed rather to accept as of more weight the very many assurances

Proportional Representation
from other prominent men in that city that the system is satisfactory there.
Personally I think we might at least go this far, and I am simply submitting it to the House as a matter of opinion. We might at least apply the method in the present two-member constituencies, if they are continued, or in any inultimembered constituencies. I think we could apply it in Winnipeg without any disturbance of local conditions. I should also like to see it applied in Toronto and Montreal. And I should be glad to see an experimental test made in old Ontario where we have a fairly dense mixed rural and urban population. I do not see any difficulty in its application to such a territory. As I remarked on a previous occasion, the committee of the Ontario legislature which had this matter under study some two or three years ago recommended two experimental applications of the system in mixed constituencies, one in western Ontario and one in eastern Ontario. I know that in my own district we might group together the counties of Brant and Oxford, and possibly Norfolk, to the south, forming a group-constituency which would elect about five members.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would submit to the House and to the government that now is the only chance we shall have within the next ten years to make any headway with this most important reform, a reform which has shown itself by actual experience to be an improvement on our present system. I do not want to be arbitrary, neither do I want to ask too much, and I should be most pleased if the government could see its way to consider some further application of proportional representation than I have suggested in this resolution; and, I repeat, I would welcome an amendment to that end. But, if no hon. member cares to bring in such an amendment, then I must be content with this resolution, which simply asks the House to endorse the very minimum application of the principle that is possible in Canada at the present time.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon.
member (Mr. Good) deserves credit for the consideration he has given to the improvement of our system of representation, more particularly as concerns proportional representation-a system which is in force in many countries of the world, and which will probably be in force later on, at least partially, in this country.

The resolution, however, suggests that the Dominion Elections Act be amended so as to use the transferable vote to secure as far as possible proportional representation in such multimembered constituencies as may be constituted by the next redistribution. In other words, he asks the House to legislate for a condition which may or may not exist after the redistribution committee has completed its work and the bill has become law. In this respect at least the resolution is premature. Personally, I would rather see some of our double-member constituencies wiped out. As I said a few minutes ago, we have five double-member constituencies at the present time-Ottawa, Halifax, St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert, Cape Breton South and Richmond, and Queen's, P.E.I. By his resolution my hon. friend would ask the House to apply proportional representation to such constituencies as these. I do not think it would be giving a fair chance to the system of proportional representation to try it in those constituencies instead of in the big cities as the hon. member suggested last year. I myself voted for the resolution he introduced last year, but it was voted down by the House.


Mr. McMASTER:: La majorite n'avait
pas raison.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend says the House was wrong; perhaps that is so, but I could.not help it. I think that if a trial is to be given to proportional representation it ought to be in such cities as Toronto-I believe Toronto would be the best one-Montreal, Winnipeg and Vancouver, but not in Queen's, Prince Edward Island, for instance, which is largely a rural constituency, or in St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert, or in Halifax, which also are largely rural. As I said a moment ago, I do not think proportional representation would be given a fair trial in counties where it could not best demonstrate its advantages.
I do not like the suggestion of trying out proportional representation in a sort of makeshift way instead of discussing it and applying it openly on its merits. If proportional representation is to be introduced in Canada it should enter by the front door instead of by that sort of back entrance. I really think it is not the best way to try the system. Last year the House accepted the principle of the transferable vote, and in a very short time the government will introduce a bill to give effect to the unanimous resolution adopted at that time.

Proportional Representation
Mr. STEVENS'. May I be permitted to correct my hon. friend? He says that the resolution was adopted by a unanimous vote. Speaking for myself, I voted "no" very distinctly.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is
wrong.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was no division,
but when the yeas and nays were called I voted "no." I just wanted to correct my hon. friend, because I am not on record as voting for it.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I might say the same
thing, Mr. Speaker.


Ernest Lapointe: Well, I am very sorry
indeed that my hon. friends did not register their protest in a more striking way, because the resolution was declared carried without anybody speaking against it, so far as I can remember, and then we proceeded to discuss the following resolution, which dealt with proportional representation. My hon. friend probably intends to oppose the change which will be effected by the bill to be introduced by the government. However, I think we stand a fair chance of getting the legislation through parliament.
I think my hon. friend (Mr. Good) should be content with this measure of progress, for which he is largely responsible on account of the consideration he has given to the question, the amount of work he has done in that connection and the remarks with which he accompanied his resolution of last year. My hon. friend himself has said that we should move slowly, that we should not progress too rapidty. Festina lente-make haste slowly-was an old axiom of the Romans, and I believe that in any movement of this kind we must not go too fast, otherwise we may run into danger. I think my hon. friend might well await the report of the committee on Redistribution before pressing his motion.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Speaker, I am in the same
position as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) in regard to the statement made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe): I remember distinctly that when the motion on the transferable vote was put last year practically all those in this quarter of the House said "no". It is quite true that a division was not demanded. I think myself that that was a mistake. In conversation with a great many members on the other side of the House I have ascertained that if .a division had been demanded on that occasion they
would have voted against the resolution. I do not believe that the resolution by any means represented the unanimous opinion of this House, and I do not believe that if the matter came before the House again, except as a government measure, any unanimous vote in favour of the transferable vote would be recorded. I believe, on the contrary, that if the supporters of the government could vote on the question as an independent measure they would vote against it. Of course I realize that if it comes before the House as a government measure the supporters of the government will feel compelled to vote in favour of it.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Did the resolution come before the House last year as a government measure?


William Garland McQuarrie: I am not suggesting
that. That is what I was trying to make clear; it came up just as it came up today, without the members generally knowing it was coming up and without their being properly prepared to speak on it. How many places in this chamber are vacant on this occasion? How many hon. members are not present? We must all be interested in this question, because it is a very important one, and I suggest that if some method could be arrived at whereby all hon. members irrespective of the party affiliations should have the privilege of voting on the question again-


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will allow me, does he not know that a few minutes after this motion was adopted last year, another motion, that declaring in favour of the principle of proportional representation, was defeated, the vote standing 90 to 72, which shows a considerable attendance of the members?


William Garland McQuarrie: That does not show the attendance of the members when this particular question was being discussed. As a matter of fact the House will'probably fill up a little later when a division comes on today.


William Charles Good: Is my hon. friend not aware that the adoption of this resolution last year without division took place almost immediately after three o'clock in a very full House?


William Garland McQuarrie: My statement is this: That that resolution was passed last year without proper consideration, and I back up my assertion by statements made to me by many hon. members on the other side.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Name them.

Proportional Representation


William Garland McQuarrie: I am not going to name them; it would take me too long. As far as I am concerned I am absolutely opposed even to the transferable vote feature of this resolution, and I always have been. I think that every member of the official opposition is also opposed to. it. Moreover, the resolution suggests that we should make an experimental test of proportional representation in an actual election. Now I would warn the House against anything of that kind. We have been making experiments with proportional representation in British Columbia for some time. We have tried it out in most of our cities. We have tried it out in Victoria, Vancouver, New Westminster, Nelson and other municipalities, and so far as I am aware, not one of these municipalities that experimented with the system follows it today. They decided that it was not a proper system.


Ernest Lapointe: You mean proportional
representation?


William Garland McQuarrie: Yes, and the single
transferable vote. Both have been discarded, as the experiments proved the system to be unsatisfactory. The results speak for themselves. I might say that before this system was adopted by the cities in British Columbia it was discussed at length, and its advocates addressed public meetings and elaborated their arguments in detail. They had a Proportional Representation society out there, with branches in all the cities. So the people did not jump into this thing with their eyes shut. They tried the experiment after carefully considering the arguments pro and con, and they expected to see the results the advocates of this system had claimed for it. But they were disappointed; in actual practice it did not prove a success. And, if that was the case with us in British Columbia, why should we suppose that we shall be any more fortunate when we apply it in Dominion elections? As far as I am concerned I am absolutely opposed to these experimental tests. I do not believe in this system at all. I would rather let somebody else do the experimenting, and then when we have seen some system that works well in practice, one that is no longer in the experimental stage, we can adopt it. I am absolutely opposed to the spirit of this resolution.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


William Garland McQuarrie: So as to make my
position perfectly clear I say without any hesitation that I am opposed to the principle of proportional representation. I am also

opposed to that abbreviated portion of it known as the single transferable vote. I would suggest in all sincerity that this House consider very seriously before attempting to adopt the suggestion contained in 'this resolution.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred a moment ago to the unanimous adoption of this resolution last year. I took occasion to interrupt him, and say that so far as I was concerned I voted "No" when this resolution was called. The question has arisen why this resolution was allowed to pass last year without discussion. I recall the occasion very well. Personally I have given a great deal of thought and study to this problem for a number of years, and I have never been able to bring myself to an approval of this system of voting.
When this question was called
5 p.m. last year I waited both for a presentation by the hon. member introducing it, who I believe spoke very few words, as Hansard will show-


William Charles Good: May I ask the hon. member
if he does not recollect the full discussion of the matter that was presented the previous year? Last year I said very little about it, simply to save time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite true, the hon.
member discussed it the year before; I am not questioning his good faith in the matter for a moment; he has been quite sincere and has given this subject a great deal of thought and study; I am simply stating what occurred last year. My hon. friend introduced his resolution with a very few words, and I awaited some utterance by the government in regard to the matter, but not a word was said. One hesitates always to rise to his feet and be the first, as it were, to oppose these things, and I certainly hesitated. The resolution passed, with very great regrets afterwards for having let the motion pass. Immediately the second resolution was called dealing with proportional representation, the two having been divided on that occasion, I rose to my feet and opposed it very vigorously, and later that motion was voted down. I want to say to the House that a great many members came to me afterwards and expressed regret that the first motion had carried without discussion. I merely refer to that in justice to myself with reference to the interruption I made a moment ago when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) was speaking. While the records show the motion

Proportional Representation
was carried without division, I regret that there was not a full discussion and a division on this very important subject.
I purpose giving to the House a few reasons why I am opposed to this resolution. I agree with the hon. member to my left who asked the previous speaker (Mr. McQuarrie) why he was opposed to this system of voting, that we should state our reasons why we are opposed or favourable, as the case may be. I have not come this afternoon prepared with any careful analysis of the problem. I am speaking largely from memory and from what thought I have given to the subject previously, and if my arguments are a little disjointed it is simply because I have not had the time this session to prepare any orderly address on the subject.
My hon. friend who introduced this motion intimated in his argument that this system is designed to give different groups in the community representation in the House. Indeed, this is one of the main arguments, one of the chief supporting pillars of this so-called electoral reform-that it does give representation to a variety of groups of interests in the country. On the other hand, it is also argued that parties need not have any fear of it because parties are preserved under it. Now I submit that you cannot have both; you cannot change the present system into a group system, and at the same time preserve the party system. I am not for the moment arguing pro or con. I am merely replying to the argument which is very frequently presented as one of the main reasons for the introduction of this reform. As a matter of fact, I think the tendency of the system is to multiply groups. It does not follow as a logical conclusion-it does not follow as night follows day-that that would be the result, but the general tendency is to increase the number of groups in a legislature or parliament. I want to seriously direct the attention of the House, and particularly the attention of the government, to the consideration of this particular point. I feel that perhaps this is the crux of the whole business; therefore let us ask ourselves the question, is it desirable to change or to exchange the present British parliamentary system now in vogue in Canada for a group system similar to that in vogue in France, in Switzerland, in Belgium and in many other European countries? That is the question which I propound, and that is the- question to which we should give consideration.
Let me examine the proposition for a minute. The genius of the British parliamentary system is that an individual elected to parliament is elected as a representative of all the people; that is that he is not elected to represent the peculiar interests of Vancouver Centre or Winnipeg or Montreal, Toronto or any other section. He or she is elected to represent the interests of all the people of Canada in any matter that comes before parliament. As far as human nature will permit, that individual is supposed to examine each measure in the light of the interests of the country at large. I quite frankly agree that very often we will, selfishly perhaps and in varying degrees, place local interests before national interests. But, heavens, we are not infallible creatures? We are all fallible, all liable to err and do err, but that does not condemn the system or the principle underlying it. We are elected to represent all the people of the country, and the further we get away from that principle, and the more parochial our representation in this House becomes, the less efficient, the less noble is the institution of parliament. If we depart from that principle through error or fault, that is corrected by the electorate at each election if they so choose. But if we are going to depart from it deliberately by changing that system for a new system, let us examine the new system and see if it is a great improvement over the other, or if it is any improvement at all. My hon. friend (Mr. Good) made a point which is frequently made, and I have heard others make it and advance it as an unanswerable argument. I will take my hon. friend's illustration. He says that it is not right that the Conservatives of Nova Scotia should have only one representative in this House when they polled a certain number of votes in the last general election. He inferred that proportional representation or the single transferable vote, to the extent it was used, would correct this evil. Would it correct the evil? That is the question before us. I will admit if it corrects the evil-if there is an evil- then there is something in his argument. But does it infallibly correct it? Take Australia, where proportional representation is carried out in all its glory-


William Charles Good: May I interrupt the hon.
member to say that proportional representation is not in existence in Australia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I notice some of my
hon. friends are very prone to applaud the minute anybody makes a positive statement. My hon. friend will admit that proportional representation is in force, in so far as the elections to the Senate are concerned. Am I right or wrong?


William Charles Good: As respects the Senate, yes.

Proportional Representation


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now will my hon. friends applaud me? I was about to say that this system in all its glory was tried out in Australia in connection with the Senate. In the elections of 1919 there were cast 860,000 Liberal votes, which elected 17 members to the Senate, and 820,000 Labour votes which elected one member. There were cast 173,000 Farmer votes which elected no senator. In other words, under proportional representation, which is supposed to be an infallible cure for the so-called evil of minority control, the situation is that with 860,000 votes the Liberals had 17 seats in the Senate, while with 993,000 votes the Labour and Farmers parties had only one seat between them in the Senate. I am not saying anything against the principle, because of that; but what I do say is that the imaginary evil, if I may use that term, of minority control, or of a group that has not a complete majority of the votes, having control of the government is not such a terrific evil after all; and furthermore that it is not corrected by the proposition now before the House.


Mr. BROWN:: Could the hon. gentleman
give us more information as to the details of the votes, the number of groups and the number of constituencies?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I did not come into the
House with all the information I might have had. I am giving my hon. friend the facts. As I go along I will try and adduce certain facts which I think will support my argument fairly well. I have not the information my hon. friend asks for.
Turning to another matter, it was intimated by the hon. member who spoke a short time ago (Mr. Good) that consideration should be given to this as an experiment, that we ought to try it, and I think the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) suggested that we should try it in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. Let me say that we tried this system in the city of Vancouver for three full years. We had three different elections with proportional representation and the transferable vote. The mayor was elected under the single transferable vote, and the alderman, eight of them, were elected under a system of proportional representation in all its ramifications and perplexities.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What was the system
of proportional representation under which they elected the city council in Vancouver? Was it the Hare system and the single transferable vote?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They had single transferable vote for the mayor and the eight alderman were elected under the proportional representation system.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There are a number
of systems of proportional representation. The best known and most widely used is the Hare system, the single transferable vote for the multi-member constituency. Was that the system?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot tell you the
exact breed of it, but when it came to a plebiscite of the people, it ran like a hare, so that I presume it was the Hare system. I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend the exact brand. It was proportional representation in all its ramifications. Probably this fact will enlighten my hon. friend. It took at least two weeks to count the ballots, so that I presume it was a real proportional representation system. Furthermore they had to bring in trained experts and accountants to count the ballots. That would be added evidence that it was the real proportional representation. It was tried for three years. The first year there was a fairly large vote, probably- the same as usual. In the second year the vote dropped to 6,000 out of some 42,000 on the list, and in the third year, only 10,000 votes were polled out of 44,000 on the list. The reason was that people lost interest in the system for the election of representatives. Last summer, independently of an election altogether, the city council submitted to the electorate a plebiscite. I have in my hands a facsimile of the plebiscite, in fact, one of the ballots sent to me by the city clerk, together with his letter. This ballot is headed:
City of Vancouver. Municipal Proportional Representation Act.
Then the question is asked:
Are you in favour of rescinding the adoption of the Municipal Proportional Representation Act in this municipality? Yes No.
Underneath the following instructions are given to the voters:
If in favour of rescinding the adoption of the Municipal Proportional Representation Act, place a cross thus (X) opposite the word "yes". If against rescinding place a cross (X) opposite the word "no".
That is a plain, simple ballot, and a plain question to the electorate whether they are in favour of retaining this system or of rejecting it. I have in my hand a letter from William McQueen, city clerk of Vancouver, in reply to an inquiry by me as regards this plebiscite. The letter is dated March 13, 1924, city clerk's
961,

Proportional Representation
office, Vancouver, B.C. It is addressed to myself and it reads:
In reply to your letter of the 7th instant asking particulars of the plebiscite on proportional representation, I beg to say that on June 16, 1923, a vote of the electors entitled to vote for mayor was taken on the matter of rescinding the adoption of proportional representation in the city of Vancouver.
Enclosed form of ballot The result was as follows:
In favour of rescinding, (yes), 3809.
Against rescinding, (no), 1705.
The council of the city of Vancouver for the years 1921, 1922 and 1923 were elected under the proportional representation system.
When proportional representation was rescinded last June, the wal'd system was again adopted and the council for the present year were elected under the ward system.
Trusting this ftiformation is satisfactory,
I remain,
Yours very truly,
Wm McQueen,
City Clerk.
I read that for this reason: In our city, after a deliberate trial of this system for three successive years and on a plebiscite submitted to the people, this system was rejected by a vote of more than two to one. I submit to my hon. friend that it would not be reasonable or fair to impose upon the city of Vancouver at least, a proportional representation system when the people of that city have so clearly expressed their view in opposition thereto.


William Charles Good: What is the total vote in Vancouver?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite foresee what my hon. friend desires to know. I told him a moment ago that the number of voters on the list the year before was 44,000, and I told him also that under proportional representation the total vote polled at an annual election had dropped down to 6,000 because of the complexity of the vote, plus this-and I am in a position to give you only my word on this, but I know it, because I have studied the question and obtained the views of electors as far as possible-that the electorate became convinced that they could not secure a proper interpretation of their wishes at the polls under proportional representation. I know that is exactly contrary to the claims made for this system, but as a matter of experience that is the case. I* venture to say that if hon. gentlemen will inquire carefully amongst the electorate where this system is in vogue, they will find that a substantial majority of the people amongst whom they inquire, if they inquire impartially, hold exactly that view, that this system does not do what it is supposed to do or what is claimed for it by its leading advocates, that is, give a frank and clear expression to public opinion.
Further, in regard to the query of the hon. member for Brant, I know that he will compare the vote polled with the 44,000. Let me defend my position in regard to that, and in order that we may have the matter on Hansard correctly, let me add this vote up. The total vote polled was 5,514. There was no election; but let me say to my hon. friend this, that there has been in existence in Vancouver, for at least ten years, a virile, active organization, advocating the adoption of this system of voting, a Proportional Representation Society, with regular officers, holding meetings constantly during the last ten years, advocating this system, annually attending the counting of the ballots, analysing the system, advertising its good features and so forth. So, when the test came, when this plebiscite was submitted, this association was behind the system, whereas those opposed to it were not organized at all; theirs was simply an expression of opinion of whoever chose to go to the polls. Therefore, the small number of votes polled on the plebiscite should not be quoted as wiping out, as it were, the significance of the majority in the case.
Let me turn to another phase of this question. It is claimed for proportional representation and the single transferable vote that it eliminates the chance choice; that is, supposing you have three candidates and one is elected with less than a majority of the votes, that is an unfair representation of public 'opinion. It is claimed in behalf of this system that it is scientifically, mathematically correct. Am I stating the claim unfairly? I think my hon. friend will agree with me that that is claimed for it. My hon. friend shakes his head. He is the first supporter of it who has ever admitted that it is not supposed to be mathematically correct. I am glad he does admit that, because it shows his fairness and honesty. It is not mathematically correct. It has in it the element of chance, the same as the other method. Let me try to explain this. I am not in a position to demonstrate it with figures. One would need a blackboard and to have the thing worked out by way of small fractions to do so, but I think I can make the matter clear to the House, perhaps in a somewhat rambling manner. This is a case that occurred in Vancouver in one of the elections. I think there were about 28 candidates for eight aldermanic positions. I cannot give the exact figures of the vote and the division of them; it would be interesting if I could; but I will give just the outline. The system followed was this: When the city clerk had ascertained what the quota for election would be-in this case



Proportional Representation
it was about 800 or something of that kind- then as regards such individuals as received jver the quota of 800, the excess of their votes over that quota was taken, then the second choices were counted and distributed amongst the other candidates. I ask the House: Upon what basis of science, if you like, upon what basis of equity did they take that particular man? Why should they take his counts any more than the fourth, fifth or tenth man's counts? The choice is an arbitrary one. You choose arbitrarily; you might just as fairly have chosen the fourth or the fifth man as the first man.
Or let us turn the thing around the other way. Assume for a moment that none were elected on the first choice, which often is the case; because you frequently have a long list of candidates. What is the arbitrary rule followed in that event? It is to take the lowest man and to tell him, "You go, you are finished." Why do you take the lowest man? Just on the same principle exactly as the lowest man is told now that he is defeated. In other words, there is no more justice, no more science, no more logic in it, not one particle, than there is in the present system, and it is just as arbitrary. What are the circumstances? Two men might join their forces for the purpose of trying to secure the election of one of them; and in the case I have in mind neither of the candidates who ran in that way was elected until the seventeenth count. On the seventeenth count one of them, was last, the other being just above him. It was the last man's turn, under this arbitrary method, to be discarded and his seconds chosen. His seconds were chosen, and the two of them having run together, as it were, neck and neck, they naturally at that particular moment elected a man who was lowest on the list over another person who had led him all through the count to that moment.. There is nothing particularly fair about that. As a matter of fact, the man who was ahead of him in all equity was entitled to election rather than the man who was second below him. I want therefore to impress upon the House the fact that this system is not equitable but is just as arbitrary as the present method of electing representatives, with the one difference that the choice is divided up into an indefinite number of different selections according to the number of candidates on the list.
After all, what is the test of all systems of government-what is the real test? Can we not find it in the periods of history of any country under any given system of government? You do not test any system of gov-I Mr. Stevens.]
ernment by some mathematical scheme of counting ballots; that is not the way to test the efficiency or the justice or the fairness of government. The system of proportional representation has been in vogue in different countries for some time now and is practised in France, in Belgium, in Switzerland, in Portugal and elsewhere on the continent of Europe. On the other hand, the system that has been followed in Great Britain, in Canada and in other parts of the Empire for so long a time is the present method of electing members to represent the people in the various legislative bodies. I agree for the moment, for the sake of argument, that this method has developed the party system, but I do not wish to digress in order to discuss that point. At all events, we have in Canada the representative system of government which has had such excellent results in Great Britain and throughout the Empire, and under which individuals aie selected to represent all the people in parliament, to study and determine upon the affairs of the country at large. Will anyone suggest that the countries of Europe outside of Great Britain-France, Belgium, Portugal, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden-have been better governed than Great Britain? Will anyone suggest that any of these countries, during the last fifty or hundred years has stood out before the world as giving a better expression of government than has the British Empire?
I contend that not one of them has. And what better test of the efficiency of any system of government can there be than that? What has occurred in France? Again I must apologize for not having the exact data, but hon. gentlemen, I am sure, will accept my word for it that the system of proportional representation was adopted in France some years ago.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is not the same system.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is a trifle too exact; it is one of the systems.


Andrew Ross McMaster: And not a very proper one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There are no two countries that have precisely the same'form of this system, and that is the peculiarity of it. Some one suggests that it is like Heinz'3 pickles, having 57 varieties; yes, and as an hon. member observes, it gets you into the same pickle. After all, the proportional representation system is the same-I was going to say principle-but lack of principle-wherever it is in force. In France they have the same system in a different form from that

Proportional Representation
which is followed in Switzerland and Belgium, and as a result of the practice there they have seven or eight different groups; so that, as an examination of the facts will show, during the last twenty or twenty-five years France has had a change in government - on an average every year. In fact, that has been the case for the last fifty years.


Mr. FORKE:: My hon. friend will admit that a change of government in France does not involve the same consequences as it does in Great Britain.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I frankly admit that it is a different matter altogether. But the change in government in France is made simply by means of a compromise between groups; and although M. Poincare the other day was defeated on a technical vote in the French House of Deputies he simply fished around, after his resignation, and got together out of the various groups another government to carry on. And in this morning's papers it is stated that this new government, in office only a few days, is faced with an angry wave in the Chamber of Deputies because of something that does not suit some of the groups. The point which must be clear to all is that none of these countries has had the same stable government which has obtained in Great Britain; and a comparison of the general results obtained under the old system in Great Britain and under the new system in these other places must, I think, show quite clearly that the British government stands out above all others in so far as stability, strength and world influence are concerned. Before we bring about any change in principle in our system of electing members of parliament, I think hon. gentlemen would do well very seriously to consider the results under the two systems, by comparison over a period of years. If such a comparison is made I am convinced that it * will show that the British parliamentary svstem is superior to the other. If that is the case, as I submit it is, then we ought to proceed with great caution in any attempt to abandon that principle for the adoption of an entirely new one.
Let me turn to another phase of the question. I shall perhaps be treading on slightly dangerous ground, but I desire to touch upon this point notwithstanding. We hear a great deal in these days about democracy. I made a few observations on this subject recently outside the House, and perhaps hon. members will pardon me if I introduce some of the arguments which I then advanced. Personally I have always had a very strong tendency towards what might be called democratic
61i
methods, using the term " democratic " in a broad, general way. But when we are dealing with a proposal for an entire change in our principles of government, I submit we ought to pause and carefully analyze our present system. It is in fact made up of three elements. It is not a pure democracy at all. We have a limited monarchy, represented in the King; we have autocracy, represented in the House of Lords and the Senate; we have pure democracy, represented in the House of Commons. I am quite aware that there are those who favour wiping out the first two elements altogether. But I say to every thoughtful member of the House, we ought to study with extreme care the advantages or disadvantages, as the case may be, of the presence of those two elements before we suggest discarding them. The more I study the history of the British parliamentary system of government, the more I am convinced that the kingly power, in the person of the King in Great Britain and of the Governor General in Canada, and the autocratic power, in the House of Lords and the Senate respectively in these two countries, serve a very excellent purpose in our system of government.
Let us take, for instance, the kingly power. Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware of the rule that we should not in our debates refer to the King, but I am speaking solely of the elements of government and shall keep within the rules of the House. At one time the kingly power was regarded as an individual and absolute right. That is not the case today. As a matter of fact, the Governor General here, or the King in Great Britain, is the last court of appeal of people who might consider themselves suffering some abuse at the hands either of the House of Commons or of the Senate or the House of Lords respectively. And British history records that during the past century or more the Crown has exercised its prerogative far oftener in the interests of minorities whose liberties were being encroached upon than arbitrarily for the benefit of the ruling classes. Therefore I appeal to the House to most carefully examine the workings of our present system before we attempt to change it in any way.
Let me take another step in this analysis. In connection with proportional representation there goes another departure from our present system. I venture to say that if this resolution passes and its provisions are embodied in the law, my hon. friend who has introduced it (Mr. Good) will be prepared to present to the House at some future session -if he is still a member-a resolution in

Proportional Representation
favour of the initiative, referendum and recall. This innovation has a certain attraction for those who have a penchant for proportional representation. In other words, the two go together. But it is equally doubtful whether this other reform has any advantages to recommend it more than the reform now suggested. After all, public opinion is not infallible. I know there are those appealing to the public who like to declare that the people s opinion is infallible. Indeed, anyone uttering my views is in danger of being bianded an autocrat. But let us consider the matter coolly and frankly. How can every individual in the nation be, as a unit, fully apprised of the complexities of certain questions that come before parliament? It is an utter impossibility. No bill can be drafted so clearly as to convey of it full effects to the public. Yet under this new system, which I say is correlated with the subject matter of the resolution, an appeal is made to the public and the decision is to be left entirely with them.
I think I have discussed the resolution at sufficient length. I only regret that I have not had the time to present to the House a more detailed analysis of proportional representation supported by figures and other evidence. I will conclude with an appeal to the House to give the very fullest consideration to this principle before they adopt it as a definite change in our electoral svstem.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker, I have been wondering what is the real reason why the group in the corner of the chamber situated immediately to your left is so opposed to both these ideas-that of the single transferable vote as applied to single-member constituencies, and the larger idea of proportional representation.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: My hon. friend has asked why we oppose this principle. It is well recognized that this debate will close at six o'clock-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Donald Sutherland: That is. in so far as to-day is concerned. But if my hon. friend would let me have the floor for about ten minutes-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Surely in vain is the
net spread in the sight of any bird! I have come to a conclusion on this question, and it is this. The Conservative party thoroughly realize that the progressive thought of this country is divided roughly into two groups, that when an election comes and there are three candidates, those who support the prorMr. Stevens.]
gressive thought will give first their vote to those candidates with whom they are connected in a political party, and then to the candidates of the next poltical party that moie nearly represents their views; and in that way the result will be disastrous for the Conservative party.
Mr. STE\ ENS:	Will my hon. friend-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Time is precious, and
fiivolous questions will not be answered. Why is that the reason? Because the Conservative party, when the Liberal thought of this country was united, was never able to win an election, and whenever they have won an election it has been when the Liberal or Progressive thought of the country was divided. Hence their fear of the single transferable vote.
Now let me consider some of the arguments used by my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens). He said that that interesting city had tried this scheme for the long period of three years, and had then found that it was inadvisable to continue it on a plebiscite in which about four thousand of [DOT] the people voted out of forty-four thousand, and the system was abandoned by a considerable majority. I hold in my hand a clipping from u paper entitled, The Joke on Vancouver. It reads as follows:
The city of Vancouver, after using proportional representation for two or three years in its municipal elections, discarded it and went back to the old system this year. The' argument used against proportional representation in Vancouver was that it had made no difference in the election results. Scores of citizens were quite sure that the same men would have been elected under the old system as under proportional representation; therefore, why introduce a more complicated system when it gave no benefit? One of the men who was most active in the fight to discard proportional representation was L. D. Taylor. In the election a few days ago Mr. Taylor was one of the mayorality candidates in a three-cornered contest. The other candidates were Alderman Owen and Alderman Pettipiece. Owen was elected. Pettipiece was the low candidate. It is now realized at Vancouver that if proportional representation had been in force Taylor, in all probability, would have been elected when Pettipiece would have been counted out and his votes distributed. Owen, the new mayor, was elected on a minority vote.
Discussing the situation, the Vancouver Province says: ' " ' Poetic justice,' is how Mr. Garfield King, one of the principal proponents of the proportional representation system in the city, describes the result of the mayoralty election.
" Under proportiona! representation, he believes that Mr.	D. Taylor would have received a larve
majority of the 2,459 votes polled for Alderman Pettipiece.
So it would appear that perhaps the system which was tried out in this city might be a good system, even though it was abandoned for the time being. Winnipeg has

Proportional Representation
had this system for a number of years; it has operated in several elections and has given satisfactory results there. It would appear that the counting of the votes caused great objections to the system as applied in Vancouver; whether the. people of Winnipeg were better mathematicians than those of Vancouver is a question which I will not attempt to answer. What we want in this country is representative government. Do we get representative government under our present system? We do not get thoroughly representative government under a system which will allow great political parties to remain unrepresented in this House when the number of their adherents in the different provinces runs into some thousands. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has made an appeal to British practice and to British tradition, and he is quite right in that. I will draw his attention to the words of a great British statesman, the Hon. Herbert H. Asquith, who, in advocating proportional representation, said, "There should not be a strain of public opinion unrepresented in this House."	'
The tendency may be, it is stated, to multiply groups. I doubt that, but if there are substantial groups of public opinion in this country unrepresented by the official parties it is infinitely better that those groups should be multiplied in order that every strain of public opinion may find expression in this House. I cannot believe that parliamentary institutions will be effective unless proper provision is made for different strains of public opinion. It may be that in the future we will be unable to divide the Canadian people into two great groups. It may happen that we may have that system restored, and it may be that another system may have to be worked out. I believe that this system of proportional representation offers a reasonable and proper method under which sincere differences of public opinion may be represented. There is a great deal of artificiality in the present condition of our political parties and the present division. Why, we had the other day the member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) urging the old Liberal principle of representation by population, and we have the member for Vancouver Centre to-day talking very much the way a Stuart talked at the time of Cromwell. The appeal to British tradition was somewhat strange in view of the fact that we have to-day a group system of parliamentary government in Great Britain. We have a Labour party on the treasury benches, and it represents a minority of the people and a minority in the House.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Government by minority.


Andrew Ross McMaster: "Government by minority," ejaculates the member for West Toronto. It is quite true that in the future the minority whose views correspond more nearly than the views of any other group in the House may be given the responsibility of government with the control exercised by other groups in the House. That is a possible development of our British constitutional system. Our British constitutional system is not remaining the same; its very flexibility is one of its greatest virtues.
Now, I approach the discussion of this question this afternoon in very much the same position as the member for Vancouver Centre:
I had not expected to take part in the debate and I have not material under my hand for a discussion of the matter in detail. But the point to be remembered is this: That our present system does not accurately or adequately reflect the differences of public opinion in our country and we have to seek out a method other than the method at present adopted. I think the sparseness of our population in most parts of this country makes proportional representation impracticable. In our large areas in the western provinces, in rural Quebec and in rural Ontario, I do not believe that in most cases proportional representation is possible, but I do believe it should be adopted in the large cities. I believe it should be adopted in Toronto; I believe it should be adopted in Montreal.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It would not make any difference in Toronto.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not know whether it would or not, but it would do this: If there are ten seats in Toronto and there are twenty or thirty per cent of Liberal votes in Toronto, then out of the ten seats the Liberals would get two or three. And the same way in Montreal: if there is a small proportion of Conservatives in Montreal this system would give them proper representation. To-day we find that Toronto is represented entirely by Conservatives and that Montreal is represented entirely by Liberals.


Mr. JACOBS:: No-Liberals in name, some of them.


Andrew Ross McMaster: At least they are counted as Liberals, and for the purposes of my discussion I will do them the compliment of calling them Liberals. I say that it is an unwholesome condition-and anyone who thinks for a moment will agree with me-to have the representation of one great city all one way and the representation of another

Proportional Representation
great city all the other wtay, especially when the number of people belonging to the different political parties make that representation an untrue and improper representation of the public opinion of those cities. What we want in this country is a method of election which will ensure an adequate and proper representation of the real thoughts and the real opinion of the people upon public matters.


Donald Sutherland: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the three minutes left before six o'clock will scarcely be long enough to give the explanation I should like to make in reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). I was not aware that this resolution would be debated to-day. I have listened with a good deal of interest to some of the statements which have been made, and particularly to the references that have been made to a resolution calling for the transferable or alternative vote which was passed at the last session of parliament. A good many things have happened during the past year; a good deal of light has been thrown on the actions and motives of some of the people of this Dominion as well as of other countries, and I think it is about time that we were speaking frankly what we believe to be the fact, and that we should cast aside this camouflage which has been attempted by a good many people of this Dominion so far as political parties are concerned.
To my mind the object that is sought by the alternative vote, which is coupled with this resolution, is one that is intended to *arry out the designs of the members of the .wo parties calling themselves the Progressive party and the Liberal party, whereas, as a matter of fact, there is absolutely no difference between the two. I think the people of this country thoroughly understand their object, what they have in view, and the means by which they are going to take advantage in a scheme of this kind. For that reason I must say that I am absolutely opposed to any further experiments along the line suggested by the most impractical members of the House, the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good), and his colleague the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). They are always ready to venture into some field where no definite results are in evidence; yes to enact freak legislation, as one hon. member suggests.
Just a little over a year ago last March, there was a meeting held in the city of Ottawa of the Liberals of eastern Ontario, and statements were made at that time by 
prominent men in connection with matters which are affected by the resolution before us. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the remarks that were made by one or two speakers on that occasion. I quote from the Ottawa Journal of March a year ago:
Mr. J. W. Curry, K.C., M.L.A., Toronto Southeast, seat " A," after saying that the convention of eastern Ontario Liberals was to him an eye-opener, proclaimed himself a consistent believer in Liberalism which meant progress and the betterment of the people. The political situation which developed in Ontario in 1919 was a protest against Toryism. The United Farmers of Ontario had organized and developed as a protest against the actions of the Conservative party m power. Mr. Curry referred to his support of the U.F.O. government headed by Premier Drury, known for years as a staunch Liberal, and the help he had given in moulding legislation. As a result he was told he had deserted the Liberal party, and the suggestion was made that he be read out of the party. No man could divorce him from his Liberal principles. He was behind the Liberal leader,
What clearer evidence could you have than this statement, made by a Liberal member of the Ontario legislature with regard to his attitude?
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, April 3, 1924